Unintelligible Redesign - This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
- Thread starter Descartes
- Start date
what the hell does the taliban have to do with any of this story? why was that in the article?
The article is from Slate.
The article is from Slate.
Journalistic license.
Good article. Actually helped focus my thoughts, Behe was on NPR yesterday stammering with the same bloody crap, the opposing viewpoint simply pointed out that ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught in science class.
Good article. Actually helped focus my thoughts, Behe was on NPR yesterday stammering with the same bloody crap, the opposing viewpoint simply pointed out that ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught in science class.
I can see why people would be opposed to this. We can't have something being taught to children that might make them ask more questions than we have answers to give. After all, science is only dealing with already known facts, right?
Ummmm... while I don't think we should be teaching ID in school (seperation of Church and State), thats doesn't mean it is rediculous.
I've always believed that the Big Bang, evolution, vast amounts of time - etc are the methods of creation. While you may disagree, there is nothing more rediculous about my belief than the belief that matter or energy itself is eternal, infinite, and has the ability to be its own cause (violation of cause and effect).
Bible literalism - that earth is 6000 years old, etc - doesn't hold up. Bible literalism never really does as it is not a literal text. It was meant to be interpreted, in my belief.
Listen - its true that pure, young earth, Bible-Literal Creationism isn't sound - I've never believed it was.
But you have no more certain answers about existance before the Big Bang either... so why pick on what people like me personally believe?
I've always believed that the Big Bang, evolution, vast amounts of time - etc are the methods of creation. While you may disagree, there is nothing more rediculous about my belief than the belief that matter or energy itself is eternal, infinite, and has the ability to be its own cause (violation of cause and effect).
Bible literalism - that earth is 6000 years old, etc - doesn't hold up. Bible literalism never really does as it is not a literal text. It was meant to be interpreted, in my belief.
Listen - its true that pure, young earth, Bible-Literal Creationism isn't sound - I've never believed it was.
But you have no more certain answers about existance before the Big Bang either... so why pick on what people like me personally believe?
<< I can see why people would be opposed to this. We can't have something being taught to children that might make them ask more questions than we have answers to give. After all, science is only dealing with already known facts, right? >>
It doesn't make them ask more questions, it presents a global shrug and a copout explanation for everything. It's not science. I don't condone putting baking lessons into science classes and I certainly don't condone puting other non scientific crap in either. Science class means it's about science.
ID isn't what the Bible teaches either. The people who report this as truth deserve respect from neither side.
NPR was reporting the other day that the world is not billions of years old as the evolutionists first thought,
but now believe it to only be millions of years old based on new findings of the universe as seen through
the Hubble telescope. This new information leans more toward the creationists than the evolutionists.
What this really goes to show is that neither side can prove their point scientifically as fact, nor disprove the other.
So...we'll just have to either wait until God reveals himself or science proves otherwise. Both sides are really
like two kids aguing about something neither totally understand or have the intelligence to understand. Debate
all you want and you still get no where. So, where do you put your faith, in scientists who keep proving parts of
their beliefs wrong and having to change their answer, or in beliefs that have not prove themselves true either
but have in no way been dicredited either? Creationism does have an answer for everything while never being
able to prove themselves true.
Both are based on mostly faith, not only on facts that have been proven.
RCraig
NPR was reporting the other day that the world is not billions of years old as the evolutionists first thought,
but now believe it to only be millions of years old based on new findings of the universe as seen through
the Hubble telescope. This new information leans more toward the creationists than the evolutionists.
What this really goes to show is that neither side can prove their point scientifically as fact, nor disprove the other.
So...we'll just have to either wait until God reveals himself or science proves otherwise. Both sides are really
like two kids aguing about something neither totally understand or have the intelligence to understand. Debate
all you want and you still get no where. So, where do you put your faith, in scientists who keep proving parts of
their beliefs wrong and having to change their answer, or in beliefs that have not prove themselves true either
but have in no way been dicredited either? Creationism does have an answer for everything while never being
able to prove themselves true.
Both are based on mostly faith, not only on facts that have been proven.
RCraig
<< ID isn't what the Bible teaches either. The people who report this as truth deserve respect from neither side.
NPR was reporting the other day that the world is not billions of years old as the evolutionists first thought,
but now believe it to only be millions of years old based on new findings of the universe as seen through
the Hubble telescope. This new information leans more toward the creationists than the evolutionists. >>
I think you have listening comprehension problems. NPR made not such assertitian. Hubble doesn't even face the bloody planet so what is discovered using it has very little bearing on the age of the earth.
The arguement you make for creationism is the stupidist I have ever heard. Yea why trust science, it relys on logic and proof.
Ummmm... while I don't think we should be teaching ID in school (seperation of Church and State), thats doesn't mean it is rediculous.
What Church? For all we know the designer could be Romulans!
What Church? For all we know the designer could be Romulans!
I guess I did mispeak a little there. They scientists were looking at the origins of our galaxy and revised their
estimate of it from billions to millions, which I think would insinuate that the eath is only millions of years old, too.
(They stated nothing about relating the new info to the age of the universe, only the galaxy.)
The point I was trying to make is both are based on a kind of faith. Neither can be proven nor disproven at this
time with the technology and knowledge we have. You either put your faith in constantly revised theories
(not totally proven fact) or unchanging beliefs. Both have an aspect of faith in extrapulating the unknown
from the known.
I have respect for people who stick to what they believe until it is proven wrong, then adjust their thinking,
whichever the side of the fence they are on. I don't have respect for people who try and please everyone
and sit on the fence and pander to both sides.
Scientifically speaking, both sides are theories, not proven fact. The scientist constantly adjust their beliefs
as they gain more knowledge. The creationists explain any new facts as being how things were created.
The scientists can't win because they can't factually prove evolution and disprove creationism. Creationists can't win
because they can't factually prove there is a creator. Being neither side can factually prove their case, both are
scientifically classified as thoeries.
I never said don't trust science. I do trust scientifict fact, I just don't buy into all the theories. I place my faith
into the only unchanging theory that has so far encompased all scientific facts, not constantly changing thoeries.
If, someday creationism is proven wrong by facts, I'll have to change my thinking. Facts are facts, after all,
but theories are just that, a step of faith.
estimate of it from billions to millions, which I think would insinuate that the eath is only millions of years old, too.
(They stated nothing about relating the new info to the age of the universe, only the galaxy.)
The point I was trying to make is both are based on a kind of faith. Neither can be proven nor disproven at this
time with the technology and knowledge we have. You either put your faith in constantly revised theories
(not totally proven fact) or unchanging beliefs. Both have an aspect of faith in extrapulating the unknown
from the known.
I have respect for people who stick to what they believe until it is proven wrong, then adjust their thinking,
whichever the side of the fence they are on. I don't have respect for people who try and please everyone
and sit on the fence and pander to both sides.
Scientifically speaking, both sides are theories, not proven fact. The scientist constantly adjust their beliefs
as they gain more knowledge. The creationists explain any new facts as being how things were created.
The scientists can't win because they can't factually prove evolution and disprove creationism. Creationists can't win
because they can't factually prove there is a creator. Being neither side can factually prove their case, both are
scientifically classified as thoeries.
I never said don't trust science. I do trust scientifict fact, I just don't buy into all the theories. I place my faith
into the only unchanging theory that has so far encompased all scientific facts, not constantly changing thoeries.
If, someday creationism is proven wrong by facts, I'll have to change my thinking. Facts are facts, after all,
but theories are just that, a step of faith.
You guys all need to read "Creator and the Cosmos" by Hugh Ross - an astronomer.
It is not impossible, in fact it is very likely Genesis can be completely reconciled with scientific observations. I believe it is part of the scientific skeptic's journey to knowing and seeing the true God...
It is not impossible, in fact it is very likely Genesis can be completely reconciled with scientific observations. I believe it is part of the scientific skeptic's journey to knowing and seeing the true God...
<< I guess I did mispeak a little there. They scientists were looking at the origins of our galaxy and revised their
estimate of it from billions to millions, which I think would insinuate that the eath is only millions of years old, too.
(They stated nothing about relating the new info to the age of the universe, only the galaxy.) >>
A little? There has been no revision in galactic age, it's still pegged between 12-20 billion years. Me thinks you confuse billions, with millions or have a limited understanding of the subject. You are spouting nonsense at this point, back up your claims.
<< The scientists can't win because they can't factually prove evolution and disprove creationism. >>
I'm just picking out the blatentest of the things you are saying. Evolution is a fact. There is over 100 years of verifiable biolocigal evidence, a fossil record that supports it, molecular biology that insists on it and reproducable experiments with observed instances of speciation. Evolution is a fact, the method of HOW evolution works is a theory.
<< I place my faith into the only unchanging theory that has so far encompased all scientific facts, not constantly changing thoeries. >>
Let me guess, you placed your faith in kissing Hanks a$$ right? Maybe if you ever figure out the difference between a fact, theory, hypothesis and wild a$$ guess you will have taken the first step to actually understanding.
I'm just picking out the blatentest of the things you are saying. Evolution is a fact. There is over 100 years of verifiable biolocigal evidence, a fossil record that supports it, molecular biology that insists on it and reproducable experiments with observed instances of speciation. Evolution is a fact, the method of HOW evolution works is a theory.
This depends on what you mean by "evolution". Yes, Evolution is a fact. No, Evolution has not been shown to be responsible for new Phyla. In fact, the Cambrian explosion of new, intacy Phyla speaks volumns agains any sort of gradual process being responsible.
The following from UC Santa Barbara Christian Forum is very illuminating.
Contrasting the Origin of Species With the Origin of Phyla
This depends on what you mean by "evolution". Yes, Evolution is a fact. No, Evolution has not been shown to be responsible for new Phyla. In fact, the Cambrian explosion of new, intacy Phyla speaks volumns agains any sort of gradual process being responsible.
The following from UC Santa Barbara Christian Forum is very illuminating.
Contrasting the Origin of Species With the Origin of Phyla
<< This depends on what you mean by "evolution". Yes, Evolution is a fact. No, Evolution has not been shown to be responsible for new Phyla. In fact, the Cambrian explosion of new, intacy Phyla speaks volumns agains any sort of gradual process being responsible.
The following from UC Santa Barbara is very illuminating.
Contrasting the Origin of Species With the Origin of Phyla >>
Bah, the San Diego study that will be published in nature proves that the cambrian explosion is possible with relatively minor alterations to genetic code. We've already debated that on here. Regardless, pointing out a lack of data doesn't mean a theory is wrong, in fact it indicates future areas of study much like the San Diego study shows. As the article this thread is about said ID is the last whimper of creationism. As the holes in the data are filled in and the theories fleshed out accordingly creationism bites the dust. (except of the creater who created a universe (big bang style) with the propensity for life and walked away, I can't remember the name of that one).
Bah, the San Diego study that will be published in nature proves that the cambrian explosion is possible with relatively minor alterations to genetic code. We've already debated that on here. Regardless, pointing out a lack of data doesn't mean a theory is wrong, in fact it indicates future areas of study much like the San Diego study shows. As the article this thread is about said ID is the last whimper of creationism. As the holes in the data are filled in and the theories fleshed out accordingly creationism bites the dust. (except of the creater who created a universe (big bang style) with the propensity for life and walked away, I can't remember the name of that one).
The San Diego study is a gross exaggeration. A deformed shrimp isn't an insect.
The San Diego study is a gross exaggeration. A deformed shrimp isn't an insect.
Rahvin,
I said this revision from billion to millions is what a group of scientists have now stated,
as reported on NPR. I did not state this is proven or not. It is based on new observations
of our galaxy that they made and their interpretation of the data.
Me thinks you confuse billions, with millions or have a limited understanding of the subject.
There is no confusion between billions and millions. I just stated what was reported on NPR.
Why do you have to try and turn this into a personal attack on me? If you disagree, your disagreement
on this point is with the scientists, not me. You may disagree with my interpretation, but I would assume
that if the scientists are correct, then earth would be only millions of years old, too. If they are wrong,
then my assumption would be wrong, too. That is the only assumption I have made based on this new
data. If the galaxy is only millions of years old, and the earth is younger than the galaxy, then the
earth can't be billions of years old. If a, then be and if b, then c, then if a, then c. Basic scientific logic.
Also, if evolution is a proven fact as you state, why is it not stated as such by the scientific community?
If it has now been proven, why is there even a question in the scientific community?
Why can't scientists agree on this if it is proven? Because they only have peices of the puzzle and not
the entire picture. They use faith to fill in the missing links. Albeit, we do have more peices that before,
but it is still not proven. They still use faith to exptrapilate the unknown from the known.
Obvioulsy you put your faith in the scientific community and as far as you go, my question is answered.
Rant on if you wish and prove you sig is true.
I said this revision from billion to millions is what a group of scientists have now stated,
as reported on NPR. I did not state this is proven or not. It is based on new observations
of our galaxy that they made and their interpretation of the data.
Me thinks you confuse billions, with millions or have a limited understanding of the subject.
There is no confusion between billions and millions. I just stated what was reported on NPR.
Why do you have to try and turn this into a personal attack on me? If you disagree, your disagreement
on this point is with the scientists, not me. You may disagree with my interpretation, but I would assume
that if the scientists are correct, then earth would be only millions of years old, too. If they are wrong,
then my assumption would be wrong, too. That is the only assumption I have made based on this new
data. If the galaxy is only millions of years old, and the earth is younger than the galaxy, then the
earth can't be billions of years old. If a, then be and if b, then c, then if a, then c. Basic scientific logic.
Also, if evolution is a proven fact as you state, why is it not stated as such by the scientific community?
If it has now been proven, why is there even a question in the scientific community?
Why can't scientists agree on this if it is proven? Because they only have peices of the puzzle and not
the entire picture. They use faith to fill in the missing links. Albeit, we do have more peices that before,
but it is still not proven. They still use faith to exptrapilate the unknown from the known.
Obvioulsy you put your faith in the scientific community and as far as you go, my question is answered.
Rant on if you wish and prove you sig is true.
<< The San Diego study is a gross exaggeration. A deformed shrimp isn't an insect. >>
And from the fossil record we can't determine if any of the phylum present in the cambrian explosion were actually related. Maybe they were pretty similar at the time and in fact just looked different. A shrimp without legs is certainly a different looking shrimp. Additionally they demonstrate in the genetic code that it's possible to add/subtract multiple appendages, add exoskeletons etc. Those body differences are primarly what define the phylum and their study proves simple genetic changes can cause those body changes.
Or will you doubt the science when it's duplicated over and over again and keep screaming that it doesn't explain anything because it doesn't coincide with your beliefs?
<< There is no confusion between billions and millions. I just stated what was reported on NPR.
Why do you have to try and turn this into a personal attack on me? If you disagree, your disagreement
on this point is with the scientists, not me. >>
No, my disagreement is with you spouting blatent falsehoods. Provide evidence of this revision to galatic age or STFU. :| (Grrrr I hate it when people lie and present that lie as a fact).
<< Also, if evolution is a proven fact as you state, why is it not stated as such by the scientific community?
If it has now been proven, why is there even a question in the scientific community? >>
REREAD WHAT I WROTE. I'm not into coddeling people that are ignorant. Evolution is a Fact. How Evolution operates is a THEORY. This is where the debate lies, in the theory of how it works. The only people debating the FACT of evolution are religious nuts that do not operate within the bounds of proof required by science.
<< Why can't scientists agree on this if it is proven? Because they only have peices of the puzzle and not
the entire picture. They use faith to fill in the missing links. Albeit, we do have more peices that before,
but it is still not proven. They still use faith to exptrapilate the unknown from the known. >>
This statement proves that you have no knowledge of science and it's methods. I can't solve your ignorance, only YOU can.
And from the fossil record we can't determine if any of the phylum present in the cambrian explosion were actually related. Maybe they were pretty similar at the time and in fact just looked different.
So you deny evidence when it doesn't suit your preconceived notions? Why is the Cambrian explosion considered such a mystery if the record is so cloudy? It is always interesting when you who claim to objectively measure the evidence dismiss that which does't match your pet theories.
As far as the new UCSB study, there is little new here. We have seen similar sorts of mutations with fruit fly's for decades. When mutagens are introduced fruit fly's develop all sorts of deformities. Legs where their eyes should be, extra sets of wings, wingless, etc... Point is, these are always evolutionary dead ends. This study is good press for people who mindlessly bleat what thay have been taught.
So you deny evidence when it doesn't suit your preconceived notions? Why is the Cambrian explosion considered such a mystery if the record is so cloudy? It is always interesting when you who claim to objectively measure the evidence dismiss that which does't match your pet theories.
As far as the new UCSB study, there is little new here. We have seen similar sorts of mutations with fruit fly's for decades. When mutagens are introduced fruit fly's develop all sorts of deformities. Legs where their eyes should be, extra sets of wings, wingless, etc... Point is, these are always evolutionary dead ends. This study is good press for people who mindlessly bleat what thay have been taught.
bigdog1218
Golden Member
- Mar 7, 2001
- 1,674
- 2
- 0
<< Evolution is a Fact. How Evolution operates is a THEORY >>
then i want you to prove to me that man evolved from apes, i'm not asking how man evolved from apes, i just want you to prove it, and i want all the facts that you say are there,
because in any book you look in its still the THEORY of evolution, not the LAW of evolution, if it was the law of evolution than it would be fact
oh, and if scientists know that evolution is fact, why are they still looking for this missing link? if evolution was a fact scientists wouldn't need to find a missing link
Rahvin,
I guess I was talking in a more general term than you about evolution.
No creationists can honestly say evolution does not exist. They just
don't beleive that is how things began. Evolution within a species
is a proven scientific fact. Cross species evolution is not proven.
No, my disagreement is with you spouting blatent falsehoods. Provide evidence of this revision to galatic age or STFU. (Grrrr I hate it when people lie and present that lie as a fact).
When did I state this revision as a fact? I reported what I heard scientists stated on NPR. I know NPR is NOT
the all-knowing, never failing scientific journal. Because NPR reports something it is fact? I don't know anyone
who would beleive that.
It doesn't make them ask more questions, it presents a global shrug and a copout explanation for everything. It's not science. I don't condone putting baking lessons into science classes and I certainly don't condone puting other non scientific crap in either. Science class means it's about science.
I agree with you there, Ravhin.
I want science taught in science class. Teach what is known as fact as fact, but admit where we don't have all the answers.
This does not mean we someday will not have the answers, it is just admitting we don't know everything now.
What I don't like is when teachers state unproven conjectures as fact. Present them as beliefs based on what evidence
we now have, but not as facts.
I agree with you there, Ravhin.
I want science taught in science class. Teach what is known as fact as fact, but admit where we don't have all the answers.
This does not mean we someday will not have the answers, it is just admitting we don't know everything now.
What I don't like is when teachers state unproven conjectures as fact. Present them as beliefs based on what evidence
we now have, but not as facts.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter