God says your stone tablet computer is 10 days off, because today is June 24. I don't even know what your point is with that, you trying to say that all the great inventions throughout time were made by people too "smart" to believe in God? that would be a silly assumption.
did you take a poll of all the people who say they believe in God? because it's a very very very high percentage of people who say they do. and that's not just the US, that's throughout the entire world.
bake me a cake without any ingredients, utensils, stove. bake a cake for me out of thin air, and then you'll have proven for me that there is no God. because SOMETHING existed in the beginning to create the universe. no answer? no theories?
My point was that when god was the defacto answer that was used to explain everything, we had the Dark Ages. You say that SOMETHING existed to create the universe? The mundane response is "what existed to create that SOMETHING"? My response is that I'm sure that we will never truly understand how everything came to be, but I know for damn sure that it had nothing to do with gods, angels and demons. The baking a cake analogy is as used up as Kirk Cameron himself.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
Hydrogen is a concept invented by humans to fit what they've observed in their eye-blink of an existence.
I thought that was entropy. At least it is in thermodynamics. If I remember a little bit of my thermo classes from university, entropy was a variable that was used to keep the 2nd law (energy can neither be created nor destroyed) equations in equilibrium.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
My point was that when god was the defacto answer that was used to explain everything, we had the Dark Ages. You say that SOMETHING existed to create the universe? The mundane response is "what existed to create that SOMETHING"? My response is that I'm sure that we will never truly understand how everything came to be, but I know for damn sure that it had nothing to do with gods, angels and demons. The baking a cake analogy is as used up as Kirk Cameron himself.
lol, you "know" it had nothing to do with gods, angels, and demons. so you have faith in that? because I KNOW that you don't have any proof to back your statements anymore than some dark ages guy like me. and the baking a cake thing, I made up on the fly, so how's it "used up"?
Hydrogen is a concept invented by humans to fit what they've observed in their eye-blink of an existence.
Tell that to the Hindenburg...
I think the same for all written scriptures...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
lol, you "know" it had nothing to do with gods, angels, and demons. so you have faith in that? because I KNOW that you don't have any proof to back your statements anymore than some dark ages guy like me. and the baking a cake thing, I made up on the fly, so how's it "used up"?
You did not make up the baking a cake analogy. In fact, it is a very popular creationist analogy. It was recently used by Kirk Cameron in a debate with some athiests in an amazing attempt to prove that god existed using science, and hence the Kirk Cameron barb in my last post.
As for me needing proof to back up my statement, the burden of proof in this case lies solely with the "god" side of this argument. I can show you no evidence of god all day long, but how do I show you evidence of something that does not exist? If there were evidence that something did not exist, then it must exist and therefore there can not be evidence that it does not exist. Aren't loops fun? We need Angelica to come and straighten this out with some string theory.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
UK Gov boots intelligent design back into 'religious' margins
By Lucy Sherriff
Published Monday 25th June 2007 12:35 GMT
"The government has announced that it will publish guidance for schools on how creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching, and has reiterated that it sees no place for either on the science curriculum.
It has also defined "Intelligent Design", the idea that life is too complex to have arisen without the guiding hand of a greater intelligence, as a religion, along with "creationism"."...
there are no tests in evolution either. we just to assume through educated guessing that life evolved from point A to point B. we have never actually seen caveman evolve into modern man or grizzly bear evolve into polar bear. never actually saw the continents split apart with man going into all corners of the earth. this is all theory, it can't be tested. but it makes sense so people role with it. but science takes faith just as believing in God takes faith.
Back on track...
The study of evolution is based on the same scientific method that other areas of science use. A hypothesis is formed and evidence is sourced to either support that hypothesis or disprove it.
You give the example of polar bears... In this case the hypothesis was that a population of early brown bears was isolated due to the movement of glaciers. And isolated as they were, they were subject to differing selecting pressures, and gradually evolved into the modern polar bear.
We may not have seen the evolution of polar bears from an early species of brown bear directly, but a series of transitional species have been identified from the fossil record. These transition fossils include species as young as 10 000 years (that retained brown bear molars but had a modern polar bear skull and body size). See Kurten (1976), The Evolution of Polar Bears, for more detail.
This is the evidence that is used to either change the hypothesis, discard it completely or support it. In this case the evidence supports the hypothesis.
Evolution can be tested through the prediction of transition fossils and subsequent location of them. Evolution can also be tested trough direct observation of micro-evolution. Evolution can be tested through the analysis of DNA, and the prediction of and location of shared common traits. The theory of evolution cannot be compared to a belief in god (in terms of faith)- the two are very different.
I know there is a degree of faith in science, as there is in absolutely anything. But it is a faith based on repeated observation and evidence collected over time. It is a faith that says, provided the fundamental laws of the universe that have been the same for as long as we have observed them do not change today... this is what we can conclude based on the evidence we have available. That evidence available may change, but good science always reaches the conclusions that have the highest probability of being true given what we know at that time.
Creationism, ID and belief in god are all matters of absolute faith. Believe them by all means... but they are distinct from science.
The reason a lot of non religious type see religious types as naive is because the argument always ends in God.. just god...well god...god this...god that....god is the answer to every question you can ever think of....and every question you could never possibly imagine. I'm sure a lot can see where this is going already.
Really what they are saying is well "just because". Just because.
"Just because" never really cut it for me, and stopped working in my head altogether somewhere around 12yrs of age.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You're right, as a concerted movement, there is no difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. "Intelligent Design" is a recasting of Creationism and used as a means to get a literal Adam and Eve taught as fact. It should be kept out of all serious discussions in regards to evolution. There is simply no place for it. If a person doesn't believe in evolution - a literal Genesis-type person - then there is no need for that person in the evolutionary sciences, and it's probably best they stay away. For a person who believes in God and evolution, there is still no need in a scientific environment to inject mentions of God, as He cannot be proven scientifically, and really has no bearing on how we factually study the world. If a person claims to be a scientist but is promoting "intelligent design" that person is simply trying to muddle the debate by declaring certain things "off limits" by claiming "god did it." Irreducible complexity is one of these arguments, and does nothing but build walls around areas requiring further study. Basically, "we don't know the answer. So therefore there is no answer to know. Unless the answer is God. Praise Jesus." That, also, has no place in evolutionary science.
So, I guess, it is naive and stupid to try and prove the existence of God through scientific means. "God" has as much stated that there is no way to prove His existence - that it is through "faith" that He should be approached. Therefore, since God is God, and God is capable of all things, and God has stated that the way to Him is through faith, any attempts to prove His existence will fail. God will make sure of that.
Basically, I'm saying that Intelligent Design and a belief that the world was designed by an intelligence are not the same thing. One is an attempt to prove God scientifically (naive and stupid) while the other is simply an expression of belief in divinity (theist).
In all sincere respect, you've seemed to lose grip on your usually unbiased approach. How is it that an intelligent, credentialed, educated and experienced biologist, physicist, or scientist from any other discipline, whose research, study and interepretation of the current data leads them to support an intelligent design belief simply trying to "muddle the debate" and declare certain things "off limits"? How is it any different than some other scientist who says "we have no idea right now... but some day we will" while declaring the possibility of an intelligent design "off limits"?
Just as any attempt to scientifically PROVE God will fail, so will any attempt to scientifically DISPROVE God. Such (proof or disproof) should not be the goal of any scientist. If one is "naive and stupid" then so is the other.
ID is not an attempt to prove God through science any more than evolution as an origin of the species is a scientific attempt to disprove God.
The last part i simply do not get at all. How are ID and the belief that the world was designed by an intelligence not the same thing? They are exactly the same thing. The former is simply a term used to describe those whose interpretation of current scientific data supports their belief.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
In all sincere respect, you've seemed to lose grip on your usually unbiased approach. How is it that an intelligent, credentialed, educated and experienced biologist, physicist, or scientist from any other discipline, whose research, study and interepretation of the current data leads them to support an intelligent design belief simply trying to "muddle the debate" and declare certain things "off limits"?
Take it from a zoologist that there are no credible people in the biological community arguing against evolution. There is simply no alternative with any explanatory power.
The reason a lot of non religious type see religious types as naive is because the argument always ends in God.. just god...well god...god this...god that....god is the answer to every question you can ever think of....and every question you could never possibly imagine. I'm sure a lot can see where this is going already.
Really what they are saying is well "just because". Just because.
"Just because" never really cut it for me, and stopped working in my head altogether somewhere around 12yrs of age.
The reason this religious type sees non-religious types as naive can be demonstrated in this metaphor:
If we locked you in a sensory proof room for one year (no sound, light, smell, etc.) and then let you out for one second only, could you predict very closely exactly what happened on the earth in the past year?
How is that any different from humans using the time they've existed to predict what's happened in billions and billions and billions of time prior?
Or better yet, would a scientist think a survey represented a statistically relevant sample if they only surveyed 1 person out of a billion?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The reason this religious type sees non-religious types as naive can be demonstrated in this metaphor:
If we locked you in a sensory proof room for one year (no sound, light, smell, etc.) and then let you out for one second only, could you predict very closely exactly what happened on the earth in the past year?
How is that any different from humans using the time they've existed to predict what's happened in billions and billions and billions of time prior?
Or better yet, would a scientist think a survey represented a statistically relevant sample if they only surveyed 1 person out of a billion?
I am sorry, but that is a poor analogy. Evolution is not about looking at whay we see today and suddenly becoming all knowing. (That would be more akin to a religous experience)
Evolution is about looking at what we see today, looking at what we see in the fossil record, looking at what we see in the genetic code and looking at what we see in the geological record and tying all of these things together into a theory of the progressive development of life on earth.
Evolution is the culmination of billions of hours of combined work, studying and comparing numerous fossils, live specimens and DNA. It is the result of similar amounts of time spent using accurate and confirmed dating methods to put this development into a timeline.
In short, the theory of evolution exists in the somewhat complete state that it is in today because of a lot of hard work. There is no magic, no wild guesses, just good science. It does not at all relate to the analogy you gave above...
The reason this religious type sees non-religious types as naive can be demonstrated in this metaphor:
If we locked you in a sensory proof room for one year (no sound, light, smell, etc.) and then let you out for one second only, could you predict very closely exactly what happened on the earth in the past year?
How is that any different from humans using the time they've existed to predict what's happened in billions and billions and billions of time prior?
Or better yet, would a scientist think a survey represented a statistically relevant sample if they only surveyed 1 person out of a billion?
A second is a bit extreme, however in a day science could come so much closer than religion at predicting anything that has happened on earth or will happen than any words in a bible written by the hand of a simple uneducated primitive man.
Science could show pretty much what the weather was like, how everything grew...heck the list is pretty large. Religion could do essentially zero in the same analogy.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I wonder if this increase is related to the decline in American education and overall intelligence...
How many Hell Houses they got?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The reason this religious type sees non-religious types as naive can be demonstrated in this metaphor:
If we locked you in a sensory proof room for one year (no sound, light, smell, etc.) and then let you out for one second only, could you predict very closely exactly what happened on the earth in the past year?
How is that any different from humans using the time they've existed to predict what's happened in billions and billions and billions of time prior?
Or better yet, would a scientist think a survey represented a statistically relevant sample if they only surveyed 1 person out of a billion?
Don't you mean a couple of thousands of years prior? Those early years were the best: no global warming, people lived to be 500 and little puppies rained from the sky.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
There seems to be some discontinuity of faith when you reference these statistics with the booming porn industry.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
There is no eleventh commandment which states "thou shalt not wank."
Isn't it covered by Lust? I just thought pr0n was a no-no.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to molech...
- leviticus 18:21.
I think G W missed that part...
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to molech...
- leviticus 18:21.
What about pass through the kleenex to toilet? rofl...
Gosh...Cate's pulling out those quotes tonight
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I just took an interest in Bush's "Horns" salute that many think to be satanic *Cough* Alex *Cough* Jones. And I found out it's a "Hook 'em Horns" salute from a "Longhorns" sports team at the University of Texas.
Don't they realize it's also a salute to Molech the goat, considered satanic in Christianity?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
My point was that when god was the defacto answer that was used to explain everything, we had the Dark Ages. You say that SOMETHING existed to create the universe? The mundane response is "what existed to create that SOMETHING"? My response is that I'm sure that we will never truly understand how everything came to be, but I know for damn sure that it had nothing to do with gods, angels and demons. The baking a cake analogy is as used up as Kirk Cameron himself.
lol, you "know" it had nothing to do with gods, angels, and demons. so you have faith in that? because I KNOW that you don't have any proof to back your statements anymore than some dark ages guy like me. and the baking a cake thing, I made up on the fly, so how's it "used up"?
Tell that to the Hindenburg...
I think the same for all written scriptures...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You did not make up the baking a cake analogy. In fact, it is a very popular creationist analogy. It was recently used by Kirk Cameron in a debate with some athiests in an amazing attempt to prove that god existed using science, and hence the Kirk Cameron barb in my last post.
As for me needing proof to back up my statement, the burden of proof in this case lies solely with the "god" side of this argument. I can show you no evidence of god all day long, but how do I show you evidence of something that does not exist? If there were evidence that something did not exist, then it must exist and therefore there can not be evidence that it does not exist. Aren't loops fun? We need Angelica to come and straighten this out with some string theory.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/25/id_not_science/
UK Gov boots intelligent design back into 'religious' margins
By Lucy Sherriff
Published Monday 25th June 2007 12:35 GMT
"The government has announced that it will publish guidance for schools on how creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching, and has reiterated that it sees no place for either on the science curriculum.
It has also defined "Intelligent Design", the idea that life is too complex to have arisen without the guiding hand of a greater intelligence, as a religion, along with "creationism"."...
Back on track...
The study of evolution is based on the same scientific method that other areas of science use. A hypothesis is formed and evidence is sourced to either support that hypothesis or disprove it.
You give the example of polar bears... In this case the hypothesis was that a population of early brown bears was isolated due to the movement of glaciers. And isolated as they were, they were subject to differing selecting pressures, and gradually evolved into the modern polar bear.
We may not have seen the evolution of polar bears from an early species of brown bear directly, but a series of transitional species have been identified from the fossil record. These transition fossils include species as young as 10 000 years (that retained brown bear molars but had a modern polar bear skull and body size). See Kurten (1976), The Evolution of Polar Bears, for more detail.
This is the evidence that is used to either change the hypothesis, discard it completely or support it. In this case the evidence supports the hypothesis.
Evolution can be tested through the prediction of transition fossils and subsequent location of them. Evolution can also be tested trough direct observation of micro-evolution. Evolution can be tested through the analysis of DNA, and the prediction of and location of shared common traits. The theory of evolution cannot be compared to a belief in god (in terms of faith)- the two are very different.
I know there is a degree of faith in science, as there is in absolutely anything. But it is a faith based on repeated observation and evidence collected over time. It is a faith that says, provided the fundamental laws of the universe that have been the same for as long as we have observed them do not change today... this is what we can conclude based on the evidence we have available. That evidence available may change, but good science always reaches the conclusions that have the highest probability of being true given what we know at that time.
Creationism, ID and belief in god are all matters of absolute faith. Believe them by all means... but they are distinct from science.
Really what they are saying is well "just because". Just because.
"Just because" never really cut it for me, and stopped working in my head altogether somewhere around 12yrs of age.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
In all sincere respect, you've seemed to lose grip on your usually unbiased approach. How is it that an intelligent, credentialed, educated and experienced biologist, physicist, or scientist from any other discipline, whose research, study and interepretation of the current data leads them to support an intelligent design belief simply trying to "muddle the debate" and declare certain things "off limits"? How is it any different than some other scientist who says "we have no idea right now... but some day we will" while declaring the possibility of an intelligent design "off limits"?
Just as any attempt to scientifically PROVE God will fail, so will any attempt to scientifically DISPROVE God. Such (proof or disproof) should not be the goal of any scientist. If one is "naive and stupid" then so is the other.
ID is not an attempt to prove God through science any more than evolution as an origin of the species is a scientific attempt to disprove God.
The last part i simply do not get at all. How are ID and the belief that the world was designed by an intelligence not the same thing? They are exactly the same thing. The former is simply a term used to describe those whose interpretation of current scientific data supports their belief.
Take it from a zoologist that there are no credible people in the biological community arguing against evolution. There is simply no alternative with any explanatory power.
The reason this religious type sees non-religious types as naive can be demonstrated in this metaphor:
If we locked you in a sensory proof room for one year (no sound, light, smell, etc.) and then let you out for one second only, could you predict very closely exactly what happened on the earth in the past year?
How is that any different from humans using the time they've existed to predict what's happened in billions and billions and billions of time prior?
Or better yet, would a scientist think a survey represented a statistically relevant sample if they only surveyed 1 person out of a billion?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I am sorry, but that is a poor analogy. Evolution is not about looking at whay we see today and suddenly becoming all knowing. (That would be more akin to a religous experience)
Evolution is about looking at what we see today, looking at what we see in the fossil record, looking at what we see in the genetic code and looking at what we see in the geological record and tying all of these things together into a theory of the progressive development of life on earth.
Evolution is the culmination of billions of hours of combined work, studying and comparing numerous fossils, live specimens and DNA. It is the result of similar amounts of time spent using accurate and confirmed dating methods to put this development into a timeline.
In short, the theory of evolution exists in the somewhat complete state that it is in today because of a lot of hard work. There is no magic, no wild guesses, just good science. It does not at all relate to the analogy you gave above...
A second is a bit extreme, however in a day science could come so much closer than religion at predicting anything that has happened on earth or will happen than any words in a bible written by the hand of a simple uneducated primitive man.
Science could show pretty much what the weather was like, how everything grew...heck the list is pretty large. Religion could do essentially zero in the same analogy.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
How many Hell Houses they got?
Not sure about the sources but I think this sums it up...
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11638
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Don't you mean a couple of thousands of years prior? Those early years were the best: no global warming, people lived to be 500 and little puppies rained from the sky.
I checked the source
GALLUP: One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible is Literally True
High inverse correlation between education and belief in a literal Bible
Good work!
There is no eleventh commandment which states "thou shalt not wank."
Isn't it covered by Lust? I just thought pr0n was a no-no.
perhaps this covers it.
thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to molech...
- leviticus 18:21.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think G W missed that part...
What about pass through the kleenex to toilet?
Gosh...Cate's pulling out those quotes tonight
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The molech being the?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
6th image...
http://www.crystalinks.com/bush_molech.jpg
...the world must be ending.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
"molech" is fruit platter with owl.
sheesh.
i'll never remember that.
Albanian?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I just took an interest in Bush's "Horns" salute that many think to be satanic *Cough* Alex *Cough* Jones. And I found out it's a "Hook 'em Horns" salute from a "Longhorns" sports team at the University of Texas.
http://home.kxan.com/nationalchampiontexaslonghorns/photos/photo12.jpg
Don't they realize it's also a salute to Molech the goat, considered satanic in Christianity?
molech was a divinity worshipped by the israelites.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say