Hi Collin.
Look, the whole thing about whether Dawrin advocated Eugenics is debatable, we can disagree on it and we can both find Darwin quotes that appear to support our case. However this is only a minor part of the film 'expelled', which is mainly about the anti ID campaign. Lets be clear, ID is the underdog, a tiny minority pitted against the Darwinian establishment. Other controversial scientific findings do not claim discrimintion as you rightly say, but ID is a critique of the central belief of Darwinism - naturalism/materialism, which is why it pisses a lot of people off and gets a lot of people very scared. The accusation is that the first round of papers were published in the peer-reviewed literature but then the Darwinian establishment launched a campaign of intimidation to stop further publications so that they could employ the claim 'ID is not science because it does not exist in peer reviewed literature' to the public. This is not a matter of opinion, it can be proven one way or the other by interviewing those publishers who first published ID papers. This is what the film 'expelled' does and if you are truly open minded, you will watch it. You said you 'want proof' , well this film offers it so if you are not wiling to watch it, it shows that you dont really 'want' it. for anyone who doesn't know what film I am talking about, here is the link again. Peace.
I am truly open minded yet I will not watch the film. Ben Stein and the producer have proved they are dishonest and used dishonest tactics. Not just the Darwin-quote, mind you. They tricked scientists into being interviewed under false premises.
I am truly open minded yet I will not watch the film. Ben Stein and the producer have proved they are dishonest and used dishonest tactics. Not just the Darwin-quote, mind you. They tricked scientists into being interviewed under false premises.
A truly open-minded person is willing to hear from both sides. You seem to have made up your mind by listening only to a website set up to discredit the film. Watching the film will not only dispell any ideas people might have of closed-mindedness on your part, but, if you are right about the film, it would make your case stronger.
A truly open-minded person is willing to hear from both sides. You seem to have made up your mind by listening only to a website set up to discredit the film. Watching the film will not only dispell any ideas people might have of closed-mindedness on your part, but, if you are right about the film, it would make your case stronger.
As I've said I will try and find a copy of Darwin on Trail, which you suggested.
It is a fact that Ben Stein lied. I am willing to listen to both sides, however, Ben Stein has lost all credibility to me.
And the fact that he says that "Darwinism led, in a pretty much straight line, to Nazism and the Holocaust" is dispicable and disgusting. Not because I'm trying to "defend" evolution but because it shows a gross misunderstanding of history, the theory of evolution and nazism and the causes of the Holocaust.
Yeah, he did say this but it is hardly a outright rejection of Eugenics. The phrase 'if so urged by hard reason' shows that evolutionary reason DOES lead us down the eugenics path. Darwin correctly notes that this would deteriorate the 'noblest part of our nature'... i agree.
Darwin shows what you and Ben Stein and countless of others can't seem to grasp; humans can think and make moral choices even if they don't believe in god.
I know it's hard to believe because the bible says otherwise, but you'll have to believe this "fool" (biblical quote).
to add to the perspedctive.... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/guillermo_gonzalez_has_highest.html
granted, it may be his earlier worth that is cited, and his lack of grant funding to me, is a bigger concern at a university such as ISU where extra-mural funds are necessary... But ID views are NOT tolerated well at public institutions; they're just not. Science and scientists are not the altruistic ideologues that people think they are. they don't nec want truth, they want statistical significance and they want their ego stroked.
Publication bias exists more than you think and less than others would have you believe...it is there, it is present and it does effect what is published and what is disseminated. edit: i serve as a journal reviewer and there is a lot of bad science / poor use of scientific method that doesn't get published b/c it's caught in the reviewer stage; i don't want to give the impression that just b/c an ID paper isn't published it's b/c of some conspiracy...sometimes there are very legitimate reasons for not publishing something...but you need to know that in the end, it is the editors final call as to what makes it in. A good editor will take the advice of the section editors and the reviewers; however, the editor decides what goes in the journal and the editor must decide if he/she is willing to take the fallout from publishing a paper....good or bad. Look at the smithsonian example, i don't believe that's an isolated case (I have no idea how often it happens)...but that editor published something that was against the grain AND good science (it survived the peer review process) and he was ridiculed to no end.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
to add to the perspedctive.... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/guillermo_gonzalez_has_highest.html
granted, it may be his earlier worth that is cited, and his lack of grant funding to me, is a bigger concern at a university such as ISU where extra-mural funds are necessary... But ID views are NOT tolerated well at public institutions; they're just not.
Well, I can agree with that. But to conclude that he was not giving tenure because his views is simply speculation, believing that there is a atheist/scientist plot even more so. (I'm not saying you believe in this conspiracy but it seen to be something tim believes in.)
Look at the smithsonian example, i don't believe that's an isolated case (I have no idea how often it happens)...but that editor published something that was against the grain AND good science (it survived the peer review process) and he was ridiculed to no end.
I think the truth is that ID isn't there yet. ID isn't science yet (and whether it ever will be is an entirely different debate). Paul Nelson, a young earth creationist and intelligent design advocate said:
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
These are the words from an advocate of intelligent design.
Furthermore, irreducible complexity and specified complexity, two of the strongest arguments of ID, have been debunked and refuted.
I think many proponents of ID cannot accept the fact that they really don't have a strong scientific case, even though advocates of ID admit it. There's so much propaganda out there, and I do mean propaganda. I think this propaganda has convinced people that ID is strong, correct science... They see how ID is treated by the scientific community and claim it's a plot against it.
The fact is ID has been and still is debated and discussed. I can understand that scientists don't want to waste their time with the same old claims time and time again, such as the bacterial flagella argument.
The science of ID is severly lacking, but attacks against the scientific community and accusations that they deliberately collude to "oppress" ID are ridiculous.
It's an interesting read. Again, I'll have to side with the scientific community on this one. In fact, I think Sternberg's actions are again an example of the crusade or witch hunt against the scientific community.
Timsinclair or other proponents of ID, please watch this video. And please, try to watch it objectively. If your mind is made up before watching it, then I suggest you don't waste your time.
Sorry. been a bit busy. I am not drowning in the flood quite yet Cate, I also have a life outside this thread which involves looking after 2 kids and a pregnant (and temporarily wheelchair bound) wife.
Glad to see that you are now asking the right questions grazman, those may look like holes in my ark but they are just portals from which to fire my cannons at your good ship ‘the beagle’ (Darwin’s ship).
First of all, some of the Flood story involves God's direct intervention, which is unverifiable, the most significant of these aspects is God's control of the animals, the text says that God brought them to the ark and shut the door when they were all inside. He may well have also prevented them from attacking one another and quite possibly caused many to hibernate once on board, which would cut down food requirements and labour time quite significantly. However, many aspects of the flood story are verifiable, such as the size of the Ark and the geological evidence of the flood etc. It is important to note that the ark was not a ship, it did not have to cut through the water, just float, so it would have a been a rectangular box, which is extremely stable and has much more room than a ship. You may have heard the accepted theory that the continents were originally one land mass. well you probably didn't realise that was first proposed by a creationist, because it is implied in genesis. This means that none of the animals had to travel accross the oceans to get to the Ark. In the creationist model known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics', the supercontinent broke up during, and in the immediate aftermath of the flood. The idea that animals evolved in isolation on the continents is untrue. Many believe that Marsupials evolved in isolation in Australasia but marsupial opposums are found in the Americas and marsupial fossils are found on all continents, its just that they have survived in Australia and become extinct elsewhere. Both creationist and evolutionist models therefore require that, over time, animals have been able to cross between the continents, either over land bridges, floating on mats of vegetation, or even aboard human vessels. Regarding species with specialist diets, this is a result of a thinning out of the gene pool as speciation has occurred. According to the Bible, God created distinct ‘kinds’, which have diversified into what we now call ‘species’ and ‘sub species’, ‘kind’ is therefore somewhere between ‘genus’ and ‘species’ but we cannot define it precisely because we were not there. One way of knowing which species came from an original ‘kind’ is whether or not they can reproduce. Lions and Tigers, for example, can produce Ligers, and Zebras and Donkeys can produce Zeedonks. This shows that they are from the same ‘kind’ since genesis says that animals reproduce ‘after their own kind’. Subsequently, the amount of species required on the ark is much smaller than the amount of species and sub-species we have today and also those ancestors represented on the ark would have been much less specialized. To illustrate this, we all know that Great Danes and chiwawas are descendants of an original wolf/dog kind, by selective breeding we have been able to produce this variety in a very short time, however this has meant that modern species have lost their genetic variability, meaning that a chiwawa breeder could selectively breed his chiwawas with all his evolutionary fervour for infinite generations but he will NEVER get great danes again, the genetic potential simply isn’t there. The original kinds had the capacity to adapt to different situations, but this capacity is lost over time as the gene pool is thinned out by speciation. Now, if we calculate the amount of ‘kinds’ needed to get todays animal kingdom, we find that they would only take up about half of the space on the ark, which would leave plenty of room for exercise areas. Yes grazman I have seen the size of T’rex’s and sauropods etc. but these fossil examples are fully grown adults that took a very log time to reach this size. All dinosaurs came from an egg not much bigger than a football and it is entirely logical that God would call juvenile representatives to the ark. Also, aquatic animals and insects were not represenented on the ark, insects suvived on floating mats of vegetation. The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some of your questions:
p.s Nice to meet another Englishman here grazman, i'm from wiltshire.
God's intervention? that is how you substantiate your argument? and this is a God that cant be proven to exist? seriously tim you are aware of how many 'kinds' of animals there are in the world, right? i can not fathom how thousands of animals, a number which apparently included dinosaurs, fit inside a boat that measured(according to one of my bibles)300 cubits by 50 cubits with a height of 30 cubits, when a cubit is generally considered to be the length of the forearm from elbow to the tip of the middle finger.
.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
First of all, some of the Flood story involves God's direct intervention, which is unverifiable, the most significant of these aspects is God's control of the animals, the text says that God brought them to the ark and shut the door when they were all inside. He may well have also prevented them from attacking one another and quite possibly caused many to hibernate once on board, which would cut down food requirements and labour time quite significantly.
Right so the answer to the huge amount of food these animals needed, the fact they could attack each other and reproducing on board is that God intervened and stopped them from attacking each other and put them into hibernation. convenient.
However, many aspects of the flood story are verifiable, such as the size of the Ark and the geological evidence of the flood etc. It is important to note that the ark was not a ship, it did not have to cut through the water, just float, so it would have a been a rectangular box, which is extremely stable and has much more room than a ship.
Still, doesnt explain how he fit millions and millions of species on board.
You may have heard the accepted theory that the continents were originally one land mass.
Yes, called Pangaea, the break up of this supercontinent started 180 million years ago, which is why we have the same types of species of animals and plants found on continents that are great distances apart, Australiasia and South America for example.
well you probably didn't realise that was first proposed by a creationist, because it is implied in genesis. This means that none of the animals had to travel accross the oceans to get to the Ark. In the creationist model known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics', the supercontinent broke up during, and in the immediate aftermath of the flood.
So not 180 million years ago, but 5,000 years ago.
The idea that animals evolved in isolation on the continents is untrue. Many believe that Marsupials evolved in isolation in Australasia but marsupial opposums are found in the Americas and marsupial fossils are found on all continents, its just that they have survived in Australia and become extinct elsewhere. Both creationist and evolutionist models therefore require that, over time, animals have been able to cross between the continents, either over land bridges, floating on mats of vegetation, or even aboard human vessels.
No, evolutionists have never said that. The land mass Pangaea split with the animals on the continents and have evolved seperatelty.
Regarding species with specialist diets, this is a result of a thinning out of the gene pool as speciation has occurred. According to the Bible, God created distinct ‘kinds’, which have diversified into what we now call ‘species’ and ‘sub species’, ‘kind’ is therefore somewhere between ‘genus’ and ‘species’ but we cannot define it precisely because we were not there. One way of knowing which species came from an original ‘kind’ is whether or not they can reproduce. Lions and Tigers, for example, can produce Ligers, and Zebras and Donkeys can produce Zeedonks. This shows that they are from the same ‘kind’ since genesis says that animals reproduce ‘after their own kind’. Subsequently, the amount of species required on the ark is much smaller than the amount of species and sub-species we have today and also those ancestors represented on the ark would have been much less specialized.
So, Noah didnt take millions of species he took thousands of different kinds, right? So when waters subsided (around 4 - 5,000 years ago), every kinds of species we see in the world today has evolved from what was on the ark. Tim, Tim, Tim.....it didnt happen.
Now, if we calculate the amount of ‘kinds’ needed to get todays animal kingdom, we find that they would only take up about half of the space on the ark, which would leave plenty of room for exercise areas.
Yes grazman I have seen the size of T’rex’s and sauropods etc. but these fossil examples are fully grown adults that took a very log time to reach this size. All dinosaurs came from an egg not much bigger than a football and it is entirely logical that God would call juvenile representatives to the ark.
well doesnt the bible says he took along a male and its mate, meaning reproduction age, meaning adults. So baby dinosaurs and dino eggs.....no!. Also, from what i've read in many many respected science books is that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, no fossil evidence has ever been found of a dinosaur after 65 million years. But now, we have dinosaurs that were here 4 - 5,000 years ago. Tim the ark is sinking!
Also, aquatic animals and insects were not represenented on the ark, insects suvived on floating mats of vegetation. The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark.
All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’
If you see him tell him i want some of what he's smoking.
Well, Tim, i have to say the ark is sinking deeper and deeper into the Abyss, while the Beagle is sailing off into the sunset. Thanks for taking the time to answer, its been very interesting hearing your many theories.
I would encourage evryone to read Collin's link regarding Gonzalez carefully. The film 'Expelled' suggests that Prof. Gonzalez was denied tenure, primariy because he has publically supported Intelligent design. The website, which has been set up to discredit the film, admits that:
'Gonzalez’s scientific articles from 2001 to 2007 rank the highest among astronomers in his department according to a standard measure of how frequently they have been cited by other scientists. He has published 68 peer-reviewed articles, which beat the ISU department’s standard for tenure by 350 percent.'
However, the site then claims that the rejection of gonzales had nothing to do with ID, rather it was apparantly because:
'Gonzalez’s publication output dropped steadily during his time at ISU.'
Now, perhaps they have a point, you might be thinking. Well thats what I thought until I read a little further. The article shoots itself in the foot when it reveals that:
'It is worth noting that the decline in his publication rate corresponds to the time when he started putting time into an intelligent design project that has produced no peer-reviewed results.'
Here we have, once more, a brilliant example of the circular logic of the anti-ID campaign. According to the darwinian establishment, ID is 'not science', therefore scientific papers supporting ID are rejected by the peer-reviewed publishing bodies. Subsequently scientists doing research that supports ID, no matter how prolific, or respectable in their past achievments, are told that they are no longer doing 'real science'. Hence, Gonzales recent work (since it has produced no peer-reviewed results) counts AGAINST his tenure. If you believe in academic freedom, or even freedom of speech, dont let this campaign of censorship blind you. Watch the film.
As I've said I will try and find a copy of Darwin on Trail, which you suggested.
It is a fact that Ben Stein lied. I am willing to listen to both sides, however, Ben Stein has lost all credibility to me.
And the fact that he says that "Darwinism led, in a pretty much straight line, to Nazism and the Holocaust" is dispicable and disgusting. Not because I'm trying to "defend" evolution but because it shows a gross misunderstanding of history, the theory of evolution and nazism and the causes of the Holocaust.
I dont know much about ben stein but what is this FACT that proves him to be a liar? I have seen no such factual basis for this character assasination from that website. Look, even if you are right and Ben stein has lied about something, the film still desrves to be watched. I am glad that you are going to read an ID book, this will give you, for i think the first time, a view of what ID is without it being distorted by its opponents. However, no ID book will be able to provide the proof you are looking for about this question: Has there been a campaign of smear and censorship against pro ID scientists? The ONLY thing that can decisively answer this question is filmed interviews with the publishers who published the first round of ID scientific papers. whatever you think of Ben Stein, his film does this. Even if he is a liar, as you suggest, he cannot put words in their mouths.
Right so the answer to the huge amount of food these animals needed, the fact they could attack each other and reproducing on board is that God intervened and stopped them from attacking each other and put them into hibernation. convenient.
Oh Grazman. If you are going to seriously consider what i'm saying, you will have to try and think outside of the box that your mind has been squeezed into. I have come right out front and told you the supernatural elements. yes, they require belief, but belief that rests on the rationality of the aspects of the flood that are testable.
Yes, called Pangaea, the break up of this supercontinent started 180 million years ago, which is why we have the same types of species of animals and plants found on continents that are great distances apart, Australiasia and South America for example.
Your stuck in the box again. You assume that the millions of years you are told about are proven, but they are, in fact, just a necessary part of the theory of evolution (nobody would believe it happened in 6000 years, so they added a few more zeros).
So not 180 million years ago, but 5,000 years ago.
Yup.
No, evolutionists have never said that. The land mass Pangaea split with the animals on the continents and have evolved seperatelty.
You just contradicted yourself, now they evolved seperately? Ok so why do we have opposoms in South America?
So, Noah didnt take millions of species he took thousands of different kinds, right? So when waters subsided (around 4 - 5,000 years ago), every kinds of species we see in the world today has evolved from what was on the ark. Tim, Tim, Tim.....it didnt happen.
Come on Grazman you can do better than 'it didn't happen'. Look, diversification of a 'kind' is NOT evolution. A chiwawa may look very different to a great dane, but it is still a dog. It has not aquired any new genetic data, no new organs, functions etc.
well doesnt the bible says he took along a male and its mate, meaning reproduction age, meaning adults. So baby dinosaurs and dino eggs.....no!. Also, from what i've read in many many respected science books is that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, no fossil evidence has ever been found of a dinosaur after 65 million years. But now, we have dinosaurs that were here 4 - 5,000 years ago. Tim the ark is sinking!
Oh Grazman, well if your textbooks said 65 million years, they MUST be right. The fossil record is INTERPRETED. Evolutionists interpret it according to gradualism and uniformitarian geology, but it can also be understood as the direct result of the flood. Most of the geological strata could have been laid down in ONE year if there was a global flood.
ID views are NOT tolerated well at public institutions; they're just not. Science and scientists are not the altruistic ideologues that people think they are. they don't nec want truth, they want statistical significance and they want their ego stroked.
Publication bias exists more than you think and less than others would have you believe...it is there, it is present and it does effect what is published and what is disseminated. edit: i serve as a journal reviewer and there is a lot of bad science / poor use of scientific method that doesn't get published b/c it's caught in the reviewer stage; i don't want to give the impression that just b/c an ID paper isn't published it's b/c of some conspiracy...sometimes there are very legitimate reasons for not publishing something...but you need to know that in the end, it is the editors final call as to what makes it in. A good editor will take the advice of the section editors and the reviewers; however, the editor decides what goes in the journal and the editor must decide if he/she is willing to take the fallout from publishing a paper....good or bad. Look at the smithsonian example, i don't believe that's an isolated case (I have no idea how often it happens)...but that editor published something that was against the grain AND good science (it survived the peer review process) and he was ridiculed to no end.
Hi Chopitdown.
Just to say, your contributions are extremely welcome. I expect that we will not agree on everything, but i notice that you regard Meyers published pro ID paper as 'good science' and that its publisher was ridiculed. I also note that you agree that ID is not tolerated well in public institutions. As a journal reviewer yourself, your voice carries a lot more weight than mine. Have you seen the film 'expelled' yet? I would be interested to hear what an insider like yourself thinks of it.
God's intervention? that is how you substantiate your argument? and this is a God that cant be proven to exist? seriously tim you are aware of how many 'kinds' of animals there are in the world, right? i can not fathom how thousands of animals, a number which apparently included dinosaurs, fit inside a boat that measured(according to one of my bibles)300 cubits by 50 cubits with a height of 30 cubits, when a cubit is generally considered to be the length of the forearm from elbow to the tip of the middle finger.
.
Hi Cate.
Honestly, these things have been calculated, and if they did not add up there really would not be creationist movement. If you really want answers to your questions about the flood, use the search option of any of the major creationist websites. I would recomend 'creation ministries international' regarding the size of the ark, see:
Hi Cate.
Honestly, these things have been calculated, and if they did not add up there really would not be creationist movement. If you really want answers to your questions about the flood, use the search option of any of the major creationist websites. I would recomend 'creation ministries international' regarding the size of the ark, see:
honestly, i dont believe it tim. give me a premise and i can make any data fit it to further my agenda.
i got my information about the ark from the bible. that is the source of all my religious queries and lack of answers. the site you linked me to does nothing but put forth supposition. its guestimation at its best.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I would encourage evryone to read Collin's link regarding Gonzalez carefully. The film 'Expelled' suggests that Prof. Gonzalez was denied tenure, primariy because he has publically supported Intelligent design. The website, which has been set up to discredit the film, admits that:
'Gonzalez’s scientific articles from 2001 to 2007 rank the highest among astronomers in his department according to a standard measure of how frequently they have been cited by other scientists. He has published 68 peer-reviewed articles, which beat the ISU department’s standard for tenure by 350 percent.'
However, the site then claims that the rejection of gonzales had nothing to do with ID, rather it was apparantly because:
'Gonzalez’s publication output dropped steadily during his time at ISU.'
Now, perhaps they have a point, you might be thinking. Well thats what I thought until I read a little further. The article shoots itself in the foot when it reveals that:
'It is worth noting that the decline in his publication rate corresponds to the time when he started putting time into an intelligent design project that has produced no peer-reviewed results.'
Here we have, once more, a brilliant example of the circular logic of the anti-ID campaign. According to the darwinian establishment, ID is 'not science', therefore scientific papers supporting ID are rejected by the peer-reviewed publishing bodies. Subsequently scientists doing research that supports ID, no matter how prolific, or respectable in their past achievments, are told that they are no longer doing 'real science'. Hence, Gonzales recent work (since it has produced no peer-reviewed results) counts AGAINST his tenure. If you believe in academic freedom, or even freedom of speech, dont let this campaign of censorship blind you. Watch the film.
It's not science. Simple as that. There's not scientific evidence, no research, nothing... Nothing. Please watch the other video I posted.
It is not a campaign of censorship. They are not trying to censor ID, they just want to keep pseudoscience out of science and I agree with that.
God is not testable. That's one of the first rules they break. Ah, but that's right you want to change the evil atheist (foolish) oppressive scientific regime, doctrine that was made to kill god and destroy religion. You want supernatural explanations to be allowed, like astrology, alchemy...
I can't explain it any better than that video I posted. I urge you to watch it.
honestly, i dont believe it tim. give me a premise and i can make any data fit it to further my agenda.
i got my information about the ark from the bible. that is the source of all my religious queries and lack of answers. the site you linked me to does nothing but put forth supposition. its guestimation at its best.
Cate, Cate, Cate....the ark might be small but remember all those animals on it were juveniles, 1cm in height and in hibernation! They were in small simple self cleaning cages, watered my a big trough and exercised regularly in the exercise areas inside the ark. You can't possibly argue with those FACTS! Try thinking outside the box, i was inside the box until i talked to Tim and now i'm outside, everything is clearer now, everything makes sense. Pangaea didnt exist millions of years ago, it was 5,000 years ago and dinosaurs were living on it. They died though but the ones on the ark survived the flood and are still alive and well today on Jurassic Park island. OPEN YOUR MIND!!! Wooooow this is good stuff man!
It's not science. Simple as that. There's not scientific evidence, no research, nothing... Nothing. Please watch the other video I posted.
It is not a campaign of censorship. They are not trying to censor ID, they just want to keep pseudoscience out of science and I agree with that.
God is not testable. That's one of the first rules they break. Ah, but that's right you want to change the evil atheist (foolish) oppressive scientific regime, doctrine that was made to kill god and destroy religion. You want supernatural explanations to be allowed, like astrology, alchemy...
The Darwinian mantra: 'Intelligent design is not science' becomes more lame and more tedious every time I hear it. Yes Collin, if your definition of science excludes the possibility of non natural causes for life and the universe, then by this definition, ID is 'not science', however scientists are increasingly refusing to conform to this definition and however many times you say 'ID is not science' this will not change the fact that it is not, as you say 'as simple as that'. Before the Darwinian revolution, most scientists defined science as something like 'investigating God's creation'. By this definition, many could say of the new Darwinian theory 'Evolution is not science' because it broke the rules. This kind of argumentation is so closed-minded, so agenda driven, so polarized and dogma-laden that it is time we put it to bed and discussed these important issues with a little more humility and open-mindedness.
Collin, your suggestion that ID has broken the rules because 'God is not testable' reveals a serious lack of understanding about what ID actually is. ID does not try to 'test God', ID looks for evidence of design in nature. ID exists because Philip Johnson pointed out in his book 'Darwin on trial' that Darwinian Theory is not nearly as empirically supported as it has been thought to be, and that, like Biblical creationism, it is based primarily on a belief. Both are, in a sense fundamentalisms, the creationist has faith in the Bible and the Evolutionist has faith in naturalism/materialism. This fact has been accepted by many more thoughtful evolutionists, including Michael Ruse. ID is not, as many have tried to argue, Biblical creationism in disguise, sure some IDers are creationists but many are not. ID biochemist Michael Denton has called belief in literal Genesis 'foolish and unscientific', likewise, young earth creationist Henry Morris has criticised ID for being a 'big tent' where people of many philosophical and religious persuasions may dwell.
Cards on the table: I am a young earth creationist. I use the genesis account as a model to interpret the evidence and I think it fits rather well. Cate suggests that with ANY premise, we could make the evidence fit, I dont think thats true - how would we explain the sedimentary layers if the Bible didn't speak of a global flood, we would be scuppered. However, ID does NOT use the Bible to interpret the evidence, and is therefore MORE scientific than either Darwinism or creationism. ID has no religious premise, it is open to both natural and supernatural causes for life (some IDers think the designers were aliens). Unlike the Darwinian paradigm, ID is willing to follow where the evidence leads, even if it points beyond natural causation.
Atheists are a tiny minority in this world, only 8% of the population in Britain (and much less in the US), however Darwinism has given them a share of intellectual power that far exceeds their number. Science has been ruled for far too long by an atheist elite, who are rather like the priests of former ages, controlling what people think by setting the perameters of what counts as 'knowledge'. Well ID is giving intellectual power to the non-atheist masses, those who feel that there is more behind this universe than blind chance and indifference. Whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, or just agnostics, we are empowered by the observations of Intelligent design and this is why the Darwinian elite are petrified of us, they are trying to stop the word getting out because they know it could be there downfall. We are like the ants on the film 'A Bugs life', we are suddenly realizing that we outnumber the grasshoppers 10 to 1 and we have the power to overthrow them. Peace.
Atheists are a tiny minority in this world, only 8% of the population in Britain (and much less in the US), however Darwinism has given them a share of intellectual power that far exceeds their number. Science has been ruled for far too long by an atheist elite, who are rather like the priests of former ages, controlling what people think by setting the perameters of what counts as 'knowledge'. Well ID is giving intellectual power to the non-atheist masses, those who feel that there is more behind this universe than blind chance and indifference. Whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, or just agnostics, we are empowered by the observations of Intelligent design and this is why the Darwinian elite are petrified of us, they are trying to stop the word getting out because they know it could be there downfall. We are like the ants on the film 'A Bugs life', we are suddenly realizing that we outnumber the grasshoppers 10 to 1 and we have the power to overthrow them. Peace.
hilarious tim. i hardly think religious 'ants' have anything to fear from atheistic 'grasshoppers'. we are not lording anything over you. we are not oppressing your thought or the right to worship. we 'grasshoppers' simply do not believe the earth was created by means of the greatest magic trick in history. quite frankly the world seemed to be going along fine before the advent of christainity. the ancients appeared to know what they were doing(well as much as anyone can). they had their own rites, philosophies and ways of questioning the world around them. they even believed in Gods. and it is these ancient Gods that always get me thinking. why are those Gods so easily dismissed as flights of fancy and 'not real' Gods when the same people as far as ive ever observed have no problem accepting the christian God? accepting that christ was the son of this God? i believe christ was a real man. ive never doubted that. i DO NOT believe he was divine. i DO NOT believe he was resurrected and i DO NOT believe that God exists. i came to these conclusions through reading the bible and questioning all i read, despite wanting to believe. i even thought perhaps there ws soemthign wrong with me because i couldnt believe like so many other people. i came to the conclusion that it was ok to think the way i thought. that it was ok that i didnt believe God existed and in the past 32 years i have never doubted my conviction. there has never been a time when anyone has come to me with anything that would even remotely have me wondering if perhaps i am wrong. for an 11 year old to come to such conclusions speaks to me far more than any believer ever could.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question."
The Darwinian mantra: 'Intelligent design is not science' becomes more lame and more tedious every time I hear it. Yes Collin, if your definition of science excludes the possibility of non natural causes for life and the universe, then by this definition, ID is 'not science', however scientists are increasingly refusing to conform to this definition and however many times you say 'ID is not science' this will not change the fact that it is not, as you say 'as simple as that'. Before the Darwinian revolution, most scientists defined science as something like 'investigating God's creation'. By this definition, many could say of the new Darwinian theory 'Evolution is not science' because it broke the rules. This kind of argumentation is so closed-minded, so agenda driven, so polarized and dogma-laden that it is time we put it to bed and discussed these important issues with a little more humility and open-mindedness.
Collin, your suggestion that ID has broken the rules because 'God is not testable' reveals a serious lack of understanding about what ID actually is. ID does not try to 'test God', ID looks for evidence of design in nature. ID exists because Philip Johnson pointed out in his book 'Darwin on trial' that Darwinian Theory is not nearly as empirically supported as it has been thought to be, and that, like Biblical creationism, it is based primarily on a belief. Both are, in a sense fundamentalisms, the creationist has faith in the Bible and the Evolutionist has faith in naturalism/materialism. This fact has been accepted by many more thoughtful evolutionists, including Michael Ruse. ID is not, as many have tried to argue, Biblical creationism in disguise, sure some IDers are creationists but many are not. ID biochemist Michael Denton has called belief in literal Genesis 'foolish and unscientific', likewise, young earth creationist Henry Morris has criticised ID for being a 'big tent' where people of many philosophical and religious persuasions may dwell.
Cards on the table: I am a young earth creationist. I use the genesis account as a model to interpret the evidence and I think it fits rather well. Cate suggests that with ANY premise, we could make the evidence fit, I dont think thats true - how would we explain the sedimentary layers if the Bible didn't speak of a global flood, we would be scuppered. However, ID does NOT use the Bible to interpret the evidence, and is therefore MORE scientific than either Darwinism or creationism. ID has no religious premise, it is open to both natural and supernatural causes for life (some IDers think the designers were aliens). Unlike the Darwinian paradigm, ID is willing to follow where the evidence leads, even if it points beyond natural causation.
.
geology explains sedimentation. geology is science.
ID is just God in different clothing. it explains nothing. so naturally it is willing to go beyond points of natural causation.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question."
do you believe him?
tim i cant youtube. what was the question dawkins was 'unable' to answer?
he was tricked? you mean he didnt ask for qualifications? he didnt ask where these interviewers were from? :rolleyes:
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
hilarious tim. i hardly think religious 'ants' have anything to fear from atheistic 'grasshoppers'. we are not lording anything over you. we are not oppressing your thought or the right to worship. we 'grasshoppers' simply do not believe the earth was created by means of the greatest magic trick in history.
Hi Cate. You are correct that the Darwinian rule in academia does not hinder my right to worship ( i didn't suggest that it did). What it does do is define the epistomology of our society. Christians can BELIEVE what they want but it cant be called KNOWLEDGE. Christianity can be a BELIEF but it is not allowed to be REASONABLE. Since the enlightenment, theology has been demoted to a subservient psuedo-knowledge that has no place in the REAL academic subjects that KNOW God is just a myth. I have just been through university, I know what it is like. Darwinism is the ruling myth of our age and anyone who suggests that it is untrue, or that the Bible is historicaly accurate is looked upon with either pity or ridicule, much as I have been by some on this thread. But ID is turning the tide.
Cate, Cate, Cate....the ark might be small but remember all those animals on it were juveniles, 1cm in height and in hibernation! They were in small simple self cleaning cages, watered my a big trough and exercised regularly in the exercise areas inside the ark. You can't possibly argue with those FACTS! Try thinking outside the box, i was inside the box until i talked to Tim and now i'm outside, everything is clearer now, everything makes sense. Pangaea didnt exist millions of years ago, it was 5,000 years ago and dinosaurs were living on it. They died though but the ones on the ark survived the flood and are still alive and well today on Jurassic Park island. OPEN YOUR MIND!!! Wooooow this is good stuff man!
I hesitate to continue with you grazman but since I cannot tell if your mockery is lighthearted or malicious. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. 1cm in height? hmm I dont remember saying that. The calculations are done on the size of adult representatives of all the animal kinds. The thing about reptiles is that they continue to grow until they die, which is why dinosaurs got so big. Young adult dinosaurs (kinda like teenagers) would not have been nearly as big as some of the fossil sauropods we see in the fossil record. It is likely that the dinosaurs, like many species did not thrive in the very different post-flood climate, however many believe that some survived until as recently as the 15th century AD. Since the word 'dinosaur' was only coined in the 18th century, they were obviously known by a different name: dragons. It is likely that the last dragons/dinosaurs were killed off by people, in fact it was rather populat among medieval nights to kill dragons. dragons appear, not just in fairy stories but in MANY writings that are otherwise considered historical, the writings of Alexander the Great, for example are considered historical except the pert when he saw two dragons in china. The Roman literature also speaks of dragons. Peace.
Hi Cate. You are correct that the Darwinian rule in academia does not hinder my right to worship ( i didn't suggest that it did). What it does do is define the epistomology of our society. Christians can BELIEVE what they want but it cant be called KNOWLEDGE. Christianity can be a BELIEF but it is not allowed to be REASONABLE. Since the enlightenment, theology has been demoted to a subservient psuedo-knowledge that has no place in the REAL academic subjects that KNOW God is just a myth. I have just been through university, I know what it is like. Darwinism is the ruling myth of our age and anyone who suggests that it is untrue, or that the Bible is historicaly accurate is looked upon with either pity or ridicule, much as I have been by some on this thread. But ID is turning the tide.
hmm whenever i tell people i do not believe God exists they look at me with a mixture of incredulity and pity. i use to hesitate to tell people i was an atheist. now however i no longer give a damn and feel very free to share my disbelief. the question most frequently asked of me when i reveal my atheism is, what do i think happens when we die? i simply say nothing happens. we die and thats the end of it. this seems to disturb people for whatever reason. the meaning of life? i dont believe there is one beyond, life is the meaning. it is what you make it. and youve got until the day you die to make it your own.
p.s. i am still in university, so i too know what its like.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
neither side- believers and non-believers - will convince the other side of anything. regarding religious faith, you either have it, or you don't. being open to it definitely helps you if faith is what you WANT. but if you don't, then no amount of intellectual curiosity will get you there.
i can say this because i've been on both sides of it and have truly, deeply believed what i thought was true, and shook my head at myself for having ever doubted such "truth", on both sides- believing and non-believing.
there was a period of time when i was deeply religious. i hadn't been to church in years (was raised catholic). then i stepped into an episcopal service and felt transformed. i was in. deep. i converted. i had myself confirmed at age 33 into the episcopal faith. i was very active in my church- i became a vestry member, i ran the outreach program. this went on for three years. my newfound religiosity confounded my family and friends. but i was happy.
then it began slipping away. there were some changes at the church- the woman priest, whom i'd become fond of and who, to me, represented so much that was different from the catholic church, left my parish for another job. a man i had befriended and felt close to left as well, amidst a nasty divorce. my bf at the time (now my husband) sunk into a difficult depression, for unrelated reasons. i began to no longer find solace and comfort in my church. i began to realize that a large part of my attachment to this particular faith community was because it was a community- which i had been hungering for all my life. i am an only child and had always been attracted to friends and b/f's from large families. so when my church community began to change and shift and relationships were slipping away, i lost my strong desire to be part of that community. i gradually stopped attending services, and eventually pulled away entirely.
i DO think that, during those three years, i DID have real faith in Jesus. i still believe that he existed and had great wisdom, but i'm not so sure about the whole I Am the Way thing.
so now i'm where i am now. i am more or less walking a stripped-down version of the buddhist path. no cultural trappings, no "worship" or belief in things i can't see or experience myself. i try to meditate regularly. i try to live honestly. i try to approach life with less attachment to everything, since that's where suffering comes from. i try to be a peaceful mom and wife and daughter and woman. that's the best i can do.
so, while the ultra-atheists like dawkins say some things that make sense to me, i don't subscribe to their angry rantings about religion being the source of all evil in the world. i think certain interpretations of religious wisdom is what brings about evil and suffering. and it's not just "extremists" who perpetuate such negative energy. i think even middle-of-the-road regigious folk can be VERY hostile towards those who believe differently, or those who don't belive at all. we can see it right here, on these baords. BUT that goes both ways, too. i know atheists who are openly hostile to anyone who even hints at having faith of some sort. at some point, it's got to stop. both sides need to live and let live, and stop trying to convince- or annihilate- the "others". it's suicide.
just by two cents!
peace
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Comments
I am truly open minded yet I will not watch the film. Ben Stein and the producer have proved they are dishonest and used dishonest tactics. Not just the Darwin-quote, mind you. They tricked scientists into being interviewed under false premises.
naděje umírá poslední
A truly open-minded person is willing to hear from both sides. You seem to have made up your mind by listening only to a website set up to discredit the film. Watching the film will not only dispell any ideas people might have of closed-mindedness on your part, but, if you are right about the film, it would make your case stronger.
I'm sure there's bias but not like tim and Ben Stein want you to believe.
To put things into perspective.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/gonzalez
naděje umírá poslední
As I've said I will try and find a copy of Darwin on Trail, which you suggested.
It is a fact that Ben Stein lied. I am willing to listen to both sides, however, Ben Stein has lost all credibility to me.
And the fact that he says that "Darwinism led, in a pretty much straight line, to Nazism and the Holocaust" is dispicable and disgusting. Not because I'm trying to "defend" evolution but because it shows a gross misunderstanding of history, the theory of evolution and nazism and the causes of the Holocaust.
naděje umírá poslední
Darwin shows what you and Ben Stein and countless of others can't seem to grasp; humans can think and make moral choices even if they don't believe in god.
I know it's hard to believe because the bible says otherwise, but you'll have to believe this "fool" (biblical quote).
naděje umírá poslední
Priceless. Ben Stein is not only a liar but also a hypocrite.
naděje umírá poslední
Interesting video.
naděje umírá poslední
to add to the perspedctive.... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/guillermo_gonzalez_has_highest.html
granted, it may be his earlier worth that is cited, and his lack of grant funding to me, is a bigger concern at a university such as ISU where extra-mural funds are necessary... But ID views are NOT tolerated well at public institutions; they're just not. Science and scientists are not the altruistic ideologues that people think they are. they don't nec want truth, they want statistical significance and they want their ego stroked.
Publication bias exists more than you think and less than others would have you believe...it is there, it is present and it does effect what is published and what is disseminated. edit: i serve as a journal reviewer and there is a lot of bad science / poor use of scientific method that doesn't get published b/c it's caught in the reviewer stage; i don't want to give the impression that just b/c an ID paper isn't published it's b/c of some conspiracy...sometimes there are very legitimate reasons for not publishing something...but you need to know that in the end, it is the editors final call as to what makes it in. A good editor will take the advice of the section editors and the reviewers; however, the editor decides what goes in the journal and the editor must decide if he/she is willing to take the fallout from publishing a paper....good or bad. Look at the smithsonian example, i don't believe that's an isolated case (I have no idea how often it happens)...but that editor published something that was against the grain AND good science (it survived the peer review process) and he was ridiculed to no end.
Well, I can agree with that. But to conclude that he was not giving tenure because his views is simply speculation, believing that there is a atheist/scientist plot even more so. (I'm not saying you believe in this conspiracy but it seen to be something tim believes in.)
I think the truth is that ID isn't there yet. ID isn't science yet (and whether it ever will be is an entirely different debate). Paul Nelson, a young earth creationist and intelligent design advocate said:
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
These are the words from an advocate of intelligent design.
Furthermore, irreducible complexity and specified complexity, two of the strongest arguments of ID, have been debunked and refuted.
I think many proponents of ID cannot accept the fact that they really don't have a strong scientific case, even though advocates of ID admit it. There's so much propaganda out there, and I do mean propaganda. I think this propaganda has convinced people that ID is strong, correct science... They see how ID is treated by the scientific community and claim it's a plot against it.
The fact is ID has been and still is debated and discussed. I can understand that scientists don't want to waste their time with the same old claims time and time again, such as the bacterial flagella argument.
The science of ID is severly lacking, but attacks against the scientific community and accusations that they deliberately collude to "oppress" ID are ridiculous.
About Stephen Meyer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy
It's an interesting read. Again, I'll have to side with the scientific community on this one. In fact, I think Sternberg's actions are again an example of the crusade or witch hunt against the scientific community.
naděje umírá poslední
Timsinclair or other proponents of ID, please watch this video. And please, try to watch it objectively. If your mind is made up before watching it, then I suggest you don't waste your time.
naděje umírá poslední
God's intervention? that is how you substantiate your argument? and this is a God that cant be proven to exist? seriously tim you are aware of how many 'kinds' of animals there are in the world, right? i can not fathom how thousands of animals, a number which apparently included dinosaurs, fit inside a boat that measured(according to one of my bibles)300 cubits by 50 cubits with a height of 30 cubits, when a cubit is generally considered to be the length of the forearm from elbow to the tip of the middle finger.
.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Right so the answer to the huge amount of food these animals needed, the fact they could attack each other and reproducing on board is that God intervened and stopped them from attacking each other and put them into hibernation. convenient.
Still, doesnt explain how he fit millions and millions of species on board.
Yes, called Pangaea, the break up of this supercontinent started 180 million years ago, which is why we have the same types of species of animals and plants found on continents that are great distances apart, Australiasia and South America for example.
So not 180 million years ago, but 5,000 years ago.
No, evolutionists have never said that. The land mass Pangaea split with the animals on the continents and have evolved seperatelty.
So, Noah didnt take millions of species he took thousands of different kinds, right? So when waters subsided (around 4 - 5,000 years ago), every kinds of species we see in the world today has evolved from what was on the ark. Tim, Tim, Tim.....it didnt happen.
Exercise areas!!!
well doesnt the bible says he took along a male and its mate, meaning reproduction age, meaning adults. So baby dinosaurs and dino eggs.....no!. Also, from what i've read in many many respected science books is that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, no fossil evidence has ever been found of a dinosaur after 65 million years. But now, we have dinosaurs that were here 4 - 5,000 years ago. Tim the ark is sinking!
simple Self cleaning cages
If you see him tell him i want some of what he's smoking.
Well, Tim, i have to say the ark is sinking deeper and deeper into the Abyss, while the Beagle is sailing off into the sunset. Thanks for taking the time to answer, its been very interesting hearing your many theories.
I would encourage evryone to read Collin's link regarding Gonzalez carefully. The film 'Expelled' suggests that Prof. Gonzalez was denied tenure, primariy because he has publically supported Intelligent design. The website, which has been set up to discredit the film, admits that:
'Gonzalez’s scientific articles from 2001 to 2007 rank the highest among astronomers in his department according to a standard measure of how frequently they have been cited by other scientists. He has published 68 peer-reviewed articles, which beat the ISU department’s standard for tenure by 350 percent.'
However, the site then claims that the rejection of gonzales had nothing to do with ID, rather it was apparantly because:
'Gonzalez’s publication output dropped steadily during his time at ISU.'
Now, perhaps they have a point, you might be thinking. Well thats what I thought until I read a little further. The article shoots itself in the foot when it reveals that:
'It is worth noting that the decline in his publication rate corresponds to the time when he started putting time into an intelligent design project that has produced no peer-reviewed results.'
Here we have, once more, a brilliant example of the circular logic of the anti-ID campaign. According to the darwinian establishment, ID is 'not science', therefore scientific papers supporting ID are rejected by the peer-reviewed publishing bodies. Subsequently scientists doing research that supports ID, no matter how prolific, or respectable in their past achievments, are told that they are no longer doing 'real science'. Hence, Gonzales recent work (since it has produced no peer-reviewed results) counts AGAINST his tenure. If you believe in academic freedom, or even freedom of speech, dont let this campaign of censorship blind you. Watch the film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE
I dont know much about ben stein but what is this FACT that proves him to be a liar? I have seen no such factual basis for this character assasination from that website. Look, even if you are right and Ben stein has lied about something, the film still desrves to be watched. I am glad that you are going to read an ID book, this will give you, for i think the first time, a view of what ID is without it being distorted by its opponents. However, no ID book will be able to provide the proof you are looking for about this question: Has there been a campaign of smear and censorship against pro ID scientists? The ONLY thing that can decisively answer this question is filmed interviews with the publishers who published the first round of ID scientific papers. whatever you think of Ben Stein, his film does this. Even if he is a liar, as you suggest, he cannot put words in their mouths.
Oh Grazman. If you are going to seriously consider what i'm saying, you will have to try and think outside of the box that your mind has been squeezed into. I have come right out front and told you the supernatural elements. yes, they require belief, but belief that rests on the rationality of the aspects of the flood that are testable.
Your stuck in the box again. You assume that the millions of years you are told about are proven, but they are, in fact, just a necessary part of the theory of evolution (nobody would believe it happened in 6000 years, so they added a few more zeros).
Yup.
You just contradicted yourself, now they evolved seperately? Ok so why do we have opposoms in South America?
Come on Grazman you can do better than 'it didn't happen'. Look, diversification of a 'kind' is NOT evolution. A chiwawa may look very different to a great dane, but it is still a dog. It has not aquired any new genetic data, no new organs, functions etc.
Oh Grazman, well if your textbooks said 65 million years, they MUST be right. The fossil record is INTERPRETED. Evolutionists interpret it according to gradualism and uniformitarian geology, but it can also be understood as the direct result of the flood. Most of the geological strata could have been laid down in ONE year if there was a global flood.
Would you like to see one?
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter13.pdf
Hi Chopitdown.
Just to say, your contributions are extremely welcome. I expect that we will not agree on everything, but i notice that you regard Meyers published pro ID paper as 'good science' and that its publisher was ridiculed. I also note that you agree that ID is not tolerated well in public institutions. As a journal reviewer yourself, your voice carries a lot more weight than mine. Have you seen the film 'expelled' yet? I would be interested to hear what an insider like yourself thinks of it.
Hi Cate.
Honestly, these things have been calculated, and if they did not add up there really would not be creationist movement. If you really want answers to your questions about the flood, use the search option of any of the major creationist websites. I would recomend 'creation ministries international' regarding the size of the ark, see:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter13.pdf
peace.
honestly, i dont believe it tim. give me a premise and i can make any data fit it to further my agenda.
i got my information about the ark from the bible. that is the source of all my religious queries and lack of answers. the site you linked me to does nothing but put forth supposition. its guestimation at its best.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
:rolleyes:
It's not science. Simple as that. There's not scientific evidence, no research, nothing... Nothing. Please watch the other video I posted.
It is not a campaign of censorship. They are not trying to censor ID, they just want to keep pseudoscience out of science and I agree with that.
God is not testable. That's one of the first rules they break. Ah, but that's right you want to change the evil atheist (foolish) oppressive scientific regime, doctrine that was made to kill god and destroy religion. You want supernatural explanations to be allowed, like astrology, alchemy...
I can't explain it any better than that video I posted. I urge you to watch it.
naděje umírá poslední
Cate, Cate, Cate....the ark might be small but remember all those animals on it were juveniles, 1cm in height and in hibernation! They were in small simple self cleaning cages, watered my a big trough and exercised regularly in the exercise areas inside the ark. You can't possibly argue with those FACTS! Try thinking outside the box, i was inside the box until i talked to Tim and now i'm outside, everything is clearer now, everything makes sense. Pangaea didnt exist millions of years ago, it was 5,000 years ago and dinosaurs were living on it. They died though but the ones on the ark survived the flood and are still alive and well today on Jurassic Park island. OPEN YOUR MIND!!! Wooooow this is good stuff man!
The Darwinian mantra: 'Intelligent design is not science' becomes more lame and more tedious every time I hear it. Yes Collin, if your definition of science excludes the possibility of non natural causes for life and the universe, then by this definition, ID is 'not science', however scientists are increasingly refusing to conform to this definition and however many times you say 'ID is not science' this will not change the fact that it is not, as you say 'as simple as that'. Before the Darwinian revolution, most scientists defined science as something like 'investigating God's creation'. By this definition, many could say of the new Darwinian theory 'Evolution is not science' because it broke the rules. This kind of argumentation is so closed-minded, so agenda driven, so polarized and dogma-laden that it is time we put it to bed and discussed these important issues with a little more humility and open-mindedness.
Collin, your suggestion that ID has broken the rules because 'God is not testable' reveals a serious lack of understanding about what ID actually is. ID does not try to 'test God', ID looks for evidence of design in nature. ID exists because Philip Johnson pointed out in his book 'Darwin on trial' that Darwinian Theory is not nearly as empirically supported as it has been thought to be, and that, like Biblical creationism, it is based primarily on a belief. Both are, in a sense fundamentalisms, the creationist has faith in the Bible and the Evolutionist has faith in naturalism/materialism. This fact has been accepted by many more thoughtful evolutionists, including Michael Ruse. ID is not, as many have tried to argue, Biblical creationism in disguise, sure some IDers are creationists but many are not. ID biochemist Michael Denton has called belief in literal Genesis 'foolish and unscientific', likewise, young earth creationist Henry Morris has criticised ID for being a 'big tent' where people of many philosophical and religious persuasions may dwell.
Cards on the table: I am a young earth creationist. I use the genesis account as a model to interpret the evidence and I think it fits rather well. Cate suggests that with ANY premise, we could make the evidence fit, I dont think thats true - how would we explain the sedimentary layers if the Bible didn't speak of a global flood, we would be scuppered. However, ID does NOT use the Bible to interpret the evidence, and is therefore MORE scientific than either Darwinism or creationism. ID has no religious premise, it is open to both natural and supernatural causes for life (some IDers think the designers were aliens). Unlike the Darwinian paradigm, ID is willing to follow where the evidence leads, even if it points beyond natural causation.
Atheists are a tiny minority in this world, only 8% of the population in Britain (and much less in the US), however Darwinism has given them a share of intellectual power that far exceeds their number. Science has been ruled for far too long by an atheist elite, who are rather like the priests of former ages, controlling what people think by setting the perameters of what counts as 'knowledge'. Well ID is giving intellectual power to the non-atheist masses, those who feel that there is more behind this universe than blind chance and indifference. Whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, or just agnostics, we are empowered by the observations of Intelligent design and this is why the Darwinian elite are petrified of us, they are trying to stop the word getting out because they know it could be there downfall. We are like the ants on the film 'A Bugs life', we are suddenly realizing that we outnumber the grasshoppers 10 to 1 and we have the power to overthrow them. Peace.
hilarious tim. i hardly think religious 'ants' have anything to fear from atheistic 'grasshoppers'. we are not lording anything over you. we are not oppressing your thought or the right to worship. we 'grasshoppers' simply do not believe the earth was created by means of the greatest magic trick in history. quite frankly the world seemed to be going along fine before the advent of christainity. the ancients appeared to know what they were doing(well as much as anyone can). they had their own rites, philosophies and ways of questioning the world around them. they even believed in Gods. and it is these ancient Gods that always get me thinking. why are those Gods so easily dismissed as flights of fancy and 'not real' Gods when the same people as far as ive ever observed have no problem accepting the christian God? accepting that christ was the son of this God? i believe christ was a real man. ive never doubted that. i DO NOT believe he was divine. i DO NOT believe he was resurrected and i DO NOT believe that God exists. i came to these conclusions through reading the bible and questioning all i read, despite wanting to believe. i even thought perhaps there ws soemthign wrong with me because i couldnt believe like so many other people. i came to the conclusion that it was ok to think the way i thought. that it was ok that i didnt believe God existed and in the past 32 years i have never doubted my conviction. there has never been a time when anyone has come to me with anything that would even remotely have me wondering if perhaps i am wrong. for an 11 year old to come to such conclusions speaks to me far more than any believer ever could.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoXzF9zDy_k
Check out his explanation:
"Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question."
do you believe him?
geology explains sedimentation. geology is science.
ID is just God in different clothing. it explains nothing. so naturally it is willing to go beyond points of natural causation.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
tim i cant youtube. what was the question dawkins was 'unable' to answer?
he was tricked? you mean he didnt ask for qualifications? he didnt ask where these interviewers were from? :rolleyes:
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Hi Cate. You are correct that the Darwinian rule in academia does not hinder my right to worship ( i didn't suggest that it did). What it does do is define the epistomology of our society. Christians can BELIEVE what they want but it cant be called KNOWLEDGE. Christianity can be a BELIEF but it is not allowed to be REASONABLE. Since the enlightenment, theology has been demoted to a subservient psuedo-knowledge that has no place in the REAL academic subjects that KNOW God is just a myth. I have just been through university, I know what it is like. Darwinism is the ruling myth of our age and anyone who suggests that it is untrue, or that the Bible is historicaly accurate is looked upon with either pity or ridicule, much as I have been by some on this thread. But ID is turning the tide.
I hesitate to continue with you grazman but since I cannot tell if your mockery is lighthearted or malicious. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. 1cm in height? hmm I dont remember saying that. The calculations are done on the size of adult representatives of all the animal kinds. The thing about reptiles is that they continue to grow until they die, which is why dinosaurs got so big. Young adult dinosaurs (kinda like teenagers) would not have been nearly as big as some of the fossil sauropods we see in the fossil record. It is likely that the dinosaurs, like many species did not thrive in the very different post-flood climate, however many believe that some survived until as recently as the 15th century AD. Since the word 'dinosaur' was only coined in the 18th century, they were obviously known by a different name: dragons. It is likely that the last dragons/dinosaurs were killed off by people, in fact it was rather populat among medieval nights to kill dragons. dragons appear, not just in fairy stories but in MANY writings that are otherwise considered historical, the writings of Alexander the Great, for example are considered historical except the pert when he saw two dragons in china. The Roman literature also speaks of dragons. Peace.
http:http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter19.pdf
hmm whenever i tell people i do not believe God exists they look at me with a mixture of incredulity and pity. i use to hesitate to tell people i was an atheist. now however i no longer give a damn and feel very free to share my disbelief. the question most frequently asked of me when i reveal my atheism is, what do i think happens when we die? i simply say nothing happens. we die and thats the end of it. this seems to disturb people for whatever reason. the meaning of life? i dont believe there is one beyond, life is the meaning. it is what you make it. and youve got until the day you die to make it your own.
p.s. i am still in university, so i too know what its like.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i can say this because i've been on both sides of it and have truly, deeply believed what i thought was true, and shook my head at myself for having ever doubted such "truth", on both sides- believing and non-believing.
there was a period of time when i was deeply religious. i hadn't been to church in years (was raised catholic). then i stepped into an episcopal service and felt transformed. i was in. deep. i converted. i had myself confirmed at age 33 into the episcopal faith. i was very active in my church- i became a vestry member, i ran the outreach program. this went on for three years. my newfound religiosity confounded my family and friends. but i was happy.
then it began slipping away. there were some changes at the church- the woman priest, whom i'd become fond of and who, to me, represented so much that was different from the catholic church, left my parish for another job. a man i had befriended and felt close to left as well, amidst a nasty divorce. my bf at the time (now my husband) sunk into a difficult depression, for unrelated reasons. i began to no longer find solace and comfort in my church. i began to realize that a large part of my attachment to this particular faith community was because it was a community- which i had been hungering for all my life. i am an only child and had always been attracted to friends and b/f's from large families. so when my church community began to change and shift and relationships were slipping away, i lost my strong desire to be part of that community. i gradually stopped attending services, and eventually pulled away entirely.
i DO think that, during those three years, i DID have real faith in Jesus. i still believe that he existed and had great wisdom, but i'm not so sure about the whole I Am the Way thing.
so now i'm where i am now. i am more or less walking a stripped-down version of the buddhist path. no cultural trappings, no "worship" or belief in things i can't see or experience myself. i try to meditate regularly. i try to live honestly. i try to approach life with less attachment to everything, since that's where suffering comes from. i try to be a peaceful mom and wife and daughter and woman. that's the best i can do.
so, while the ultra-atheists like dawkins say some things that make sense to me, i don't subscribe to their angry rantings about religion being the source of all evil in the world. i think certain interpretations of religious wisdom is what brings about evil and suffering. and it's not just "extremists" who perpetuate such negative energy. i think even middle-of-the-road regigious folk can be VERY hostile towards those who believe differently, or those who don't belive at all. we can see it right here, on these baords. BUT that goes both ways, too. i know atheists who are openly hostile to anyone who even hints at having faith of some sort. at some point, it's got to stop. both sides need to live and let live, and stop trying to convince- or annihilate- the "others". it's suicide.
just by two cents!
peace
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7