Exerpts from Robert F. Smith's (of the ACLU) thesis titled Origins and Civil Liberties (http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v03n2p23.htm).

quote:For the past five years, I have closely followed creationist literature and have attended lectures and debates on related issues. A few recent examples will suffice: During the past academic year, Dr. Gary E. Parker, a biologist with the Institute for Creation Research, spoke twice at the Univ. of Missouri at Kansas City (26 Oct. 1979 and 28 Mar 1980). Dr. Duane T.. Gish, a biochemist and associate director of ICR, debated Dr. Vincent Sarich, an anthropologist from the Univ, of California at Berkeley, at the studios of TV-50 with a live audience (7 Mar 1980, Kansas City, KS), and the video tape has been shown nationwide. Dr. Gish and the Director of ICR, Dr. Henry Morris, each debated evolutionists on two campuses of the University of Missouri some years ago, and the debates are available on cassettes locally. Only a few days ago, ICR's Summer Institute on scientific creationism concluded at Calvary Bible College, Kansas City, Missouri.

Based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution. That this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in view of what most of us were taught in primary and secondary school. In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to debate the creationist professors. Too many of the evolutionists have been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory. The ACLU should, of course, be unconcerned with the results of such debates as long as the free market-place of ideas remains open. For, in all of these debates, creationists have been scrupulous to adhere to strict discussion of science alone. Not religion! Statements to the contrary are false.

Contrary to the allegations of one member of the National ACLU Church - State Committee, no creationist professors are seeking to "require public schools to offer courses and textbooks that support the literal Genesis account of creation." Nor can it be legitimately suggested that scientific creationists are "disguising fundamentalist religion in scientific jargon," or that they are working for some covert "advancement of sectarian religion," whatever personal beliefs most of them may have. Scientific creationism is not religious creationism. As legal scholar Wendell R. Bird points out, "Being consistent with religious views does not make it religion." In 1925, in Dayton, Tennessee, at a time and place where only religious creationism was legally taught, Clarence Darrow thought it "bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins" (Bird and Darrow quoted in Kansas City Times, Dec. 21,1978, p. 2E; cf. Scopes V. State, 154 Tenn. 105). Would the ACLU be any less bigoted were it to demand that a modern-day John T. Scopes be allowed to teach only neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory?

I am heartened to learn (if belatedly) that some members of the National ACLU Committee on Academic Freedom have reservations about the relevance to this issue of the establishment clause of the First Amendment (S. Hendel Addendum, June 9, 1980). Indeed, the de facto establishment of views on the ultimate nature of reality and the indoctrination of secondary school students (public and private) in only one view has been with us for some time. It is, of course, the scientific establishment that determines which view will be promulgated in public schools. Normative religion usually follows in the wake of that establishment in our own time, as in the time of Galileo Galilei.

Contrary to common assumption, Galileo was racked and forced to recant at the behest of the dogmatic, geocentric scientific establishment of his day (Ptolemaic). The Church had merely adopted the Ptolemaic assumptions, as it had Aristotelian and Platonic philosophies. The open society ought to include the broadest possible discussion of opposing views rather than demanding (coercing?) adherence to one narrow, totalist position. In practice, the dualmode approach to origins enhances education and confirms John Stuart Mill's notion that competing theories test and sharpen each other (On Liberty. chapter II).

In School District of Abington Township vs. Schempp, in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court left public schools open to far broader categories of instruction than even the creationists seek:

* the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." Zorach V. Clauson, supra, [343 U.S.] at 314.

Not only are "religious exercises" not a part of scientific creationism, but one cannot conceive of any reason for "study of the Bible or of religion" in connection with it. Not even indirectly even though the Supreme Court would clearly allow it.

Scientific creationism depends rather upon normative science for its justification, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), inductive analysis of geologic strata, embryology, anthropology, multivariate analysis of fossils (paleontology & comparative anatomy), probability theory, etc. The upshot is that, although evolutionists might have comparative molecular biology on their side, recent discoveries have convinced many eminent evolutionists that one cannot obtain self-replicating molecules (life) in the presence of all-pervasive entropy/disorder, that there are no known transitional fossils (two such "missing links," Nebraska and Piltdown Man, were offered as evidence of evolution at the Scopes Monkey Trial, but they later turned out to be hoaxes), and the geologic column is characterized by the sudden, unsystematic, and catastrophic entry and exit of various forms of life. In each case, the scientific model is a theoretical construct based on circumstantial evidence from the past. Neither evolution nor creation has ever been observed, nor are they currently testable (provable) in a laboratory. Neither model is, thus, based any more on "faith" than the other. Similar problems of determining and reconstructing origins exist for astrophysics, where "steady state" and "big bang" models have existed side-by-side for a long time. That one model should coincide with some religious view is irrelevant.

In line with Lemon vs. Kurtzman (403 U.S 602,614; cf. 374 U.S. 215-6,222, 226), the only allowable test for the introduction of any theory of origins into the science curriculum of the public schools must be a test of scientific merit - which alone provides purpose, secularity, and lack of entanglement with religion. Government must remain neutral, and religion can have no hand in that assessment of merit. Separation of Church & State remains unthreatened by the introduction of scientific creationism. On the other hand, proscribing the teaching of scientific creationism would certainly violate the spirit of Epperson vs. Arkansas in that a de facto anti-creationist position is permitted while an anti-evolution statute is struck down! No group, secular or religious, should have the right to pretend that an area of knowledge doesn’t exist simply because it is "deemed to conflict with a particular" scientific dogma (393 U.S. 103). The Law is a double-edged sword, and the "right of teachers and students to be free of arbitrary restrictions upon the educational process (Meyer V. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390) ought to be applied as readily to restrictions upon teaching creationism as to teaching evolution.

Religious creationism is rightly to be excluded from any public school system as for the Iowa Dept. of Public Instruction (Jan 1978 position paper), and for Tennessee in Daniel vs. Waters (515 F2d 485). However, the leading professional organizations of educators and scientists pushing scientific creationism, the Creation Research Society (CRS), and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), have never sought to introduce religious creationism into the public schools. Indeed, in a recent lecture at UMKC, one ICR scientist, Or. Gary Parker, came under fire from a fundamentalist Christian in the audience for not mentioning Jesus or the Bible. ICR scientists stick to science remarkably well, and it has always been ICR policy to use education and persuasion in convincing states and school districts to put creationism in the science curriculum not via litigation or compulsory legislation, which are counterproductive, but by resolution, endorsement, and adoption of dual-model texts. Creationist scientists in this country are generally confident that they can win acceptance for scientific creationism in open debate on the scientific issues alone. In my judgment, they have good reason for such confidence, and ought to be given a hearing by the ACLU before any policy decisions are made.

I am not an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian, and my fundamentalist friends do not consider me to be a "Christian." I have no ulterior motive for the above statements (am not connected in any way with ICR or CRS), unless it is the simple-minded notion that the ACLU should maintain the highest possible standards in the protection and expansion of civil liberties The ACLU must avoid the adoption of policies based on fallacious reasoning or on the hearing of only one side of an issue.

I agree with this guy 100%. Scientists and School Administrators that are threatened by scientific creationism (or ID) should reconsider their motives in preventing theories such as these access to the community at large.

I sense a deep insecurity and bigotry amongst the ranks of evolution science and their supporters.

EDIT: Forgot the resource link. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out, Beta.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-28-2006).]

Wow. Strawmen, and lying, and bullshit; Oh my! I'll try to go over this when I get a chance, but it'll be kinda hard, seeing as the author says nothing of signifigance, and just states the way he wishes things were.

From a legal perspective, he is absolutely right, and he cites the relevant court cases that set the precedents protecting the right of scientific creationism to have equal footing in the public school system.

Good luck refuting this, since he has a law degree, and is an accomplished lawyer.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

...and he cites the relevant court cases that set the precedents protecting the right of scientific creationism...



Too bad there's no such thing.

I wasn't referring to specifics. I was referring to Lemon vs. Kurtzman and School District of Abington Township vs. Schempp.

"Creationist scientists in this country are generally confident that they can win acceptance for scientific creationism in open debate on the scientific issues alone."

Bullshit. And they all know it.

Yes, a lawyer defending creationism as a science when he has no clue about science. In fact, what creationism does is playing the lawyer in science. Fabricating, twisting, lying. Nothing new here that's worth more than a eye-rolling smiley.

Reply to the excerpts,

Oh you left out,

-Robert E. Smith, "Origins and Civil Liberties," in Creation Social Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 3 (Winter 1980): 23-24.

quote:"In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to debate the creationist professors."

BS, well sort of. Plenty of scientists are willing to debate creationists (although many see it as a waste of time and giving creationists what they want, acknowledgment). Of course there are many that are unwilling to debate creationists verbally but would rather participate in a written debate (written debates are geared more towards science), yet many creationists have refused to participate in a written debate. Take Walt Brown who has constantly weaseled his way out of debates (even though he claims to be willing to debate anyone) and Hovind (drdino) will only participate in spoken debates.

In the end a debate doesn't normally prove which side is right but who is the better debater. Take Hovind, I have torn some of his papers apart and he doesn't have a factual (or honest) leg to stand on. But there would be no way I would participate in a spoken debate against him, he is charismatic and knows how to play the game. I would get beaten not because his side is stronger but because he is a better spoken debater.

quote:"disguising fundamentalist religion in scientific jargon,"

When was this written?

In the recent Dover case creationists were caught red-handed trying to pass off creationism as a more secular Intelligent Design.

quote:whatever personal beliefs most of them may have. Scientific creationism is not religious creationism. As legal scholar Wendell R. Bird points out, "Being consistent with religious views does not make it religion."

I would agree with him if it wasn't for the fact that most creationist groups require members to sign a statement of faith that says the literal bible is true no matter what the evidence suggests.

quote:Would the ACLU be any less bigoted were it to demand that a modern-day John T. Scopes be allowed to teach only neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory?

Where do we stop? Should all religions be allowed to teach their views of origin in science class?

quote:Scientific creationism depends rather upon normative science for its justification, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), inductive analysis of geologic strata, embryology, anthropology, multivariate analysis of fossils (paleontology & comparative anatomy), probability theory, etc.

So what? Just because a theory uses previous science (often incorrectly) or fields doesn't mean it's correct

quote:recent discoveries have convinced many eminent evolutionists that one cannot obtain self-replicating molecules (life) in the presence of all-pervasive entropy/disorder, that there are no known transitional fossils (two such "missing links," Nebraska and Piltdown Man, were offered as evidence of evolution at the Scopes Monkey Trial, but they later turned out to be hoaxes), and the geologic column is characterized by the sudden, unsystematic, and catastrophic entry and exit of various forms of life. In each case, the scientific model is a theoretical construct based on circumstantial evidence from the past.

Then he degrades into a standard PRATT list.

Who are these eminent evolutionists?

Why does he think abiogenesis is part of evolution?

Does he understand what entropy really means?

BS "there are no known transitional fossils."

Do creationists really need to drag out two mistake fossils that were never accepted by the scientific community as evidence against evolution? Is that all they have?

quote:Neither evolution nor creation has ever been observed, nor are they currently testable (provable) in a laboratory. Neither model is, thus, based any more on "faith" than the other.

I would question exactly what he means by "evolution" and "creationism"

Evolution has been observed both in and out of the laboratory.

quote:ICR scientists stick to science remarkably well, and it has always been ICR policy to use education and persuasion in convincing states and school districts to put creationism in the science curriculum not via litigation or compulsory legislation, which are counterproductive, but by resolution, endorsement, and adoption of dual-model texts.

If by stick to science well he means throws out any evidence that doesn't fit their preconcieved ideas, then I agree.



Oh no a law degree, that makes him untouchable.

Old outdated paper, some of his claims may have been true or unchecked 26 years ago but they aren't today. maybe try something a bit more recent.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

"Creationist scientists in this country are generally confident that they can win acceptance for scientific creationism in open debate on the scientific issues alone."

Bullshit. And they all know it.

Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research)

Do you see religious creationism anywhere on that site ?

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Yes, a lawyer defending creationism as a science when he has no clue about science. In fact, what creationism does is playing the lawyer in science. Fabricating, twisting, lying. Nothing new here that's worth more than a eye-rolling smiley.

He builds a solid case for the inclusion of all viable scientific theories in the public school system, based on the laws we govern ourself by.

He is not claiming he can prove creationism scientifically.

READ IT AGAIN.

DS:

Define "Religious creationism"

Tell me, how do we tell when something is a viable scientific theory?

Church scientists have also said in the past that the earth was the center of the universe, that your whole body goes to heaven (the distinction was only changed recently), and that the earth is flat.

I honestly don't believe in creationism or evolution at the moment (neutral position) and am studying both, but lets see what Science Confronts the Paranormal has to say.

quote:Science confronts the paranormal:

"1. The Bible says that the earth was created at the same time as the universe was (in the beginning, god created the heaven and the earth) with the whole process taking six days. In fact whereas the Earth was created at the beggining of creation, the Sun, Moon, and stars were not created till the fourth day."

quote:Science confronts the paranormal:



"2. The bible says that in the six days of creation the whole job was finished (Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day god ended his work which he had made)."



"The astronomer on the other hand thinks stars are still being formed now and planets and satellites along with them; and the stars will continue to form for billion of years to come."



quote:Science confronts the paranormal:

"The Bible says that human beings were created on the sixth day of creation, so that the earth was empty of human intellegance for 5 days only.

The biologist on the otherhand thinks the ealiest beings that were even vaguely human, didn't appear on the earth until well over 4 1/2 billion years after its creation."



I don't feel like typing more but I will later if I must...

Putting motives on the outcome of scientific expirements is disgusting and shouldn't be considered science because it is incredably bias. Science is fact, not bias lies or oppinion, at best creationism is a theory thats been proven wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Exerpts from Robert F. Smith's (of the ACLU) thesis titled Based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only a viable theory,

on what basis? how can a scientific theory be based around a non-falsifiable spagetti monster? and who is he do decide if it is scientifically valid? is he a scientist?

quote:...but that it has achieved parity with (if not superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution. That this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in view of what most of us were taught in primary and secondary school. In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to debate the creationist professors. Too many of the evolutionists have been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory. The ACLU should, of course, be unconcerned with the results of such debates as long as the free market-place of ideas remains open. For, in all of these debates, creationists have been scrupulous to adhere to strict discussion of science alone. Not religion! Statements to the contrary are false.



ok...anything to back those assersions up? if i turned in a paper or did a speach like this i would not get an a. there is no meat to it, no details...he just repeats the same thing.

quote:Contrary to the allegations of one member of the National ACLU Church - State Committee, no creationist professors are seeking to "require public schools to offer courses and textbooks that support the literal Genesis account of creation." Nor can it be legitimately suggested that scientific creationists are "disguising fundamentalist religion in scientific jargon," or that they are working for some covert "advancement of sectarian religion," whatever personal beliefs most of them may have. Scientific creationism is not religious creationism. As legal scholar Wendell R. Bird points out, "Being consistent with religious views does not make it religion." In 1925, in Dayton, Tennessee, at a time and place where only religious creationism was legally taught, Clarence Darrow thought it "bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins" (Bird and Darrow quoted in Kansas City Times, Dec. 21,1978, p. 2E; cf. Scopes V. State, 154 Tenn. 105). Would the ACLU be any less bigoted were it to demand that a modern-day John T. Scopes be allowed to teach only neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory?



if it has nothing to do with christianity, why are (nearly...i suppose there could be 1 or 2)all supporters of creationism religious?

why should a science classroom teach anything other than the leading scientific theory? should we teach high-school students about tesla's theories of gravity and electromagnetism? if the scientists change their mind at some point, then that is fine.

quote:I am heartened to learn (if belatedly) that some members of the National ACLU Committee on Academic Freedom have reservations about the relevance to this issue of the establishment clause of the First Amendment (S. Hendel Addendum, June 9, 1980). Indeed, the de facto establishment of views on the ultimate nature of reality and the indoctrination of secondary school students (public and private) in only one view has been with us for some time. It is, of course, the scientific establishment that determines which view will be promulgated in public schools. Normative religion usually follows in the wake of that establishment in our own time, as in the time of Galileo Galilei.

Contrary to common assumption, Galileo was racked and forced to recant at the behest of the dogmatic, geocentric scientific establishment of his day (Ptolemaic). The Church had merely adopted the Ptolemaic assumptions, as it had Aristotelian and Platonic philosophies. The open society ought to include the broadest possible discussion of opposing views rather than demanding (coercing?) adherence to one narrow, totalist position. In practice, the dualmode approach to origins enhances education and confirms John Stuart Mill's notion that competing theories test and sharpen each other (On Liberty. chapter II).



Title: FABRI DE PEIRESC'S QUEST FOR A METHOD TO CALCULATE TERRESTRIAL LONGITUDE , By: Tolbert, Jane T., Historian, 00182370, Summer99, Vol. 61, Issue 4

Database: Academic Search Premier





FABRI DE PEIRESC'S QUEST FOR A METHOD TO CALCULATE TERRESTRIAL LONGITUDE

The Roman Catholic Church of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries found itself beset by controversy on many fronts. The Protestant Reformation proved a serious threat to Church doctrine while the emerging scientific community challenged many of the Church's fundamental assumptions about humans, God, and the world. Basing its beliefs in the theories of Aristotle that the Earth was the pivot of the world around which the sun and all other heavenly bodies rotated, and the Biblical account of creation, the Church opposed the Copernican system that held that the Earth and other planets revolved about the sun. The injunction of 1616 promulgated by the Church, prohibited support of the Copernican propositions, condemned a pro-Copernican work by a Carmelite priest, and halted the publication of Copernicus's work pending changes. Furthermore, Cardinal Bellarmine instructed Galileo not to teach and publish on the Copernican system. In 1633, the Italian astronomer and mathematician Galileo was sentenced by the Inquisition for his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which he claimed to prove the mobility of the Earth with his so-called theory of the tides.(n1)

One of the most successful organizers of scientific inquiry was Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc (1580-1637), a member of the French nobility and an influential magistrate, who devoted much of his life to research, in the course of which he maintained correspondence networks across Europe and the Mediterranean world as a means of procuring and disseminating scientific information. This paper examines the ways in which Peiresc, a contemporary and friend of Galileo, managed to carry out astronomical observations at the very time when Galileo was condemned for the same activity. Peiresc not only received tacit permission from the Church but actively involved a number of Churchmen and missionaries as assistants and correspondents in his observations. Galileo's concern was with proof of the heliocentric system; he claimed to support the position of the Earth's mobility with astronomical observation and studies of ocean tides. This theory of the tides stated that the uneven daily movements of the Earth created the tides. His sentencing by the Inquisition was for insisting that the Copernican system was indeed a real, not hypothetical, system and that he had proof of the Earth's mobility...

at the end, it lists 62 sources.

yes, we should be teaching are kids critical thinking. unfortunately, we don't. not in any high school class.





quote:In School District of Abington Township vs. Schempp, in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court left public schools open to far broader categories of instruction than even the creationists seek:

* the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." Zorach V. Clauson, supra, [343 U.S.] at 314.

Not only are "religious exercises" not a part of scientific creationism, but one cannot conceive of any reason for "study of the Bible or of religion" in connection with it. Not even indirectly even though the Supreme Court would clearly allow it.

Scientific creationism depends rather upon normative science for its justification, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), inductive analysis of geologic strata, embryology, anthropology, multivariate analysis of fossils (paleontology & comparative anatomy), probability theory, etc. The upshot is that, although evolutionists might have comparative molecular biology on their side, recent discoveries have convinced many eminent evolutionists that one cannot obtain self-replicating molecules (life) in the presence of all-pervasive entropy/disorder,

too bad evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the origins of life. all of those scientific fields also support or are neutral with respect to evolution to my knowledge.

quote:that there are no known transitional fossils (two such "missing links," Nebraska and Piltdown Man, were offered as evidence of evolution at the Scopes Monkey Trial, but they later turned out to be hoaxes), and the geologic column is characterized by the sudden, unsystematic, and catastrophic entry and exit of various forms of life. In each case, the scientific model is a theoretical construct based on circumstantial evidence from the past. Neither evolution nor creation has ever been observed,

micro-evolution has been observed. the fossils are exactly as we would expect them to be givin that it is a rare occurace. if we found every species, we would have to come up with some new geologic theories!

quote:[/b]

nor are they currently testable (provable) in a laboratory. Neither model is, thus, based any more on "faith" than the other. Similar problems of determining and reconstructing origins exist for astrophysics, where "steady state" and "big bang" models have existed side-by-side for a long time. That one model should coincide with some religious view is irrelevant.

[/b]

steady state theory has virtually no support in the scientific theory. we can see radiation from the big bang all around as. evolution is supported by evidence and has a theoretical mechanism to bring it about. tetonic plate theory was not accepted until a mechanism for it to occur was devised, even though there was plenty of circumstancial evidence. creationism has no verafiable mechanism so far.

quote:

In line with Lemon vs. Kurtzman (403 U.S 602,614; cf. 374 U.S. 215-6,222, 226), the only allowable test for the introduction of any theory of origins into the science curriculum of the public schools must be a test of scientific merit - which alone provides purpose, secularity, and lack of entanglement with religion. Government must remain neutral, and religion can have no hand in that assessment of merit. Separation of Church & State remains unthreatened by the introduction of scientific creationism. On the other hand, proscribing the teaching of scientific creationism would certainly violate the spirit of Epperson vs. Arkansas in that a de facto anti-creationist position is permitted while an anti-evolution statute is struck down! No group, secular or religious, should have the right to pretend that an area of knowledge doesn’t exist simply because it is "deemed to conflict with a particular" scientific dogma (393 U.S. 103). The Law is a double-edged sword, and the "right of teachers and students to be free of arbitrary restrictions upon the educational process (Meyer V. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390) ought to be applied as readily to restrictions upon teaching creationism as to teaching evolution.



creationism is not knowledge. it is nothing but a scientific "god of the gaps"

"look, my computer just crashed, since i can't comprehend why or how, it must have been a hacker." is reflective of this type of logic.

quote:

Religious creationism is rightly to be excluded from any public school system as for the Iowa Dept. of Public Instruction (Jan 1978 position paper), and for Tennessee in Daniel vs. Waters (515 F2d 485). However, the leading professional organizations of educators and scientists pushing scientific creationism, the Creation Research Society (CRS), and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), have never sought to introduce religious creationism into the public schools. Indeed, in a recent lecture at UMKC, one ICR scientist, Or. Gary Parker, came under fire from a fundamentalist Christian in the audience for not mentioning Jesus or the Bible. ICR scientists stick to science remarkably well, and it has always been ICR policy to use education and persuasion in convincing states and school districts to put creationism in the science curriculum not via litigation or compulsory legislation, which are counterproductive, but by resolution, endorsement, and adoption of dual-model texts. Creationist scientists in this country are generally confident that they can win acceptance for scientific creationism in open debate on the scientific issues alone. In my judgment, they have good reason for such confidence, and ought to be given a hearing by the ACLU before any policy decisions are made.



ok ,the crs has nothing to do with christianity. thats why they have this at the top of their website:"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

and your right about the icr too. hears what they have to say:

We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5).

quote:

I am not an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian, and my fundamentalist friends do not consider me to be a "Christian." I have no ulterior motive for the above statements (am not connected in any way with ICR or CRS), unless it is the simple-minded notion that the ACLU should maintain the highest possible standards in the protection and expansion of civil liberties The ACLU must avoid the adoption of policies based on fallacious reasoning or on the hearing of only one side of an issue.

Origins and Civil Liberties.

[/b]

i propose that either this guy is religious, or really needs to investigate what he is talking about before giving a speach about it. but the real issue is is he a scientist. no? i didn't think so.

quote:I agree with this guy 100%. Scientists and School Administrators that are threatened by scientific creationism (or ID) should reconsider their motives in preventing theories such as these access to the community at large.

I sense a deep insecurity and bigotry amongst the ranks of evolution science and their supporters.



id does not threaten scientifc theory because it is not scientific. the proponents he claimed to be unbiased clearly were. if he was a serious scholar, he would have checked his sources first. he is either a liar, a hypocrite, a a dumbass.

it also brings your own integrity into question for not checking what the article was saying before believing it.



please respond...but don't forget to respond to all of my points. you have the tendancy to pick out the parts you want to refute, and leave the rest. honestly, i'd really like to see how you weasle your way out of this one.



[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 04-27-2006).]

Also I'd like to add to that last post, that evolution, although it has a few flaws in my oppinion, has genetics supporting it. Can you give me genetics, math formulas or physics supporting creationism?

Incredable claims require incredable proof.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research)

Do you see religious creationism anywhere on that site ?



how bout you link them to the front page?

http://www.icr.org/

i thought deception was against christian morals. i guess not when you are misleading people into believing your point of view, eh?

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:



i thought deception was against christian morals. i guess not when you are misleading people into believing your point of view, eh?



kenwih, without bending and twisting the original bible no-one with half a brain would believe. As I said above until recently the church held several beliefs (given above) proven beyond a doubt false. Creationism, I predict, will be one of those things in 100 years. Also the bible in talking about creationism, clearly says false things. Was the earth created before the sun and the moon? No, the Bible says it was. Were Humans "created" before other life on earth? No, the bible says it was. Also like I said the earth is not the center of the universe, just as humans were not the first creature on earth.



quote:We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5).

You just proved me right Digital Savior, that is about as valid as Nazism research on the superior race.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 04-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Reply to the excerpts,

Oh you left out,

-Robert E. Smith, "Origins and Civil Liberties," in Creation Social Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 3 (Winter 1980): 23-24.

Did I have to....? I gave the link to the article, which includes that information. I didn't quote every single thing he said, either.

I hardly see how that matters. *blinks*

quote:BS, well sort of. Plenty of scientists are willing to debate creationists (although many see it as a waste of time and giving creationists what they want, acknowledgment). Of course there are many that are unwilling to debate creationists verbally but would rather participate in a written debate (written debates are geared more towards science), yet many creationists have refused to participate in a written debate. Take Walt Brown who has constantly weaseled his way out of debates (even though he claims to be willing to debate anyone) and Hovind (drdino) will only participate in spoken debates.

"For good or ill, the late Stephen Jay Gould had a huge influence on American scientific culture, and on balance the good came out on top. His powerful voice will echo on for a long time. Although he and I disagreed about much, we shared much, too, including a spellbound delight in the wonders of the natural world and a passionate conviction that such wonders deserve nothing less than a purely natural explanation.

Another thing about which we agreed was our refusal to engage in public debates with creationists. Steve had even more reason that me to be irritated by them. They distorted the theory of punctuated equilibrium so that it appeared to support their preposterous (but astonishingly common) belief that there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Gould's reply deserves to be widely known:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-whether through design or stupidity, I do not know-as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.1

Sometime in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would "win" the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public that is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr. So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation, you will be accused of cowardice or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science." Source (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/)

"It is no wonder that many biologists will simply refuse to debate creationists or I.D.ers," she said, using the abbreviation for intelligent design, a cousin of creationism. "It is as if they aren't

listening." Source (http://www.parentdirectededucation.org/Evolution.htm)

Someone made a very good point on his blog:

"That may seem counterintuitive in light of recent legal and public-relations setbacks suffered by critics of Darwinism -- notably a federal judge's decision forbidding the teaching of "Intelligent Design" (a term for one aspect of the anti-Darwin critique) in Dover, Pa., public schools. But it is a sign of weakness, not strength, when one side in an ostensibly scientific debate resorts to silencing the other. If the case for Darwin is such a slam-dunk, why not welcome the chance for its opponents to make fools of themselves?"

There is an obvious, and blatant, disdain for any scientist that supports scientific creationism, such as the scientist's over at the ICR. This is a pathetic scapegoat on the part of the evolutionary community.

Essentially, they are claiming ID to be a pseudo-science, so it is therefore acceptable for them to ignore it altogether.

If you recall, Darwinian evolution went through the same kind of rebuffing when it was introduced.

As for Walt Brown and Dr. Kent Hovind, you are making a comparison where there is no comparison to be had. You cite TWO people that represent creationism, who have supposedly refused to debate in written form (a contention I am not going to refute here, because that is not the purpose of this thread), but I am talking about a whole COMMUNITY of scientists that refuse to give any credence, whatsoever, to the theory of Intelligent Design (i.e. scientific creationism).

Scientific creationism is as valid a theory as Darwinian evolution, and the fact that it is being rebuffed instead of outright refuted tells me that the evolutionary community at large has something to fear.

Mr. Smith makes an excellent case for the inclusion of scientific creationism in public school curriculae. Please debate that, as this thread isn't about proving creationism.

quote:In the end a debate doesn't normally prove which side is right but who is the better debater. Take Hovind, I have torn some of his papers apart and he doesn't have a factual (or honest) leg to stand on. But there would be no way I would participate in a spoken debate against him, he is charismatic and knows how to play the game. I would get beaten not because his side is stronger but because he is a better spoken debater.

How kind of you to admit that. What you claim doesn't bear any relevance to this thread, and it is certainly nothing worth basing your argument on, as it is all personal opinion.

Deal with the legal aspects, please.

quote:When was this written?

In the recent Dover case creationists were caught red-handed trying to pass off creationism as a more secular Intelligent Design.

It IS dated, mind you. But you should have known that, since you made it a point to show me that I didn't include the total header of the article, which shows the year as 1980.

Many things have changed since this dissent was written, but the legal aspects are very much the same.

quote:I would agree with him if it wasn't for the fact that most creationist groups require members to sign a statement of faith that says the literal bible is true no matter what the evidence suggests.

Scientists on either side of the spectrum aren't allowed to have personal religious beliefs ? if they sign these documents, it is of their own free will. They don't have to.

Also, I have never heard of such a thing (doesn't mean it isn't true). Can you please start backing up your claims with evidence ? I hardly see why I should have to run around confirming your information. I spend enough time providing sources for my own material.

quote:Where do we stop? Should all religions be allowed to teach their views of origin in science class?

Where does what stop ? Scientific creationism hasn't been allowed to "begin." It is a valid theory, just like any other, and it is ridiculous to ostracize it the way the evolutionary community does.

This argument is less about religion, and more about science. A belief system is a belief system, and evolution demands the same flavor of "faith" that scientific creationism does.

quote:So what? Just because a theory uses previous science (often incorrectly) or fields doesn't mean it's correct

Then it is the burden of scientific peers to refute the application of "old science" to the modern theory of creationism. Since they have largely refused to do that, there is no hope of fair treatment.

May I remind you that Evolution uses "old science," too. It is arguable that they, too, use is incorrectly.

So, I ask you, where does it end ?

Also, I don't think you read that right, because it gave no markers for the age of the sciences being used. His point is that scientific creationists use science, in the same ways evolutionists do.

quote:Then he degrades into a standard PRATT list.

Who are these eminent evolutionists?

Why does he think abiogenesis is part of evolution?

Does he understand what entropy really means?

BS "there are no known transitional fossils."

Do creationists really need to drag out two mistake fossils that were never accepted by the scientific community as evidence against evolution? Is that all they have?

The information I have is the information I provided. There aren't volumes of text written on his personal understanding of the sciences applied to creationist theory. He is giving a broad overview, based on what he has reviewed. This dissent is in opposition to the assertion that there are no legal grounds by which scientific creationism can enter into the public school curriculae. If I am reading his tone correctly, he is trying to convince the powers that be within the ACLU to stop representing those that wish to silence scientific creationism.

quote:I would question exactly what he means by "evolution" and "creationism"

Evolution has been observed both in and out of the laboratory.

Evolution: We have not seen a single celled organism evolve into a higher life form.

Creation: We did not see God create the universe.

I personally do not beileve that evolution has been observed anywhere, and many agree. Again, I am not here to debate the validity of creationism. I am here to illustrate that what the evolutionary and legal communities are doing by blackballing REAL scientific studies on creation is illegal, and bigoted, at best.

quote:If by stick to science well he means throws out any evidence that doesn't fit their preconcieved ideas, then I agree.

If by peer review you mean not giving any sort of chance for creationists to make their case, then I agree with Mr. Smith.

You are parroting the very same rhetoric of the world's most renowned evolutionary scientists. "It's pseudo-science, so we don't HAVE to refute it."

What a copout.

quote:Oh no a law degree, that makes him untouchable.

It sure as hell doesn't, but it's laughable when some 16 year old kid tries to claim that he's an idiot, and has no right to dissent on legal matters pertaining to creationism.

quote:Old outdated paper, some of his claims may have been true or unchecked 26 years ago but they aren't today. maybe try something a bit more recent.

You have failed to provide an argument that would render this paper unusable.

Try something a bit more speculative, and less opinionated.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:



how bout you link them to the front page?

http://www.icr.org/

i thought deception was against christian morals. i guess not when you are misleading people into believing your point of view, eh?

I have many things I would like to call you right now, but for the sake of brevity, I will point out that I linked you people to the RESEARCH PAGE, which contains the SCIENCE that you claim doesn't exist.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

quote:Did I have to....? I gave the link to the article, which includes that information. I didn't quote every single thing he said, either.

I hardly see how that matters. *blinks*

You did? I don't see the link. The point is the article is from 1980 and is quite dated on both its scientific and legal claims.

quote:If the case for Darwin is such a slam-dunk, why not welcome the chance for its opponents to make fools of themselves?"

There is an obvious, and blatant, disdain for any scientist that supports scientific creationism, such as the scientist's over at the ICR. This is a pathetic scapegoat on the part of the evolutionary community.

IDists and creationists have constantly made fools of themselves before, why should we sacrifice children's education (something already lacking) just to prove a point? As the most recent court case has shown the point is to try and teach religion in science.

I agree there is a disdain for scientists that support creationism, it doesn't come from some sort of evil conspiracy or the worry that creationism is true but from the willingness to lie and distort science for supposed religious beliefs. There is a disdain for the guy who sells "cures they don't want you to know about" and other scam books, doesn't mean the books are right. Although many pseudo-science groups play on peoples willingness to side with the underdog or against the supposed corrupt system.

quote:As for Walt Brown and Dr. Kent Hovind, you are making a comparison where there is no comparison to be had. You cite TWO people that represent creationism, who have supposedly refused to debate in written form (a contention I am not going to refute here, because that is not the purpose of this thread), but I am talking about a whole COMMUNITY of scientists that refuse to give any credence, whatsoever, to the theory of Intelligent Design (i.e. scientific creationism).

I never said they represent all of creationism but they were examples of a bigger issue. Again there are many scientists that do debate creationists and many creationists who refuse written debates.

quote:Scientific creationism is as valid a theory as Darwinian evolution, and the fact that it is being rebuffed instead of outright refuted tells me that the evolutionary community at large has something to fear.

bullshit (yes in bold to get the point across) creationism hasn't provided near the support that evolution has, there are a couple of large groups that were made to refute creationism. The NCSE was established to refute creationism and the push to teach religion in science.

Many creationist claims have been outright refuted, even in this forum, the fact you leave the thread or distort the refutations to hide from them is not my problem, nor should it be our childrens.

quote:How kind of you to admit that. What you claim doesn't bear any relevance to this thread, and it is certainly nothing worth basing your argument on, as it is all personal opinion.

Deal with the legal aspects, please.

Sure it has relevance. The article tried to use the supposed fact that scientists don't debate creationists as a reason they are treating creationism unfairly, but the truth is a debate does not always prove an argument right or wrong.

What legal aspects exactly?

quote:It IS dated, mind you. But you should have known that, since you made it a point to show me that I didn't include the total header of the article, which shows the year as 1980.

Many things have changed since this dissent was written, but the legal aspects are very much the same.

Yes I do know that but only after I wrote that question, and apparently didn't remove it.

why didn't you include the date of 1980?

quote:Scientists on either side of the spectrum aren't allowed to have personal religious beliefs ? if they sign these documents, it is of their own free will. They don't have to.

Also, I have never heard of such a thing (doesn't mean it isn't true). Can you please start backing up your claims with evidence ? I hardly see why I should have to run around confirming your information. I spend enough time providing sources for my own material.

First of all I didn't say scientists aren't allowed to have beliefs. Peer review journals shouldn't have beliefs. If I saw a peer review journal that said you must believe in atheism to be published in the journal I would call it BS. Many creationist groups require members to say creationism and the bible are true before they are allowed to publish information under that group.

AHAHAHAhAHA so ironic I love it. You want me to start backing up my claims. Ahahaha.

I believe I have actually given these sources to both you and Hyroglyph before, did you just ignore them?

Ok,

AIG's statement of faith,

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

ICR,

"ICR believes: ...

"[the bible is] infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological."

"All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false." http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=faq

ICR is less blatant than AIG however we can see they choose the bible first and are willing to ignore anything that contradicts this.

quote:Where does what stop ? Scientific creationism hasn't been allowed to "begin." It is a valid theory, just like any other, and it is ridiculous to ostracize it the way the evolutionary community does.

Where does allowing the "fair" teaching of origins stop? How many religions do we include?

You keep saying it's a valid theory but so far no creationist in any other thread has proven this. Creationism has not been submitted to proper peer review journals and shown valid. What makes it valid?

quote:Then it is the burden of scientific peers to refute the application of "old science" to the modern theory of creationism. Since they have largely refused to do that, there is no hope of fair treatment.

Another BS claim. He brings up entropy. The way creationists distort the 2LoT to provide supposed evidence against evolution (not for creationism) has been beaten to death in this forum and everywhere else.

quote:Also, I don't think you read that right, because it gave no markers for the age of the sciences being used. His point is that scientific creationists use science, in the same ways evolutionists do.

No they don't. I've shown where creationists have ignored and distort data in other threads, I've also shown where creationists admit they ignore data.

The proper way to use science is not to ignore anything that contradicts your preconceived conclusion.

quote:I personally do not beileve that evolution has been observed anywhere, and many agree. Again, I am not here to debate the validity of creationism. I am here to illustrate that what the evolutionary and legal communities are doing by blackballing REAL scientific studies on creation is illegal, and bigoted, at best.

Then you are either misunderstanding evolution or would be wrong.

So far you haven't illustrated the blackballing whatso ever. The article just states "it's bigotry" yet doesn't support it. It did not provide any evidence evolution or scientists are anti-religion, the closest you can get is to say evolution and scientists are against falsified theories about the origin of the species that are also believed by religious groups. But if we take that road then teaching a spherical earth is bigoted against those that believe the earth is flat.

quote:It sure as hell doesn't, but it's laughable when some 16 year old kid tries to claim that he's an idiot, and has no right to dissent on legal matters pertaining to creationism.

Hope you aren't suggesting I'm 16 (I'm not) or that just because someone is 16 they should be ignored if they have a point (they shouldn't).

quote:Try something a bit more speculative, and less opinionated.

The problem is your outdated paper is mainly opinion, he doesn't provide any solid evidence for creationism being taught in school. You ignore 26 years of research and legal development as well.

as predicted, DS was unable to reply to even one of my points. tell you what DS, i'll make it easy on you, just reply to this one point, which basically invalidates the entire article because it proves the ID 'scientists' are not neutral, but have an agenda, while the article jumps through hoops to deceptively paint the organizations as pure science.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

ok ,the crs has nothing to do with christianity. thats why they have this at the top of their website:"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

and your right about the icr too. hears what they have to say:

We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5).





quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have many things I would like to call you right now, but for the sake of brevity, I will point out that I linked you people to the RESEARCH PAGE, which contains the SCIENCE that you claim doesn't exist.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)



the point is that they are biased toward biblical creationism. this goes against the article you posted which asserts that they are not biased and using pure science to explore the possiblity of intelligent design. it claims that they don't refer to the bible, but what about this:

"In addition to a firm commitment to creationism and to full Biblical inerrancy and authority, the ICR Graduate School is committed to traditional education and to high standards of academic excellence. Each student's graduate program will consist predominantly of classroom lecture courses, with interaction between instructors and students, plus a research investigation and M.S. thesis. ICR's highly qualified and experienced faculty is in itself assurance of a rigorous and creative educational experience for its graduates, equipping them both for productive careers in their chosen fields and for making a significant contribution to the ongoing worldwide revival of theistic creationism. "

a scientist can't take this standpoint. with each experiment and investigation, a true scientist tries to analyze the data objectively. this is clearly not the case with these organizations.



if you think you can understand and explain how this research supports creationism, go ahead.

quote:

In School District of Abington Township vs. Schempp, in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court left public schools open to far broader categories of instruction than even the creationists seek:

* the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." Zorach V. Clauson, supra, [343 U.S.] at 314.

Not only are "religious exercises" not a part of scientific creationism, but one cannot conceive of any reason for "study of the Bible or of religion" in connection with it. Not even indirectly even though the Supreme Court would clearly allow it.

He has ignored the statement that directly follows that quotation. It reads, "Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person."

1. "Intelligent Design" (ID) is inherently connected with Christian creationism, Its greatest proponents, believe in the Christian god, and have repeatedly expressed the intent to further Christian beliefs if ID manages to take hold in the education system.

As Judge Jones showed in his decision on the issue of ID in the Dover district:

"The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as "Governing Goals" to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." (P-140 at 4). In addition, and as previously noted, the Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." Id. at 6. The IDM accordingly seeks nothing less than a complete scientific revolution in which ID will supplant evolutionary theory." - The Decision of the court in KITZMILLER v. DOVER (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf)

It is clearly evident that ID is Christian creationism in disguise, and any attempts to insert it in a Science class room would violate the Lemon test, the Endorsement test, as well as the statements made in the Zorach V. Clauson ruling, which Smith cites.

2. ID is also not Science; hence the issue of inserting it in a Science classroom, would still exist, even in the advent that it were not an inherently religious position ( a fact which as been established above).

Again, to cite Judge Jones ruling on the very issue:

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth. (9:21-22 (Haught ); 1:63 (Miller)). In deliberately omitting theological or "ultimate" explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world. (9:21 (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock))."



quote:In line with Lemon vs. Kurtzman (403 U.S 602,614; cf. 374 U.S. 215-6,222, 226), the only allowable test for the introduction of any theory of origins into the science curriculum of the public schools must be a test of scientific merit - which alone provides purpose, secularity, and lack of entanglement with religion. Government must remain neutral, and religion can have no hand in that assessment of merit. Separation of Church & State remains unthreatened by the introduction of scientific creationism.

Teaching ID is not on line with the Lemon Test - it is in direct contradiction of it. Presumably this uneducated statement stems from the fact that Smith was ignorant of the blatantly Christian position of ID proponents (which is extremely possible given that the article is over 25 years old!).

Like Judge Jones points out, the evidence clearly supports the belief that the ID movement is a front for Christian beliefs. To add to the other statement quoted previously:

"If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this,...We call our strategy the "wedge." -- Phillip Johnson. "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds". 1997.

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God. . . . The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ. . . . And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view. . . . It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world" -- William Dembski

It is clear that to a third-party observer - one possessing more knowledge of the issue than an average individual (Modrovich, 385 F.3d at 407) - the ID movement has with it clear Christian motivations, which the very proponents of the issue have made clear.

Promoting ID would be a direct violation of the Lemon Test, as it would it would 'have the primary effect of either advancing religion' - it certainly is not "in line" with it at all. Again, I assume this terribly mistaken statement of Smith's is product of his ignorance (acceptable given how long ago he made it) of the motivations of those who are promoting ID primarily.

nicely put rust

Here's my take on it:

I agree that both evolutionary thought and creationism should be taught. The fact of the matter is, neither can be confirmed with Newtonian precision, and therefore, its tentative nature should be continually examined and re-examined until a satisfactory relationship between mechanisms and evidence correlate. However, it may surprise you to know that I don't think that theology should be taught alongside science... At least not in a classroom setting that is devoted to the matters of science. To me, creationism merely says, "Looking at the natural evidence, it seems that there is a greater drama that lies underneath the material, and we shouldn't deny the possibility of such." But, I don't think in public schools that we should be forced to side, or even present any given dogma.

As I've said before: Is it true that most creationsts are Christian? Probably. But they shouldn't have to apologize for that. Any scientist, or any human being for that matter, has the unalienable right to ascribe to any belief they want without hindrance. I mean, we don't even have to give this Creator a name. Many of the early naturalists didn't even believe in a personal God. They simply reasoned that life is too perfectly situated to sustain itself by mere natural means. So, let theology and science meet in another setting. Silencing the staunch fact that life behaves in a manner that indicates a higher level of intelligence is not the route to go. That's a bunch of bull excrement.

With having said that, ICR, AIG, or whatever other website doesn't have to apologize for their beliefs either. That isn't a public school, its a website, and they have the freedom of speech. For as much as I disagree with ACLU on many matters, or TalkOrigins, I would never silence their right to an unabridged freedom of speech.

To do so is to undermine the very fabric of American ideals.

I suppose we should teach the theory of a geocentric solar system, as heliocentrism is just a theory. I mean, we haven't been to the outermost part of the solar system to actually witness the earth rotating around the sun, so geocentrism is just as plausible as heliocentrism.

/17th century Christian rhetoric http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 04-28-2006).]

quote:please respond...but don't forget to respond to all of my points. you have the tendancy to pick out the parts you want to refute, and leave the rest. honestly, i'd really like to see how you weasle your way out of this one.

I do ? Hmmm...no, I don't think so.

You can either take this back, because it is a falsehood, or you can get used to receiving no response from me.

It's your choice.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

as predicted, DS was unable to reply to even one of my points. tell you what DS, i'll make it easy on you, just reply to this one point, which basically invalidates the entire article because it proves the ID 'scientists' are not neutral, but have an agenda, while the article jumps through hoops to deceptively paint the organizations as pure science.

Don't talk to me like that. I had to go to COLLEGE.

Yeah, that's right, I have a life outside of totse.

I will reply when I have the time.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I will reply when I have the time.

Yep, you said the same thing to me, and you never replied. Stop with the excuses, we all have lives outside TOTSE.

[This message has been edited by Adrenochrome (edited 04-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Here's my take on it:

I agree that both evolutionary thought and creationism should be taught. The fact of the matter is, neither can be confirmed with Newtonian precision, and therefore, its tentative nature should be continually examined and re-examined until a satisfactory relationship between mechanisms and evidence correlate. However, it may surprise you to know that I don't think that theology should be taught alongside science... At least not in a classroom setting that is devoted to the matters of science. To me, creationism merely says, "Looking at the natural evidence, it seems that there is a greater drama that lies underneath the material, and we shouldn't deny the possibility of such." But, I don't think in public schools that we should be forced to side, or even present any given dogma.

As I've said before: Is it true that most creationsts are Christian? Probably. But they shouldn't have to apologize for that. Any scientist, or any human being for that matter, has the unalienable right to ascribe to any belief they want without hindrance. I mean, we don't even have to give this Creator a name. Many of the early naturalists didn't even believe in a personal God. They simply reasoned that life is too perfectly situated to sustain itself by mere natural means. So, let theology and science meet in another setting. Silencing the staunch fact that life behaves in a manner that indicates a higher level of intelligence is not the route to go. That's a bunch of bull excrement.

With having said that, ICR, AIG, or whatever other website doesn't have to apologize for their beliefs either. That isn't a public school, its a website, and they have the freedom of speech. For as much as I disagree with ACLU on many matters, or TalkOrigins, I would never silence their right to an unabridged freedom of speech.

To do so is to undermine the very fabric of American ideals.





well, i more or less agree with you...except that creationism is not science and should not be taught in a science classroom.

DS...you think you are special because you went to school? wtf? it's obvious to any regular to this forum that you pick and choose what you want to respond to. if you want to defend your support of this article, then respond to my comments.



im in college too. i also work full time. in fact i am very busy right now at the end of the semster and have twenty pages to write in the next four days...but somehow i still have time to refute your posts.

why don't you stop making excuses and respond to my posts? until you do i, and everyone else, will assume that i am right and you are wrong.

edit: i like how you omitted and refused to respond to my quote of myself. that makes twice you couldn't come up with an answer to my question. once again, what does it mean that 'scientists' think like this:

Originally posted by kenwih:

quote:the crs has nothing to do with christianity. thats why they have this at the top of their website:"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

and your right about the icr too. hears what they have to say:

We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5)





now please, try to be intellectually honest with us and yourself. think about these issues and respond honestly and completely. if you don't, you only prove your deception and bias.



[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 04-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research)

Do you see religious creationism anywhere on that site ?

quote: BY ICR:

ICR believes:

1. The Creator of the universe is a triune God -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.

2. The Bible consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

3. All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.

4. The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education) but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence of sin.

5. The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and the fall of man, the curse on the creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal, man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government), and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.

6. The alienation of man from his Creator because of sin can only be remedied by the Creator Himself, who became man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, through miraculous conception and virgin birth. In Christ were indissolubly united perfect sinless humanity and full deity, so that His substitutionary death is the only necessary and sufficient price of man's redemption. That the redemption was completely efficacious is assured by His bodily resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven; the resurrection of Christ is thus the focal point of history, assuring the consummation of God's purposes in creation.

7. The final restoration of creation's perfection is yet future, but individuals can immediately be restored to fellowship with their Creator, on the basis of His redemptive work on their behalf, receiving forgiveness and eternal life solely through personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, accepting Him not only as estranged Creator but also as reconciling Redeemer and coming King. Those who reject Him, however, or who neglect to believe on Him, thereby continue in their state of rebellion and must ultimately be consigned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

8. The eventual accomplishment of God's eternal purposes in creation, with the removal of His curse and the restoration of all things to divine perfection, will take place at the personal bodily return to earth of Jesus Christ to judge and purge sin and to establish His eternal kingdom.

9. Each believer should participate in the "ministry of reconciliation," by seeking both to bring individuals back to God in Christ (the "Great Commission") and to "subdue the earth" for God's glory (the Edenic-Noahic Commission). The three institutions established by the Creator for the implementation of His purposes in this world (home, government, church) should be honored and supported as such.



Yes, yes I do.



[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 04-28-2006).]

Yay another evolution/creationism thread... oh wait. No one cares.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

[QUOTE]

Yes, yes I do.

Ok, I meant in the research, not the whole site. *sighs*

Investment trusts are companies that invest in the shares of other companies for the purpose of acting as a collective investment scheme.

Investors' money is pooled together from the sale of a fixed number of shares a trust issues when it launches. The board will typically delegate responsibility to a professional fund manager to invest in the stocks and shares of a wide range of companies (more than most people could practically invest in themselves). The investment trust often has no employees, only a board of directors comprising only non-executive directors. However in recent years this has started to change, especially with the emergence of both private equity groups and commercial property trusts both of which sometimes use investment trusts as a holding vehicle.

Investment trusts are traded on stock exchanges like other public companies. The share price does not always reflect the underlying value of the share portfolio held by the investment trust. In such cases, the investment trust is referred to as trading at a discount (or premium) to NAV (net asset value).

The investment trust sector, in particular split capital investment trusts suffered somewhat from around 2000 to 2003 when the creation of a compensation scheme resolved some problems. Today (October 2005) the sector is relatively healthy although care should be taken in trust selection, as with any other investment

Contents [hide]

1 History

2 Split Capital Investment Trusts

3 See also

4 External links





[edit]

History

The first investment trust was started in 1868 by F&C. The Foreign & Colonial Investment Trust plc objective was 'to give the investor of moderate means the same advantages as the large capitalists in diminishing the risk of spreading the investment over a number of stocks'. As well as being the oldest investment trust, it is now also the largest global growth investment trust in the world and still open to investment. It currently owns shares in more than 500 companies in 30 different countries. (Source: F&C).

[edit]

Split Capital Investment Trusts

Traditional 'Investment Trusts' normally offer only one type of share (ordinary shares) and have an unlimited life. Split Capital Investment Trusts have a more complicated structure. Splits issue different classes of share to give the investor a choice of shares to match their needs. Most Splits have a limited life determined at launch known as the wind-up date. Typically the life of a Split Capital Trust is five to ten years.

Every Split Capital Trust will have at least two classes of share:

In order of (typical) priority and increasing risk

Zero Dividend Preference shares - no dividends, only capital growth at a pre-established redemption price(assuming sufficient assets)

Income shares - entitiled to most (or all) of the income generated from the assets of a trust until the wind-up date, with some capital protection

Annuity Income shares - very high and rising yield, but virtually no capital protection

Ordinary Income shares (aka Income & Residual Capital shares)- a high income and a share of the remaining assets of the trust after prior ranking shares

Capital shares - entitiled most (or all) of the remaining assets after prior ranking share classes have been paid; very high risk

The type of share you invest in is ranked in a predetermined order of priority, which becomes important when the trust reaches its wind-up date. If the Split has acquired any debt, debentures or loan stock, then this is paid out first, before any shareholders. Next in line to be repaid are Zero Dividend Preference shares, followed by any Income shares and then Capital. Although this order of priority is the most common way shares are paid out at the wind-up date, it may alter slightly from trust to trust.

Splits may also issue Packaged Units combining certain classes of share, usually reflecting the share classes in the trust usually in the same ratio. This makes them essentially the same investment as an ordinary share in a conventional Investment Trust.

I will now examine Digital_Savior's Source

quote:Their Own Version of a Big Bang

Those who believe in creationism -- children and adults -- are being taught to challenge evolution's tenets in an in-your-face way.

By Stephanie Simon

Times Staff Writer

February 11, 2006

WAYNE, N.J. — Evangelist Ken Ham smiled at the 2,300 elementary students packed into pews, their faces rapt. With dinosaur puppets and silly cartoons, he was training them to reject much of geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology as a sinister tangle of lies.

"Boys and girls," Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, "you put your hand up and you say, 'Excuse me, were you there?' Can you remember that?"



No, which is why we have scientists who study fossils, use carbon dating methodes, study layers of earth etc. in order to determine the age of fossils ect. You can do carbon dating yourself with the proper meterials so you can see for yourself if its true, if you blindly listen to someone then your no better that a Nazi soldier who chooses not to think for himself.

quote:

The children roared their assent.

"Sometimes people will answer, 'No, but you weren't there either,' " Ham told them.

No that is not how I answered now is it? Stereotyping other people is not scientific, it is also stupid to blindly label people, once again this can be compared to the nazi's anti-seminism, it is false research with the intent to harm other people's reputation and assualt them with flat out lies.

quote:

"Then you say, 'No, I wasn't, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.' " He waved his Bible in the air.



The bible, once again lets look at the bible's view on creationism, and how to compares to science....

Science confronts the paranormal:

"1. The Bible says that the earth was created at the same time as the universe was (in the beginning, god created the heaven and the earth) with the whole process taking six days. In fact whereas the Earth was created at the beggining of creation, the Sun, Moon, and stars were not created till the fourth day."

Does anyone see a problem with this already?

Science confronts the paranormal:

"2. The bible says that in the six days of creation the whole job was finished (Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day god ended his work which he had made)."

"The astronomer on the other hand thinks stars are still being formed now and planets and satellites along with them; and the stars will continue to form for billion of years to come."

Science confronts the paranormal:

"The Bible says that human beings were created on the sixth day of creation, so that the earth was empty of human intellegance for 5 days only.

The biologist on the otherhand thinks the ealiest beings that were even vaguely human, didn't appear on the earth until well over 4 1/2 billion years after its creation."

The church has known to be wrong as pointed out earlier:

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Church scientists have also said in the past that the earth was the center of the universe, that your whole body goes to heaven (the distinction was only changed recently), and that the earth is flat.



quote:

"Who's the only one who's always been there?" Ham asked.

"God!" the boys and girls shouted.



This is PURELY SUPERSTISION. There is NO PROOF AT ALL. In NO WAY is this science, the way he is leading these children is comparable to a cult leader leading innocents astray.

quote:

"Who's the only one who knows everything?"

"God!"



This is disgusting and immoral, I almost feel sick that those people are being taught to FORCEFULLY REJECT ALL ASPECTS OF SCIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE.

quote:

"So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?"

The children answered with a thundering: "God!"



He just taught, hoards of blind followers, to ignore reason, science, and knowledge. This distresses me to no end. Is there a difference between your run of a mill cult and christianity?

The cult checklist:

A checklist, allegedly based on empirical research, was made by professor Eileen Barker, in which traits of groups that can evolve to be dangerous are described. These traits include:

1. A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially;

Seperation and shunning of science?

2. Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality;

This is obvious.

3. Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others;

Priests and the bible.

4. Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and satanic, good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion;

VERY TRUE!

5. Leaders who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers;

The church!

6. Leaders and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal.

The rejecting of science and the converting of others to thier beliefs.

Well I think we just classified christianity as a cult...



quote:

A former high-school biology teacher, Ham travels the nation training children as young as 5 to challenge science orthodoxy. He doesn't engage in the political and legal fights that have erupted over the teaching of evolution. His strategy is more subtle: He aims to give people who trust the biblical account of creation the confidence to defend their views — aggressively.



This may eventually lead to violence and aggression, and serious close mindedness.

quote:

He urges students to offer creationist critiques of their textbooks, parents to take on science museum docents, professionals to raise the subject with colleagues. If Ham has done his job well, his acolytes will ask enough pointed questions — and set forth enough persuasive arguments — to shake the doctrine of Darwin.

"We're going to arm you with Christian Patriot missiles," Ham, 54, recently told the 1,200 adults gathered at Calvary Temple here in northern New Jersey. It was a Friday night, the kickoff of a heavily advertised weekend conference sponsored by Ham's ministry, Answers in Genesis.

To a burst of applause, Ham exhorted: "Get out and change the world!"



6. Leaders and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal.

quote:

Over the last two decades, this type of "creation evangelism" has become a booming industry. Several hundred independent speakers promote biblical creation at churches, colleges, private schools, Rotary clubs. They lead tours to the Grand Canyon or the local museum to study the world through a creationist lens.



This promotes increadable unchanging close mindedness, the opposite of science.

quote:

They churn out stacks of home-schooling material. A geology text devotes a chapter to Noah's flood; an astronomy book quotes Genesis on the origins of the universe; a science unit for second-graders features daily "evolution stumpers" that teach children to argue against the theory that is a cornerstone of modern science.



Allow me to argue against creationism...

The earth has been proven to be younger than the sun. This contradicts genesis. The earth needs to be created at exactly the same time as the rest of the universe for this to be true, therefor it is untrue. Also it was proven through rock dating, and fossils that humans are not as old as dinosaurs, or the single celled orginisms on the bottom of the ocean. In order for genesis to be true humans need to be "created" on the 5TH day of earths existance.

"The Bible says that human beings were created on the sixth day of creation, so that the earth was empty of human intellegance for 5 days only.

The biologist on the otherhand thinks the ealiest beings that were even vaguely human, didn't appear on the earth until well over 4 1/2 billion years after its creation."

quote:

Answers in Genesis is the biggest of these ministries. Ham co-founded the nonprofit in his native Australia in 1979. The U.S. branch, funded mostly by donations, has an annual budget of $15 million and 160 employees who produce books and DVDs, maintain a comprehensive website, and arrange more than 500 speeches a year for Ham and four other full-time evangelists.



Anyone see simularitys to that an the Nazi propoganda program?

quote:

With pulpit-thumping passion, Ham insists the Bible be taken literally: God created the universe and all its creatures in six 24-hour days, roughly 6,000 years ago.



This has been PROVEN untrue. Ham has left science and reason in the dust, and is mislead to an extreme.

quote:

Hundreds of pastors will preach a different message Sunday, in honor of Charles Darwin's 197th birthday. In a national campaign, they will tell congregations that it's possible to be a Christian and accept evolution.



Science changes as new evidence is presented, in order for religion to survive it must accept science or completely reject it.

quote:

Ham considers that treason. When pastors dismiss the creation account as a fable, he says, they give their flock license to disregard the Bible's moral teachings as well. He shows his audiences a graphic that places the theory of evolution at the root of all social ills: abortion, divorce, racism, gay marriage, store clerks who say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."



First of all, we can clearly see he is out to attack science with a vengance(which is a sin). He has chosen to REJECT SCIENCE. Also he follows cult symptons, considering all who don't follow his beliefs socialy ill. Saying happy holidays respects and tolerates all religions.

Once again the christian cult trait is seen...

1. A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially;

2. Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality;

quote:

The science Ham finds so dangerous holds that the first primitive scraps of genetic material appeared on Earth nearly 4 billion years ago. From these humble beginnings, a huge diversity of species evolved over the eons, through lucky mutations and natural selection.

The vast majority of scientists find no credible evidence to dispute this account and a tremendous amount to support it. They've identified thousands of transitional fossils, such as a whale that lumbered on land; a bird with reptilian features; and "Lucy," a remote cousin of modern man who walked on two legs but swung from trees like a chimp.



There are reasons why evolution has evidence and creationism doesn't. I'll leave you to come to your own conclusion why.

quote:

Still, millions of Americans find evolution preposterous. Polls consistently show that roughly half of Americans believe the biblical account instead.



Cults tend to continue belief in a certain ideal or prediction even after it is proven false.

quote:

In the 1970s, Ham taught evolution and creationism side by side in Australian public schools. Raised in a Christian family, Ham trusted God's account over Darwin's; the more he studied Genesis, the more he felt moved to defend it. He quit teaching after five years to take up evangelism full time.



It is easy to see that he chose something with absolutly no evidence supporting it besides a book written by humans. I could just as easily choose the belief that mushroom people brought about our existance for purposes of thier own, this has an equal amount of proof as the bible. Wait till you see the Mushroom creation verses science thread!

quote:

A father of five who bears an uncanny resemblance to Abraham Lincoln, Ham moved his family to the U.S. in 1987. He worked for the Institute for Creation Research near San Diego and in 1994 founded the U.S. branch of Answers in Genesis in northern Kentucky. America sorely needed someone to stand up for the Bible, he reasoned. With a network of Christian radio and TV, the U.S. also offered Ham a launch pad to take his movement global.

The gamble paid off. Ham's daily 90-second broadcasts — on themes such as life in the Garden of Eden — are heard on more than 1,000 radio stations worldwide. He's building a $25 million Creation Museum near the Cincinnati international airport. He has produced dozens of books and videos for all ages, including a top-selling alphabet rhyme that begins: "A is for Adam, God made him from dust / He wasn't a monkey, he looked just like us."



It is dangerous to see that this cult has funneled 25 million dollars toward promoting thier cause. Promoting things proven wrong.



quote:

At the heart of this vast ministry are the speaking tours — so popular that many are booked three years in advance. Ham, who earns about $120,000 a year, might address a few dozen men at a small-town service club or a packed family service at a suburban mega-church. His multimedia presentations swing in tone from revival meeting to college lecture.



It seems as though Ham has profited quite nicely from this whole ordeal hasn't he?

I wouldn't go as far as to say curruption...

but its a DEFINITE possibility.

quote:

About 6,000 adults and children attended at least some of the recent conference in this suburb north of Newark. (Tickets for the weekend cost $25 per family, though several events were free.)

In six hourlong lectures, Ham and his colleague David Menton, an anatomy professor retired from Washington University in St. Louis, laid out their best arguments for creationism. Ham described the fossil record as "billions of dead things … laid down by water" — proof, he said, of Noah's flood. Menton marveled at the mechanics of the human eye, far too intricate, he said, to have evolved by random mutation.



Well you see, billions of dead things exist because of billions of years of life on earth. Maybe if the important detail relating to how the fossils can be dated and proven to be over 6000 years old, then people would consider this untrue.

quote:

"We often come across to the world as if we have blind faith: 'The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it,' " Ham said.



I have NEVER seen a better definition of blind faith. You difined it perfectly, probibly because you have blind faith.

quote:

In his view, creationists need more than faith to win over the world. They need answers to the questions skeptics toss their way.



PEOPLE ARE THINKING? NO WONDER HE IS WORRIED!

quote:

"We're giving you answers," Ham said. "We're like bulldozers, coming in to reclaim the ground."

Repeating lies, no matter how many times it is said, is still a lie. It is a proven lie.

quote:

In two 90-minute workshops for children, Ham adopted a much lighter tone, mocking scientists who think birds evolved from dinosaurs ("if that were true, I'd be worried about my Thanksgiving turkey!").



Because as we can see mocking makes one correct! NO IT DOESN'T. Your thanksgiving turkey is nothing to worry about because it is not a dinosaur, it is a DISSENDANT of a dinosaur. Failing to see thing you continue to lie with a passion.

quote:

He showed the children a photo of a fossilized hat found in a mine to prove it doesn't take millions of years to create ancient-looking artifacts.

Luckly dating methodes can determine the percice date, imagine if we judged everything by looks. We'd be pretty ignorant...

quote:

He pointed out cave drawings of a creature resembling a brachiosaur to make the case that man lived alongside dinosaurs after God created all the land animals on Day 6.



There are also cave paintings of ufos and mushrooms (this is actually true, [it may have been shamanic use of phycedelic mushrooms]).

Using that same logic stated in Ham's report, Alien mushrooms may have created us AND dinosaurs. Wow...

quote:In a bit that brought the house down, Ham flashed a picture of a chimpanzee. "Did your grandfather look like this?" he demanded.

This is true, their ancestors did, not their immediate relatives.

quote:

"Noooooo!" the children called.

"And did your grandmother look like that?" Ham displayed a photo of the same chimp wearing lipstick. The children erupted in giggles. "Noooooo!"

"We are not just an animal," Ham said. He had the children repeat that, their small voices rising in unison: "We are not just an animal. We are made in the image of God."

As the session ended, Nicole Ableson, 34, rounded up her four young children. "This shows your kids that there are other people who are out there who believe what you believe, and who have done the research,"



THEY DIDN'T DO RESEARCH. THERE IS NO PROOF WHAT-SO-EVER OF CREATIONISM.

quote:

she said. "So they don't think 'This is just my parents believing in fairy tales.' "

Emily Maynard, 12, was also delighted with Ham's presentation. Home-schooled and voraciously curious, she had recently read an encyclopedia for fun — and caught herself almost believing the entry on evolution. "They were explaining about apes standing up, evolving to man, and I could kind of see that's how it could happen," she said.



She examined both sides of the story and thought for herself till....

quote:

Ham convinced her otherwise. As her mother beamed, Emily repeated Ham's mantra: "The Bible is the history book of the universe."



A perfect example of a lunatic brain washing children. I propose an arrest.

quote:

Ben Watson wasn't quite as confident. His father, a pastor in Staten Island, N.Y., had let him skip a day of second grade to attend. Ben went to public school, the Rev. Dave Watson explained, "and I thought it would be good for him to get a different perspective" for an upcoming project on Tyrannosaurus rex.

"You going to put in your report that dinosaurs are millions of years old?" Watson, 46, asked his son.

"No…. " Ben said. He hesitated. "But that's what my book says…. "

"It's a lot to think about," his dad reassured him. "We'll do more research."



Good Reaserch other sources!

quote:

Ham encourages people to further their research with the dozens of books and DVDs sold by his ministry.



How is one soppost to examine other sources, with only one source?

It is disgusting to see a young boy robbed of his privilage to think freely.

quote:

They give answers to every question a critic might ask: How did Noah fit dinosaurs on the ark? He took babies. Why didn't a tyrannosaur eat Eve? All creatures were vegetarians until Adam's sin brought death into the world. How can we have modern breeds of dog like the poodle if God finished his work 6,000 years ago? He created a dog "kind" — a master blueprint — and let evolution take over from there.

[b]

Could he have made this up as he went anymore than he did? He even stated something supporting evolution. Not only that but many carnivores would not had survived as vegitarians. Also does this make meat eaters sinners?

quote:[b]

Accountant Paul Ingis, 43, has been studying such material for years, and looks for opportunities to share the answers he's mastered. When clients ask what he's been up to, Ingis responds that he's been studying creation science. If they express interest, he launches into his routine.

"It's fishing. You never know when you might meet the one in 1,000 who will listen," Ingis said.



Are blind followers really that hard to meet?

1 in 1,000?

quote:It's impossible to measure the success of the one-on-one evangelizing inspired by Answers in Genesis. But Glenn Branch, who defends evolution for a living, does not doubt it's having an effect.

Ham and his fellow evangelists "do a lot to promote a climate of ignorance, skepticism and hostility with respect to evolution," said Branch, deputy director of the nonprofit National Center for Science Education.



Notice how one orginization is non-profit while one managed to rake in 25,000,000$?

quote:

Evolution has scored a few high-profile victories. A federal judge ruled in December that the school board in Dover, Pa., could not require teachers to discuss intelligent design (the concept that some life is so complex, it could not have evolved by random chance). And in Cobb County, Ga., a federal judge ruled that disclaimers pasted onto science textbooks were illegal. (The stickers, removed last year, called evolution "a theory, not a fact.")

Still, those who teach and promote evolution say the challenges are multiplying.

Several Imax theaters in the South — including a few in science museums — have refused to show movies that mention evolution or the Earth's age.



The preventing of the circulation of outside facts is anouther cult sympton.

In referance to more cult & christian simularities:

In his "Building Resistance to Manipulation", the psychologist Steve K.D. Eichel created a checklist of signs of a sect designed to brainwash its members into loyal followers:

* Isolate them in new surroundings apart from old friends or reference-points;

Preventing them from viewing science meterial.

* Provide them with instant acceptance from a seemingly loving group;

Christianity's main appeal.

* Keep them away from competing or critical ideas;

Preventing them from veiwing scientific evidence and meterial.

* Provide an authority figure that everyone seems to acknowledge as having some special skill or awareness;

The bible and the priests who interpret it, and people like Ham.

* Provide a philosophy that seems logical and appears to answer all or the most important questions in life;

Creationism has been difined!

* Structure all or most activities so that there is little time for privacy or independent action or thought, provide a sense of "us" versus "them";

The family rallys verses schools teaching science, skipping school and forcing your kid to comply to your beliefs? I'd say so.

* Promise instant or imminent solutions to deep or long-term problems;

We have a religion people!

quote:

Bills that would allow or require science teachers to mention alternatives to evolution have been introduced in Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah. State boards of education in Kansas and Ohio adopted guidelines that single out evolution for critique. The governor of Kentucky used his State of the Commonwealth address to encourage public schools to teach alternative theories of man's origins.

Theories which have been proven wrong?

quote:

A national conference for science teachers in the spring will focus on helping them respond to creationists' challenges. In an informal survey, the National Science Teachers Assn. found that nearly a third of its members felt pressured to play down evolution.

Ham's dream is to increase that pressure.



1. A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially;

2. Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality;

3. Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others;

4. Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and satanic, good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion;

5. Leaders who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers;

6. Leaders and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal.

The proof that this is cult extremism is incredable.

quote:

He will evangelize in Rocky Mount, N.C., next weekend and in Bossier City, La., after that. The month of March will take him to Modesto; Avon, Ind.; and a college retreat outside Cincinnati. His colleagues from Answers in Genesis will match his pace, preaching over the next few weeks in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Missouri and Ohio.

At every stop, they will recruit men, women and children to stand up for God as the creator.

Cult traits:

# A powerful leader who claims divinity or a special mission entrusted to him/her from above;

# Revealed scriptures or doctrine;

# Deceptive recruitment;



Creationism is completely diviod of scientific value. This is proven.

I would go as far to say that Christianity is a cult with many people profiting from the money it earns them. (This guy is making a pretty good living in return for converting people)

Anyone with intellect please debate these unfounded enormous web of lies.

If people are not educated it is only a matter of time before a new dark age, and total ignorance.



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 04-28-2006).]

Sorry. Creation isn't scientific. /thread

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Sorry. Creation isn't scientific. /thread

They tend to completely avoid my posts at the cost of not posting in the thread, or avoiding comfronting the issues proving them wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research)

Do you see religious creationism anywhere on that site ?

Never mind the fact that the founder of the organization, and all the scientists are sworn religious creationists...

If you look on the research papers page, there are a few religious creationist papers, so yeah, there is religious creationism on that site.

Digital_Savior=teh sux0r

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

Digital_Savior=teh sux0r

Quality argument.

A couple more like that and creationists will be completely convinced.

apparently you didn't read the thread. it is clear that DS is not going to post anything relevant or intelligent. DS and most creationists will not change their reality tunnel, no matter what is posted.

edit: quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

They tend to completely avoid my posts at the cost of not posting in the thread, or avoiding comfronting the issues proving them wrong.



[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 04-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

apparently you didn't read the thread. it is clear that DS is not going to post anything relevant or intelligent. DS and most creationists will not change their reality tunnel, no matter what is posted.



I proved creationism impossible, if you still believe then your holding onto cult-like beliefs which is very unhealthy and I suggest re-examining your life.

Because whenever I successfully prove a religous subject wrong the thread dies, I am going to post signifigantly less in this forum, because it's pointless. Digital_Savior said she wanted a debate, but avoids it at all costs. I'm sorry but you bible thumpers are frauds who need to re-examine your life to try to see where you became so valnerable as to fall for rediculous things that do nothing beyond provide you comfort. I remember in one thread I posted 3 consecutive posts that were huge and completely debunked the claims of Interest, Hyro, and D_S. D_S responded by saying I was self centered, thats right she resorted to petty name calling out of desperation and didn't post in that thread again. Since they have abandon logic, and reason it is beyond reason to debate people who when proven wrong repeate what was proven wrong as their come back. It's so incredabley stupid I see no point debating it, as many thinkers have come to the same conclusion, now I know why.

I will end my post with some of the greatest and most influencial thinkers, inventers, and scientists of our time.

quote:

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

[Benjamin Franklin]

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

[Ben Franklin, _Poor Richard's Almanac_, 1754 (Works, Volume XIII)]

"My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. [Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was a British physicist who endowed the Boyle Lectures for defense of Christianity.] It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist"

[Benjamin Franklin, "Autobiography,"p.66 as published in *The American

Tradition in Literature,* seventh edition (short), McGraw-Hill,p.180]

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

[Benjamin Franklin, in _Toward The Mystery_]

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."

[Benjamin Franklin from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728]

"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."

[Thomas Paine]

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."

[Thomas Paine]

"As to the book called the bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions and a history of bad times and bad men."

[Thomas Paine, writing to Andrew Dean August 15, 1806]

"...Thomas did not believe the resurrection [John 20:25], and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas."

[Thomas Paine, Age Of Reason, pg. 54]

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."

[Thomas Paine]

"The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God. The Word of God exists in something else."

[Thomas Paine, Age of Reason]

"The adulterous connection between church and state."

[Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_]

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

[Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_]

"That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not."

[The Life and Works of Thomas Paine, Vol. 9 p. 134]

"The NT, compared with the Old, is like a farce of one act..."

[_The Age of Reason_, Thomas Paine, p. 153]

"There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice....".

[Thomas Paine]

"..but the Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe or whether any..."

[_The Age of Reason_, Thomas Paine, p. 104]

"As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions, and a history of bad times and bad men. There are but a few good characters in the whole book."

[Thomas Paine, Letter to William Duane, April 23, 1806]

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church."

[Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

"The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision, and credulity believe. Stories of this kind had been told of the assassination of Julius Caesar..."

[Thomas Paine]

"What is it the Bible teaches us? - raping, cruelty, and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? - to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith."

[Thomas Paine]

"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."

[George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790]

"In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue."

[Ethan Allen, Reason the Only Oracle of Man, pamphlet, 1784]

"While we are under the tyranny of Priests [...] it will ever be their interest, to invalidate the law of nature and reason, in order to establish systems incompatible therewith."

[Ethan Allen, _Reason_the_Only_Oracle_of_Man_]

"The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."

[Abraham Lincoln]

"I am for liberty of conscience in its noblest, broadest, and highest sense. But I cannot give liberty of conscience to the pope and his followers, the papists, so long as they tell me, through all their councils, theologians, and canon laws that their conscience orders them to burn my wife, strangle my children, and cut my throat when they find their opportunity."

[Abraham Lincoln]

"My earlier views at the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

[Abraham Lincoln, letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln]

"It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity."

[Abraham Lincoln, from "What Great Men Think Of Religion" by Ira Cardiff]

"I am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and by religious men who are certain they represent the Divine will. ... I hope it will not be irreverent in me to say, that if it be probable that God would reveal his will to others, on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed he would reveal it directly to me."

[Abraham Lincoln. Chapter 14 of Part 5 of *Six Historic Americans* by John Ramsburg]

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute- where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

[President John F. Kennedy]

"I would suggest the taxation of all property equally whether church or corporation."

[Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885)]

"If not an absolute atheist, he had no belief in a future existence. All his ideas of obligation or retribution were bounded by the present life."

[President John Quincy Adams on Thomas Jefferson, 1831]

"The Christian God is a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust."

[Thomas Jefferson, _Jefferson Bible_]

"If the obstacles of bigotry and priestcraft can be surmounted, we may hope that common sense will suffice to do everything else."

[Thomas Jefferson]

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

[Thomas Jefferson]

"He is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."

[Thomas Jefferson]

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

[Thomas Jefferson]

"If we could believe that [Jesus]...countenanced the follies, falsehoods and charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, ...the conclusion would be irresistible...that he was an imposter."

[Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) 3rd president of the U.S.]

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association]

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."

[Thomas Jefferson, 1776]

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

[Thomas Jefferson]

"...difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

[Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia [1781-1785]"]

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

[Thomas Jefferson, in _Toward the Mystery_]

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac."

[Thomas Jefferson, _Jefferson Bible_]

"[no citizen] shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever...[to] compell a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of [religious] opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."

[Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom]

"..our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"

[Thomas Jefferson]

"A lively and lasting sense of filial duty is more effectually impressed on the mind of a son or daughter by reading King Lear, than by all the dry volumes of ethics, and divinity, that ever were written."

[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Robert Skipwith, August 3, 1771]

"There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world."

[Thomas Jefferson]

"We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication."

[Thomas Jefferson, _Jefferson Bible_]

"The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

[Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr]

"...merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

[Thomas Jefferson, on the Revelations in the Bible, from Thomas Jefferson: A Reference Biography, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1986.]

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

[Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814]

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787]

"The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power and pre-eminence. The doctirnes which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

[Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams]

"The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, saw in the mysticisms of Plato materials with which they might build up an artificial system, which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order and introduce it to profit, power and pre-eminence"

[Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, July 5, 1814]

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

[Susan B. Anthony]

"I was born a heretic. I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows."

[Susan B. Anthony]

"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."

[Susan B. Anthony]

"The whole tone of Church teaching in regard to women is, to the last degree, contemptuous and degrading."

[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]

"The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion."

[Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "Eight Years and More"]

"The religious superstitions of women perpetuate their bondage more than all other adverse influences."

[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]

"All through the centuries scholars and scientists have been imprisoned, tortured and burned alive for some discovery which seemed to conflict with a petty text of Scripture. Surely the immutable laws of the universe can teach more impressive and exalted lessons than the holy books of all the religions on earth."

[Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman's Bible

Part 2. (From Great Infidels pg. 143.)]

"The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation."

[Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902), U.S. campaigner for

women's rights. Free Thought Magazine (Sept. 1896)]

"The divorce between church and state ought to be absolute. It ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no church property anywhere, in any state, or in any nation, should be exempt from taxation, for if you exempt the church property of any church organization, to that extent you impose tax upon the whole community."

[US Pres. James A. Garfield, address to Congress]

"It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

[Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782]

[laws establishing freedom of religion]..."were meant to include within them the Muslim, the Hindoo [sic], and the infidel of any sort."

[Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew, Dethloff, Henry C., ed. Thomas Jefferson and American Democracy. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co. 1971]

"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."

[Jefferson and Madison, from the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom]

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

[Thomas Jefferson, to Baron von Humboldt, 1813]

"To penetrate and dissipate these clouds of darkness, the general mind must be strengthened by education."

[Thomas Jefferson]

"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills.

But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State."

[Thomas Jefferson, to S. Kercheval, 1810]

"...If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that is pleasing to him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."

[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814]

"They [preachers] dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."

[Thomas Jefferson]

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Woods]

"Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church

... made of Christendom a slaughter-house."

[Thomas Jefferson, to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822]

"The Athanasian paradox that one is three and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."

[Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Smith]

"Spiritual leadership should remain spiritual leadership and the temporal power should not become too important in any church."

[Eleanor Roosevelt]

"[In regard to the Trinity]; "Tom, had you and I been 40 days with Moses, and beheld the great God, and even if God himself had tried to tell us that three was one . . . and one equals three, you and I would never have believed it. We would never fall victims to such lies."

[John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson]

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

[John Adams]

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"

[John Adams]

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect."

[James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1,1774,

as quoted by Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion

and the New Nation, San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1987, p. 37]

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

[James Madison, 1803]

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

[James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

"[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."

[James Madison, in a letter to Rev Jasper Adams spring 1832, from "James Madison on Religious Liberty", edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238]

"Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion."

[Justice Black, on the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment]

"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."

[Hugo L. Black, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, majority opinion

in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]

"No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance."

[U.S. Supreme Court justice Hugo Black, Majority opinion

Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]

"Neither the fact that the prayer is denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause."

[U.S. Supreme Court, Engle v. Vitale (1962)]

"The world presents enough problems if you believe it to be a world of law and order; do not add to them by believing it to be a world of miracles."

[U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis]

"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'"

[Hugo L. Black, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]

"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

[Hugo L. Black, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947),last words]

EDISON

"I do not believe that any type of religion should ever be introduced into the public schools of the United States."

[Thomas Edison]

"My mind is incapable of conceiving such a thing as a soul. I may be in error, and man may have a soul; but I simply do not believe it."

[Thomas Edison, "Do We Live Again?"]

"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God."

[Thomas Alva Edison, "Columbian Magazine"]

"All Bibles are man-made."

[Thomas Edison]

"So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk."

[Thomas Edison]

"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope."

[Thomas Edison]

TWAIN

"One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed it - they also believed the world was flat."

[Mark Twain]

"The Bible is "a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology."

[Mark Twain, "Mark Twain and the Bible"]

"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

[Mark Twain]

"There is nothing in either savage or civilised history that is more utterly complete, more remorselessly sweeping than the Father of Mercy's campaign among the Midianites. The official report deals only in masses, all the virgins, all the men, all the babies. all 'creatures that breathe,' all houses. all cities. It gives you just one vast picture ...as far as the eye can reach, of charred ruins and storm-swept desolation... Would you expect this same conscienceless God, this moral bankrupt, to become a teacher of morals, of gentleness, of meekness, of righteousness, of purity?"

[Mark Twain, "Letters from the Earth"]

"The Bible has noble poetry in it... and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."

[Mark Twain]

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."

[Mark Twain]

"Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness... It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light and leading by contrast"

[Mark Twain, _Reflections on Religion_, 1906]

"If there is a God, he is a malign thug."

[Mark Twain]

"When the human race has once acquired a supersitition nothing short of death is ever likely to remove it."

[Autobiography of Mark Twain]

"It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either."

[Mark Twain]

"Strange...a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied seventy times seven and invented Hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him!"

[Mark Twain]

"A man is accepted into a church for what he

believes and he is turned out for what he knows."

[Mark Twain]

"(The Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies. This Bible is built mainly out of fragments of older Bibles that had their day and crumbled to ruin. So it noticeably lacks in originality, necessarily. Its three or four most imposing and impressive events all happened in earlier Bibles; there are only two new things in it: hell, for one, and that singular heaven I have told you about."

[Mark Twain, "Letters from the Earth"]

"Of the delights of this world, man cares most for sexual intercourse, yet he has left it out of his heaven"

[Mark Twain]

"You have noticed that the human being is a curiosity. In times past he has had (and worn out and flung away) hundreds and hundreds of religions; today he has hundreds and hundreds of religions, and launches not fewer than three new ones every year. I could enlarge on that number and still be within the facts."

[Mark Twain, "Letters From the Earth"]

"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for 800 years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry."

[Mark Twain, "Europe and Elsewhere"]

"I bring you this stately matron named Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched, and dishonored from pirate raids in Kiao-Chow, Manchuria, South Africa, and the Phillipines, with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of boodle, and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies. Give her soap and a towel, but hide the looking-glass."

[Mark Twain, Speech to the Red Cross, New York, Dec. 31, 1899]

"Let me make the superstitions of a nation and I care not who makes its laws or its songs either."

[Mark Twain]

"it is believed by everyone that when he was in heaven he was stern, hard, resentful, jealous and cruel, but that when he came down to earth, he became the opposite... sweet, gentle merciful, forgiving. He was a thousand billion times crueler than ever he was in the Old Testament... Meek and gentle? By and by we will examine that popular sarcasm by the light of the hell which he invented."

[Mark Twain, on Jesus Christ, in "Letters from the Earth"]

"What a man misses mostly in heaven is company."

[Mark Twain]

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company."

[Mark Twain]

"...Man is a marvelous curiosity. When he is at his very very best he is a sort of low grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm. Yet he blandly and in all sincerity calls himself the 'noblest work of God.'"

[Mark Twain, "Letters From the Earth"]

EINSTEIN

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."

[Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited

by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

[Albert Einstein]

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

[Albert Einstein,_The World as I See It_]

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously."

[Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]

"The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action."

[Albert Einstein]

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

["Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh

Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.]

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

[Albert Einstein]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

[Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism"

[Albert Einstein]

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

[Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]

"Although I cannot believe that the individual survives the death of his body, feeble souls harbor such thought through fear or ridiculous egotism."

[Albert Einstein]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."

[Albert Einstein]

SAGAN

"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls.

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."

[Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark"]

"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy."

[Carl Sagan]

"(When asked merely if they accept evolution, 45 percent of Americans say yes. The figure is 70 percent in China.) When the movie "Jurassic Park" was shown in Israel, it was condemned by some Orthodox rabbis because it accepted evolution and because it taught that dinosaurs lived a hundred million years ago--when, as is plainly stated at every Rosh Hashonhan and every Jewish wedding ceremony, the Universe is less than 6,000 years old."

[Carl Sagan, _The Demon-Haunted World:

Science as a Candle in the Dark_, p. 325]

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

[Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)"

[Carl Sagan, "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection,"]

"At the extremes it is difficult to distinguish pseudoscience from rigid, doctrinaire religion."

[Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark"]

"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate....Try science."

[Carl Sagan, quoted in "2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt", by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

[Carl Sagan]

"Is it fair to be suspicious of an entire profession because of a few bad apples? There are at least two important differences, it seems to me. First, no one doubts that science actually works, whatever mistaken and fraudulent claim may from time to time be offered. But whether there are *any* miraculous cures from faith-healing, beyond the body's own ability to cure itself, is very much at issue. Secondly, the expose' of fraud and error in science is made almost exclusively by science. But the exposure of fraud and error in faith-healing is almost never done by other faith-healers."

[Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark"]

"Many statements about God are confidently made by theologians on grounds that today at least sound specious. Thomas Aquinas claimed to prove that God cannot make another God, or commit suicide, or make a man without a soul, or even make a triangle whose interior angles do not equal 180 degrees. But Bolyai and Lobachevsky were able to accomplish this last feat (on a curved surface) in the nineteenth century, and they were not even approximately gods."

[Carl Sagan, _Broca's Brain_]

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?"

[Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark"]

"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking."

[Carl Sagan]

"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense."

[Carl Sagan]

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."

[Carl Sagan]

"If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?....For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

[Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark"]

"Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along."

[Carl Sagan, "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection,"]

"I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true."

[Carl Sagan, The Burden Of Skepticism]

"You see, the religious people -- most of them -- really think this planet is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods let well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If God didn't want Lot's wife to look back, why didn't he make her obedient, so she'd do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn't made Lot such a shithead, maybe she would have listened to him more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition."

[Carl Sagan, character Sol Hadden in _Contact_, 1985]

"There was no deathbed conversion," Druyan says. "No appeals to God, no hope for an afterlife, no pretending that he and I, who had been inseparably for twenty years, were not saying goodbye forever."

"Didn't he want to believe?" she was asked.

"Carl never wanted to believe," she replies fiercely. "He wanted to KNOW."

[Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's wife, from Newsweek magazine]

HAWKING

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."

[Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

DAWKINS

"It's been suggested that if the supernaturalists really had the powers they claim, they'd win the lottery every week. I prefer to point out that they could also win a Nobel Prize for discovering fundamental physical forces hitherto unknown to science. Either way, why are they wasting their talents doing party turns on television?"

[Richard Dawkins, The Richard Dimbleby Lecture: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder]

"Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion, but that is not what is interesting about it. It is also incompatible with magic, but that also is not worth stressing. What is interesting about the scientific world view is that it is true, inspiring, remarkable and that it unites a whole lot of phenomena under a single heading."

[Richard Dawkins]

"It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't *prove* that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

[Richard Dawkins]

"In childhood our credulity serves us well. It helps us to pack, with extraordinary rapidity, our skulls full of the wisdom of our parents and our ancestors. But if we don't grow out of it in the fullness of time, our ... nature makes us a sitting target for astrologers, mediums, gurus, evangelists, and quacks. We need to replace the automatic credulity of childhood with the constructive skepticism of adult science."

[Richard Dawkins]

"They express a preference for 'natural' methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation."

[Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene"]

"Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that. We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed."

[Richard Dawkins, from the _New Humanist_, the Journal

of the Rationalist Press Association, Vol 107 No 2]

"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion. If a physicist says God is another name for Planck's constant, or God is a superstring, we should take it as a picturesque metaphorical way of saying that the nature of superstrings or the value of Planck's constant is a profound mystery. It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born. "

[Richard Dawkins]

"If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place. Epidemiology, not evidence."

[Richard Dawkins]

"Blind faith can justify anything. In a man believes in a different god, or even if he uses a different ritual for worshipping the same god, blind faith can decree that he should die - on the cross, at the stake, skewered on a Crusader's sword, shot in a Beirut street, or blown up in a bar in Belfast. Memes for blind faith have their own ruthless ways of propagating themselves. This is true of patriotic and political as well as religious blind faith."

[Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene"]

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

[Richard Dawkins]

"I suspect that today if you asked people to justify their belief in God, the dominant reason would be scientific. Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it. "

[Richard Dawkins]

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

[Richard Dawkins, "River Out of Eden"]

"On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus [full of children from a Roman Catholic school and for no apparent reason but with wholesale loss of life] are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless _good_ [italics in original] fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

[Richard Dawkins, _River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of

Life_, 1995, BasicBooks, New York; ISBN 0-465-01606-5]

"I suspect the reason is that most people [...] have a residue of feeling that Darwinian evolution isn't quite big enough to explain everything about life. All I can say as a biologist is that the feeling disappears progressively the more you read about and study what is known about life and evolution. I want to add one thing more. The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism. Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things."

[Richard Dawkins, from the _New Humanist_, the Journal

of the Rationalist Press Association, Vol 107 No 2]

"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity."

[Richard Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_ (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1987), p. 317]

"And it's not just faith itself: it's the idea that faith is a virtue and the less evidence there is, the more virtuous it is. You can actually quote, well, Tertullian for example: "It is certain because it is impossible." Sir Thomas Brown, actually seeking for more difficult things to believe, because things for which there is mere evidence are just too easy, and it's no test of his faith. In order to have a test of your faith, you must be asked to believe really daft things like the transubstantiation, you know, the blood of Christ turning into wine, and stuff... That is so manifestly absurd that you've got to be a really great believer, in the class of the Electric Monk, in order to believe it..... You're actually showing off your believing credentials by the ability to believe something like that... If it were an easy thing to believe, substantiated by facts, then it wouldn't be any great achievement."

[Richard Dawkins, interview with Douglas Adams]

FREUD

"Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis."

[Sigmund Freud, "Future of an Illusion"]

"In the long run, nothing can withstand reason and experience, and the contradiction religion offers to both is palpable."

[Sigmund Freud, Austrian physician and

pioneer psychoanalyst (1856-1939)]

"While the different religions wrangle with one another as to which of them is in possesion of the truth, In our view the truth of religion may be altogether disregarded...if one attempts to assign religion it's place in mans evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity."

[Sigmund Freud, "Moses and Monotheism"]

"No, our science is no illusion. But an illusion it would be to suppose that what science cannot give us we can get elsewhere."

[Sigmund Freud, "The Future of an Illusion"]

"A great deal is already gained with the first step: the humanization of nature. Impersonal forces and destinies cannot be approached... if everywhere in nature there are Beings around us of a kind that we know in our own society.... we can apply the same methods against these violent supermen outside that we employ in our own society; we can try to adjure them, to appease them, to bribe them, and, by so influencing them, we may rob them of a part of their power

[Sigmund Freud, "The Future of an Illusion"]

"When a man has once brought himself to accept uncritically all the absurdities that religious doctrines put before him and even to overlook the contradictions between them, we need not be greatly suprised at the weakness of his intellect"

[Sigmund Freud: The Future of an Illusion]

"Neither in my private life nor in my writings, have I ever made a secret of being an out-and-out unbeliever."

[Sigmund Freud, letter to Charles Singer]

"Demons do not exist any more than gods do, being only the products of the psychic activity of man."

[Sigmund Freud, New York Times Magazine, 6 May 1956]

"The more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more widespread is the decline of religious belief."

[Sigmund Freud]

OTHER SCIENTISTS

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles."

[James Watson, winner of the Nobel prize for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA]

"Like my parents, I have never been a regular church member or churchgoer. It doesn't seem plausible to me that there is the kind of God who watches over human affairs, listens to prayers, and tries to guide people to follow His precepts -- there is just too much misery and cruelty for that."

[Benjamin Spock]

"As long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress."

[J. Robert Oppenheimer, Life, 10 October 1949]

"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."

[J. Robert Oppenheimer, Life, 10 October 1949]

"On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, we gain no scientific explanation..."

[Charles Darwin]

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

[Charles Darwin, Introduction to "The Descent of Man, 1871]

"I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."

[Charles Darwin]

"For myself, I do not believe in any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

[Charles Darwin]

"They know that it is human nature to take up causes whereby a man may oppress his neighbor, no matter how unjustly. ... Hence they have had no trouble in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of the new doctrine from the very pulpit..."

[Galileo Galilei, 1615]

"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."

[Galileo]

"It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved."

[Galileo Galilei, "The Authority of Scripture in Philosophical Controversies"]

"To command the professors of astronomy to confute their own observations is to enjoin an impossibility, for it is to command them not to see what they do see, and not to understand what they do understand, and to find what they do not discover."

[Galileo Galilei, "The Authority of scripture in Philosophical Controversies"]

"It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment."

[Galileo Galilei, "The Authority of Scripture in Philosophical Controversies"]

"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."

[Ferdinand Magellan]

"It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations."

[Richard Feynman, "What Do You Care What Other People Think?"]

"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents."

[Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism",

The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 87/88, pg. 186]

"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

[Stephen J. Gould]

"The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos."

[Stephen Jay Gould, "Dinosaur in a Haystack"]

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?"

[Stephen Jay Gould, "The Skeptical Inquirer"]

"Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade-- a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth."

[Stephen Jay Gould, "Dinosaur in a Haystack"]





Wether or not you choose to look at fact, remember this, the original purpose of religion is peace and love. It never justifies violence, so if you stay peaceful and help each other, without hidden motives (like converting them) then your on the right track.

Goodbye thinkers, debators, and blind followers, you'll still see me around in other forums on totse.

-Aft3r ImaGe

I proved creationism impossible, if you still believe then your holding onto cult-like beliefs which is very unhealthy and I suggest re-examining your life.

Wow, sounds compelling... I didn't see where you proved creationism is impossible. Could you repost that?

Because whenever I successfully prove a religous subject wrong the thread dies, I am going to post signifigantly less in this forum, because it's pointless.

No offense, but of the handful of times I've seen your posts, they are either terribly insipid or stultified. You really aren't saying much in them that we haven't already rehashed a million times. So, if a thread dies after you post, its because you have nothing interesting to say. Beta, Rust, and a few others actually present a good and intelligible treatise. They can hold my attention because they are fun to debate. But with you, its like debating a kid in Jr. High. There's no challenge in it. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that's how I feel.

Digital_Savior said she wanted a debate, but avoids it at all costs. I'm sorry but you bible thumpers are frauds who need to re-examine your life to try to see where you became so valnerable as to fall for rediculous things that do nothing beyond provide you comfort. I remember in one thread I posted 3 consecutive posts that were huge and completely debunked the claims of Interest, Hyro, and D_S.

Wow, completely debunked Interest, myself, and Digital. Again, it sounds compelling. Perhaps you can resurrect that post from the dead so we know what you're referring to.

D_S responded by saying I was self centered, thats right she resorted to petty name calling out of desperation and didn't post in that thread again. Since they have abandon logic, and reason it is beyond reason to debate people who when proven wrong repeate what was proven wrong as their come back. It's so incredabley stupid I see no point debating it, as many thinkers have come to the same conclusion, now I know why.

I will end my post with some of the greatest and most influencial thinkers, inventers, and scientists of our time.

........................................Okay.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I proved creationism impossible, if you still believe then your holding onto cult-like beliefs which is very unhealthy and I suggest re-examining your life.

Wow, sounds compelling... I didn't see where you proved creationism is impossible. Could you repost that?

Because whenever I successfully prove a religous subject wrong the thread dies, I am going to post signifigantly less in this forum, because it's pointless.

No offense, but of the handful of times I've seen your posts, they are either terribly insipid or stultified. You really aren't saying much in them that we haven't already rehashed a million times. So, if a thread dies after you post, its because you have nothing interesting to say. Beta, Rust, and a few others actually present a good and intelligible treatise. They can hold my attention because they are fun to debate. But with you, its like debating a kid in Jr. High. There's no challenge in it. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that's how I feel.

Digital_Savior said she wanted a debate, but avoids it at all costs. I'm sorry but you bible thumpers are frauds who need to re-examine your life to try to see where you became so valnerable as to fall for rediculous things that do nothing beyond provide you comfort. I remember in one thread I posted 3 consecutive posts that were huge and completely debunked the claims of Interest, Hyro, and D_S.

Wow, completely debunked Interest, myself, and Digital. Again, it sounds compelling. Perhaps you can resurrect that post from the dead so we know what you're referring to.

D_S responded by saying I was self centered, thats right she resorted to petty name calling out of desperation and didn't post in that thread again. Since they have abandon logic, and reason it is beyond reason to debate people who when proven wrong repeate what was proven wrong as their come back. It's so incredabley stupid I see no point debating it, as many thinkers have come to the same conclusion, now I know why.

I will end my post with some of the greatest and most influencial thinkers, inventers, and scientists of our time.

........................................Okay.



You basically said nothing, you didn't read other posts in this thread? Look at the post refering to carbon dating, and the source D_S posted, and the post I was refering to about you interest and D_S was in the "I give up" thread.

You are trying so hard to discredit me while avoiding the content of my posts it's disgusting.

lol@afterimage.

dude im on your side. apparently you didn't read anything that you agreed with because you weren't trying to refute it. i admit, it was confusing when i quoted you, but i was using your quote to express my sentiment.

and i absolutly agree with you. the creationists have not responded to any of the points made. they just reply with a brief and vacous post that has nothing to do with our dissection of that crappy article. kind of annoys me when i put all that work to explain my point of view in a logical manner relevant to the content of the thread, and then the response has nothing to do with what i posted.

how bout it creationists, can any of you answer the challange, or will you prove our points by your silence?

edit: lol. i just went back through the thread (which ds thinks needs to be 'resurrected') and ds refused to answer one point i brought up no less then four times!! it is clear neither she nor hyro will respond with anything but intellectually vacous declaratives with no support for their idea whatsoever.

really makes you wonder why we even try, huh?

[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 04-29-2006).]

kenwih, I was refering to digital savior, just quoting what you said, saying you were right about their unchanging reality tunnel. Your right, I know I'm not argueing with you, sorry for not being clear on that. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Also in referance to the quotes, the ones hyro dismissed with "........................................Okay." I was showing that the greatest thinkers of our time shared the same views as us, and they bring up valuable points, and ideas, which you dismiss with "........................................Okay."

I think hyro is just a close minded individual, with a group of close minded people who share his views and try to convert people to them, while shunning people who don't agree with you. Should we dismiss your posts with "........................................Okay."?

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

edit: lol. i just went back through the thread (which ds thinks needs to be 'resurrected') and ds refused to answer one point i brought up no less then four times!! it is clear neither she nor hyro will respond with anything but intellectually vacous declaratives with no support for their idea whatsoever.

really makes you wonder why we even try, huh?

My point exactly, you see they need to discredit me as a poster since my points are valid. Either that or they will ignore them completely choosing to live in self-ordained ignorance, with a better than everyone attitude.

There is evidence for evolution and none for creationism.

Creationist research has one goal, promoting christianity, so this ruins any science behind it. It is the same concept as the Nazi's research on the superior race.

Fossil/rock dating methods alone prove the earth is older than 6000 years.

Along with other evidence (although the fossil dating alone is enough proof) creationism is false.



If people had bothered to research it, people would know that.

Some scientific views on creationism are expressed below:



"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?"

[Stephen Jay Gould, "The Skeptical Inquirer"]

"Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade-- a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth."

[Stephen Jay Gould, "Dinosaur in a Haystack"]





[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 04-29-2006).]

Digital Savior thinks that allowing creationism to get taught in school is a civil liberty, yet gay marriage is not. The irony/hypocrisy makes me laugh and cry at the same time.

Thanks for all the quotes after image, I love quotes like that and am building up a collection myself.

I would like to add to this with something that, like many of the arguments I post, is completely original and something I made up myself out of nowhere that I have never heard before. I believe it to be a simple, down to earth revelation that when looked at with an open mind, can be quite powerful.

Digital_Savior, I would like you to do something. Tonight, when its dark, and when the sky is clear, I would like you to step outside. You live in Oregon, so go into a nice open clearing and look up at the sky. Tell me what you see.

Well, I'll tell you what you will see. As you breathe in the fresh air, you will look up at the clouds, the night sky, the trees, the moon, the stars, and think what a wonderful world it is God created in six days 6000 years ago.

Then, hopefully, you will be struck with an ephiphany. As you look up at the stars, so infinetely far away, you may think back to science class. You may recall the speed of light, and perhaps your unit on astronomy. I'm assuming you don't question the speed of light, as it is a very well known value. Then, as you look to the heavens, it will occur to you that the stars you are seeing now are over 6000 light years away. The light itself takes well over 6000 years to get to Earth, yet...there they are. Bright shining in the dark sky. Little pinpricks of light against the darkness. People have looked at them for thousands of years and as a result have made up a vast number of myths about them. Perhaps though, just this once, someone can look up at them and discover truth.

Over 6000 light years away, yet there they are. I guess it must be a miracle.

quote:"I'm assuming you don't question the speed of light, as it is a very well known value"

Not to speak for DS but yes there are a number of creationists that question c* and claim it has degraded and slowed down since creation (as usual it's based on no solid evidence and they ignore the ripple effect (that one change effects others)).

Others use the crap philosophy of Oomphalo** which is not scientific at all and claim that God created the light on it's way so that the sky would be bright.

*the speed of light in a vacuum, not to be confused with just the speed of light.

**Oomphalo refers to the question of whether Adam and Eve had belly buttons even though they were never born. Christian philosophers have decided that God would/could never create something deceptive like that.

Ian, I liked that. I might gank it sometime.

Thats a great point Ian, and yes christianity seems full of double standards.

Also an interesting thing about the speed of light and time that was discovered as a result of the theorys or relativity (this is unrelated to the thread but I found it interesting) is that:

Motion through space + motion through time = the speed of light.

That is why time dialates as you near the speed of light.

It isn't possible to pass the speed of light in this universe, to the best of our knowledge.

There are many implications to this, and interesting situations it creates, but this is a religous forum so I'll stop now http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

EDIT: I'd like to add anyone interested in science things like what I just said to check out the book - The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. Its a great book.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 04-30-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research)

Do you see religious creationism anywhere on that site ?

As was already pointed out, on the main page. Let's find a truly non-biased source next time hm?

i've noticed a couple of posts on this thread asking whether this guy is a scientist or not.

well, i'm a scientist and i think that guys isn't a scientist. but, evolutionist who say creationism is false are not scientist also. a scientist will never tell you something that can or cant be proven is definately right or definately wrong. thats not our job. our job is to conduct experiments and provide evidence to lead to a conclusion, not to make a conclusion.

i feel somehow, all that arent within the science community have missed this. both creationist and evolutionist are not scientists. from a truly scientific point of view, neither side is fact or fiction. its just that evolution has some evidence to support it.

again, scientist dont make conclusions... marketing and PR does. we just provide evidence.

Wow that was some sort of verbal wrangling.

I think you are confusing conclusion with proof. No scientist in their right mind would say they can 100% prove anything, but most come to a conclusion based on the available evidence. A conclusion that can change with more evidence.

Unless you are saying you refuse to conclude that the earth is spherical, planes fly, modern animals don't grow from dirty or Bill Clinton has crappie choices in women.

Creationism isn't a theory so much as it is a hypothesis.

There is no evidence for it and it is many people's best "educated guess" (at least thats what a hypothesis is meant to be).

On the otherhand a more educated guess would be evolution because there is evidence, now I would not be surprised if new evidence came out against this and something else lead the world to the way it is today.

On the otherhand I would change my view, thats why I don't believe in creationism. Creationism has a major flaw: there is no evidence for it, and evidence against it. Thats not a good combination. Believing something without claims or evidence isn't science, it is religion.

That is why creationism science isn't science at all.

More than once I have compared this to Nazi germany looking for proofs of them being a superior race. Their research showed that they were in fact the superior race, because their research was falsified and had internal motives.

Creationist research is out to prove that "god created the universe in 6 days (the seventh day resting) and man on the 5th. Now their research hasn't brought up much evidence but they call it research because people will then assume it is true and it is used for propoganda purposes, (recruiting people to christianity, just as nazi's converting germans to nazi ideals, some former nazis still have those ideals today, which shows how effective this propoganda technique is) and it is effective.

In the case of the Creationist Speaker Ham who I debunked, it is easy to see propoganda being aimed at children, where ideas, however false, will be with them the rest of their life.

Make sence?

Now evidence needs to be more substancial than someone showing kids a monkey and saying is this your grampa? If not then evolution is false. This is more emotional appeal than fact, if fact it isn't fact beyond the fact your grampa most likely isnt an ape.

I'd like some creationists to come back to this thread to debate us because I am not a creationist so maybe a creationist knows something I don't or overlooked. Just present evidence for your claim and I will look into it.

Also in referance to the quotes, the ones hyro dismissed with "........................................Okay." I was showing that the greatest thinkers of our time shared the same views as us, and they bring up valuable points, and ideas, which you dismiss with "........................................Okay."

What should I have said to that inane and asinine statement? Some great thinkers have the same views as you do.... Okay, great. You made a comment. I'm not sure what my reaction should have been.

I think hyro is just a close minded individual, with a group of close minded people who share his views and try to convert people to them, while shunning people who don't agree with you. Should we dismiss your posts with "........................................Okay."?

Is it that I'm closed-minded or that you don't like what I have to say? Is it that I've shunned you, or that you've shunned me? Have we even had a dialogue?

My point exactly, you see they need to discredit me as a poster since my points are valid. Either that or they will ignore them completely choosing to live in self-ordained ignorance, with a better than everyone attitude.

Try not give yourself accolaids... It gives you an air of arrogance.

There is evidence for evolution and none for creationism.

Then by all means, support your claim.

Creationist research has one goal, promoting christianity, so this ruins any science behind it. It is the same concept as the Nazi's research on the superior race.

That's not true. There are creationists of all walks of life, from various theological backgrounds.

http://www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/articles/hyahya.html

Fossil/rock dating methods alone prove the earth is older than 6000 years.

Tell me all about it, in detail.

Along with other evidence (although the fossil dating alone is enough proof) creationism is false.

Tell us all about it, in detail.

If people had bothered to research it, people would know that.

But since you did research then you can enlighten all of us, in detail.

Some scientific views on creationism are expressed below:

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?"

[Stephen Jay Gould, "The Skeptical Inquirer"]

He also said, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." -Stephen J. Gould

"Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade-- a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth."

[Stephen Jay Gould, "Dinosaur in a Haystack"]

He also went on to say this:

"Darwin invoked his standard argument to resolve this uncomfortable problem: the fossil record is so imperfect that we do not have evidence for most events of life's history. But even Darwin acknowledged that his favorite ploy was wearing a bit thin in this case. His argument could easily account for a missing stage in a single linage, but could the agencies of imperfection really obliterate absolutely all evidence for positively every creature during most of life's history? Darwin admitted: "The case as present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." -Stephen J. Gould

quote:That's not true. There are creationists of all walks of life, from various theological backgrounds.?http://www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/articles/hyahya.html

I wouldn't call another abrahamic religion exactly various. The interesting part about Yahya is that christian creationists helped start that islamic creationist group. Seems a bit odd christians who sometimes attack the theology of other christian creationists would go and support islam. Why do you think that is?

quotes

Hyro, be very careful you don't fall into the trap of misquoting scientists. Remember Gould is the one who proposed the idea of punctuated equilibrium (something we have evidence for) thus I hope you don't take those quotes about gradual evolution as some sort of evidence evolution shaky but as a run up to the explanation for why we don't see a gradual evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

That's not true. There are creationists of all walks of life, from various theological backgrounds.?http://www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/articles/hyahya.html

I wouldn't call another abrahamic religion exactly various. The interesting part about Yahya is that christian creationists helped start that islamic creationist group. Seems a bit odd christians who sometimes attack the theology of other christian creationists would go and support islam. Why do you think that is?

I doubt that they helped him. I'm sure he looked at the opportunity made by some Christian creationists and exploited their hard efforts in order to help Muslims.

Hyro, be very careful you don't fall into the trap of misquoting scientists. Remember Gould is the one who proposed the idea of punctuated equilibrium (something we have evidence for) thus I hope you don't take those quotes about gradual evolution as some sort of evidence evolution shaky but as a run up to the explanation for why we don't see a gradual evolution.

Its from a book of his, but written after punctuated equilibrium was invented by Eldredge and Gould. Here's the problem with the theory:

1. Its an attempt at exoneraton for the stark and overwhelming fact that transitional forms don't exist. This is nothing but a rehash of the Hopeful Monster.

2. A lack of evidence can't be pawned off as evidence of a lack of evidence. In other words, he's giving us reasons for why there is no evidence of evolution, by giving us no evidence of punctuated equilibrium. Its complete circular logic.

3. It undermines the evolutionary model. Its presenting a stasis model, rather than an ever-evolving one. They nimbly invent ways that two can co-exist.

Cohesin is the protein responsible for binding the sister chromatids during mitosis after S phase. At metaphase, most cohesin is removed,except for some at the centromere. At Anaphase, securin,an inhibitory subunit of separase, is hydrolyzed. Separase hydrolyzes the remaining cohesin.

quote:I doubt that they helped him. I'm sure he looked at the opportunity made by some Christian creationists and exploited their hard efforts in order to help Muslims.

Then you would probably be wrong. However I liked that bit of prejudice that the evil Muslim obviously took advantage of the poor christian.

In reality ICR has had contact with Yahya since the beginning of his groups Anti-evolution run and provides most of the data to them.

A read about Yahya, http://www .ncseweb.o rg/resourc es/rncse_c ontent/vol 19/8300_is lamic_scie ntific_cre ationism_12_30_1899.asp



quote:Its from a book of his, but written after punctuated equilibrium was invented by Eldredge and Gould. Here's the problem with the theory:

Tell me, did you write those "problems" yourself?

You need updating of your research.

1) transitional forms do exist, that creationists pretend they don't doesn't change that fact.

2) There is evidence for Punk Eek, I believe I have even shown you some, maybe you should update your research.

3) Nope it doesn't present a stasis model nor is the idea that things evolve at a constant rate true either. Punk eek presents a model of speciation through separation and

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beta69:

I liked that bit of prejudice that the evil Muslim obviously took advantage of the poor christian.

That's not at all what I was arriving to. I'll I said was that Christians are not the only people group that ascribe to creationist beliefs. However, I was pointing out that Yahya likely did not do any of his own researh on it either. That in no way was a jab at 'evil' Muslims, or even a jab at Yahya.

In reality ICR has had contact with Yahya since the beginning of his groups Anti-evolution run and provides most of the data to them.

A read about Yahya, http://www .ncseweb.o rg/resourc es/rncse_c ontent/vol 19/8300_is lamic_scie ntific_cre ationism_12_30_1899.asp

Your link was broken.



If there were transitional forms then there would be no need of punctuated equilibrium, now would there? Dwell on that for a moment.

Behold, the ultimate evil source that you can dismiss without even looking at it.

Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html)

(check out Common errors when discussing PE)



[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 04-30-2006).]

Your link was broken too.

"Who Watches the Watchers" is a third season episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation first broadcast on October 16, 1989.

[edit]

Plot line

In this episode the Enterprise is called to Mintaka III to resupply and repair a federation outpost used to moniter the Mintakin society, who are a Vulcan-like race who seem to be at the Iron Age of evolution. An accident at the outpost forces the observers concealment to be lost.

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

One of the Mintakins, Lico, notices the outpost while away from the village with his daughter. Due to an explosion, the holographic rockface that concealed the federation observers disappears revealing the outpost to the outside. Lico climbs up to investigate this occurrence, and is then hurt by an electrical discharge. Dr. Crusher comes to his aid and beams up to the Enterprise with Lico.

In order to keep the interference with the Mintakin culture as minimal as possible, Crusher attempts to wipe Lico's short term memory before sending him back. After being sent back, it becomes clear the attempt did not work, and Lico recalls vague memories of seeing Picard being addressed by a distant voice. He infers that he has seen the afterlife, and that Picard is in fact their overseeing god. He informs the other Mintakins that 'the Picard' saved his life.

Since one of the federation observers Palmer is missing, Picard sends down Riker and Troi down altered to look like Mintakins to retrieve Palmer. Upon arriving at the village, they realize that they have adopted 'The Picard' as their god, and they also find that the Mintakins have found Palmer, who requires great medical attention, and determined that he is an agent of 'The Picard' and choose to keep him in their custody.

Riker is able to capture back Palmer away and beam him up to the ship, but the Mintakins, who up to this point have respected Riker & Troi as distant visitors, turn against Troi as a non-believer and take her into custody.

After much debate, Picard finally decides he has no choice but to confront the Mintakins head on, and beams up the village leader Nuria. She immedietly bows to him as his subject, but Picard begs her not too. He gives her a tour of the ship and she is astonished at the technology. Despite this, Nuria still believes Picard has incredible power, and asks him to bring back to life those who have been killed in recent floods. It finally takes the witnessing of the death of a human at sickbay for Nuria to realize Picard is just as mortal as she is, and that his godlike powers are nothing more than a technological advancement.

At the same time the village is being hit by a violent thunderstorm, leading Liko to take it as a sign that the overseer Picard is angry with Riker's actions, and that they must kill Troi to satisfy the Picard's vengeance. He and his daughter wrestle with what the overseer expects of them until Picard and Nuria show up. Lico bows to Picard and begs for forgiveness, while Picard tries to convince him that he is not all powerful.

At this moment Lico decides he has to prove to everyone Picard's god powers by firing his arrow at him. Nuria tries to stop him from doing this, but Picard finally states that if his death is the only thing that will convince them that he is not god then he must fire. Lico does and Picard falls to the ground. Nuria then sees that he is bleeding and shows this to Lico who has a sudden realization.

Picard is given treatment by Crusher, and goes back down for one final visit where he confesses everything that went wrong with this observational post, and about the Prime Directive. He tells them that they must develop under their own power. Before he leaves one of the children give him a gift, a sash.

[edit]

Trivia

The sash given to Picard at the end of the episode is present in the opening ready room scene in Star Trek: First Contact and in several scenes of Star Trek: Insurrection.

This episode was filmed in part on location at the Vasquez Rocks.

ICR helps Yahya in his/their creationist endevours and most of Yahya's stuff is just reformated ICR. Here is a tinyurl of that NCSE link http://tinyurl.com/ath48 (since the amazing forum software can't render long links).



Wow, you obviously don't understand Punk eek. Punk eek isn't because there are no transitional fossils.

Ok brief overview.

The problem: Although we have reasonable* transitional forms many fossil sites show a large jump in evolution in a rather short amount of time.

The hypothesis: Maybe a smaller group of a larger group of animals gets stuck in a niche (say by water or because they eat a certain flower there, etc). The close quarters allows for quicker evolution of the population because of increased survival preasures and quicker gene propagation.

If this group survives it may end up pushing the larger group out and taking it's place because it has adapted better than the larger group.

Thus a large jump in the fossil record will be found.

Testing: If the niche site is found we should find fossils that smooth out the transition at the main site.

Evidence: A number of these niche sites have been found and as expected the fossils there smoothed out the harsh jump, do some research and you can find out information about them.

*Reasonable in the sense that fossils generally only show us bone thus they only record larger structural changes and thus we can't see the majority of evolutionary changes.

All fixed hyro.

Wow, you obviously don't understand Punk eek. Punk eek isn't because there are no transitional fossils.

I understand it perfectly. Its a theory to cover up errors for another larger theory with errors and/or anamoles.

The problem: Although we have reasonable* transitional forms many fossil sites show a large jump in evolution in a rather short amount of time.

And how much time does this usually eqaute to? Where does the Coelecanth fit into that category? They said it was extinct for 350 million years, which means that it could have been living for up to 600 million years, if not longer. So, in 600 million years, it hasn't changed? Have you ever seen a Coelecanth? Its a slow, lumbering creature. If ever there was an animal who's frame allows for evolution and/or extinction, the Coelecanth is a prime candidate. So what is the general consencus on how much time an organism will have before these conveniently rapid changes occur?

The hypothesis: Maybe a smaller group of a larger group of animals gets stuck in a niche (say by water or because they eat a certain flower there, etc). The close quarters allows for quicker evolution of the population because of increased survival preasures and quicker gene propagation.

If this group survives it may end up pushing the larger group out and taking it's place because it has adapted better than the larger group.

Thus a large jump in the fossil record will be found.

The notion of punctuated equilibrium spawned from a lack of answers for macroevolution and its lack of fossilized evidence. Gould argues that transitions were instantaneous due to a cataclysmic event, or that it follows normal biological function. Hang on a minute. If these changes were so instant, naturally there would be very little, to no transitional evidence, which is exactly what there is.... Or in this case, what there isn't. This is the exact reason why it was invented. So how can you state otherwise? How desperate can one possibly be to use a theory that presents no evidence, in order to justify that there is no evidence to begin with? Sentiments like these no longer reflect science, but rather a fictitious and imagined series of events. Another thing to remember is that its still not fully accepted into the evolutionary paradigm, and for good reason. The theory is tantalyzingly incomplete, as is the fossil record. Even those who believe in more rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would still be required for one distinct taxa to evolve through a series of gradations in order to have as many different organisms as we do. There should be, without any questions whatsoever, that there are transitional forms. Why do you keep overlooking the staunch fact that this is what punc eq tries to reconcile with? Are there transitional forms, or is it because of punc eq? After all, there are billions of non-transitional structures, and no transmogrifications. Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of some primordial soup could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-cellular invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Which is another interesting thing to consider. They call it the "Cambrian explosion" because everything seems to appear abruptly. That's because they were created at the same time. Another crux is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its hard-wired contrivances, managed to evolve into the first fish vertebrate. So how has evolutionists arrived at their evolutionary branching out from fossils of organisms, which didn't change during their durations?

It seems to me that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear progression at all.

Testing: If the niche site is found we should find fossils that smooth out the transition at the main site.

How can you test for this if there is nothing to base it off of? Where are they basing their 'opinions' from?

Evidence: A number of these niche sites have been found and as expected the fossils there smoothed out the harsh jump, do some research and you can find out information about them.

Please explain this. Which organisms, how were they able to recreate evolution, and what is the mechanism for changes?

Reasonable in the sense that fossils generally only show us bone thus they only record larger structural changes and thus we can't see the majority of evolutionary changes.

That's fine. We won't worry about soft-bodied organisms with a soft exoskeleton. Let's just talk about organisms with bones.

quote:I understand it perfectly. Its a theory to cover up errors for another larger theory with errors and/or anamoles.

Ha, I hope you never accuse anyone else of being biased.

You know, since I've been debating creationists I've discovered the errors are often in their understanding of evolution.

You claim both punk eek and evolution both have errors yet you have constantly demonstrated your misunderstanding of both. I've tried to point it out to you that you shouldn't claim something you don't understand is in error but you just ignore it. Sad really.

quote:And how much time does this usually eqaute to? Where does the Coelecanth fit into that category? They said it was extinct for 350 million years, which means that it could have been living for up to 600 million years, if not longer. So, in 600 million years, it hasn't changed?

The amount of time varies. The amount of evolution varies as well. A number of factors effect how quickly or slowly a species evolves, many have changed pretty recently and other stay about the same for a long time.

What do you mean a Coelecanth? I know you have been over this before, did you just put it out of your mind because it didn't match what creationists told you?

Coelecanth is an entire order of fish. Modern Coelecanth are quite a bit different from the 350 million year old fossils.

quote:Gould argues that transitions were instantaneous due to a cataclysmic event, or that it follows normal biological function. Hang on a minute. If these changes were so instant, naturally there would be very little, to no transitional evidence, which is exactly what there is....

They weren't instant. Maybe you should stop making things up.

quote:Which is another interesting thing to consider. They call it the "Cambrian explosion" because everything seems to appear abruptly.

By everything I hope you mean some but not all complex life, as there are fossils of complex life from before the cambrian explosion and those that only evolved after and by Abruptly I hope you mean 5 to 10 to 40 million years in length.

If not then you need to go read about the Cambrian explosion from a good source.

quote:Please explain this. Which organisms, how were they able to recreate evolution, and what is the mechanism for changes?

wait a second, I thought you said you understood Punctuated Equilibrium perfectly. If so you would know of the evidence supporting it. Did you just lie?

Tip: Don't claim you understand something if you don't.

Tip: Don't claim something has errors in it if you don't understand it.

This seems to be pretty common, you attack something you don't understand and then ignore any attempts to explain the truth. The irony here is I bet you complain about atheists doing this to christianity.

Learn a bit more about Punk eek,

Don lindsay's quick FAQ on PE - http://tinyurl.com/pstqu

One example of PE in dinosaurs from DL - http://tinyurl.com/qsoyr

This goes on my little list of things that have now been explained to you and DS, please try to stay honest.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I think hyro is just a close minded individual, with a group of close minded people who share his views and try to convert people to them, while shunning people who don't agree with you. Should we dismiss your posts with "........................................Okay."?

Is it that I'm closed-minded or that you don't like what I have to say?

[/b]

I don't like people spreading lies.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

My point exactly, you see they need to discredit me as a poster since my points are valid. Either that or they will ignore them completely choosing to live in self-ordained ignorance, with a better than everyone attitude.

Try not give yourself accolaids... It gives you an air of arrogance.

[/b]

Did I not say you would attempt to discredit me personally and not the facts against creationalism? Why prove me right so quickly?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



There is evidence for evolution and none for creationism.

Then by all means, support your claim.



It has been supported by 140 years of science looking into the theory, unlike religion science dispells false theorys, and this one has stood for 140 years. Now if something changes then we will look into it, but for the time being, evolution to the best of our knowledge is how biological creatures became the way they are today.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Creationist research has one goal, promoting christianity, so this ruins any science behind it. It is the same concept as the Nazi's research on the superior race.

That's not true. There are creationists of all walks of life, from various theological backgrounds.



Your right, I should have said religion not christianity. You see the "proof" of non-bais research you gave me had this to say:

Yahya explains that evolution is at the root of evil today:

The reason why a special chapter is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution is that this theory constitutes the basis of all anti-spiritual philosophies. Since Darwinism rejects the fact of creation, and therefore the existence of God, during the last 140 years it has caused many people to abandon their faith or fall into doubt. Therefore, showing that this theory is a deception is a very important duty, which is strongly related to the religion. It is imperative that this important service be rendered to everyone.

That is incredably bias, science based on this? My claim that creationist research isn't true science and is only a propoganda mechine stands.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Fossil/rock dating methods alone prove the earth is older than 6000 years.

Tell me all about it, in detail.



Do you not know how to do independent research?

quote:The age of the chemical elements can be estimated using radioactive decay to determine how old a given mixture of atoms is. The most definite ages that can be determined this way are ages since the solidification of rock samples. When a rock solidifies, the chemical elements often get separated into different crystalline grains in the rock. For example, sodium and calcium are both common elements, but their chemical behaviours are quite different, so one usually finds sodium and calcium in different grains in a differentiated rock. Rubidium and strontium are heavier elements that behave chemically much like sodium and calcium. Thus rubidium and strontium are usually found in different grains in a rock. But Rb-87 decays into Sr-87 with a half-life of 47 billion years. And there is another isotope of strontium, Sr-86, which is not produced by any rubidium decay. The isotope Sr-87 is called radiogenic, because it can be produced by radioactive decay, while Sr-86 is non-radiogenic. The Sr-86 is used to determine what fraction of the Sr-87 was produced by radioactive decay. This is done by plotting the Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio versus the Rb-87/Sr-86 ratio. When a rock is first formed, the different grains have a wide range of Rb-87/Sr-86 ratios, but the Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio is the same in all grains because the chemical processes leading to differentiated grains do not separate isotopes. After the rock has been solid for several billion years, a fraction of the Rb-87 will have decayed into Sr-87. Then the Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio will be larger in grains with a large Rb-87/Sr-86 ratio. Do a linear fit of

Sr-87/Sr-86 = a + b*(Rb-87/Sr-86)

and then the slope term is given by

b = 2x - 1



That is how the dating of rocks works.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Along with other evidence (although the fossil dating alone is enough proof) creationism is false.

Tell us all about it, in detail.



Ok.

quote:How do we know the age of the Universe and the Earth?

Scientists say that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old while the universe is somewhere from 10 to 20 billion years old. Is it true that in the '60s scientists spotted background radiation that they thought to be remnants of the Big Bang? If this is the evidence that we base the Big Bang theory on, can the universe be older than 10 to 20 billion years, even though we have not seen any evidence of it? Also, why exactly are we sure that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old? Is the quantity 10 to 20 billion years commonly accepted today because of evidence only?

It is indeed true that scientists have known about the background radiation (commonly known as the Cosmic Microwave Background) since the early 60s. It was first discovered quite by accident by Penzias and Wilson working at Bell Labs, who detected it as an unexplainable interference in their precision radio equipment. When people finally figured out exactly what it was they were seeing, they won the Nobel Prize for their discovery. Only a few years before, George Gamow had predicted that if the Big Bang theory were correct, we should observe just such a background radiation. The CMB is not the only evidence in favor of the Big Bang, but it is one of the most important. It is a natural consequence of the theory, and is pretty unexplainable in steady-state cosmology.

The 15-20 billion year number comes not from the CMB, but rather predominantly from measurements of nearby and distant galaxies, particularly their rates of expansion away from us. We find that the distance to a galaxy is proportional to its recessional velocity. The constant of proportionality is the Hubble Constant, H, which turns out to be (approximately) the reciprocal of the age of the universe. So we measure the age by measuring recessional velocities. T = 1/H is only true, however, if the universe is not significantly accelerating or decelerating its expansion rate. If the rate of expansion is rapidly accelerating, the universe may be older than 1/H = 15 billion years, give or take. Such an acceleration would be caused by a large value of the Cosmological Constant, a sort of anti-gravity force predicted by General Relativity. There is some evidence that this might be the case.

So finally, yes, the age of the universe, being based on the empirical determination of H, is based on the observed evidence.

The age of the Solar System (including the Earth), on the other hand, is measured by the radioactive decay of certain isotopes in rocks and meteorites. These isotopes (principally Potassium and Uranium) were created with the solar system. By measuring how much has decayed, we can very accurately determine how long it's been since they (and the rest of the solar system) were formed.



quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



If people had bothered to research it, people would know that.

But since you did research then you can enlighten all of us, in detail.



Ok, I wouldn't call it enlightenment but it is proof.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Some scientific views on creationism are expressed below:

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?"

[Stephen Jay Gould, "The Skeptical Inquirer"]

He also said, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." -Stephen J. Gould

"Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade-- a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth."

[Stephen Jay Gould, "Dinosaur in a Haystack"]

He also went on to say this:

"Darwin invoked his standard argument to resolve this uncomfortable problem: the fossil record is so imperfect that we do not have evidence for most events of life's history. But even Darwin acknowledged that his favorite ploy was wearing a bit thin in this case. His argument could easily account for a missing stage in a single linage, but could the agencies of imperfection really obliterate absolutely all evidence for positively every creature during most of life's history? Darwin admitted: "The case as present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." -Stephen J. Gould



Luckley since darwin, the fossil record is being added to as addressed in the Missing Link thread, you see science is constantly expanding, and since darwin addressed evolution, more and more evidence is being presented, evaluated, and integrated into the scientific community.

Also as pointed out above by rock dating and background radiation, evolution alone isn't the only proof against creationism. That is why non-religous people tend to think it is false.



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 05-01-2006).]

<And cue up no more responses from creationists>

I've noticed that in a lot of threads, creationists will attempt to discredit evolution by posting 'prove it' and the evolutionists, with an exasperated sigh, will explain it again, as if talking to a child, and show the expansive proofs [i]again,[i] and then the creationists will stop posting. Yet, they will ask once again for proof in the next thread.

Hyro, if you are ever to claim that there is no proof, show us direct, non-biased scientific evidence that is verified by the mainstream scientific community that refutes what he just posted, or please stop posting. Thanks for your cooperation.

ya creationism is abound in strange places. one of my close friends recently told me he believed in god because evolution didn't make any sense. this is a guy that i percieve as pretty intelligent, but he was just ignorant of the facts surrounding it. so i explained to him about the same species separated by vast oceans, how genetic drift and sexual selection leads to speciation, and how we can observe species evolving through the fossil record and the genetic record, etc, etc.

anyway once he understood this, and did some research on his own, he accepted evolution as a scientific fact. since he wasn't entrenched in a belief i think he was able to accept new ideas on merit alone. why can't xians do this? god and evolution and even evolution and the bible to not contradict.

edit: besides, creationism is not science. there is never any evidence supporting god because such evidence is not possible. even any 'evidence' we had would be non-knowledge because the god the evidence is supporting could not be falsified. this is why science and religion are two separate fields, and always will be.

unless you want to suggest we were created by an alien race, creationism is not and will never be science.

[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 05-01-2006).]

The problem with science is it doesn't conform to our beliefs. We have to form our beliefs to it. That is why there is a classic clash between religion and science. Religion is all about what you want to believe, whereas science is pure truth with no bullshit. Granted, scientists are wrong, but I speak of accepted theories of the scientific community. This is why religion has no business in science, and this is why deeply religious people often feel that science is oppressing them- simply because science refuses to conform to what they want to believe like their religion does.

I'd like to add one more thing. When you respond, (which you won't as there is no evidence against evolution and you cannot refute the evidence he posted) please also explain why we can see the light from things that are over 6000 light years away.

If God somehow started the light on its journey, your God is a deceptive prick and should not be trusted. He gives us evidence that the bible is wrong, yet faults us for disbelieving? What an ass.

Otherwise, admit you are wrong. Unless you are so committed to your beliefs that you want to challenge another scientific field that proves your religion wrong.

This isn't just evolution as proof against creationism. Although I think evolution is true, there is much more solid undeniable proof against creationism from the stars, and rocks of our planet.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Also as pointed out above by rock dating and background radiation, evolution alone isn't the only proof against creationism.

I would like to see what the creationists think, and if this at all changes their minds, since I am convinced the debate is over.

creationists will never change their minds, unless they are only creationists because they are young and impressionable.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

creationists will never change their minds, unless they are only creationists because they are young and impressionable.

I'm sure at least one of them has the ability to look at these things and say, "wow that's true, never thought of that"

hyro I explained in detail, where are you?

Are there no creationists willing to comment in this thread? It's only fair that you guys should post, since it was a creationist that brought the issue up in the first place. It is not possible for the earth to be 6000 years old, and this is proven.

Out of curiousity what do you guys think about creationism now? Do you still believe in it despite the fact that it is impossible for it to be true? If you do why?

hyroglyphx, Digital_Savior, and other creationists, do you not post because you know we are right, or because in hyroglyphx words "don't like what I have to say?"

they won't post, and if they do they won't reply to what you say, they will just replay the same tape in their head.

they don't read the posts. if they do they either secretly admit it is right and ignore it, or are so angry and thinking of how to refute it that they don't really understand it. or some form of that type of shit.

they have lost the ability to integrate new information into their paradigm. either it fits with their worldview, or it doesn't.

i hope im wrong...but over a year of well-intentioned arguing in this forum has proven to me that i am right about this.

Creationism flat out comes down to religion verse science. There's no way around it. Creationists hate science. They will say they don't, but they do, and they have to. To say that creationism is true, you are directly going against a vast many fields of science, a vast number of proofs, and if you were right, science would fall apart into nothingness.

The reason we cling to science, and the reason religious people don't, is because it is the only absolute truth mechanism we have. It does not, and will never, conform to our beliefs. Religious people are frustrated with this. Many other things conform to religious beliefs; government, law, (eg gay marriage), so they think, why shouldn't science? You have been spoiled into thinking that everything must conform to you, that the world revolves around you. Christianity is the philisophic epitome of a spoiled brat.

The history of christianity is the history of a spoiled brat religion. Throughout time thousands, if not millions, have died from this attitude, killed by God, the crusades, the inquisition, and so on. Galileo was burned at the stake simply because he was right, and his correctness threatened the chruch's silly beliefs. The church wanted to get their way in a field they had no business in. Religion has no business in the business of truth.

However, science cannot, and will not, conform to your beliefs. Your beliefs are wrong, and have been proven so by science. Sorry. I don't know how to make this any easier; you have all invested a lot of your time, energy, beliefs, and mental well being into this, and it simply isn't true. Change is extremely painful, and to still be a creationist at this point is just extremist radical zealot stubborness.

Every field of science confirms that creationism is wrong (or has nothing to do with any of it at all).

So you are telling me, that you think people 2000 years ago are completely honest that they saw the son of God perform miracles and do crazy things we have no proof of and that the bible is the divine word of God which you know because the bible says so and therefore must be infallible, but that modern, intelligent, morally nicer, better people doing falsifiable, scientific, repeatable, provable, testable experiments are somehow wrong or lying?

Whoa. Bullshit much?

I'll end with a great quote.

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?"

[Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark"]

ya. you're right, but galileo was not burned at the stake. he recanted his works and continued writing under house arrest. his books were published posthumously.

Ha, I hope you never accuse anyone else of being biased.

And why is that?

You know, since I've been debating creationists I've discovered the errors are often in their understanding of evolution.

You claim both punk eek and evolution both have errors yet you have constantly demonstrated your misunderstanding of both. I've tried to point it out to you that you shouldn't claim something you don't understand is in error but you just ignore it. Sad really.

You know full well that you can't say that with any semblence of veracity. Let's break down Punctuated Equilibrium by sifting through the distortions. First and foremost, Punq Eq was invented to explain why there are no transitional forms. If you say otherwise, you are either a liar or terribly misinformed.

[b]The amount of time varies. The amount of evolution varies as well. A number of factors effect how quickly or slowly a species evolves, many have changed pretty recently and other stay about the same for a long time.

What do you mean a Coelecanth? I know you have been over this before, did you just put it out of your mind because it didn't match what creationists told you?

Coelecanth is an entire order of fish. Modern Coelecanth are quite a bit different from the 350 million year old fossils.

No, there are at least two types of living Coelecanth, the Sulawesi and Comoros, which can be likened to two different types of dogs. (Not macroevolution) A significant change would need to be presented. And no such fossil exists.

They weren't instant. Maybe you should stop making things up.

I said, "or that it follows normal biological function." But Gould also tried to marry Darwins' Catastrophism to Punctuated Equilibrium as a possible reason for the inexplicable changes. The theory that new species evolve suddenly over brief periods of time, followed by longer periods during which there is no genetic change, remains unseen. Gould's theory is merely an addition to, or a revision of Darwin's theory of evolution.

By everything I hope you mean some but not all complex life, as there are fossils of complex life from before the cambrian explosion and those that only evolved after and by Abruptly I hope you mean 5 to 10 to 40 million years in length.

If not then you need to go read about the Cambrian explosion from a good source.

If the Cambrian explosion actually occured, then these complex marine animals developed from something. You might say, "Yeah, from unicellular organisms," but they have too many components to have appeared abruptly with modifications of those previous unicellular organisms. They had to have been derived from pre-existing ancestor species, but what were those ancestors and where are they? This has constantly been the crux for evolution. Therefore, weak theories such as Pun Eq have to be invented to get around this nasty conundrum. There is no explanation as to why or how these new lifeforms arose, especially as quickly as they supposedly did. It gives much more credence that they didn't evolve at all, but rather were intentionally created with all the necessary components in place from the beginning.

wait a second, I thought you said you understood Punctuated Equilibrium perfectly.

I do. And clearly alot better than you do. But nice distraction nonetheless. I'll still oblige you.

If so you would know of the evidence supporting it. Did you just lie?

Tip: Don't claim you understand something if you don't.

Tip: Don't claim something has errors in it if you don't understand it.

This seems to be pretty common, you attack something you don't understand and then ignore any attempts to explain the truth. The irony here is I bet you complain about atheists doing this to christianity.

Learn a bit more about Punk eek,

Don lindsay's quick FAQ on PE - http://tinyurl.com/pstqu

One example of PE in dinosaurs from DL - http://tinyurl.com/qsoyr

This goes on my little list of things that have now been explained to you and DS, please try to stay honest.

The argument boils down to this: "Since we still can't find transitional forms, there must be a reason. I mean, obviously evolution is real, so we are going to have to figure out a plausible scenario that is believable. Maybe pigs birthed a litter of foxes. What do you think? To ridiculous, huh? Yeah, that is a bit fanciful. Wait, maybe evolution occurs not so much in incremental steps, but rather rapid bursts of time to explain it away. This way we have no evidence in order to cover up the fact that we have no evidence, but it at least sounds logical."

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. And for how pragmatic you make yourself out to be, following this theory is counter-intuitive. Theories are testable when they make predictions which scientists can in principle observe. Neither the basic premise of evolution is testable nor has it EVER been observed. I challenge you to give me one example that we have witnessed. Provided the fact that there are easily millions of living species, we should defintiley be able to see a few of them in a transitional phase just by odds alone. Neither has punctuated equilibrium ever been witnessed or reproduced in spite of all of our technological advances. Scientific theories must be based upon repeatable observations, something you allege Creationists cannot do. Somebody please tell me how evolution has been verified, even in spite of it running completely counter to the very definition of science. What hard evidence does punctuated equilibrium have? With respect to finding fossil evidence of the transitional stages of evolutionary change, punctuated equilibrium predicts that direct fossil evidence of these transitional morphologies will tend to not be found. LOL! How convenient! So they are giving reasons why we shouldn't ever be able to find evidence, yet you keep arguing with me that transitional evidence exists. Which is it? What are you even arguing about? Do you even know? The theory of punctuated equilibrium may or may not predict certain patterns, but we're sure hard pressed for actual evidence of anything. No mechanism is explained or verified, just guesses based on hope and faith. Nice. It simply runs completely on faith. And though it does make certain predictions, punctuated equilibrium provides a poor vehicle for validating Darwin's theory as the mechanism of evolution and confirming Darwin's strong prediction that transitional stages of morphology existed. Well, we're still waiting. This is the impotence of punctuated equilibrium, and of the macroevolutionary theory as a whole.

I don't like people spreading lies.

Then stop spreading them.

Did I not say you would attempt to discredit me personally and not the facts against creationalism? Why prove me right so quickly?

I responded to a specific post of yours that had absolutely nothing to do with creationism or evolution. Should I not respond to you posts on a point-by-point basis?

It has been supported by 140 years of science looking into the theory, unlike religion science dispells false theorys, and this one has stood for 140 years.

What indisputable evidence is there??? Please, show us all because the scientific community has been dying to see it.

Now if something changes then we will look into it, but for the time being, evolution to the best of our knowledge is how biological creatures became the way they are today.

This is based on guesswork, and very poor conjectures. Give us something that anyone can verify.

Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Creationist research has one goal, promoting christianity, so this ruins any science behind it. It is the same concept as the Nazi's research on the superior race.

That's not true. There are creationists of all walks of life, from various theological backgrounds.

Excuse me?????? I said no such thing.

Your right, I should have said religion not christianity. You see the "proof" of non-bais research you gave me had this to say:

Yahya explains that evolution is at the root of evil today:

The reason why a special chapter is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution is that this theory constitutes the basis of all anti-spiritual philosophies. Since Darwinism rejects the fact of creation, and therefore the existence of God, during the last 140 years it has caused many people to abandon their faith or fall into doubt. Therefore, showing that this theory is a deception is a very important duty, which is strongly related to the religion. It is imperative that this important service be rendered to everyone.

That is incredably bias, science based on this? My claim that creationist research isn't true science and is only a propoganda mechine stands.

I don't really care what Yahya said, because I don't agree with Yahya. I simplypointed out that creationism isn't a criteria for 'Christianity.' This just further supports the gross misconception that is running wild in the minds of youth like yourself.

Do you not know how to do independent research?

Yes, I was hoping you would actually debate me in your own words and not run wild with cutting and pasting.

The age of the chemical elements can be estimated using radioactive decay to determine how old a given mixture of atoms is. The most definite ages that can be determined this way are ages since the solidification of rock samples. When a rock solidifies, the chemical elements often get separated into different crystalline grains in the rock. For example, sodium and calcium are both common elements, but their chemical behaviours are quite different, so one usually finds sodium and calcium in different grains in a differentiated rock. Rubidium and strontium are heavier elements that behave chemically much like sodium and calcium. Thus rubidium and strontium are usually found in different grains in a rock. But Rb-87 decays into Sr-87 with a half-life of 47 billion years. And there is another isotope of strontium, Sr-86, which is not produced by any rubidium decay. The isotope Sr-87 is called radiogenic, because it can be produced by radioactive decay, while Sr-86 is non-radiogenic. The Sr-86 is used to determine what fraction of the Sr-87 was produced by radioactive decay. This is done by plotting the Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio versus the Rb-87/Sr-86 ratio. When a rock is first formed, the different grains have a wide range of Rb-87/Sr-86 ratios, but the Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio is the same in all grains because the chemical processes leading to differentiated grains do not separate isotopes. After the rock has been solid for several billion years, a fraction of the Rb-87 will have decayed into Sr-87. Then the Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio will be larger in grains with a large Rb-87/Sr-86 ratio. Do a linear fit of

Sr-87/Sr-86 = a + b*(Rb-87/Sr-86)

and then the slope term is given by

b = 2x - 1

I presume you used this as some sort of proof that the earth is billions of years old. The assertion is that the earth is billions of years old. More specifically, 4.5 billion years old, depending on which day of the week it is. For you, time is the hero in the story of life. Time has replaced a kiss from a prince in order to change a frog into a princess. Time is the magical ingredient in the fairytale of evolution. Why is it so critical to the evolutionary model? Think of it this way: The probability that you can flip 16 coins in succession and have them all come up ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ is 1 in 65,536. If you try it once, you will more than likely fail. If you test the experiment 10 million times, however, you will certainly succeed. In fact, you are then likely to succeed 150 times out of that many tries. Therefore, you must rely and hope that the commencement of life is not, impossible, just very, very improbable. Your rationale is if billions of years of time elapsed, it will provide enough opportunities for these anomalous occurrences to commence. To answer your question, it is first important that we ask how these figures have come up to begin with. There are many ingenious methods used to date the earth, some of which you mentioned, though I realize you don't even understand what you posted. Most notably, is radiometric and isochronal dating. The methodology for ascertaining age estimates result in the measuring of the amount of radioactive isotopes in any given specimen. You measure the amount of each isotope, plus the assumed initial concentration of each isotope. From that, a calculation is made for an age estimate. The operative word in the aforementioned statement, however, is ‘assumed.’ When the advent of this testing came to be, scientists gathered fallen meteorites and produced from them an algorithm. All of this conjecture was based solely on the inference that the meteorite itself must have been billions of years old! Therefore, we see a flawed premise from the get-go. Then they measured the amount of radioactive isotopes in the experimented specimen. All radioactive material has a half-life. The half-life is the depletion of that radioactive element found in the material they wish to date. For example, in Thorium .230 dating, the ‘parent’ isotope (Thorium) decays into the ‘daughter’ isotope (Lead). If you want the rock, for instance, to be old, simply assume a small initial value for the daughter isotope. If you want the rock to be young, simply assume and assign a high initial value to the daughter isotope. Most assuredly, you will get whatever ages you so desire. Catch my drift? This is a bad case of garbage-in, garbage-out, as it uses circular reasoning in its premise. Aside from this, there are routinely discrepencies that cannot be overlooked or ignored, yet they do. These discrepancies are what typify the argument against many evolutionary geologists and paleontologists. Another common misnomer is to date a fossil by a rock laying adjacent to it. (The logic being that you will be able to tell roughly how old the fossil is. ‘Well, how old do you know the rock is by using this method?’ You date the rock by the fossil. ‘Huh? Isn’t that circular reasoning?’ Quiet you!

Are you beginning to understand that its entire premise was based off faulty logic from its inception? Radiometric dating can work if its calibration is actually accurate. And if you want to talk about bias, if a 'date' doesn't fit any preconcieved notion set forth by the evolutionarty model, its disregarded in order to make it conform to the manmade, and completely imagined geologic column.

How do we know the age of the Universe and the Earth?

Scientists say that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old while the universe is somewhere from 10 to 20 billion years old.

Yeah, this is the hilarity of it. Some astrophysicist have resolved to tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark after the singularity, yet can't decide whether the earth is 10 or 20 billion years old.

Is it true that in the '60s scientists spotted background radiation that they thought to be remnants of the Big Bang? If this is the evidence that we base the Big Bang theory on, can the universe be older than 10 to 20 billion years, even though we have not seen any evidence of it? Also, why exactly are we sure that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old? Is the quantity 10 to 20 billion years commonly accepted today because of evidence only?

It is indeed true that scientists have known about the background radiation (commonly known as the Cosmic Microwave Background) since the early 60s. It was first discovered quite by accident by Penzias and Wilson working at Bell Labs, who detected it as an unexplainable interference in their precision radio equipment. When people finally figured out exactly what it was they were seeing, they won the Nobel Prize for their discovery. Only a few years before, George Gamow had predicted that if the Big Bang theory were correct, we should observe just such a background radiation. The CMB is not the only evidence in favor of the Big Bang, but it is one of the most important. It is a natural consequence of the theory, and is pretty unexplainable in steady-state cosmology.

I'm undecided on how I feel about the BB, but allow me to give a few reasons why I believe that it is still questionable. The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe. But the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of certain heavy elements like deuterium, lithium and helium are in contradiction with each other. As well, the redshift dilemma presents a fantastic argument against the Steady State theory, however, I've the mirror argument posed. Is there actually a shift or a percieved one, in other words. Think of two mirrors that are facing each other. If one is slightly misaligned, the image that reflects one another will become distorted, and will arc in the direction of the off-kilter mirror. That is a layman explanation, but it at least gives you a basis for understanding the fundamental principle. As well, judging by what we do know of the universe, there has not been an explanation for how the univrse avoided recollapse in the early stages. Given the observed velocities of some of these systems, the perfect amount is required to avoid recollapse. If you don't like that, talk to Hawking who also doesn't like the implications.

The 15-20 billion year number comes not from the CMB, but rather predominantly from measurements of nearby and distant galaxies, particularly their rates of expansion away from us. We find that the distance to a galaxy is proportional to its recessional velocity. The constant of proportionality is the Hubble Constant, H, which turns out to be (approximately) the reciprocal of the age of the universe. So we measure the age by measuring recessional velocities. T = 1/H is only true, however, if the universe is not significantly accelerating or decelerating its expansion rate. If the rate of expansion is rapidly accelerating, the universe may be older than 1/H = 15 billion years, give or take. Such an acceleration would be caused by a large value of the Cosmological Constant, a sort of anti-gravity force predicted by General Relativity. There is some evidence that this might be the case.

So finally, yes, the age of the universe, being based on the empirical determination of H, is based on the observed evidence.

Halton Arp is one of the premier dissidents of the Big Bang. As I said, I'm undecided on it, but he does present a good argument against it. If you'd like to learn more about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

Ok, I wouldn't call it enlightenment but it is proof.

Your own self-imposed hubris would indicate otherwise.

Some scientific views on creationism are expressed below:

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?"

[Stephen Jay Gould, "The Skeptical Inquirer"]

It sure would have been nice if he actually debated a creationist. His decline speaks volumes to me that he simply didn't have enough faith in himself or his theory to stand before the frailty of his own theory.

He also said, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." -Stephen J. Gould

And this quote summarizes quite nicely his unabashed need for punctuated equilibrium, something Beta keeps arguing about.

"Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade-- a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth."

[Stephen Jay Gould, "Dinosaur in a Haystack"]

Wow, too bad his words are more bold than the evidence.... Or should I say, lack of evidence?

He also went on to say this:

"Darwin invoked his standard argument to resolve this uncomfortable problem: the fossil record is so imperfect that we do not have evidence for most events of life's history. But even Darwin acknowledged that his favorite ploy was wearing a bit thin in this case. His argument could easily account for a missing stage in a single linage, but could the agencies of imperfection really obliterate absolutely all evidence for positively every creature during most of life's history? Darwin admitted: "The case as present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." -Stephen J. Gould

Yes, this is another great quote. Quotes like these coming from the secular fields of science are about as rare as positive evidence for their theory.

Luckley since darwin, the fossil record is being added to as addressed in the Missing Link thread, you see science is constantly expanding, and since darwin addressed evolution, more and more evidence is being presented, evaluated, and integrated into the scientific community.

Yes, science is constantly adding to itself. I'd be afraid if didn't. However, the proposition given in the Missing Link thread doesn't have much of anything to discuss. I've actually been corresponding with one of the alleged discoverers. I've been asking him for at least an abstract. I'm still awaiting his reply.

Also as pointed out above by rock dating and background radiation, evolution alone isn't the only proof against creationism. That is why non-religous people tend to think it is false

You only hope that you can say that. Where the rubber meets the road is the startling fact that Neo-Darwinism behaves like the most pious religions and is has been propagated on faith, the exact kind of faith that they charge religious people with. Irony does have a sense of humor.

quote:No, there are at least two types of living Coelecanth, the Sulawesi and Comoros, which can be likened to two different types of dogs. (Not macroevolution) A significant change would need to be presented. And no such fossil exists.

Wait, what is it? unchanged or just without a "significant" change.

quote:The theory that new species evolve suddenly over brief periods of time, followed by longer periods during which there is no genetic change, remains unseen.

Except we have fossils showing change over a "brief" period of time and creatures that have remained rather similar to their ancient fossils.

quote:If the Cambrian explosion actually occured, then these complex marine animals developed from something. You might say, "Yeah, from unicellular organisms," but they have too many components to have appeared abruptly with modifications of those previous unicellular organisms. They had to have been derived from pre-existing ancestor species, but what were those ancestors and where are they?

I swear I just pointed this out to you. Hard structures fossilize much easier than soft structures, the Cambrian explosion is the "fast" evolution of hard structures that more easily fossilize not the appearance of all completely new life forms that didn't exist before.

quote:It gives much more credence that they didn't evolve at all, but rather were intentionally created with all the necessary components in place from the beginning.

"A lack of evidence can't be pawned off as evidence..." -Hyroglyphx

quote:I do [understand Punk eek]. And clearly alot better than you do. But nice distraction nonetheless. I'll still oblige you.

Ahahaha, that was great. Gives me reason to not waste my time. Since if you understand punk eek better than I then your false statements about it are obvious lies. There is no reason to continue to reply to a lair... but I'll still oblige you... for now. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Wait, maybe evolution occurs not so much in incremental steps, but rather rapid bursts of time to explain it away.

Didn't I already explain how evolutionary speed changes. Oh wait, you know all about that right?

quote:Theories are testable when they make predictions which scientists can in principle observe.

Something Punk eek does, which you would know 1) since you understand it better than me and 2) since you obviously read the links I gave you instead of ignoring them.

quote:Neither has punctuated equilibrium ever been witnessed or reproduced in spite of all of our technological advances.

In a way everytime scientists mutate a small group of fruit flys they are performing Punk eek. But you already knew that, right?

quote:The theory of punctuated equilibrium may or may not predict certain patterns, but we're sure hard pressed for actual evidence of anything.

Punk eek does predict certain patterns (I thought you understood it better than me) and we have found evidence of these patterns (maybe you should read the links I give you, oh wait, never mind as you obviously know more about this than me).

If you can't tell arrogance of ignorance doesn't sit well with me, and I'm controling myself not to post a harsher reply.

Firstly, I was not expecting any creationists to respond, but for once they did. Kudos to you, hyro.

Now, once again, you 'bashed evolution to pieces' (or tried) but have provided no reason at all as to why creationism is as plausible a theory. Answer this: If the world was 6000 years old, how would that prove creationism? Are you saying there is somehow more proof that God, firstly that there is a God, and then that he created Adam and Eve, in six days, then rested, 6000 years ago? I'm sorry, I guess I missed all the scientific evidence explaining the 'Adam Eve Six Day + Rest' theory. Darn.

Because, you know, if there was zero positive evidence for something, it would be completely ridiculous to teach it in science, wouldn't it?

You missed the point. By a lot.

One more question.

How can we see the light from places more then 6000 light years away?

(Prediction: We are wrong about this, too, because it contradicts the bible, which must be right because the bible says so. "Hey, isn't that circular?" Quiet You!)

Wait, what is it? unchanged or just without a "significant" change.

Nice grasping at straws... I was mentioning the difference between Sulawesi's and Comoro's, which is about as different as a Calico is to a Tabby. I was not reffering to the fossilzed Coelecanth. But if you feel that a 'significant' change has been noted, then post evidence of it. I can't present evidence of a negative, so the burden of proof remains with you. You know what, it doesn't even matter because I've resolved not come back to Totse. (I'll explain that at the end).

Except we have fossils showing change over a "brief" period of time and creatures that have remained rather similar to their ancient fossils.

Such as what?

I swear I just pointed this out to you. Hard structures fossilize much easier than soft structures, the Cambrian explosion is the "fast" evolution of hard structures that more easily fossilize not the appearance of all completely new life forms that didn't exist before.

No, its just a lack of evidence, period. Just say that. Its a more acceptable and honest answer. We don't need to hear more reasons for why there is no evidence. All that matters is that there is still no evidence. Isn't disheartening for you? All this floundering is just a sad display.

"A lack of evidence can't be pawned off as evidence..." -Hyroglyphx

It still hasn't stopped you. If something doesn't exist, I can't prove that it doesn't exist. You can't prove or disprove a negative. But it doesn't seem to bother you to give it a shot.

[b]Ahahaha, that was great. Gives me reason to not waste my time. Since if you understand punk eek better than I then your false statements about it are obvious lies. There is no reason to continue to reply to a lair... but I'll still oblige you... for now.

If you still believe that that punctuated equilibrium was NOT invented because of a lack of transitional forms, then you really don't understand it and I actually do. It really is that simple. You've still given no reasons why the two would be divorced from one another.

Didn't I already explain how evolutionary speed changes. Oh wait, you know all about that right?

You didn't explain anything. You provided no mechanism, no evidence, nothing even remotely logical that would explain how your fantasy could ever be interpreted as a reality.

Something Punk eek does, which you would know 1) since you understand it better than me and 2) since you obviously read the links I gave you instead of ignoring them.

Then what's the next organism that is going to evolve, why, how, and when? Prophesy to us.

In a way everytime scientists mutate a small group of fruit flys they are performing Punk eek. But you already knew that, right?

Please tell me you aren't talking about the Drosophila..... By evolving, do you mean mutants with serious deformities, such as wings growing out of their head, eyes on the top of their head, eyes missing altogether, or any other serious defect that would certainly eliminate any fruit fly in the wild? It kinda goes along with what I've been saying about mutations. Its not a good thing. No bionic fruitfly has ever been the product of these experiments... Just more fruit flies and lots of them.

"The dipteran Chironomus tentans has complex tandemly repeated 350-bp DNA sequences at or near the chromosome ends. As in Drosophila melanogaster, short simple repeats with cytosines and guanines in different strands have never been observed. We were therefore interested in learning whether the Chironomus repeats could have evolved from simple sequence telomeric DNA, which might suggest that they constitute a functional equivalent. We screened for repeat units with evolutionarily ancient features within the tandem arrays and recovered two clones with a less-evolved structure. Sequence analysis reveals that the present-day 350-bp unit probably evolved (=conjecture based on jack squat) from a simpler 165-bp unit through the acquisition of transposed sequences. The 165-bp unit contains DNA with a highly biased distribution of cytosine and guanine between the two strands, although with the ratios inverted in two minor parts of the repeat. It is largely built up of short degenerate subrepeats for which most of the sequence can be reconstructed. The consensus for the subrepeat sequence is similar to the simple telomeric repeat sequences of several kinds of eukaryotes. We propose that the present-day unit has evolved from telomeric, simple sequence, asymmetric DNA from which it has retained some original sequence features and possibly functions."

Let me summarize for you. Nothing ever changed that would lead to any sort of legitimate biological macroevolution, but maybe in the future (a) will allow for it, or perhaps (b).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=359470

Punk eek does predict certain patterns (I thought you understood it better than me) and we have found evidence of these patterns (maybe you should read the links I give you, oh wait, never mind as you obviously know more about this than me).

If you can't tell arrogance of ignorance doesn't sit well with me, and I'm controling myself not to post a harsher reply.

All in all, your post was weak and filled with conjecture, assertions, and guesswork based on nothing of any merit. The temerity of your argument is little more than 'nani-boo-boo' which is the exact reason why I'm opting to bow out of Totse. Its becoming less and less challenging and offers nothing stimulating. Therefore, I find myself totally disintersted. But let it be known that you are by far my favorite poster. For what its worth, I wish you you all the best in the future. My prayers will continue to be with you. (Try not to take that as an insult). Peace out.......

Damn...see what you guys did ?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

Yep, you said the same thing to me, and you never replied. Stop with the excuses, we all have lives outside TOTSE.

Oh, yes...did I mention that I have 2 small children to look after ?

I know MOST of you don't have any of those. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

By the by, I go back and forth between My God and Politics. I do not spend the majority of my time here, so when and if I do post, feel blessed. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

At any rate, I just got home from school, and I am not interested in delving into this particular debate.

I'll see ya when I see ya.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 05-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Its becoming less and less challenging and offers nothing stimulating. Therefore, I find myself totally disintersted.



How selfish.

quote:I was not reffering to the fossilzed Coelecanth. But if you feel that a 'significant' change has been noted, then post evidence of it. I can't present evidence of a negative, so the burden of proof remains with you.

I think you're forgetting it was you who brought of the Coelacanth as an example of a species that hasn't changed in 300+ million years.

Hyro post 63: "And how much time does this usually eqaute to? Where does the Coelecanth fit into that category? They said it was extinct for 350 million years, which means that it could have been living for up to 600 million years, if not longer. So, in 600 million years, it hasn't changed?"

quote:Such as what? [animal change or stay the same]

Two quick example,

change over a short time, the dinosaur fossils I linked to.

Slow change over long time, reptiles such as Alligators have changed very slowly overtime.

quote:No, its just a lack of evidence, period. Just say that. Its a more acceptable and honest answer. We don't need to hear more reasons for why there is no evidence. All that matters is that there is still no evidence. Isn't disheartening for you? All this floundering is just a sad display.

First of all there is evidence life existed before the cambrian explosion, some fossil chains go through the explosion and don't originate at it.

Second, it's important to know why there is less evidence. Just because we can't see air doesn't mean it isn't there. Do you understand where I'm going with that?

quote:If you still believe that that punctuated equilibrium was NOT invented because of a lack of transitional forms, then you really don't understand it and I actually do.

I agree, sort of. I have never said PE wasn't originally developed because of large jumps in the fossil record. I have said your claims it is without evidence are false. And they are. It's perfectly acceptable to develop a hypothesis because of shortcomings in evidence. This hypothesis should provide ways to test it, which PE did, and if those tests are correct, PEs were, then it should be further accepted. You just refused to acknowledge the evidence supporting PE because it's easier to claim it lacks evidence than to deal with it.

quote:All in all, your post was weak and filled with conjecture, assertions, and guesswork based on nothing of any merit. The temerity of your argument is little more than 'nani-boo-boo' which is the exact reason why I'm opting to bow out of Totse.

Except for the evidence I posted that you continually ignore while claiming you know more than me about PE.

Hopefully outside of totse you will research things before claiming they are truth.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 05-03-2006).]

evolution is currently accepted by science because it has the most evidence supporting it. there is no other theory or idea that can explain the current state of life on earth better than evolution. that is why evolution is taught in schools, and creationism is not.



eof

Am I talking to myself here? Hyro, I asked you a question. Well, 2.

Where is the evidence that God created the Earth in six days 6000 years ago?

Why can we see the light from things more then 6000 light years away?

Much as you attempt to bash evolution, you still haven't answered these 2 points, both of which much be adequately explained away for creationism to even be considered a 'theory' in the least.

You can debate Beta about evolution all day (and lose because its a solid theory) but please, try to answer those.

After looking at so many creationism versus evolution threads, I always notice the same thing.

Creationists never put creationism under the same scrutiny that evolution already has been under since 1859. Since science is self correcting, it is necessary that they do this. Well, other people have done it already.

Not to mention evolutionary theory has proven itself in practice with advances in medecine alone.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to reinvent the wheel here. I guess it never occured to you that not only would destroying evolution not prove creationism, but other undisputed things disprove it as well.

At least respond with something.

Tell me, do you have a rationalized justification, or are you just going to ignore it in favor of believing comforting truths?

So are there any percieved flaws in evolutionary theory that haven't been brought up and refuted in several other threads?

I'm actually curious about this. Every essay I find about flaws in evolution are by someone who misunderstands it completely by saying things that aren't even true about evolutionary theory.

Well I've been busy but I'm back.

Nice to see hyroglyphx replied.

Digital_Savior you started the thread, you should defend your ideas.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Then stop spreading them.



Thats mature of you...

Sorry for spreading the truth, supported by science, you know the one you seem to hate so much?

Your self-rightousness doesn't make you right...

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

It gives you an air of arrogance.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

With that out of the way...

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



What indisputable evidence is there??? Please, show us all because the scientific community has been dying to see it.



I find this ironic considering the lack of evidence you have given us for creationism.

The scientific community has seen it, you might have, but considering your habit of dismissing evidence contrary to your beliefs...

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Now if something changes then we will look into it, but for the time being, evolution to the best of our knowledge is how biological creatures became the way they are today.

This is based on guesswork, and very poor conjectures. Give us something that anyone can verify.



Double standards to say the least. What are your beliefs based on? Are you going to tell us you, and anyone as you demanded, can verify the bible? Yet you believe it and suspect us to do the same?

quote:

Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Creationist research has one goal, promoting christianity, so this ruins any science behind it. It is the same concept as the Nazi's research on the superior race.

That's not true. There are creationists of all walks of life, from various theological backgrounds.

Excuse me?????? I said no such thing.

[/b]

I qouted your entire post, I'm sure everyone knew that was you quoting someone.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Your right, I should have said religion not christianity. You see the "proof" of non-bais research you gave me had this to say:

Yahya explains that evolution is at the root of evil today:

The reason why a special chapter is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution is that this theory constitutes the basis of all anti-spiritual philosophies. Since Darwinism rejects the fact of creation, and therefore the existence of God, during the last 140 years it has caused many people to abandon their faith or fall into doubt. Therefore, showing that this theory is a deception is a very important duty, which is strongly related to the religion. It is imperative that this important service be rendered to everyone.

That is incredably bias, science based on this? My claim that creationist research isn't true science and is only a propoganda mechine stands.



I don't really care what Yahya said, because I don't agree with Yahya. I simplypointed out that creationism isn't a criteria for 'Christianity.' This just further supports the gross misconception that is running wild in the minds of youth like yourself.

[/b][/quote]

If you don't agree with it why use it as proof, and I understand your saying it isn't just christianity that believes in creationism, but I'm saying that isn't scientific, or any kind of proof of creationism for that matter.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Yes, I was hoping you would actually debate me in your own words and not run wild with cutting and pasting.



True scientific information proving you wrong from a scientific source isn't acceptable?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I presume you used this as some sort of proof that the earth is billions of years old. The assertion is that the earth is billions of years old. More specifically, 4.5 billion years old, depending on which day of the week it is.

[/b]

What are you talking about? Depending on which day of the week it is?

It is generally agreed upon in the scientific community, and will not change unless new evidence is presented.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



For you, time is the hero in the story of life. Time has replaced a kiss from a prince in order to change a frog into a princess.



Once again what are you talking about? Who are you to say what I think, who are you to say what something is to me? You do not know anything about me other than someone, possibly multible people, post under this user name on totse.

Do not assume you know me hyro...

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

"It gives you an air of arrogance."



quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Time is the magical ingredient in the fairytale of evolution.



Am I not showing you evidence unrelated to evolution? You attack something that I don't even support beyond the fact it is more credible than creationism. Time is what gives the earth it's age, don't change the subject.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Why is it so critical to the evolutionary model? Think of it this way: The probability that you can flip 16 coins in succession and have them all come up ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ is 1 in 65,536. If you try it once, you will more than likely fail. If you test the experiment 10 million times, however, you will certainly succeed. In fact, you are then likely to succeed 150 times out of that many tries. Therefore, you must rely and hope that the commencement of life is not, impossible, just very, very improbable. Your rationale is if billions of years of time elapsed, it will provide enough opportunities for these anomalous occurrences to commence. To answer your question, it is first important that we ask how these figures have come up to begin with. There are many ingenious methods used to date the earth, some of which you mentioned, though I realize you don't even understand what you posted. Most notably, is radiometric and isochronal dating. The methodology for ascertaining age estimates result in the measuring of the amount of radioactive isotopes in any given specimen. You measure the amount of each isotope, plus the assumed initial concentration of each isotope. From that, a calculation is made for an age estimate. The operative word in the aforementioned statement, however, is ‘assumed.’ When the advent of this testing came to be, scientists gathered fallen meteorites and produced from them an algorithm. All of this conjecture was based solely on the inference that the meteorite itself must have been billions of years old! Therefore, we see a flawed premise from the get-go. Then they measured the amount of radioactive isotopes in the experimented specimen. All radioactive material has a half-life. The half-life is the depletion of that radioactive element found in the material they wish to date. For example, in Thorium .230 dating, the ‘parent’ isotope (Thorium) decays into the ‘daughter’ isotope (Lead). If you want the rock, for instance, to be old, simply assume a small initial value for the daughter isotope. If you want the rock to be young, simply assume and assign a high initial value to the daughter isotope. Most assuredly, you will get whatever ages you so desire.

Your lack of understanding and rational logic is apparent, and shows up in the last sentince. I'm not talking about evolution. How do you suppose 4.5 billion years is generally agreed upon in the scientific community if we could pull any number out of our asses? If we could do that then you might have some "proof" for creationism. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Catch my drift? This is a bad case of garbage-in, garbage-out, as it uses circular reasoning in its premise. Aside from this, there are routinely discrepencies that cannot be overlooked or ignored, yet they do. These discrepancies are what typify the argument against many evolutionary geologists and paleontologists. Another common misnomer is to date a fossil by a rock laying adjacent to it. (The logic being that you will be able to tell roughly how old the fossil is.

Good thing we are only concerned about the age of the rocks and not the fossil, since it is one thing that proves the earth is older than 6000 years.



quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

‘Well, how old do you know the rock is by using this method?’ You date the rock by the fossil. ‘Huh? Isn’t that circular reasoning?’ Quiet you!

I'm refering to the rock being better evidence than evolution in dis-proving creationism. Also your "quite you" made me laugh, you imagine that is how science, and fossil dating works?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Are you beginning to understand that its entire premise was based off faulty logic from its inception? Radiometric dating can work if its calibration is actually accurate. And if you want to talk about bias, if a 'date' doesn't fit any preconcieved notion set forth by the evolutionarty model, its disregarded in order to make it conform to the manmade, and completely imagined geologic column.

Good thing evolution is unrelated to the dating of the earth and universe by carbon dating and background radiation. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

How do we know the age of the Universe and the Earth?

Scientists say that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old while the universe is somewhere from 10 to 20 billion years old.

Yeah, this is the hilarity of it. Some astrophysicist have resolved to tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark after the singularity, yet can't decide whether the earth is 10 or 20 billion years old.



You act like other religions that believe in creationism, which you seem to use as proof that creationism is true, agrees on the dates of creationism.

In the centuries preceding the scientific revolution, the age of the Earth was determined from the accounts of creation by religious authority. Today some religious groups continue to accept only theological accounts regarding the age of the earth and reject all scientific evidence.

Certain Hindu puranic views assert that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma, the creator or kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements. At this point, Brahma rests for one night, just as long as the day. This process, named pralaya (Cataclysm), repeats for 100 Brahma years (311 trillion human years) that represents Brahma's lifespan. We are currently believed to be in the 51st year of the present Brahma and so about 155 trillion years have elapsed since He was born as Brahma. After Brahma's "death", it is necessary that another 100 Brahma years pass until he is reborn and the whole creation begins anew. This process is repeated again and again, forever.

The Han Chinese thought the Earth was created and destroyed in cycles of over 23 million years. Westerners were more conservative. In a book published in 1654, not long before his death, Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh, Ireland, calculated from the Bible (augmented by some astronomy and numerology) that creation began on October 23, 4004 BC.

Few people in Europe had conceived the idea of deep time that stretched far into the past before the arrival of humankind, or far into the future beyond the end of humankind. One who did was Aristotle, who thought the Earth and universe had existed from eternity."

On the other hand, science generally agrees with just a margin of error. Not the billions of years you randomly stated.

NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) project estimates the age of the universe to be:

(13.7 ± 0.2) × 109 years.

That is, the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, with an uncertainty of 200 million years.

Then again you think you know more than NASA scientists so I suppose you will dismiss this.

Based on extensive and detailed scientific evidence, geologists have determined the age of the Earth to be around 4.55 billion years (4.55x109 years). This age represents a compromise between the oldest known terrestrial minerals – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – and astronomers' and planetologists' determinations of the age of the solar system based in part on radiometric age dating of meteorite material and lunar samples.

The radiometric age dating evidence from the zircons further confirms that the Earth is at least 4.404 billion years old. Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the multitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Ca-Al-rich inclusions – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites which are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of the Earth.

You need to do that research we keep talking about!

This just in: the vatican astronomer has declared it is 'superstitious paganism' to suggest that the world was actually created in 6 days! "6-day creationism is a destructive myth".

http://tinyurl.com/kxp9k

Half the Christians in the world (according to encyclopedia britannica, there are about 1 billion catholics out of 2 billion total christians) just got pwned by science.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Creationists have not presented science behind their claim and I doubt they will.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Creationists have not presented science behind their claim and I doubt they will.

I don't blame them. I would have equal trouble presenting evidence that a flying spaghetti monster created the earth too.

There is no evidence.

Hyro, without mentioning the word evolution, present, for the first time ever, any scientific proof of creationism.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:



I don't blame them. I would have equal trouble presenting evidence that a flying spaghetti monster created the earth too.

There is no evidence.

Hyro, without mentioning the word evolution, present, for the first time ever, any scientific proof of creationism.



This is a good thread I don't want it to die without the the points mentioned being addressed.

I think the difference behind the FSM ID theory and this ID theory is people don't believe the FSM ID theory even though equal evidence is presented for both.

Also hyro and DS what is your opinions on this?

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

This just in: the vatican astronomer has declared it is 'superstitious paganism' to suggest that the world was actually created in 6 days! "6-day creationism is a destructive myth".

http://tinyurl.com/kxp9k

Half the Christians in the world (according to encyclopedia britannica, there are about 1 billion catholics out of 2 billion total christians) just got pwned by science.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Catholics have an aversion to the Hebrew language.

The word "day" in Hebrew is "Yom." It is translated as a literal day.

Also, if you read the passages, after each Yom, the sun set. On the next Yom, the sun rose again.

There would be no logical purpose for marking the rising and setting of the sun after each Yom, if it meant anything other than "day."

Catholics, once again, have proven themselves disconnected, and ignorant, from the word of God.

quote:The creation of the universe, the earth, and life on it is described in the first chapter of Genesis. The account is ordered on the basis of what God did on each "day" (the Hebrew word yom2). Although Yom is usually translated in our English dictionaries as "day," its meanings are much more broad than what we (English speakers) tend to associate with the word "day." Yom actually has three main meanings; daylight portion of a solar day (i.e., sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour solar day, or a long period of time. Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew definitions list definitions referring to long periods of time such as "year," "lifetime," and "time, period (general)."

The Hebrew word yom occurs over 2000 times in the Old Testament. In Genesis 1, the word yom is used in combination with Hebrew words ereb3 (the word for "evening") and boquer4 (the word for "morning"). The claim has been made that when yom is used with the words "evening" or "morning," it always refers to a 24-hour day:

"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word ‘evening’ or ‘morning’ 23 times. ‘Evening’ and ‘morning’ appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?" Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten, Answers in Genesis.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 05-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Creationists have not presented science behind their claim and I doubt they will.

I have, in this very thread. If you can't be bothered to dissect the science and prove it incorrect, you shouldn't be posting your asinine opinions on the subject.

ONCE AGAIN (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research).

WATCH THESE VIDEOS IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE BEHIND ID (http://www.creationministries.org/seminars.asp).

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Hyro, without mentioning the word evolution, present, for the first time ever, any scientific proof of creationism.

How many times must this be said ?

HE IS NOT POSTING HERE ANYMORE. He went to another forum.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Catholics have an aversion to the Hebrew language.

The word "day" in Hebrew is "Yom." It is translated as a literal day.

Also, if you read the passages, after each Yom, the sun set. On the next Yom, the sun rose again.

There would be no logical purpose for marking the rising and setting of the sun after each Yom, if it meant anything other than "day."

Catholics, once again, have proven themselves disconnected, and ignorant, from the word of God.

Ok, since your one to judge ignorant people, espeacally since you just realized mormons weren't christians...

So can you address the carbon dating, light traveling farther distances than possible with the time frame given by christian creationists, and give scientific evidence of your creationist claims?

Thats what I was looking for in addition to your oppinion.

EDIT: Ok I'm looking at it now. Can I ask why science, nasa, and researchers around the world don't agree with your carbon dating claims?

Also please address : light traveling farther distances than possible with the time frame given by christian creationists

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 05-19-2006).]

You can use Google just as well as I can.

I would also like to address your little jab at me for my discovery about Mormonism.

Catholics' ignorance misleads and HURTS people. My misunderstanding of Mormonism doesn't.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 05-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Catholics' ignorance misleads and HURTS people. My misunderstanding of Mormonism doesn't.

ALL RELIGIONS IGNORANCE HURTS PEOPLE, SO GET OFF YOUR FUCKING HIGH HORSE. God, you religious people piss me off.

quote:RATE Ebook:

Right from the start each scientist declared his complete faith in scripture. The RATE scientists insisted on starting with scripture and building "their understanding of science" on that foundation.

During creation week these processes were not the same strict analogous processes they are today. For instance gravity must have been in operation, but when the waters of Day 2, moved off the rising continents on Day 3, they were able to be moved faster and farther than waters can be moved today. Modern natural laws, operating at rates we reconize today, evidently were not fully instituted until creationism was completed on day 6, but even these laws were altered at the time of the Curse of all Creation (Genesis 3:19-24, Romans 8:20-22).



Science is based on actual evidence, while this is not. If anyone else wants to look at their book about radioactive dating and creationism the link is Here. (http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf)

Also there is no evidence against the light traveling distances farther than possible in the time provided, with or without google. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light (including the gravity mentioned in the RATE book).

Light cannot move faster than it currently is, Albert Einstein has shown us this, and many experiments have been done proving this. So if you look at those facts (the constant speed of light) it is impossible for the universe to be as young as you claim.

Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

Most current textbooks mistakenly include a major derived result, that the speed of light is the same to all inertial observers, as part of the second postulate. A careful reading of Einstein's 1905 paper on this subject shows that, in fact, he made no such assumption. The power of Einstein's argument stems from the manner in which he derived startling and seemingly implausible results from two simple and completely reasonable starting assumptions.

What also many textbooks overlook is that the isotropy of the one-way speed of light was introduced by definition and not as postulate.



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 05-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:



Science is based on actual evidence, while this is not. If anyone else wants to look at their book about radioactive dating and creationism the link is Here. (http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf)

It hardly matters what their personal theology is, since Darwinian evolution requires a non-belief in a Creator/God.

If it can't work for IDer's, then it can't work for evolutionists.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 05-19-2006).]

Also, you didn't refute any of their scientific papers, you took the typical cop out of refuting them by association. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I hope you don't consider yourself objective.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 05-19-2006).]

Also if things moved very quickly (close to the speed of light) (AKA fast enough for things gravity to change and for things to move from one place to anouther in a very short duration of time as described in the RATE book) thier mass would change, also altering gravity. How could life survive under the super gravity required for creationism to work? Also with a change in mass it would affect the universe around us, and passage through time. To make matters worse humans would not survive at that many Gs at those speeds either.

If you alter the mass and gravity of one thing you affect everything else in the area as illustrated in this spacetime curvature:

Illustration of gravity's affect on space time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spacetime_curvature.png)

Here you make the common mistake of eliminating God's omnipotence from the equation. God, if omnipotent (as claimed in the Bible), can do all things, including creating light sources that are already aged, and manipulating gravity and the life that depends on it.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It hardly matters what their personal theology is, since Darwinian evolution requires no belief in a Creator/God.

If it can't work for IDer's, then it can't work for evolutionists.

They are conforming the science to their theology, and not basing it on evidence.

I don't think I mentioned evolution, or any acceptance of evolution, something I have said many times. Why bring it up when it is irrelevant.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Here you make the common mistake of eliminating God's omnipotence from the equation. God, if omnipotent (as claimed in the Bible), can do all things, including creating light sources that are already aged, and manipulating gravity and the life that depends on it.

The "age of light" is determined by the time it takes to travel from point A to point B. Light years are used to measure distance because of this. The light is not itself aged, the point I'm making is it is not possible for it to travel the distances of our universe in the time given by the creationist model. Also the God's omnipotence is not supported by science, therefor it is not a scientific arguement, because it is unproven, lacking evidence, and contradicts existing evidence. The bible is not science. Science is supported by math. Can I see math supporting God's omnipotence?

"According to standard modern physical theory, all electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, propagates (or moves) at a constant speed (or velocity) in a vacuum, commonly known as the speed of light, which is a physical constant denoted as c.

The speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second or 1,079,252,848.8 kilometres per hour. Converted to approximate imperial units, it is 186,282.397 miles per second, or 670,616,629.384 miles per hour."

Also if god were to slow down light going through space the slowing of the speed of light would cause refraction.

"The refractive index of a material indicates how much slower the speed of light is in that medium than in a vacuum. The slower speed of light in materials can cause refraction, as demonstrated by this prism (in the case of a prism splitting white light into a spectrum of colours, the refraction is known as dispersion)."



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 05-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Also, you didn't refute any of their scientific papers, you took the typical cop out of refuting them by association. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I hope you don't consider yourself objective.



Do you expect me to read 686 pages of the RATE book, and those publications in the short duration I've been exposed to them? You didn't post it that long ago, but the RATE book as a source is based on religion not science. It picks and chooses it's "science" basing it around theology. So consiquenlty(sp?) contradicting evidence is ignored.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Also there is no evidence against the light traveling distances farther than possible in the time provided, with or without google. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light (including the gravity mentioned in the RATE book).

Light cannot move faster than it currently is, Albert Einstein has shown us this, and many experiments have been done proving this. So if you look at those facts (the constant speed of light) it is impossible for the universe to be as young as you claim.

Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

Most current textbooks mistakenly include a major derived result, that the speed of light is the same to all inertial observers, as part of the second postulate. A careful reading of Einstein's 1905 paper on this subject shows that, in fact, he made no such assumption. The power of Einstein's argument stems from the manner in which he derived startling and seemingly implausible results from two simple and completely reasonable starting assumptions.

What also many textbooks overlook is that the isotropy of the one-way speed of light was introduced by definition and not as postulate.

Hmm...

quote:Scientists have seen a pulse of light emerge from a cloud of gas before it even entered.

This astonishing and baffling observation was made by researchers from the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US.

They conducted an experiment that involved lasers, a chamber containing cold caesium atoms and a super-fast stopwatch.

The end result was a beam of light that moved at 300 times the theoretical limit for the speed of light.

It was Einstein who said nothing physical could break this barrier because, among other things, to do so would also mean travelling back in time.

Dramatic demonstration

But the NEC scientists believe their work does not violate Einstein's theory.

Writing in the journal Nature, Dr Lijun Wang and colleagues say their light beam raced through the atom trap so quickly that the leading edge of the pulse's peak actually exited before it had entered.

If this sounds confusing, then do not worry. Many physicists are uncomfortable with it too despite their explanations that it is a natural consequence of the wave nature of light.

Although the work of Dr Wang's team is remarkable, it is not the first time that this sort of "trick" has been performed - but it is certainly the most dramatic demonstration.

Earlier this year, a team of physicists made a microwave beam travel 7% faster than light speed. Last year, they announced that they had even slowed light down to almost a crawl.

Anomalous refractive index

To achieve their peculiar effect, Dr Wang's group fired laser beams through a trap of caesium atoms.

By adjusting the frequency of the laser beams to match those of the energy levels in the atoms, the researchers were able to achieve an effect called "anomalous refractive index." This boosts the pulses' so-called "group velocity" to a speed faster than what we understand to be the speed of light - just short of 300 million metres per second.

The group velocity of a light pulse depends upon the mixture of frequencies within the pulse and the medium through which it travels. It need not be the speed of the pulse itself.

The important thing, however, is that whilst the group velocity can be manipulated to be faster than the speed of light, it is not possible to use this effect to send information faster than the speed of light.

Because of the fast group velocity, the leading edge of the pulse appears to leave the caesium-filled chamber 62 billionths of a second before it arrives.

Causality principle

And according to Dr Wang, this strange result does not threaten Einstein's theories - in particular, the causality principle, which states that a cause must precede its effect.

Or so almost all physicists think - for now. Privately, some admit that experiments such as Dr Wang's may force a reassessment of some cherished ideas.

According to Dr Guenter Nimtz, of the University of Cologne, who has carried out similar experiments, the NEC work is very exciting.

He told BBC News Online: "The effect cannot be used to go back in time, only to reduce the time between cause and effect a little bit.

"The reason for this," he said, "is because the light pulse has a finite length of time, much longer than any gain obtained by a faster-than-light speed." Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/841690.stm)

While this article states that the physicists do not find this to be a refutation of Eintein's theory, it certainly proves that if MAN can slow or increase the speed of light, surely an omnipotent Creator can do so as well.

quote:Headlines in several newspapers around the world have publicized a paper in Nature by a team of scientists (including the famous physicist Paul Davies) who (according to these reports) claim that ‘light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe’.1

In view of the potential significance of the whole ‘light slowing down’ issue to creationists, it is worth reviewing it briefly here.

Well over a decade ago, AiG’s Creation magazine published very supportive articles concerning a theory by South Australian creationist Barry Setterfield, that the speed of light (‘c’) had slowed down or ‘decayed’ progressively since creation.

In one fell swoop, this theory, called ‘c decay’2 (CDK) had the potential to supply two profound answers vitally important for a Biblical worldview.

The distant starlight problem

One was, if stars are really well over 6000 light years away, how could light have had time to travel from them to Earth? Two logically possible answers have serious problems:

1. God created the starlight on its way: this suffers grievously from the fact that starlight also carries information about distant cosmic events. The created-in-transit theory means that the information would be ‘phony’, recording events which never happened, hence deceptive.

2. The distances are deceptive: but despite some anomalies in redshift/distance correlations (see Galaxy-Quasar ‘Connection’ Defies Explanation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i3/quasar.asp)), it’s just not possible for all stars and galaxies to be within a 6000-light-year radius—we would all fry!

But if light were billions of times faster at the beginning, and slowed down in transit, there would be no more problem.

But if light were billions of times faster at the beginning, and slowed down in transit, there would be no more problem.

Radiometric dates

Since most nuclear processes are mathematically related to the speed of light, a faster ‘c’ might well mean a faster rate of radioactive decay, thus explaining much of the evidence used to justify the billions of years of geological hypothesizing. In fact, top-flight creationist researchers involved with the RATE (Radioactive Isotopes and the Age of the Earth) project have found powerful evidence of speeded-up decay in the past (see Radio Isotopes and the Age of the Earth, by Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin). CDK might offer a mechanism.

CDK—the history of the idea

Barry Setterfield collated data of measurements of c spanning a period of about 300 years. He claimed that rather than fluctuating around both sides of the present value as measurements became more accurate, they had progressively declined from a point significantly higher than today’s value. He proposed that this decline had been exponential in nature, i.e. very rapid early on, gradually easing to stabilize at today's value for c, just a few decades ago.3

He and Trevor Norman, a mathematician from Flinders University in South Australia, published a monograph4 (still stocked by this ministry for the assistance of potential researchers) outlining this, and answering several arguments raised against the theory. The monograph also showed how, over the past years, the measurements of the value of various constants (e.g. electron mass, Planck’s constant (h)) were varying progressively, if ever so slightly, in a ‘directional’ fashion consistent with the direction predicted by their mathematical linkage with ‘c’.

With such a bombshell, there were, not surprisingly, substantial efforts at scientific assessment and criticism. The critiques were not only from those motivated to undermine Biblical cosmology, but from leading creationist physicists. Criticism (‘iron sharpening iron’ as Proverbs 27:17 puts it) is meant to be a healthy process enhancing the search for truth in science.

The criticisms centered around two issues: the first was the validity of the statistical data itself, particularly the reliability of some of the earlier measurements of c given their large uncertainties, and the other was the consequences we should find in the present world if c has declined. This is an immensely complex area; for one thing, when c changes, so do other things, which can become mind-boggling to sort out, even for the experts.

One of the attacks concerned Einstein’s special relativity, E = mc2 and the like. (If c is a billion times greater in the past, then E would be a billion billion times greater, so would not a campfire be like an atom bomb, and so on?) Critics at the time used this to mock CDK, but Setterfield answered that rest mass itself is inversely proportional to c2, so that energy is still conserved. He also claimed that there is experimental evidence that the charge to mass ratio of an electron has been decreasing (supporting his claim that mass has increased as c2 has decreased). But as usual, the skeptics, along with ‘progressive creationist’ (long-age) astronomer and ardent ‘big bang’ advocate, Dr Hugh Ross,5 kept repeating this claim as if Setterfield hadn’t thought of this and answered it. Whether one agrees with his answer or not, it was improper to ignore it (or perhaps his critics, lacking any qualifications in physics, didn’t understand it).

Critics of CDK said that accepting it would mean one would have to discard Einstein, despite all the evidence for his theory. Setterfield said (and it seems to me correctly) that all that special relativity claims in this matter is that c is constant at any point in time with respect to the observer, it does not involve any magic, canonical value for c. In other words, the actual value of c could change with time, so long as that change was consistent throughout the entire universe.6

Others dismissed CDK by claiming that if c had changed, the fine-structure constant (FSC, symbol α http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) should be different as measured using light from distant stars than from those nearby, but that this was not so.4 However, Setterfield’s particular theory predicted that the FSC would remain constant. (Setterfield proposed that since energy must be conserved in atomic orbits, then h must be inversely proportional to c. Therefore any constant that contains the product hc with other constants, including α, must also be constant. Norman and Setterfield, Ref. 4, pp. 33–39.)

A word of caution

But, intriguingly, it now turns out that the fine-structure constant is in fact slightly different in light from distant stars compared to nearby ones. In fact, this is the very reason that physicists of the stature of Davies are now prepared to challenge the assumption that light speed has always been constant. And in addition to being different from the prediction of the Setterfield theory, this research by itself does not support c-decay theory of the magnitude that Setterfield proposed. The change is billions of times too small. In fact, the newspaper hype surrounding Davies’ theory, and the quotes attributed to him, hardly seem to be justified by the Nature article itself, which is rather speculative. NB, although Setterfield predicted constant α, given the small change and tentative nature of this new discovery, by itself it is not conclusive evidence against the Setterfield theory either. See an earlier AiG response to reports of a change in a, Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/fine_structure.asp) ?

Unfortunately, despite being urged to continue to answer critics and further develop his theory within the refereed technical creationist literature, Setterfield effectively withdrew from that forum some years ago, though not from individual promotion and development of the idea, e.g. on the Web.

Well known creationist physicist, Dr Russell Humphreys (now with ICR), has long given credit to Setterfield’s challenging hypothesis for stimulating the development of his own cosmology, which seeks to answer the same question about starlight, and which is currently in favour among many creationist astronomers (see How can we see distant stars in a young Universe? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp)). Humphreys says that he tried for over a year to find a way to get CDK to ‘work’ mathematically, but gave up when it seemed to him that so many things were changing in concert that it would be hard to detect a change in c from observations.

It’s also important to note, as we have often warned, that newspaper reports are often very different from the original paper. The actual Nature article, as shown by its accurate title, was about how the theory of black-hole thermodynamics might determine which is correct out of two possible explanations for previous work that claimed that FSC might have increased slightly and slowly over billions of years. The details are summarized in the box below. In conclusion, the authors (who are also prepared to accept that their interpretation of the data may be wrong) still believe in billions of years, and would reject the relatively rapid change in c that Setterfield proposed since they are talking about <0.001% over 6–10 billion years.

To be fair to the journalists, Davies has long been something of a publicity seeker. So he possibly didn’t mind at all that his actually quite non-descript paper was being publicized (it was actually less than a full page in total length in the ‘Brief Communications’ section, and didn’t rate a mention as a feature item), even for something peripheral to the paper.

Other c-decay ideas

Still, it is fascinating to see vindication for at least the possibility that c has changed. Whether this decline (if real) has only just ceased recently, as Setterfield proposed, or happened earlier (perhaps in a ‘one-step’ fashion), or is still going on, is another question.

Physicist Keith Wanser, a young-universe creationist and full Professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton, told Creation magazine in 1999 that he was open to the idea of changing c (see God and the Electron (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/electron.asp)). He said:

‘I don’t go along with Barry’s statements on this; he’s well-meaning but in my opinion he’s made a lot of rash assumptions ... and there’s a misunderstanding [of many of the consequences of changing c].’

But Wanser, also said:

‘there are other reasons to believe that the speed of light is changing, or has changed in the past, that have nothing to do with the Setterfield theory.’

The interview also quoted a 1999 New Scientist cover story two years ago, which also proposed the ‘heresy’ of c-decay.9 (More recent New Scientist articles have reported on how it seems to be acceptable to propose c-decay to try to solve another well-known difficulty of the big bang theory, called the horizon problem. That is, the cosmic microwave radiation indicates that space is the same temperature everywhere, indicating a common influence. But no connection between distant regions would be possible, even in the assumed time since the alleged ‘big bang’, because of the ‘horizon’ of the finite speed of light. As an ad hoc solution to this problem, Alan Guth proposed that the universe once underwent a period of very rapid growth, called ‘inflation’. But now it seems that even this has its own horizon problem. So now some physicists have proposed that the speed of light was much faster in the past, which would allow the ‘horizon’ to be much further away and thus accommodate the universe's thermal equilibrium.10 Note that these other proposals even have c much faster than in the Setterfield concept.)

Whether Setterfield is truly vindicated remains to be seen; the process would be greatly helped by further scientific debate of the actual issues in TJ or the CRSQ. In the absence of such involvement by skilled proponents of the theory, AiG cannot take a strong stand. In fact, in our publications over the last few years, we have tended to strongly favour Humphreys’ relativistic white hole cosmology, though always pointing out, along with Humphreys himself, that it was just one alternative model, and not ‘absolute truth’.

It is clear, though, that the issue is so complex, that one or two pronouncements of ‘certainty’ by a physicist or two, whether creationist or evolutionist, should not be taken as the death knell of the notion or any aspects of it—nor as final proof of it.

The irony of bias

It is truly ironic to look back at the time when some creationists were actively putting forward CDK as a profoundly important hypothesis. The anticreationists, both the anti-theists and their compromising churchian allies, launched their attacks with glee. Skeptics around the world seldom failed to have audiences in fits of laughter at the ‘ridiculous’ notion that what they labeled as a ‘certain cornerstone of modern physics’, the alleged constancy through time of the value of c, was wrong. No matter what comes of his notion as a whole, no matter even whether c has actually changed or not, in that sense at least, thanks to Paul Davies, Setterfield (and those, like ourselves, who supported his pioneering efforts) has already had the last laugh.

The real issue

Christians worried about the ‘starlight travel-time’ issue have seen a number of theories put forward to try to solve it, including CDK. For instance, the relativistic white-hole cosmology (see video, right) and even the two different conventions of calculated v. observed time.11 Which of these is right? Maybe none. I often say to enquirers, after outlining the encouraging advances made by some of these ideas, something like the following:

‘I don’t know for sure how God did it, but I know that I for one would hate to stand in front of the Creator of the Universe at a future point and say:

”Lord, I couldn’t believe your plain words about origins, just because I couldn’t figure out, with my pea-sized intelligence, how you managed to pull off the trick of making a universe that was both very young and very large.”’

I believe we need to understand, as most physicists really do, how immensely little is yet known about such major issues. What if Humphreys is right, for instance, and the answer lies in the general relativistic distortion (by gravity) of time itself in an expanded (by God who ‘stretched out the heavens’ as Scripture says repeatedly) bounded universe? Would not the world have laughed if such notions (as time running differently under different gravity influences, for instance) had first been put forward by modern Bible-believers? They would have been seen as ad hoc inventions, but they have been experimentally tested.

This ‘secular CDK’ announcement, by one of the biggest names in physics, should really be an antidote to the confident arrogance of long-age big-bangers. So should the recent landmark TJ paper by Humphreys showing observationally that we are in fact close to the centre of a bounded universe (download PDF file Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts Show (http://tinyurl.com/n0hd)).

People need to be aware just how abstract, shaky and prone to revision the findings of modern cosmology really are. To quote Prof. Wanser again:

‘The sad thing is that the public is so overawed by these things [big bang and long-age cosmologies], just because there is complex maths involved. They don’t realize how much philosophical speculation and imagination is injected along with the maths—these are really stories that are made up.’12

All in all, it’s an exciting time to be a Genesis creationist. But then, it’s always been an exciting time to take God at His Word. Source (http://tinyurl.com/qfhrh)

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Do you expect me to read 686 pages of the RATE book, and those publications in the short duration I've been exposed to them? You didn't post it that long ago, but the RATE book as a source is based on religion not science. It picks and chooses it's "science" basing it around theology. So consiquenlty(sp?) contradicting evidence is ignored.

And Darwinian evolution and it's implied theories about how we came to be are chalk full of the assumption that there IS no God. It picks and chooses science that omits the possibility of creation, as opposed to "favorable spontaneous combustion."

Consequently, they lie and manipulate the data contained within the theory, to suit new evidence that is constantly being found which refutes it.

Watch the seminars I posted. You CAN do THAT, can't you ?

Please, that shit is propaganda.

Then your opinion is moot, since there is no possible way you read all of it, including the supporting articles.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

They are conforming the science to their theology, and not basing it on evidence.

I don't think I mentioned evolution, or any acceptance of evolution, something I have said many times. Why bring it up when it is irrelevant.

Because there are only two viable theories for how the universe came to be, at this time. One is the theory of Evolution, and the other is the theory of Creation. Since you are boldly claiming that Creation is bunk, without even bothering to refute it, I am forced to assume you believe the model contained within the theory of Evolution.

Unless, of course, you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And Darwinian evolution and it's implied theories about how we came to be are chalk full of the assumption that there IS no God. It picks and chooses science that omits the possibility of creation, as opposed to "favorable spontaneous combustion."

Consequently, they lie and manipulate the data contained within the theory, to suit new evidence that is constantly being found which refutes it.

Watch the seminars I posted. You CAN do THAT, can't you ?

Do you agree though that creationist scientists lie and manipulate "data" as well then, if not more so than evolutionist scientists?

Darwinism and God also do not contradict eachother. Nice try though. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

At least my 6,000th post was worthwhile. This is a great topic. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Do you agree though that creationist scientists lie and manipulate "data" as well then, if not more so than evolutionist scientists?

Nope, and you have never proven otherwise. Conjecture doesn't make a convincing argument.

quote:Darwinism and God also do not contradict eachother. Nice try though. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Yeah, actually, they do, since God didn't create macro-evolution. Nice try, though. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Nope, and you have never proven otherwise. Conjecture doesn't make a convincing argument.

And your overwhelming evidence in the post I quoted is what exactly?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Because there are only two viable theories for how the universe came to be, at this time. One is the theory of Evolution, and the other is the theory of Creation. Since you are boldly claiming that Creation is bunk, without even bothering to refute it, I am forced to assume you believe the model contained within the theory of Evolution.

Unless, of course, you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)



No offense Digi, but you're wrong.In more than one way. First, you were incorrect in your use of the term "theory" when you were referring to Creationism. Creationism is at best a hypothesis and falls far short of qualifying as a scientific theory.

We both know that you understand the definition of the term, so it would be dishonest of you to continue to use the term as you have.

Secondly, the Theory of Evolution, as has been pointed out to you numerous times in the past, has nothing to do with how the "universe came to be". Evolution deals only with changes in living organisms over time. There are theories that deal with the origin of the universe(Big Bang), the origin of life(Abiogenesis), etc., but evolution does not depend on how the universe began or how life came from inanimate matter.

Until (so called) Creation Science makes falsifiable predictions and withstands testing through experimentation and observation by multiple testing sources, it cannot be considered a valid theory. Pseudo-science and metaphysical excuse cannot be substituted for the falsification process.



I refuse to even go there with FSM theory.



Edit : sp



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 05-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



No offense Digi, but you're wrong.In more than one way. First, you were incorrect in your use of the term "theory" when you were referring to Creationism. Creationism is at best a hypothesis and falls far short of qualifying as a scientific theory.

If you were not intending to be offensive, the disclaimer wouldn't have been necessary.

THEORY (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

quote:We both know that you understand the definition of the term, so it would be dishonest of you to continue to use the term as you have.

Then it is equally dishonest for Darwinian Evolutionist's to claim that their perception of the way the world works is a theory. There is nothing in the above definitions which do not apply to Intelligent Design.

quote:Secondly, the Theory of Evolution, as has been pointed out to you numerous times in the past, has nothing to do with how the "universe came to be". Evolution deals only with changes in living organisms over time. There are theories that deal with the origin of the universe(Big Bang), the origin of life(Abiogenesis), etc., but evolution does not depend on how the universe began or how life came from inanimate matter.

It most certainly does. All organisms had a beginning, therefore it is automatically a part of Darwinian Evolution to presume how that beginning occurred.

The title of Darwin's book 'The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' is VERY clear.

ORIGIN (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=origin)

1. The point at which something comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived.

Hmm...I wonder what he POSSIBLY could have meant besides the above definition in calling his book "Origins." Inquiring minds want to know.

quote:Until (so called) Creation Science makes falsifiable predictions and withstands testing through experimentation and observation by multiple testing sources, it cannot be considered a valid theory. Pseudo-science and metaphysical excuse cannot be substituted for the falsification process.

I have posted the sites that contain the "science" for you multiple times, and I have yet to see you refute any of them. Not saying you don't have the ability to do so, as you're an intelligent chap, but you haven't...at least not that I've seen.

Anyway, the science is there. You cannot deny that it is.

Also, I misspoke. I did not mean Creation. I meant Intelligent Design.

quote:I refuse to even go there with FSM theory.

If you won't "go there" then you cannot say it's incorrect.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The title of Darwin's book 'The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' is VERY clear.

It does not deal with the origin of life but the origin of species.

Originally Posted By DigitalSavior:

quote:If you were not intending to be offensive, the disclaimer wouldn't have been necessary.

Just an attempt at civility. You may take it as you choose. The message stands as truth.



quote:

THEORY

1.A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Only the first definition describes a Scientific theory. Using multiple definitions for the term in an attempt to lend creedence to Creation Science is dishonest.If you have to bend the truth for your argument to have merit, you have a poor argument.

quote:Then it is equally dishonest for Darwinian Evolutionist's to claim that their perception of the way the world works is a theory. There is nothing in the above definitions which do not apply to Intelligent Design.

ID does NOT fit the first definition in any way, shape , or form. For ID to be considered science, the definition of science would have to be changed to include metaphysics.

ID: Not falsifiable. Can make no testable predictions. Any discrepancies can be explained by "God caused it".

The Scientific Theory of Evolution :

1)Is falsifiable. Predictions can be (and are) made which, if the theory is correct, will yield certain results.

2)Has withstood even after many years of scrutiny by the scientific community.

3)Is supported by an immense amount of verifiable, physical evidence.

It Does fit the definition of a “Scientific Theory”.



quote:

It most certainly does. All organisms had a beginning, therefore it is automatically a part of Darwinian Evolution to presume how that beginning occurred.

The title of Darwin's book 'The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' is VERY clear.



ORIGIN:

1. The point at which something comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived.

Hmm...I wonder what he POSSIBLY could have meant besides the above definition in calling his book "Origins." Inquiring minds want to know.

You seem to take delight in the misapplication of definitions. Darwin spoke of the “Origin” of Species. Not of Life. All species share a common ancestor. Whether the original organism were created by God , seeded by aliens, or spontaneously generated from some sort of ooze is not important and is not considered. The theory of evolution only deals with changes in living organisms. Look it up.

quote:I have posted the sites that contain the "science" for you multiple times, and I have yet to see you refute any of them. Not saying you don't have the ability to do so, as you're an intelligent chap, but you haven't...at least not that I've seen.

Anyway, the science is there. You cannot deny that it is.

Also, I misspoke. I did not mean Creation. I meant Intelligent Design.



Over the past two years,I have read page after page and watched hours of seminars that you have posted links to. I have encountered little that has not been soundly refuted at some point in this forum. I would dare not claim to have presented refutation to more than a handful of your arguments, but yes, I have presented evidence which refuted several of your posts. Anyone who frequents this forum knows as fact that your claims have been refuted .



And yes, I can honestly deny the validity of what you present as science. Science deals with the natural world. All you have ever provided were misrepresentations and/or misapplications of science and the scientific method, by people with questionable qualification or by some with legitimate qualification who (for whatever reason)present misinformation.

quote:If you won't "go there" then you cannot say it's incorrect.



I did not say that is was incorrect. It has as much supporting evidence as Intelligent Design....none.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 05-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Boblong:

It does not deal with the origin of life but the origin of species.

And species can be defined as....what, precisely ?

quote:Just an attempt at civility. You may take it as you choose. The message stands as truth.

Though I do not recall you calling me names, and you aren't a sensationalist, you certainly haven't been civil to me in the past. Why start now ?

Even your "civility" has an air of condescension to it, so forgive me for thinking that you were patronizing me.

quote:Only the first definition describes a Scientific theory. Using multiple definitions for the term in an attempt to lend creedence to Creation Science is dishonest.If you have to bend the truth for your argument to have merit, you have a poor argument.

Man, you just can't win on this forum. If I post them all, I am accused of muddying up the waters for my benefit. If I don't, I am accused of ommission for my benefit. What's a girl to do ?

Number 2 specifically calls upon science as part of it's definition, so right off the bat, you're incorrect.

I did no such bending.

Do you, or do you not, deny that Intelligent Design is defined as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." ?

It is certainly a set of statements and principles. It is devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. It has been repeatedly tested for the past 30-40 years. It is widely accepted among Christians, and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

I hardly see how it deviates from even ONE portion of the definition I provided.

It is so common for totseans to decry the validity or applicability of definitions from the Dictionary. I wonder at how you all speak English with any kind of accuracy.

quote:ID does NOT fit the first definition in any way, shape , or form. For ID to be considered science, the definition of science would have to be changed to include metaphysics.

Intelligent Design has no application for metaphysical phenomena. It deals primarily with the very same evidence that Darwinian Evolution does...the universe !

quote:ID: Not falsifiable. Can make no testable predictions. Any discrepancies can be explained by "God caused it".

Not falsifiable ? Didn't you just contend the FSM argument ?

Everything they publish is falsifiable, but evolutionists refuse to falsify it, regarding it as "pseudo-science." It's a cop out, because they are afraid of what they will find.

You will not find a single published paper at ICR that concludes "God caused it" whenever something is not explainable. At least I have never seen it.

Here's a testable prediction for ya: entropy. ID believes in entropy. It states that entropy is a very good sign that the universe is designed. Entropy will never cease to exist. It is predictable, in this manner.

Here's something interesting I found:

"Can we "prove" some "true facts" about the world? Not very easily. Science is full of general statement such as:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> "Gravity affects all objects"

<LI> "Water always boils at 100 degrees centigrade"

<LI> "All plants get their energy from the sun."</UL>

All these statements would be considered true. But they can’t be proven true. Not all objects have ever been observed. All water has not been boiled. Maybe some plants remain undiscovered.

But we talk as if these statements are true. We have found many examples that confirm these statements, but that’s not why we say they’re true. It isn’t just that we have seen many plants that get energy from the sun, it is that we have searched the world over for many years and still never found one that didn’t!" Source (http://tinyurl.com/zywvk)

While that may seem like elementary thinking to you, I think it proves that the "falsifiable" claim is getting old, and is not even applicable to everything we already accept as fact.

quote:The Scientific Theory of Evolution :

1)Is falsifiable. Predictions can be (and are) made which, if the theory is correct, will yield certain results.

2)Has withstood even after many years of scrutiny by the scientific community.

3)Is supported by an immense amount of verifiable, physical evidence.

It Does fit the definition of a “Scientific Theory”.

You don't need to prove to me that evolution is a viable theory. I never claimed it wasn't. My statement was based on your unfair assessment of ID, which you claim is not a viable theory, though you have yet to prove why.

You'd need to take specific examples of published papers, and show how they don't fit YOUR paramters of what a theory should be. They certainly fit the criteria the Dictionary gives as the definition of a "theory."

quote:You seem to take delight in the misapplication of definitions. Darwin spoke of the “Origin” of Species. Not of Life.

I take delight in understanding English, and not manipulating it to suit my agenda.

quote:All species share a common ancestor. Whether the original organism were created by God , seeded by aliens, or spontaneously generated from some sort of ooze is not important and is not considered. The theory of evolution only deals with changes in living organisms. Look it up.

Please reference just ONE Darwinian Evolutionist that claims that Creation is how we came to be. Just one. Please.

quote:Over the past two years,I have read page after page and watched hours of seminars that you have posted links to. I have encountered little that has not been soundly refuted at some point in this forum. I would dare not claim to have presented refutation to more than a handful of your arguments, but yes, I have presented evidence which refuted several of your posts. Anyone who frequents this forum knows as fact that your claims have been refuted .

Perhaps I did not see your posts, but that isn't the point. Providing an argument is not a refutation. A refutation would require that you prove ID to be false or erroneous. I have seen nothing of the sort, either from you, or anyone else. There have been some very detailed, convincing arguments, but no refutations, in my opinion.

I can present you with about ten people that frequent this forum that would deny your assertion that I have been refuted, on any level. A lot of good that would do. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:And yes, I can honestly deny the validity of what you present as science. Science deals with the natural world. All you have ever provided were misrepresentations and/or misapplications of science and the scientific method, by people with questionable qualification or by some with legitimate qualification who (for whatever reason)present misinformation.

It is personal opinion that ID isn't science. It can be categorized as science, since it meets the criteria of the definition:

1A. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

1B. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

1C. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.

3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.

4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

5. Science Christian Science.

ID scientists absolutely observe, identify, describe, conduct experimental investigation, and present theoretical explanation of phenomena, and nothing you, or anyone else here on this forum, have (or can) prove the contrary.

Let me guess...now you're going to accuse me of engaging in "the misapplication of definitions," right ?

quote:I did not say that is was incorrect. It has as much supporting evidence as Intelligent Design....none.

You have claimed that ID isn't scientific, and that it proves nothing. I can infer from your tone that you are implying much of the same about FSM. Forgive me for thinking that meant you were claiming it was incorrect.

you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science ds.

You mean I don't need to complicate it in order to muddle up my point to a sufficient level wherein no one else will want to tackle it, and will accept it as truth out of blind faith ?

Then, yeah. I agree.

no, i mean you don't understand what science is. you posted those articles which 'altered' the speed of light. but even in the articles they explained how they were only altering the vibration of a group of particles and not the speed of light itself. furthermore they cautioned in the first article that this was not tested by other scientists yet.

in the second one, they qualify:

"It’s also important to note, as we have often warned, that newspaper reports are often very different from the original paper. The actual Nature article, as shown by its accurate title, was about how the theory of black-hole thermodynamics might determine which is correct out of two possible explanations for previous work that claimed that FSC might have increased slightly and slowly over billions of years. The details are summarized in the box below. In conclusion, the authors (who are also prepared to accept that their interpretation of the data may be wrong) still believe in billions of years, and would reject the relatively rapid change in c that Setterfield proposed since they are talking about &lt;0.001% over 6–10 billion years."



you take this 'evidence' and say that if it may be possible to alter c then surely god could do it, so a literal creationism 6,000 years ago is supported by this research. that is not science there is no evidence for god existing or doing anything of the sort! you and your fellow creationists are taking real science and bending it to fit an old dusty book of fairy tales.

using the same logic, i could claim that santa claus travels on light beams to give everybody gifts on christmas eve, and he uses his magic elf-dust in the eyes of anybody that sees him to make them forget.



and what the fuck are you talking about saying that plants growign off sunlight and shit is not falsifiable!! to prove this wrong, all we have to do is find one plant that doesn't. we a haven't, so current theory is that all plants create ATP from chloroplasts using the suns energy. this is supported by overwhelming evidence.

and that bullshit about water boiling at 100 degrees celsius. first off, that is only at a certain pressure. second off, we have not found any evidence to the contrary. that is what science is about.

if we found evidence agaist these things, we could begin to form alternate theories. but we can't find evidence agaist god, which is why creationism is not science.

it is the "god of the gaps"--a vacous, information-free god-form that creationism presents.

you further show you ignorance of science and evolution when you consistently claim that it has to do with the origin of the universe and life. evolution says no such thing! it only deals with the transformation of one form of life to another. this is why evolution and god creating life do not contradict, and why the catholic church has accepted evolution.





edit: good god, did you actually read past the third paragraph of this (http://users.marshall.edu/~bady/isc203/science/falsify.html)?

it goes on the explain why we accept plants, gravity, and water as science, but not ufos, spirtualism, and yes, creationism.



i have lost the last shred of respect i ever had for you. go read your bible.

d-edit:from the same page:

" Not everything can be researched (research takes funding and effort!). The first filter is the process by which scientists decide what to investigate. Ideas that conflict with well established beliefs are likely to be ignored. Thus most scientists pay little attention to the claims of creationists, UFO believers, and proponents of "miracle cures", since these conflict with the well-established knowledge that has made it through all stages of the filtering process. Occasionally, this means some ideas are ignored that may eventually turn out to actually make it through the "knowledge filter". For example, at first, Einstein’s theory of relativity seemed not worthy of investigation because it obviously conflicted with the beliefs about physics at the time. But a number of experiments, carried out by people who had no interest in Einstein’s new theory, began to show that there were problems with the accepted physics of Newton. Only then did people start to take Einstein’s new theory seriously. So new ideas that conflict with accepted beliefs CAN sometimes be taken seriously, when there is a need to look for solutions to problems that the accepted theory can’t explain."

[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 05-20-2006).]

What page in Darwin's book does he talk about the origin of life?

I know where he talks about where modern species came from, but for the life of me I can't find the page where he debunks God and says humanity sprang from nothing.

Could you perhaps assist me DS?

Originally posted by DigitalSavior:

quote:Man, you just can't win on this forum. If I post them all, I am accused of muddying up the waters for my benefit. If I don't, I am accused of ommission for my benefit. What's a girl to do ?

Number 2 specifically calls upon science as part of it's definition, so right off the bat, you're incorrect.

I did no such bending.

Do you, or do you not, deny that Intelligent Design is defined as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." ?

It is certainly a set of statements and principles. It is devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. It has been repeatedly tested for the past 30-40 years. It is widely accepted among Christians, and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

I hardly see how it deviates from even ONE portion of the definition I provided.

It is so common for totseans to decry the validity or applicability of definitions from the Dictionary. I wonder at how you all speak English with any kind of accuracy.

Only the 1st definition describes a Scientific Theory. You’re intelligent enough to understand this. This has been pointed out to you numerous times in the past, yet you continue to blend theory(as in hypothesis) with Theory (as in Scientific Theory). So yes, you are guilty of misapplication of definitions.



Yes, I absolutely deny that "... Intelligent Design is defined as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena...".

ID as a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena…

Fits the definition so far.

"...especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena...".

Here is where ID fails to meet the definition of a scientific theory. There is no way to test whether or not a designer was involved in the creation( I use the term “creation” very loosely here) of the universe or in living organisms. Being accepted by Christians is not the same as being widely accepted by the scientific community(you know, the people who actually devote the time and effort to learn and understand the science behind the theory).The strongest argument for Intelligent Design is the idea of irreducible complexity. This idea has been refuted by the scientific community. ID can make no testable predictions. Intelligent Design does not meet the criteria to qualify as a scientific theory.

quote:Intelligent Design has no application for metaphysical phenomena. It deals primarily with the very same evidence that Darwinian Evolution does...the universe !



Nonsense! Intelligent Design is founded in metaphysics. The very core of ID is the proposition that all life on earth was Created in it’s present form by an unknown Designer. All ID proponents, though they jokingly offer the possibility that space aliens may be the designers, unanimously agree that the Designer is God. God is a metaphysical being.

quote:Not falsifiable ? Didn't you just contend the FSM argument ?

Everything they publish is falsifiable, but evolutionists refuse to falsify it, regarding it as "pseudo-science." It's a cop out, because they are afraid of what they will find.

You will not find a single published paper at ICR that concludes "God caused it" whenever something is not explainable. At least I have never seen it.

Here's a testable prediction for ya: entropy. ID believes in entropy. It states that entropy is a very good sign that the universe is designed. Entropy will never cease to exist. It is predictable, in this manner.

Here's something interesting I found:

"Can we "prove" some "true facts" about the world? Not very easily. Science is full of general statement such as:

• "Gravity affects all objects"

• "Water always boils at 100 degrees centigrade"

• "All plants get their energy from the sun."

All these statements would be considered true. But they can’t be proven true. Not all objects have ever been observed. All water has not been boiled. Maybe some plants remain undiscovered.

But we talk as if these statements are true. We have found many examples that confirm these statements, but that’s not why we say they’re true. It isn’t just that we have seen many plants that get energy from the sun, it is that we have searched the world over for many years and still never found one that didn’t!" Source

While that may seem like elementary thinking to you, I think it proves that the "falsifiable" claim is getting old, and is not even applicable to everything we already accept as fact.



The IRC bases all of their research on the pre-conceived assumption that "God caused it" , and adjusts their evidence to agree with their presupposition.

How does ID believing in entropy make ID testable. Entropy exists, whether or not a Designer does. Testing entropy does not equal testing ID. Next you will tell me that Since ID believes in gravity ,that gravity supports the existance of a Designer.

Your attempt to refute falsification is pitiful, at best.

quote:You don't need to prove to me that evolution is a viable theory. I never claimed it wasn't. My statement was based on your unfair assessment of ID, which you claim is not a viable theory, though you have yet to prove why.

You'd need to take specific examples of published papers, and show how they don't fit YOUR paramters of what a theory should be. They certainly fit the criteria the Dictionary gives as the definition of a "theory."



Please provide the names of exactly which scientific journal/s I would be able to find these published papers, that I might attempt to fulfill your request?

quote:I take delight in understanding English, and not manipulating it to suit my agenda.



All evidence points to the contrary.



quote:Please reference just ONE Darwinian Evolutionist that claims that Creation is how we came to be. Just one. Please.



If , by Creation, you mean that life was created in it’s present form, fish with fins, birds with feathers, etc, the answer would be none.

If by Creation you mean that evolution is the process used by the Creator to bring life from single celled organisms to their present forms, it would not be difficult to compile a list in a relatively short time.

quote:Perhaps I did not see your posts, but that isn't the point. Providing an argument is not a refutation. A refutation would require that you prove ID to be false or erroneous. I have seen nothing of the sort, either from you, or anyone else. There have been some very detailed, convincing arguments, but no refutations, in my opinion.

I can present you with about ten people that frequent this forum that would deny your assertion that I have been refuted, on any level. A lot of good that would do.

A refutation would not require that I, or anyone else prove ID false, although many aspects of ID have been proven erroneous. You cannot prove or disprove the metaphysical. Merely proving where the conclusions reached by ID are more logically explained by natural means is refutation.

The ten people you would name would also be wrong .

quote:It is personal opinion that ID isn't science. It can be categorized as science, since it meets the criteria of the definition:

1A. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

1B. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

1C. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.

3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.

4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

5. Science Christian Science.

ID scientists absolutely observe, identify, describe, conduct experimental investigation, and present theoretical explanation of phenomena, and nothing you, or anyone else here on this forum, have (or can) prove the contrary.

Let me guess...now you're going to accuse me of engaging in "the misapplication of definitions," right ?

ID could only qualifiy as science if the definition of science were to include metaphysical causation.

quote:You have claimed that ID isn't scientific, and that it proves nothing. I can infer from your tone that you are implying much of the same about FSM. Forgive me for thinking that meant you were claiming it was incorrect.

Neither ID nor FSM are scientific theories. That does not mean that they cannot be true. There is no possible way to disprove the metaphysical. Thus the possibility exists, although exceedingly unlikely, that they may be true. Not being a scientific theory does not automatically equate to being incorrect.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 05-20-2006).]

Very interesting about the light thing. Also I will look into all of those "sources".

The creationist theory lacks evidence supporting it, can you give me evidence earth was created before the rest of the universe in 6 days? Mathematical equations? Science?

Creationism is founded on theology and and tries to disprove science that doesn't support it. It is mainly based on the bible though.

You see so far all you have done is try to present things disproving things that go against your theory but you have not presented any evidence for your theory. The age of the universe does not prove creationism but has the potential to disprove it. So is there any scientific evidence supported by math etc. specifically detailing the amount of time the earth was created in, and wether or not it was created by anything other than random events? I have seen no evidence, just beliefs in this field. The bible is not based on science. Theology is not based on science. This is where creationism falls apart.

Creationism tries to find science against anything that proves it wrong but fails to present evidence proving it to be true.

Also increasing the theoretical limit on the speed of light may alter it's wave length. When I have time to look into this I will. Increasing the speed of a microwave (an invisible electromagnetic wave) may be possible but if it alters it's wave length, this causes problem with your theory. Microwaves are invisible, and visible light has frequancy limits, increase the frequancy enough and it becomes invisible to the human eye. The light we see coming from stars is clearly visible. So although stars emit this kind of light, or more specifically, electromagnetic waves, it is not visible, so visible light operates withen a frequancy range, does the particle accelerater used to increase the speed increase the wavelength? This would make sence considering heat/kenetic energy.

It is a very interesting article, and it is correct that it doesn't prove einstein wrong because he represented the speed of light as a variable with no set limits (0 &lt; C &lt; infinity)(C being the speed of light).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Scientists have seen a pulse of light emerge from a cloud of gas before it even entered.



It's more than possible considering how weird particles behave, just look at quantum physics. It is also very likely that the watch could not measure as a rate fast enough to record the light. Just as air was thought to be weightless till insturments percice enough to measure it came out, this may be the case again. I'm not saying it's false, but it also isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It was Einstein who said nothing physical could break this barrier because, among other things, to do so would also mean travelling back in time.

Motion through space + Motion through time = The speed of light.

He didn't specifically say time travel, from what I know he said at the speed of light physics fundamentally change. Also he said nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Light is an electromagnetic wave and the thing you said was going faster than the speed of light, was light it's self. Does this prove low frequancy electromagnetic waves can go faster than the speed of visible light because the particle has less distance to travel along the path of the wave? What type of lasers were used? Originally lasers used microwaves.

He told BBC News Online: "The effect cannot be used to go back in time, only to reduce the time between cause and effect a little bit.

"The reason for this," he said, "is because the light pulse has a finite length of time, much longer than any gain obtained by a faster-than-light speed."



It seems to me based on that statement, that the electromagnetic wave is exiting the atom trap before the end of the pulse.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

it certainly proves that if MAN can slow or increase the speed of light, surely an omnipotent Creator can do so as well.

See what I mean about creationist science being based on theology. There is no observable evidence for god omnipotent or not so how did he appear in your theory? Not from scientific observation, or experimentation.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

One was, if stars are really well over 6000 light years away, how could light have had time to travel from them to Earth? Two logically possible answers have serious problems:

1. God created the starlight on its way: this suffers grievously from the fact that starlight also carries information about distant cosmic events. The created-in-transit theory means that the information would be ‘phony’, recording events which never happened, hence deceptive.

Is there evidence of this?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

2. The distances are deceptive: but despite some anomalies in redshift/distance correlations (see Galaxy-Quasar ‘Connection’ Defies Explanation), it’s just not possible for all stars and galaxies to be within a 6000-light-year radius—we would all fry!

But if light were billions of times faster at the beginning, and slowed down in transit, there would be no more problem.

The source is a creationist website. Is there a website subject to scientific peer review that supports the claims of that site.

It seems bias considering :

"Answers in Genesis: Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the very first verse"

Thats on the site banner.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

In fact, top-flight creationist researchers involved with the RATE (Radioactive Isotopes and the Age of the Earth) project

The RATE project...

The RATE scientists insisted on starting with scripture and building "their understanding of science" on that foundation.

During creation week these processes were not the same strict analogous processes they are today. For instance gravity must have been in operation, but when the waters of Day 2, moved off the rising continents on Day 3, they were able to be moved faster and farther than waters can be moved today. Modern natural laws, operating at rates we reconize today, evidently were not fully instituted until creationism was completed on day 6, but even these laws were altered at the time of the Curse of all Creation (Genesis 3:19-24, Romans 8:20-22).

As stated earlier RATE "scientists" base things around theology not science, because to them if it doesn't agree with theology it is wrong:



The RATE scientists insisted on starting with scripture and building "their understanding of science" on that foundation.

That is close minded and is not science.

"Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove ?"

Also a link to the Genesis website.

(see How can we see distant stars in a young Universe?).

Also a link to the Genesis website.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Physicist Keith Wanser, a young-universe creationist and full Professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton, told Creation magazine in 1999 that he was open to the idea of changing c (see God and the Electron).



Is he bias like RATE?

God and the Electron is a proof of his claim?

I'd say that is bias.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It is clear, though, that the issue is so complex, that one or two pronouncements of ‘certainty’ by a physicist or two, whether creationist or evolutionist, should not be taken as the death knell of the notion or any aspects of it—nor as final proof of it.

Why do you keep bringing evolution into this?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It is truly ironic to look back at the time when some creationists were actively putting forward CDK as a profoundly important hypothesis. The anticreationists, both the anti-theists and their compromising churchian allies, launched their attacks with glee. Skeptics around the world seldom failed to have audiences in fits of laughter at the ‘ridiculous’ notion that what they labeled as a ‘certain cornerstone of modern physics’, the alleged constancy through time of the value of c, was wrong. No matter what comes of his notion as a whole, no matter even whether c has actually changed or not, in that sense at least, thanks to Paul Davies, Setterfield (and those, like ourselves, who supported his pioneering efforts) has already had the last laugh.

Sounds like propoganda to me. Hypocritical to say the least, look at the site you posted.

http://www.parentdirectededucation.org/Evolution.htm

I want you all to take a look at that site, it's pure propoganda at it's finest. It's about as credible as Nazi Youth rallys.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And Darwinian evolution and it's implied theories about how we came to be are chalk full of the assumption that there IS no God. It picks and chooses science that omits the possibility of creation, as opposed to "favorable spontaneous combustion."

Consequently, they lie and manipulate the data contained within the theory, to suit new evidence that is constantly being found which refutes it.

Watch the seminars I posted. You CAN do THAT, can't you ?

I have said time and time again I'm not a supporter of evolution, but it is a more credable theory than creationism because there is no evidence that god created the universe other than the bible which is not scientific. FMS even has there own bible.

And the seminars? Perferably not if they are video. At the very least time is not permitting now, I will later.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Because there are only two viable theories for how the universe came to be, at this time. One is the theory of Evolution, and the other is the theory of Creation. Since you are boldly claiming that Creation is bunk, without even bothering to refute it, I am forced to assume you believe the model contained within the theory of Evolution.

Unless, of course, you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory.

Evolution isn't a theory involving the creation of the universe.

Creationism isn't a scientific theory considering it lacks science showing that god created the universe in 6 days.

FSMism isn't scientific either but if you consider Intellegent Design scientific, although it has no evidence supporting it (the universe being made in 6 days and humans on the 5th "the creator" resting on the 7th because it was tired) then FSM is EQUALLY probable and valid.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

This is a great topic. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

I agree!

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



No offense Digi, but you're wrong.In more than one way. First, you were incorrect in your use of the term "theory" when you were referring to Creationism. Creationism is at best a hypothesis and falls far short of qualifying as a scientific theory.

We both know that you understand the definition of the term, so it would be dishonest of you to continue to use the term as you have.

Secondly, the Theory of Evolution, as has been pointed out to you numerous times in the past, has nothing to do with how the "universe came to be". Evolution deals only with changes in living organisms over time. There are theories that deal with the origin of the universe(Big Bang), the origin of life(Abiogenesis), etc., but evolution does not depend on how the universe began or how life came from inanimate matter.

Until (so called) Creation Science makes falsifiable predictions and withstands testing through experimentation and observation by multiple testing sources, it cannot be considered a valid theory. Pseudo-science and metaphysical excuse cannot be substituted for the falsification process.



Exactly, unless evidence is presented supporting the universe being made in 6 days and humans on the 5th "the creator" resting on the 7th because it was tired, creationism falls dramatically short of a theory, and is based on theology.

Also DS you gave the definition for a THEORY not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

Taken from the dictionary site you posted:

scientific theory

n : a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Page here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scientific+theory&db=*)

"I have posted the sites that contain the "science" for you multiple times, and I have yet to see you refute any of them."

Science supporting the hypothesis that god created the universe in 6 days by an intellegent force, humans on the 5th, and "the creator" rested on the 7th?

"Anyway, the science is there. You cannot deny that it is."

There is incomplete and/or bias and/or theology founded science at best, I don't deny that aspect of it.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And species can be defined as....what, precisely ?

Not gases and planets for one thing.

Evolution is not a theory about the start of the universe.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) Done..

truckfxr, before I address the rest of your post, perhaps I should educate you on what ID actually is...

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute[2], say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.

Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. The stated[8] purpose is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. William Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence." Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design)

And THAT'S from Wikiepedia !

ID does NOT deal with the metaphysical aspects. If it did, studies would be conducted. There are plenty of people out there who study the metaphysical, however unsuccessfully, and NONE of them are Intelligent Design scientists.

It deals with life, and the undeniable logic and order to our universe, stating that this logic and order couldn't be a product of chance, or chaos.

If you knew the definition of Intelligent Design, you wouldn't have based your entire argument on the premise that it deals solely with the metaphysical.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

What page in Darwin's book does he talk about the origin of life?

I know where he talks about where modern species came from, but for the life of me I can't find the page where he debunks God and says humanity sprang from nothing.

Could you perhaps assist me DS?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

What page in Darwin's book does he talk about the origin of life?

I know where he talks about where modern species came from, but for the life of me I can't find the page where he debunks God and says humanity sprang from nothing.

Could you perhaps assist me DS?

"At the time "Evolutionism" implied creation without divine intervention, and Darwin avoided using the words "evolution" or "evolve", though the book ends by stating that "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." The book only briefly alluded to the idea that human beings, too, would evolve in the same way as other organisms. Darwin wrote in deliberate understatement that "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history."

Evolution by natural selection proved to be a significant blow to notions of divine creation and intelligent design prevalent in 19th-century science, specifically overturning the Creation biology doctrine of "Created kinds". Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin)

As a blow to Intelligent Design, it stands as a support for a lack of Intelligent Design. Without Intelligent Design, there is nothing left aside from "spontaneous life."

I do not claim that Darwin set out to disprove God. You are reading into what I am saying far too much. I am saying that Darwinian Evolution gives no room for God to exist. Therefore, assumptions in favor of "spontaneous life" must be made. If one subscribes to Darwinian Evolution, they cannot conclude that the universe was designed by God.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 05-20-2006).]

Dood, Napoleon...calm yourself ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

Digital Savour, do not get your information from wikipedia. Anyone can edit those articles, and because of this there is a lot of bias and false information.

Dood, I totally hate Wikipedia for the very reason you have listed, I am merely giving a reference that is widely accepted and used by atheists of all sorts.

Again, I say, a girl can't win. If I use Wikipedia, I am denounced. If I use a Christian source, I am denounced.

Screw it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

That's because both wikipedia and christian sources are bias.

Yes, of course.

Thanks for proving my point. Only the sources YOU deem to be true aren't biased, right ?

*smirks*

Ok, this whole *smirks* thing is exactly why I hate you, you pompous bitch. I can’t be on this forum when you’re here, and not because I can’t handle what you got to say, I can’t handle how you say it. You just fill me with anger, you utter cunt.

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

you utter cunt.

You're so weak.

quote:Originally posted by Aseren:

You're so weak.

Psh. Like I care what you think. I personally think she is a cunt, a nasty little pompous bitch and she seriously pisses me off. She's the only person on totse who can really irritate me. I'm leaving MGCBTSOOYG cause she pisses me off so much.

[This message has been edited by Adrenochrome (edited 05-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

I'm leaving MGCBTSOOYG

What do you say Digi.. the big one this time

?? (http://tinyurl.com/frflo)

from your own source ds:

"Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. They do not state that God is the designer, but the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Though Dembski in The Design Inference speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, the authoritative description of intelligent design[25] explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[26] The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions."

"An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience[5] or junk science.[6] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[7]

A United States federal court recently ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), United States District Judge John E. Jones III also ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature."

"In the context of intelligent design, irreducible complexity was put forth by Michael Behe, who defines it as:

...a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference)

Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces — the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer — all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. The removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled. Behe's original examples of alleged[18] irreducibly complex biological mechanisms also include the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.

Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary, and therefore could not have been added sequentially. They argue that something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary, as other components change. Furthermore, they argue that evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, instead of by adding them; this is sometimes referred to as the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own."



it amazes me how you continually cite sources which don't actually support your position at all.



actually, it really doesn't.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Yes, of course.

Thanks for proving my point. Only the sources YOU deem to be true aren't biased, right ?

*smirks*

NASA isn't credible enough to you?

Your sources are amazingly bias, they even said very plainly that they start with theology and build "science" around it.

And are you not a creationist?

Do you or do you not believe the earth was created in 6 days?

Is there science/provable evidence behind this?

Is there science/provable evidence behind intellegent design?

Please show the the evidence, proof, and science behind ID that the earth was created by one or more intellegent force(s).

Scientific Theory:

n : a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"



Otherwise it is not science, or a scientific theory.

You attempted to mislead people several times in this thread, posting a site you told us was only science and it wasn't a science source at all. You posted that propoganda website for parents that shows how christians minipulated children. And you posted the definition for a theory not a scientific theory. Did you not know the difference between the two? Or are you trying to mislead people?

quote:"I have posted the sites that contain the "science" for you multiple times, and I have yet to see you refute any of them."



Science supporting the hypothesis that god created the universe in 6 days by an intellegent force, humans on the 5th, and "the creator" rested on the 7th?



"Anyway, the science is there. You cannot deny that it is."



There is incomplete and/or bias and/or theology founded science at best, I don't deny that aspect of it.

Why is it that you can't present evidence supporting your claim that the earth was created by intellegent forces?



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Exactly, unless evidence is presented supporting the universe being made in 6 days and humans on the 5th "the creator" resting on the 7th because it was tired, creationism falls dramatically short of a theory, and is based on theology.

You passionatly attacked people earlier but you yourself don't present scientific evidence of creationism...

I'm not asking for evidence against other science, I'm asking for evidence supporting the universe being made in 6 days and humans on the 5th "the creator" resting on the 7th.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It deals with life, and the undeniable logic and order to our universe, stating that this logic and order couldn't be a product of chance, or chaos.

Nature works in patterns, and isn't completely chaotic. It is complex but even quantum physics has patterns. Science shows us these patterns. It isn't total chaos depending on what you consider chaos. Order does not prove the universe was created by god, gods, a flying pasta, or a gaint baseball, it just shows we as humans can understand the universe, to the best of our ability, and that just maybe it is not black and white order and chaos, maybe it is both.

From now on please present actual evidence, that we can disect, proving the universe was created by intellegent things. If you can't present evidence that can be proven true or false it is not science.

Did you not reply to my post because I refuted your "science". "Science" founded on theology?

"If I use a Christian source, I am denounced."

Your christian sources were founded on theology, not science, they even said so.

Show websites subject to scientific peer review?

Show evidence that can be proven true or false?

Perferably evidence specifically related to the earth being created in 6 days, if there is any and if that is what you believe in.

"Thanks for proving my point. Only the sources YOU deem to be true aren't biased, right ?"

NASA is bias?

Things subject to scientific peer review...bias?

Show me a christian source that was reviewed by the scientific community. Other science can stand up to peer review why can't ID?

So as a final point, digital_savior please present provable evidence for ID or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it.



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 05-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:



Psh. Like I care what you think. I personally think she is a cunt, a nasty little pompous bitch and she seriously pisses me off. She's the only person on totse who can really irritate me. I'm leaving MGCBTSOOYG cause she pisses me off so much.

Yet you prove nothing by insulting her.

I'm not fond of DS but thats no excuse to just treat her like shit.

Why not actually debate instead of insulting people? You can't prove your right with insults. You won't win much repect that way either.

I would like to say once again:

Digital_Savior please present provable evidence for ID or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it.



EDIT: Fixed quote..again



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 05-21-2006).]

Originally quoted by DigitalSavior:

quote:truckfxr, before I address the rest of your post, perhaps I should educate you on what ID actually is...

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute[2], say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.

Perhaps you should attempt to educate yourself as to what ID actually is before you accuse others of ignorance.

Intelligent Design is simply Creation Science hiding behind the façade of a secular-sounding name. When the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to teach Creation in the public school system, Creationists simply attempted to work around the constitutional issues by changing “God” to “Intelligent Agent” and pretending to be secular . Each and every proponent of ID believes that God is the Designer. God, if in fact a God were to exist, is a metaphysical being. They are dedicated to trying to show evidence that organisms were created by a metaphysical (God) being . Intelligent Design is religion, attempting to disguise itself as science. Pure and simple.

Michael Behe(another major proponent if ID) admitted under oath during cross examination in Day 11 of the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, that the definition he uses to describe a scientific theory is not the same as the definition used by the scientific community, and that using his definition, astrology could also be considered a scientific theory. So don’t try to pretend that ID is on equal footing with any valid scientific theory.



quote:Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. The stated[8] purpose is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. William Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence." Source

And THAT'S from Wikiepedia !

The intelligent agent they are referring to is a metaphysical (God) being. You know it, I know it, they know it. They can’t refer to the designer as God and hope to have their agenda presented in the public school system.

Dembsky's (and Behe's) arguments are from incredulity. Since there is at present no natural (at least none which coincides with their beliefs) explanation , It had to be designed by God.

Order can and does occur in the natural world. It does not need a designer to occur. Dembsky's conclusions are not sound.

quote:ID does NOT deal with the metaphysical aspects. If it did, studies would be conducted. There are plenty of people out there who study the metaphysical, however unsuccessfully, and NONE of them are Intelligent Design scientists.

It deals with life, and the undeniable logic and order to our universe, stating that this logic and order couldn't be a product of chance, or chaos.

If you knew the definition of Intelligent Design, you wouldn't have based your entire argument on the premise that it deals solely with the metaphysical.

As I said, the whole concept of ID is founded on metaphysical causation. To try to say otherwise would be a blatant lie.



I did not base my argument on the premise that ID deals solely with the metaphysical. ID deals with trying to support the idea of metaphysical causation using any snippet of scientific evidence that can be twisted to lend creedence to their view, while ignoring any and all evidence which is contradictory.

Edit: I mistakenly provided incorrect information in my argument. It was Behe, not Dembsky who admitted under oath that he used a broader definition of scientific theory than that used by the NAS. Dembsky was set to be an expert witness in the trial but was not used due to a conflict of interest.

[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 07-24-2006).]

I'd like to bring up the light point again, once again you presented lopsided evidence.

Quoted from MADSCI.ORG

quote:Is the article talking about the group velocity or the phase velocity in the

experiment? The two velocities are blurred in the complex experiment conducted

at the NEC Princeton Laboratory. While the phase velocity may exceed the

speed of light, any useful information modulated on the wave generally travels at

the group velocity. Most scientists consider the group velocity to always be less

than the speed of light. The phase velocity is the velocity of the wave front of a

single, an undistorted sine wave at the frequency of interest. The reference book

Ramo et al states: “The group velocity is often referred to as the “velocity of

energy travel”. This concept has validity for many important cases, but is not

universally true.” Other scientists simply state the group velocity is the velocity

that useful information is transmitted. Recent experiments, such as the one

described in the article, blur the distinction between group velocity and phase

velocity and are the cause of many arguments between scientists and engineers.

Also it was not in a vacume, and would not occur faster than the speeds discussed earlier. Heres why:

quote:

Many types of circuits have phase velocities that exceed the speed of light. Since

the 1930s engineers have used waveguides as transmission lines for microwave

radar and communications systems. Waveguides are made from metal pipes with

circular, rectangular of elliptical cross-sectional openings. The inside of the pipes

are about one half wavelength in diameter and the microwaves travel through the

pipes reflecting from the walls in a cris crossing manner. More recently fiber

optic transmission lines have extended waveguide theory to waveguides

transmitting laser light.

As you can see, by shortening the wavelength using a metal pipe or fiber optic cable, you can send a microwave faster than the "speed of light". On the other hand it is not possible to reproduce this effect in a vaccume, due to the light having to be confined to an amount of space smaller than it's wavelength. So unless your suggesting intellegent forces used fiber optic cables to send light to earth, then it is not possible when we consider that it is not possible in a vaccume to to move the light faster than the speeds defined earlier.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

But if light were billions of times faster at the beginning, and slowed down in transit, there would be no more problem.

The only way electromagnetic waves can move faster is if they are confined to a space measurable only in micrometers or smaller. The universe is huge, even our hair is 100 micrometers, while fiber optics used in the experiment were 5-50 micrometers thick.

Also I still want a reply on this:

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Digital_Savior please present provable evidence for ID or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it.

A couple things I'm unsure have been pointed out yet.

1) No one has ever observed c slowing down or speeding up in any significant way. Many people get the experiments dealing with the speed of light confused with c. c is the speed of light within a vacum. If you aren't in a vacum then you aren't specifically dealing with c.

2) c decay has not been observed and is pure conjecture. They did seem to leave out some details, I wonder what would happen if all radioative material started to decay at 2.3million times their current speed, since it produces heat.

3) With no evidence c decays, let alone that it does so in a manor fitting the bible, c-decay is an ad hoc explaination for why the universe doesn't fit the bible. To claim that a theory with such a big hole is on par with modern science is laughable. The hypocrisy creationists are willing to engage in is interesting too. Remember Hyro stormed out of here in a hissy after claiming punk eek was ad hock and lacked evidence, showing how weak evolution really is. So which is it? Are ad hoc explainations without evidence valid or not?

(for those who didn't read the thread, punk eek does have evidence).

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

Digital Savour, do not get your information from wikipedia. Anyone can edit those articles, and because of this there is a lot of bias and false information.

Are you sure there is a lot of bias and false information?

A couple studies have shown that when dealing with science wikipedia is often more accurate than a normal encyclopedia. The ability to quickly edit information means errors found were quickly fixed while they are still sitting in large encyclopedias. A couple years ago the average revert time for vandalism or general spam was 5 minutes. Evidence shows the more popular a subject is, the less likely BS will fly on the page.

Obviously when dealing with a subject you should do more research than just wikipedia, and use all of wikipedias resources to check the information, but beyond small pages, and pages that can be easily biased (politician bios) wikipedia is quite accurate.

To dismiss something out of ignorance, seems like a creationist move.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Yet you prove nothing by insulting her.

I'm not fond of DS but thats no excuse to just treat her like shit.

Why not actually debate instead of insulting people? You can't prove your right with insults. You won't win much repect that way either.

I would like to say once again:

Digital_Savior please present provable evidence for ID or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it.



EDIT: Fixed quote



You should edit your post again, I didn't post that, noob.

quote:Originally posted by Aseren:

You should edit your post again, I didn't post that, noob.

Heh, sorry about that.

Still waiting for a responce from one of the many creationists on this site.

When top creationist groups require their members to ignore evidence and accept complete conjecture to keep their "theory" afloat I doubt you will get any solid answer from any creationist.

The majority of creationism is built on not going into serious detail and not looking too closely at the problems.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

When top creationist groups require their members to ignore evidence and accept complete conjecture to keep their "theory" afloat I doubt you will get any solid answer from any creationist.

The majority of creationism is built on not going into serious detail and not looking too closely at the problems.

It isn't science for one thing, based on theology, and even the science D_S presented did not go into detail of the experiment. Evidence presented in this fashion, which is the way all creationist evidence I've seen is presented: Only part of the story, ignoring something important if it contradicts their goals of recruiting people to their religion.

Even with all their misleading "research" they can't give proof, evidence, or explanation of their claims of intervention, and creation, by an intellegent being.

That is why it is not a scientific theory, it is, as said earlier, metaphysics at best.

Bump

“Analogy would lead me one step further, namely to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from one prototype.... Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings that have lived on the earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”

This is an excerpt from The Origin of Species.

Damn that athiest Darwin!!!

Here is a good, short article explaining the difference between evolution and ID, and why one is science and one isn't.

quote:In the late nineteenth century, Charles Darwin's discoveries about evolution were described as a theory. That may have been accurate at the time, but since then many scientists have argued that they constitute fact. The difference is in part due to subsequent discoveries in the fields of biology and genetics. The discovery of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick and the recent elucidation of genomes (including human) have revealed the map and sequence by which life conveys its essential instructions.

This road map that dictates how life is to develop and evolve does not require God's intervention and guidance at every step. But it does not argue--nor has it ever--against the existence of a grand creator.

The theory of intelligent design is superfluous: It is not a defense of God and religion but rather a veiled attempt to find wiggle room in the term "theory" in order to justify the most literal and dangerous reading of the Bible--that beings did not automatically evolve one from the other based on survival of the fittest and encrypted genetic instructions. Intelligent design is not science but ideology. There may be a religious concept that God must be present to guide every step of life, but such a notion has no place in a science class.

Consider instead the scientific principle "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," essential to an understanding of embryology. This catchy phrase was coined by Ernst Haeckel, a nineteenth-century German biologist and philosopher, and it indicates that advanced beings pass through the developmental stages of their precursors as they grow as embryos in the womb. Though this is not literally true in every case, embryology does give us a portal back in time to the evolutionary advances first described by Darwin.

Another proof for Darwin takes place in the worlds of cellular and molecular biology. Each cell has the chemical and genetic codes that enable it to eat, move, process information and combine with other cells on the path to building more complex organisms. This information is self-regulating: Plant and animal life manage to develop and evolve without God's direct intervention at every step.



Scientists have shown that God didn't plunk down a plant on one extremely long day, followed by an animal the next, followed by man the next, followed by a woman made from Adam's rib. Twentieth-century scientists have stood on the shoulders of Darwin and shown exactly how evolution occurs by using the principles of modern genetics (mutations lead to advantages or disadvantages, and natural selection favors the advantages), as well as learning the chemical and molecular ways of life in evolution.

One of the main reasons that evolution can coexist with God without an infringement on either's turf is because evolution does not attempt to explain how life itself first came to be, nor does it attempt to explain away consciousness and self-awareness. Evolution does not try to explain away the human soul or spirit or to offer a theory on life from lifelessness. This is still the terrain of religion and philosophy, and just as religion has no place in a science class, science is best set apart from forages into metaphysics. Neurologists can map every neuron and synapse and still not account for the human mind or for consciousness. Biologists can show how the simplest cell can evolve into the most complex human but still not be able to explain convincingly how carbon compounds become alive. The process by which objects become animate can be described by science without being fully explained by it. In fact, the implications of life itself can reach well beyond science, without coming into conflict with it.

"God is in the details," architects are fond of saying. But intelligent design is no argument for the existence of a divine architect. It is a dangerous construct that undermines the accomplishments of well-proven scientific experiments even as it attempts to create for the creator a role he doesn't need.



[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 05-23-2006).]

Science: Adjusting conclusions and presuppositions to fit the evidence

Creationism: Adjusting evidence to fit presuppositions and conclusions

Guess which one is more intellectualy honest.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

As I said, the whole concept of ID is founded on metaphysical causation. To try to say otherwise would be a blatant lie.

...

Dembski admitted under oath during cross examination in Day 6 of the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, that the definition he uses to describe a scientific theory is not the same as the definition used by the scientific community, and that using his definition, astrology could also be considered a scientific theory. So don’t try to pretend that ID is on equal footing with any valid scientific theory.



Bump. This response seals the deal on this debate.

[This message has been edited by smallpox champion (edited 05-23-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Science: Adjusting conclusions and presuppositions to fit the evidence

Creationism: Adjusting evidence to fit presuppositions and conclusions

Guess which one is more intellectualy honest.

Wow... it still really bothers me that Digital_Savior would resort to using deceptive one sided information presented on the light issue, and the theory vs scientific theory. It seems really immoral, and coming from someone who prides oneself with selfrightous moral and religios standards, it's just scary how far people will go to decieve you if they can gain a believer in their ideals.

Interesting how they claim, even brag they will debate and refute things presented by anyone, but when the debate gets to a point where science doesn't support them, they look the other way? Thats the problem with theoligists, science explains things in detail, attemps to explain all things, and humbly corrects itself when wrong. With theology when it can't explain something they adopt an "ignore it till it goes away attitude".

Well I'm rambling and I doubt this thread will get much farther, exept maybe for the storming of ideas, so before this thread dies, I would like to thank everyone who helped argue for reason and logic. Speacal thanks to IanBoyd3 who brought up the very real light issue, and thanks to everyone who kept this thread alive, and those who still are. Its nice to know a minority of people out there still think for themselves.

I only say that because, as I said much earlier, that I don't plan on posting much outside this thread in the religous forum, exept mabye to make referance to this thread to the bragging Digital_Savior when she shuns others religions, when her own is not on higher ground than any other.

My challenge still stands though if any creationists or ID promoters think ID and/or creationism is a scientific theory.

"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it."

I'll see you around guys.

P.S. Anyone think this debate ending thread is worth archiving? Just a suggestion.







[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 05-24-2006).]

I would think it wouldn't hurt to archive this thread. I'd let it go until DS gets back with all her "evidence" though.

That way we can time capsule her bound to be hilarious response to these posts which she knows kills her argument.

I wouldn't blame DS for her behavior/attitude, it is what she has been taught. The creationist groups have convinced people that they are right, even when they contradict themselves a sentence later, and have unscrupulously tied it to their faith so people fear questioning creationism is questioning christianity which is questioning God and that is wrong so you shouldn't question creationism. The sad part is they blatantly lie while taking the moral high ground and attack the supposed moral dangers of evolution and atheism (which are often lies as well).

actually i think it's brave to defend the postion of creationism. kind of like defending the alamo.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I wouldn't blame DS for her behavior/attitude, it is what she has been taught. The creationist groups have convinced people that they are right, even when they contradict themselves a sentence later, and have unscrupulously tied it to their faith so people fear questioning creationism is questioning christianity which is questioning God and that is wrong so you shouldn't question creationism. The sad part is they blatantly lie while taking the moral high ground and attack the supposed moral dangers of evolution and atheism (which are often lies as well).



I understand that, but she dileberately tried to mislead people with the light thing. If you look into the experiment it is only possible for microwaves to behave in that manner when in a very confined space, (measurable only in micrometers). If you read the other 4 pages of this thread you'll see that isn't the only instance of her doing something like that. Besides from a religous standpoint isn't misleading people, I don't want to say sinful, but at least immoral? Nevermind I don't want the thread going in that direction, it does bother me though, the hypocrisy of it.

I guess we will wait and see if she comes back, it would be nice if anouther creationist besides her debated, or at least admitted that Creationism is purely religion not science.

I like this thread, it's pretty intellegent compared to some of the other threads on this site, which doesn't say much but still.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

actually i think it's brave to defend the postion of creationism. kind of like defending the alamo.





"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it."

It particularly falls apart from any scientific standpoint in regard to the part I put in italics. If it wasn't for the bible intelligent design would never have been a conclusion of anyone.

If anyone thinks the universe is perfectly orderly look at quantum physics, quantum foam, quantum fluxuations, and the list could go on. Alot of things can only be predicted as a probibility, which isn't orderly at all. In fact many things in quantum physics and at the microscopic level are incredibly chaotic. Without the influance of religion intellegent design theories would never have been taken seriously.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Besides from a religous standpoint isn't misleading people, I don't want to say sinful, but at least immoral?

I agree. Lying for christ is a sad thing yet it's amazing how many fundamentalist christians see it as a completely acceptable thing to do. I've even heard people try to justify it by saying they are doing the "lords work" by leading people to the truth by any means necessary including lying too them. The hypocrisy and irony of that statement bounced right off them.

It will be interesting to see if she comes back, in the past she has just dropped threads that weren't going her way. Maybe she will do better than Hyro who ironically declared these forums "not challenging enough" after his claim Punk eek was pure conjecture* was met with evidence to the contrary.

*but when creationists do it, that's fine.

I regret to inform your guys that despite the fact that Digital_Savior has made 100+ posts and 3+ threads in the last 10 days, and has spent countless hours talking in IRC, she doesn't have time to deal with this particular thread. She has a life outside of totse you know...

HA HA HA i'm glad to see creationism being beaten back.

in other news, the national health service (UK) funds homeopathy and reflexology and aromatherapy while people wait for lifesaving cancer drugs due to cost.

people need to get their fucking heads straight.

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

HA HA HA i'm glad to see creationism being beaten back.

in other news, the national health service (UK) funds homeopathy and reflexology and aromatherapy while people wait for lifesaving cancer drugs due to cost.

people need to get their fucking heads straight.

If they took the 25 million for the building of the new "creationist museum" (i think in LA) and give it to the poor, starving, and sick, that would be more sensible and more jesus like, but things like that aren't going to happen in our life time because people would rather make money than save lives. More american people care about american idol than the politics that control their lives. Just imagine what we could do if we channeled our money into something constructive. It's nothing more than an ideal of the way things should be though. Never gunna happen...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I regret to inform your guys that despite the fact that Digital_Savior has made 100+ posts and 3+ threads in the last 10 days, and has spent countless hours talking in IRC, she doesn't have time to deal with this particular thread. She has a life outside of totse you know...

She was pretty enthusiastic about it a couple days ago, and she didn't mind using her time by bragging in the mormon thread after she stoped posting in this one, how she would refute their beliefs. The thing is, Digital_Savior is not the only creationist on this site, I'm not specifically waiting for her. Just a creationist to respond. I do understand your point that shes pressed for time though.

Actually, I was being sarcastic. She has abandoned quite a few threads since she's been on totse, and coincidentally or not, they all happen to be threads in which she's thoroughly decimated. When asked why, she always says that she is pressed for time; an excuse that loses it's weight once you keep making posts, making threads, and talking on IRC.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Actually, I was being sarcastic. She has abandoned quite a few threads since she's been on totse, and coincidentally or not, they all happen to be threads in which she's thoroughly decimated. When asked why, she always says that she is pressed for time; an excuse that loses it's weight once you keep making posts, making threads, and talking on IRC.

Bump.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Actually, I was being sarcastic. She has abandoned quite a few threads since she's been on totse, and coincidentally or not, they all happen to be threads in which she's thoroughly decimated. When asked why, she always says that she is pressed for time; an excuse that loses it's weight once you keep making posts, making threads, and talking on IRC.

Thats actually pretty funny. I guess she debates and "refutes" anyone.... as long as she doesn't lose the debate. This is the only thread in the religion section of this site that I look at, so I take it she is still posting in other threads dispite being pressed for time? I can see how that can happen. Time must move slower in this thread. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

But just look at how well ignoring things till they went away has worked throughout history for the church. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

bump.

Bump. FTW

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 05-27-2006).]

I don't blame her at all for not answering; she is wrong, and has been proved so over and over again. She will obviously abandon this thread because all her arguments and pseudoscience have been thourougly refuted.

Yet, worry not, in all subsequent threads she will claim that evolution is all made up and is a secular religion and that it warps science and that creationism is right and has been proved right and it is obvious and she will put a lot of those words in capital letters as if shouting it over and over makes it any more true.

Ok, I'm making a guess, so if she does this I can say I called it. I'm betting that eventually if this thread stays bumped she will finally make a single short response to one obscure statement that has nothing to do with evidence or the main argument or that even relates to the thread really, and then move on claiming that creationism is right everywhere else.

Digi, it's dishonest of you to keep doing this. You need to be intellectually honest here and either provide evidence and finish the argument, or admit that you were wrong. Come on now.

One of the things you will say a lot is how scientists are scared to debate creationists and so on, and how that proves they must be scared of the truth.

Well, you continue to get completely refuted in these arguments, yet you continue claiming that you are right everywhere else. If you are right, prove it, here and now, or else admit you were wrong. You can't just run away from arguments.

wow, ds hasn't posted once on the fourth page, it's just been us making fun of her.

Don't we all just want to hug her?

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

I don't blame her at all for not answering; she is wrong, and has been proved so over and over again. She will obviously abandon this thread because all her arguments and pseudoscience have been thourougly refuted.

Yet, worry not, in all subsequent threads she will claim that evolution is all made up and is a secular religion and that it warps science and that creationism is right and has been proved right and it is obvious and she will put a lot of those words in capital letters as if shouting it over and over makes it any more true.

Ok, I'm making a guess, so if she does this I can say I called it. I'm betting that eventually if this thread stays bumped she will finally make a single short response to one obscure statement that has nothing to do with evidence or the main argument or that even relates to the thread really, and then move on claiming that creationism is right everywhere else.

Digi, it's dishonest of you to keep doing this. You need to be intellectually honest here and either provide evidence and finish the argument, or admit that you were wrong. Come on now.

One of the things you will say a lot is how scientists are scared to debate creationists and so on, and how that proves they must be scared of the truth.

Well, you continue to get completely refuted in these arguments, yet you continue claiming that you are right everywhere else. If you are right, prove it, here and now, or else admit you were wrong. You can't just run away from arguments.

Thats absolutely true.

+1

I think the arguement is over.

We should accept that her not posting is her way of adknowledging she is wrong. We all know she will never admit she is wrong. You ask her to be an intellectual, and debate, but she can't do that and maintain her belief system, which requires ignorance of certain fields of science.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Don't we all just want to hug her?

I dont want to catch hypocrisy! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

Or aids which is spread through hugs.

I propose we archive this thread.

It successfully refutes the creationist claims, and ends an age old debate, by archiving this thread we will no longer have to waste time on this topic.

Well before you kill this beast, let me tell you one thing: There is no being in the image of man nor any being that created every thing. There is no Diety or God save one, One so obvious that it remains a mystery to most.

People look for a God in the sky, in the Earth, some kind of Image to place faith in, an idea. Yet every single day they meet the only True God, and they deem themselves self sufficient of it, yet they are completely dependant on it.

They want some God that is within the universe that floats around on a magical cloud and controls the universe with a chessboard. They can find that in their minds. Yet that is not The True God I speak of. Any of you can guess what this True God is, the Only God, one that completely has you under its controls through its limitations on you. You can not even think a single thought unless that thought is an available option to you, or do anything without it. You live with it, sleep with it, and interact with it in waking and in sleep. What is it?

God is not some man in the sky, nor will ever be, nor will any thing you can see that you do not already see be your God.

Your God is one God, what we are all made of, exist within, and are completely dependant on.

God is Reality. The Ultimate Reality. The Reality we exist within, interact with, are made of, where all possible perceptions of all possible things can occur, if the option for the thought is not available, you can't think it. The System is smooth, flawless, perfect, without Glitches.

People question the "control" of God without seeing how in fact they are completely limited and dependant on Reality. They look for something within Reality, when Reality itself is The Only God.

I don't only mean objective physical reality, I mean the subjective reality too, what we can think, a superimposed hallucinatory image, what matter is it made of? The actual image is not made of any matter, yet it is still an option within this Reality, or else you wouldn't be able to think it.

God is The Reality, there is no God but this. People say they will believe when they see some large being come down from the sky? Yet any large being that may come down from the sky is within reality, made of reality, limited by reality, thus Reality remains the True and Ultimate God.

The Ultimate Reality is where we exist, where this universe is, essentially it is the only thing, that ever was or will be.

Nothing does not exist, what I mean to say as, True, Absolute Nothing, does not exist, as something (this) can not come from Nothing. Nothing always remains as Nothing, it has no capability to manifest.

On the other hand, Ultimate Reality has always existed, there is nothing beyond it, it is all there is and ever was, it is the manifestor of all possibilities, all realities, including this one.

It is "alive" if it were dead, inactive, then so too would we be non active, incapable, non existant, All things are in motion constantly.

God is The Reality, all things are part of the Reality, made up of the Reality, dependant on the Reality. You can call it anything, from God, Allah, The Tao, The Force, The Brahman, its one thing, all of the above were words to describe it but some ended up humanizing it. It is not a human, it has no form, it is infinite, it has no limits, it is the only power, the ultimate power.

Why would one deny evolution and the processes of this universe? They are made manifest and clear. But to deny Reality would be the mistake, and Reality is the only God, the Ultimate God. The sustainer of Worlds, the Supreme "King", The Provider of all things.

Prove to me Reality does not exist? You can't without blatant denial of yourself and all that is within and without you. Reality is God, the Only God. We are all within it, and Nothing is without it.

I can agree with you up to a point. Reality exists. Beyond that, you are stretching things a bit.

Reality is not a sentient being, thus it honestly cannot qualify as being a God. You're calling it so is based on your opinion/belief. Not on emperical evidence.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

I can agree with you up to a point. Reality exists. Beyond that, you are stretching things a bit.

Reality is not a sentient being, thus it honestly cannot qualify as being a God. You're calling it so is based on your opinion/belief. Not on emperical evidence.

I'm not saying it is sentient in the way we are sentient:

Here is the definition from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

sen·tient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt)

adj.

Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage” (T.E. Lawrence).

Experiencing sensation or feeling.

____________________________________________

Everything is made of Reality, including our feelings, and our ability to be sentient. Everything is within Reality, everything is in constant motion. Reality is not "dead" or else that would mean it would be nothing and not exist at all, nor would any thing manifest, exist, or manipulate, or even have a plain on which to exist, nor would or could anything manifest, appear or even move.

Reality is "Alive"

a·live ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lv)

adj.

Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.

In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive.

Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout.

Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief.

Main Entry: alive

Pronunciation: &-'lIv

Function: adjective

: having life : not dead or inanimate

Clearly Reality is Animate, we and everything is proof of this.

Ultimate Reality is "Aware" of all things existing within it, the proof of this is in the manifestation of all the available possibilities for us and our ability to execute them, furthermore our personal Awareness being proof of "Reality posessing Awareness". Besides all that, if Reality were not "Aware" those things it is "Unaware" of would not exist.

Aware

adj 1: (sometimes followed by `of') having or showing realization



We and everything around us are the Realization of Reality.

re·al·i·za·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-zshn)

n.

The act of realizing or the condition of being realized.

The result of realizing.

Manifestation:

man·i·fes·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn-f-stshn)

n.

The act of manifesting.

The state of being manifested.

An indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something: A high fever is an early manifestation of the disease.

man·i·fes·ta·tion (mn-f-stshn)

n.

An indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something...

Main Entry: man·i·fes·ta·tion

Pronunciation: "man-&-f&-'stA-sh&n, -"fes-

Function: noun

: a perceptible, outward, or visible expression

There is your "Creation" The Manifestation of this Reality which is within Ultimate Reality, which is the Manifestor. To call it the "Manifestor" is not innacurate as clearly, we are manifest and here to prove it.

The funny thing is "We are witnesses unto ourselves" what I mean to say is "we are the proof against ourselves" So is everything else!

So to Recap, We and All that is, ever will be, ever was, ever can or will be, in this or any other reality, belongs within Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality is what we are "Manifest" within. There is no Diety or God greater or mightier than this, and it is not a humanoid or anything of the sort, nor does it operate or think like us, it is infinite, the proof of its life is in the movement of all things, the proof of its awareness is in our being manifest. If it did not "know" we would be "dead" or inactive in it. know ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n)

v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) know·ing, knows

v. tr.

To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.

To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.

To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.

dead ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dd)

adj. dead·er, dead·est

No longer in existence, use, or operation.

We are the proof amazingly, yet we look everywhere for something that doesn't exist, when "God" is right infront of us, we are operating through it. We are sufficient proof of it. The Ultimate Reality, we are within it, it is without us, self sufficient, be it that we exist or not, it is ever living, before and after. Call it what satisfies you, it is one undeniable thing, to deny it is to Deny the Truth, Yourselves, The Reality which you exist within.

ex·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zst)

intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists

To have actual being; be real.

It is one God that has appeared throughout history, constantly mutated by the minds of men which belong to it completely, for their form to the possible thoughts they can possibly think. Even the most ancient hunter gatherer societies have this most ancient concept ingrained into their personal religions, even so, athiests deny it due to their definitions of God which they base of the corruptions of humans. God is and has always been "The Ultimate Reality" Never has "God" been a man in the sky, some being with a form, or anything possible within Ultimate Reality because it, itself is Ultimate Reality and all things are within it, not without it.

Its been called many things, though it is one thing, and so too are we, who all belong in it and exist only within it and because of it, are one with it, yet we deem ourselves self sufficient, we are completely dependant. We are under its controls by its limitations. It is beneficent in its gamut of options which it has bestowed us, to do what we wish, and all things having their cause and effect.

People claim that this world is IMPERFECT, do they see glitches? Does your computer screen suddenly dissapear forever with no explanation right before your eyes? The System is Perfect, This Reality is Perfect, Ultimate Reality is Perfect, if it is incapable of one thing it is Imperfection, as Imperfection is Nothing, it can not manifest.

All Religions are an attempt to explain this truth in a way people can understand. Many get close. Christianity tries in its own way but its humanizations mislead.

The first beliefs understood this, it was understood all was a part of Reality, then each part, to explain the phenomena was accounted a spirit of action, originally accepted as part of the One, but later misrepresented through alagory and explanation as its own part, and all beliefs have this core, as does human existence, since it is undeniable.

Each Religion from the most ancient to the new says it in their own Way and tries to make the message clear. It is one Message. There is only One Religion.

The only dispute and matter of "Faith" should be in an afterlife or ressurection.

But even so, that concept is there, once again reflecting ultimate Truth, that to everything there is a Cycle, even so to this universe, it expands and will collapse and restart. The Night and the Day and the Night and the Day. The land grows dry and dead and then rains bring out the life again. A million metaphors to represent the ultimate cycles within Reality.

Please read the above post if you havent!

Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: re·al·i·ty

Pronunciation: rE-'a-l&-tE

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -ties

1 : the quality or state of being real

2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs &lt;his dream became a reality&gt; (2) : the totality of real things and events &lt;trying to escape from reality&gt; b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

- in reality : in actual fact.

I assume that it wasn't intentional that you neglected to provide the definition of reality, since you were so willing to provide so many other definitions.

You are giving the attributes of a living being to that which is not. Simply because living beings exist in reality, does not infer that reality is aware. Reality is not an entity.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 05-28-2006).]

Reality is obviously not aware in the way we are but Reality is aware, the fact that we exist being that awareness manifest. If not we would not exist, but true that to us sounds humanization, but I don't mean it that way AT ALL.

en·ti·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-t)

n. pl. en·ti·ties

Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.

The fact of existence; being.

The existence of something considered apart from its properties.

If anything, in that case, Reality would be the only Entity, what we all exist within, what only exists, what we are all made of. That would only be according to definition 2 of the word. In any case, everything is within and part of one thing, and that is Reality, it is infinite, essentially it is all there is.

in·fi·nite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nf-nt)

adj.

Having no boundaries or limits.

Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.

Mathematics.

Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.

Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.

Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.



[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 05-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Well before you kill this beast, let me tell you one thing: There is no being in the image of man nor any being that created every thing. There is no Diety or God save one, One so obvious that it remains a mystery to most.

People look for a God in the sky, in the Earth, some kind of Image to place faith in, an idea. Yet every single day they meet the only True God, and they deem themselves self sufficient of it, yet they are completely dependant on it.

They want some God that is within the universe that floats around on a magical cloud and controls the universe with a chessboard. They can find that in their minds. Yet that is not The True God I speak of. Any of you can guess what this True God is, the Only God, one that completely has you under its controls through its limitations on you. You can not even think a single thought unless that thought is an available option to you, or do anything without it. You live with it, sleep with it, and interact with it in waking and in sleep. What is it?

God is not some man in the sky, nor will ever be, nor will any thing you can see that you do not already see be your God.

Your God is one God, what we are all made of, exist within, and are completely dependant on.

God is Reality. The Ultimate Reality. The Reality we exist within, interact with, are made of, where all possible perceptions of all possible things can occur, if the option for the thought is not available, you can't think it. The System is smooth, flawless, perfect, without Glitches.

People question the "control" of God without seeing how in fact they are completely limited and dependant on Reality. They look for something within Reality, when Reality itself is The Only God.

I don't only mean objective physical reality, I mean the subjective reality too, what we can think, a superimposed hallucinatory image, what matter is it made of? The actual image is not made of any matter, yet it is still an option within this Reality, or else you wouldn't be able to think it.

God is The Reality, there is no God but this. People say they will believe when they see some large being come down from the sky? Yet any large being that may come down from the sky is within reality, made of reality, limited by reality, thus Reality remains the True and Ultimate God.

The Ultimate Reality is where we exist, where this universe is, essentially it is the only thing, that ever was or will be.

Nothing does not exist, what I mean to say as, True, Absolute Nothing, does not exist, as something (this) can not come from Nothing. Nothing always remains as Nothing, it has no capability to manifest.

On the other hand, Ultimate Reality has always existed, there is nothing beyond it, it is all there is and ever was, it is the manifestor of all possibilities, all realities, including this one.

It is "alive" if it were dead, inactive, then so too would we be non active, incapable, non existant, All things are in motion constantly.

God is The Reality, all things are part of the Reality, made up of the Reality, dependant on the Reality. You can call it anything, from God, Allah, The Tao, The Force, The Brahman, its one thing, all of the above were words to describe it but some ended up humanizing it. It is not a human, it has no form, it is infinite, it has no limits, it is the only power, the ultimate power.



Ok can I say something? What the hell are you talking about? Is that a scientific theory? Is that proof of anything? I suppose you have some math backing you up? There never was nothingness. Read up on the string theory.

Your pretty much just blurting out your beliefs wether or not they are relevant.

Hey remember this?



"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it."

Also in referance to what you said read:

The Unconscious Quantum by Victor J. Stenger

A creator is unnessesary in every aspect of the universe.

Back Cover (http://tinyurl.com/le4hu)

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:



Why would one deny evolution and the processes of this universe? They are made manifest and clear. But to deny Reality would be the mistake, and Reality is the only God, the Ultimate God. The sustainer of Worlds, the Supreme "King", The Provider of all things.



How is this scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it?

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:



Prove to me Reality does not exist? You can't without blatant denial of yourself and all that is within and without you. Reality is God, the Only God. We are all within it, and Nothing is without it.

Reality exists, but as far as we know, god doesn't. Scientifically you have no proof of any of what your saying, so if your proposing that this is true, without evidence, it is EQUALLY likely a Flying Spaghatti Monster is the creator. So unless you want to use science, then you have a Gaint Flying Pasta to deal with in your flawed unused reasoning.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I'm not saying it is sentient in the way we are sentient:

Here is the definition from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

sen·tient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt)

adj.

Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage” (T.E. Lawrence).

Experiencing sensation or feeling.

____________________________________________

Everything is made of Reality, including our feelings, and our ability to be sentient. Everything is within Reality, everything is in constant motion. Reality is not "dead" or else that would mean it would be nothing and not exist at all, nor would any thing manifest, exist, or manipulate, or even have a plain on which to exist, nor would or could anything manifest, appear or even move.

Reality is "Alive"

a·live ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lv)

adj.

Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.

In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive.

Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout.

Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief.

Main Entry: alive

Pronunciation: &-'lIv

Function: adjective

: having life : not dead or inanimate

Clearly Reality is Animate, we and everything is proof of this.

Ultimate Reality is "Aware" of all things existing within it, the proof of this is in the manifestation of all the available possibilities for us and our ability to execute them, furthermore our personal Awareness being proof of "Reality posessing Awareness". Besides all that, if Reality were not "Aware" those things it is "Unaware" of would not exist.

Aware

adj 1: (sometimes followed by `of') having or showing realization



We and everything around us are the Realization of Reality.

re·al·i·za·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-zshn)

n.

The act of realizing or the condition of being realized.

The result of realizing.

Manifestation:

man·i·fes·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn-f-stshn)

n.

The act of manifesting.

The state of being manifested.

An indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something: A high fever is an early manifestation of the disease.

man·i·fes·ta·tion (mn-f-stshn)

n.

An indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something...

Main Entry: man·i·fes·ta·tion

Pronunciation: "man-&-f&-'stA-sh&n, -"fes-

Function: noun

: a perceptible, outward, or visible expression

There is your "Creation" The Manifestation of this Reality which is within Ultimate Reality, which is the Manifestor. To call it the "Manifestor" is not innacurate as clearly, we are manifest and here to prove it.

The funny thing is "We are witnesses unto ourselves" what I mean to say is "we are the proof against ourselves" So is everything else!

So to Recap, We and All that is, ever will be, ever was, ever can or will be, in this or any other reality, belongs within Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality is what we are "Manifest" within. There is no Diety or God greater or mightier than this, and it is not a humanoid or anything of the sort, nor does it operate or think like us, it is infinite, the proof of its life is in the movement of all things, the proof of its awareness is in our being manifest. If it did not "know" we would be "dead" or inactive in it. know ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n)

v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) know·ing, knows

v. tr.

To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.

To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.

To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.

dead ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dd)

adj. dead·er, dead·est

No longer in existence, use, or operation.

We are the proof amazingly, yet we look everywhere for something that doesn't exist, when "God" is right infront of us, we are operating through it. We are sufficient proof of it. The Ultimate Reality, we are within it, it is without us, self sufficient, be it that we exist or not, it is ever living, before and after. Call it what satisfies you, it is one undeniable thing, to deny it is to Deny the Truth, Yourselves, The Reality which you exist within.

ex·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zst)

intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists

To have actual being; be real.

It is one God that has appeared throughout history, constantly mutated by the minds of men which belong to it completely, for their form to the possible thoughts they can possibly think. Even the most ancient hunter gatherer societies have this most ancient concept ingrained into their personal religions, even so, athiests deny it due to their definitions of God which they base of the corruptions of humans. God is and has always been "The Ultimate Reality" Never has "God" been a man in the sky, some being with a form, or anything possible within Ultimate Reality because it, itself is Ultimate Reality and all things are within it, not without it.

Its been called many things, though it is one thing, and so too are we, who all belong in it and exist only within it and because of it, are one with it, yet we deem ourselves self sufficient, we are completely dependant. We are under its controls by its limitations. It is beneficent in its gamut of options which it has bestowed us, to do what we wish, and all things having their cause and effect.

People claim that this world is IMPERFECT, do they see glitches? Does your computer screen suddenly dissapear forever with no explanation right before your eyes? The System is Perfect, This Reality is Perfect, Ultimate Reality is Perfect, if it is incapable of one thing it is Imperfection, as Imperfection is Nothing, it can not manifest.



Do you understand ultimate reality? Are you a string theorist with a background in quantum mechanics? Are you telepathic? Who are you to tell people who some of which understand reality better than you? The universe having laws and probibilities governing it cause it to be perfect? What is your definition of perfect? Do you know how chaotic things are at the Quantum level? Phlanks length? (1.61624 × 10^-35 m) What about other space demensions and other time demensions? Are they perfect? Do they exist? Why is there mathematics behind them, something very weird and hard to understand, and not behind creation by a intellegent being?

We are aware. Reality is not.



Consider this. If all life in the universe were to cease to exist, any and all awareness would also cease to exist. Reality would remain. There would simply be no one to observe.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

All Religions are an attempt to explain this truth in a way people can understand. Many get close. Christianity tries in its own way but its humanizations mislead.

The first beliefs understood this, it was understood all was a part of Reality, then each part, to explain the phenomena was accounted a spirit of action, originally accepted as part of the One, but later misrepresented through alagory and explanation as its own part, and all beliefs have this core, as does human existence, since it is undeniable.

Each Religion from the most ancient to the new says it in their own Way and tries to make the message clear. It is one Message. There is only One Religion.

The only dispute and matter of "Faith" should be in an afterlife or ressurection.

But even so, that concept is there, once again reflecting ultimate Truth, that to everything there is a Cycle, even so to this universe, it expands and will collapse and restart. The Night and the Day and the Night and the Day. The land grows dry and dead and then rains bring out the life again. A million metaphors to represent the ultimate cycles within Reality.

Please read the above post if you havent!

I personally think it will collapse but if there is less than the mass of about 5 hydrogen atoms per a certain amount of space, throughout the entire universe it will expand for ever till all the energy in the universe is equally distibuted.

By the way most ancient religions were based on phycedelic drugs in some way. I'd go as far to say all original religions were. Many people believe this includes moses and some say even jesus. There are many books on this. I'm not saying this would mean the religions didn't have insight, but the insight would be up to the individual's interpretation.

There are many "ultimate truths" that become apparent with certain drugs used by ancients, but science can come to conclusions using reason. Just because things move in a cycle doesn't mean god is real. In fact it's contradictory. How can god be constant? Does god move in a cycle? Does he disappear and be reappear a new god? Do gods come and go?

There is still no scientific evidence for what your blurting out, and what your saying has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, beyond a statement of your beliefs which are unnecesary, if you really want people to know what you believe, something which is unrelated to this thread, make a new thread.

EDIT: Fixed Typo



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 05-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Reality is obviously not aware in the way we are but Reality is aware, the fact that we exist being that awareness manifest. If not we would not exist, but true that to us sounds humanization, but I don't mean it that way AT ALL.

en·ti·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-t)

n. pl. en·ti·ties

Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.

The fact of existence; being.

The existence of something considered apart from its properties.

If anything, in that case, Reality would be the only Entity, what we all exist within, what only exists, what we are all made of. That would only be according to definition 2 of the word. In any case, everything is within and part of one thing, and that is Reality, it is infinite, essentially it is all there is.

in·fi·nite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nf-nt)

adj.

Having no boundaries or limits.

Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.

Mathematics.

Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.

Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.

Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.





You don't have much sence of reality do you?

Are you suggesting that we are communicating with reality not merely interacting with it?

You sound like you are on, or more specifically have tried phycedelics.(sp?)

Out of curiousity have you used them?

Edit:

Never mind this has NOTHING to do with this thread. All your posts have nothing to do with the scientific validation of your claims, since there is no science, math, or reasoning involved in your posts. Your posts aren't even related to the topic.





[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 05-27-2006).]

In responce to your random irrelevant claims:

In the word of Mr. Freud (one of the greatest phycoanalysts of all time)

"Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis."

[Sigmund Freud, "Future of an Illusion"]

"In the long run, nothing can withstand reason and experience, and the contradiction religion offers to both is palpable."

[Sigmund Freud, Austrian physician and

pioneer psychoanalyst (1856-1939)]

"While the different religions wrangle with one another as to which of them is in possesion of the truth, In our view the truth of religion may be altogether disregarded...if one attempts to assign religion it's place in mans evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity."

[Sigmund Freud, "Moses and Monotheism"]

"No, our science is no illusion. But an illusion it would be to suppose that what science cannot give us we can get elsewhere."

[Sigmund Freud, "The Future of an Illusion"]

"When a man has once brought himself to accept uncritically all the absurdities that religious doctrines put before him and even to overlook the contradictions between them, we need not be greatly suprised at the weakness of his intellect"

[Sigmund Freud: The Future of an Illusion]

"Neither in my private life nor in my writings, have I ever made a secret of being an out-and-out unbeliever."

[Sigmund Freud, letter to Charles Singer]

"Demons do not exist any more than gods do, being only the products of the psychic activity of man."

[Sigmund Freud, New York Times Magazine, 6 May 1956]

"The more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more widespread is the decline of religious belief."

[Sigmund Freud]

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 05-27-2006).]

wow.



abrahim, you are just as bad as ds. stfu fool.



but really, there is only one god you should worship. there is only one thing that is undeniably existent and worthy of worship.

so get down on your knees and worship my penis abrahim.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

wow.



abrahim, you are just as bad as ds. stfu fool.



but really, there is only one god you should worship. there is only one thing that is undeniably existent and worthy of worship.

so get down on your knees and worship my penis abrahim.

-1

The thread should have been archieved before because now it is turning into a spam forum.

The debate is over, DS has no intention of returning. This thread is pointless to continue. Can a mod please archive?

She may yet return. It's not unusual for her to be gone from totse for several days at a time. I have no problem giving her the benefit of the doubt as to the reason for her absence. I doubt that she has even read most of the recent posts as she hasn't posted anywhere on totse since the 20th. I , for one, am interested in reading her response.

In an effort to keep the spam to a minimum, I suggest that we decline to post further in this thread until such time as DS returns. We can simply bump the thread at that point in time to bring to her attention that it is still open.

She's definately posted since the 20th of May. She's posted on at least two different threads in 'My God...' on the 25th of May, and 7 different threads on today, the 27th, over all of totse.

Those posts alone (there are many more that have been made since the 24th - which is around the date her absence began being questioned) means that she had the time to, at the very least, make a comment to follow up the thread she created. I'm hard pressed to find any possible excuse for that (besides the obvious)...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-28-2006).]

I stand corrected.

When I heard the word Archive I just had to add my 2 cents to the mix lolz

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

-1

The thread should have been archieved before because now it is turning into a spam forum.

The debate is over, DS has no intention of returning. This thread is pointless to continue. Can a mod please archive?



whatever man.

i am quite serious. my penis is the almighty creator of the universe, and if you don't worship it, you will live in everlasting torment when you die.

prove me wrong!

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

When I heard the word Archive I just had to add my 2 cents to the mix lolz

Shame it didn't have anything to do with the thread. So do you use phycedelics? (sp)

Anyways...

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:



whatever man.

i am quite serious. my penis is the almighty creator of the universe, and if you don't worship it, you will live in everlasting torment when you die.

prove me wrong!



Why would I consider worshiping something too small for the human eye to see?

I'd bet you have pimples bigger than your penis, you immature 13 year old outcast.

About proving you wrong? How about your lack of evidence?

Besides from a science standpoint the string theory says that once a certain amount of matter gets to a small enough space (near the size of a string) it explodes (the big bang) so essentually (depending on the amount of matter in the universe) the universe is forever creating and desroying itself, unless the laws of physics change with each creation, which is possible considering the other implications of the string theory involving other demensions of space and time etc.

None of which has anything to do with your virtually non-existant penis, which causes your virtually non-existant love life, which causes your virtually non-existant happyness, which causes your virtually non-existant self-esteem, which hopefully has, like your happyness, love life, and dreams of having a big penis, left you without hope of return.

-2

See what I meant about this becoming a spam thread?

I thought it was relevant since the word Manifestation was used, Creationists can simply say that the Bible uses metaphor to teach in the case of the story of our creation. Then they can take science as the fact, the story as the metaphor representing the science. I don't know why they would defend something untrue when they can just as easy take it as metaphor.

... Obviously they aren't doing that, hence the fucking discussion.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I thought it was relevant since the word Manifestation was used, Creationists can simply say that the Bible uses metaphor to teach in the case of the story of our creation. Then they can take science as the fact, the story as the metaphor representing the science. I don't know why they would defend something untrue when they can just as easy take it as metaphor.

I agree. They don't want to hear that though.

I think your ideas are pretty interesting, just not scientific, I like to think about concousness too. Very interesting subject. We should talk on one of the IMs sometime. You never answered about the phycedelics though.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Why would I consider worshiping something too small for the human eye to see?

I'd bet you have pimples bigger than your penis, you immature 13 year old outcast.

About proving you wrong? How about your lack of evidence?

Besides from a science standpoint the string theory says that once a certain amount of matter gets to a small enough space (near the size of a string) it explodes (the big bang) so essentually (depending on the amount of matter in the universe) the universe is forever creating and desroying itself, unless the laws of physics change with each creation, which is possible considering the other implications of the string theory involving other demensions of space and time etc.

None of which has anything to do with your virtually non-existant penis, which causes your virtually non-existant love life, which causes your virtually non-existant happyness, which causes your virtually non-existant self-esteem, which hopefully has, like your happyness, love life, and dreams of having a big penis, left you without hope of return.

-2

See what I meant about this becoming a spam thread?

you dumbshit, i was obviously making fun of creationists. i can't believe you took me seriously.

I'd LOVE to talk to you on an IM program! Which one do you use? I am MSN, AIM, and Yahoo. Which do you use? How can I add you?

Yeah I didn't understand what the phycedelics was reffering to:

did you mean:

psy·che·del·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sk-dlk)

adj.

Of, characterized by, or generating hallucinations, distortions of perception, altered states of awareness, and occasionally states resembling psychosis.

Hope to see you soon on one of the IM's I'll add you, or you could add me at abrahimesker@hotmail.com , abrahimesker , or abrahim_esker@yahoo.com

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

We are aware. Reality is not.



Consider this. If all life in the universe were to cease to exist, any and all awareness would also cease to exist. Reality would remain. There would simply be no one to observe.

If we are Aware, Reality "posesses" Awareness. If it did not, we would not be Aware. Its language trickery maybe, but its literal too.

You are right about the second part, Reality would remain.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

She's definately posted since the 20th of May. She's posted on at least two different threads in 'My God...' on the 25th of May, and 7 different threads on today, the 27th, over all of totse.

Those posts alone (there are many more that have been made since the 24th - which is around the date her absence began being questioned) means that she had the time to, at the very least, make a comment to follow up the thread she created. I'm hard pressed to find any possible excuse for that (besides the obvious)...



The obvious would be that I was more interested in threads I had open or was contributing to in Politics.

Since you like to search for my posts (don't YOU have anything better to do ?), why did it escape your attention that I go in trends ?

I cannot be both places at once. I will just admit it. I'll come back to this, eventually. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I would think it wouldn't hurt to archive this thread. I'd let it go until DS gets back with all her "evidence" though.

That way we can time capsule her bound to be hilarious response to these posts which she knows kills her argument.

And you feign innocence when I smell the BS behind your "questions" in other threads. Heh.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I wouldn't blame DS for her behavior/attitude, it is what she has been taught. The creationist groups have convinced people that they are right, even when they contradict themselves a sentence later, and have unscrupulously tied it to their faith so people fear questioning creationism is questioning christianity which is questioning God and that is wrong so you shouldn't question creationism. The sad part is they blatantly lie while taking the moral high ground and attack the supposed moral dangers of evolution and atheism (which are often lies as well).

No one taught me anything. Everything I know about this subject I learned of my own volition, on my own time.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I regret to inform your guys that despite the fact that Digital_Savior has made 100+ posts and 3+ threads in the last 10 days, and has spent countless hours talking in IRC, she doesn't have time to deal with this particular thread. She has a life outside of totse you know...

Oooo...I have a stalker ! Do I get a t shirt, too ?

How might you know how much time I have spent on IRC, pray tell ? This will be interesting.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

She was pretty enthusiastic about it a couple days ago, and she didn't mind using her time by bragging in the mormon thread after she stoped posting in this one, how she would refute their beliefs. The thing is, Digital_Savior is not the only creationist on this site, I'm not specifically waiting for her. Just a creationist to respond. I do understand your point that shes pressed for time though.

I have said in the past that I was busy as an explanation for not posting in certain threads, and said explanation could have been easily verified by checking my posts in other forums as well.

As I have not made the claim that I am too busy for this one, it's completely irrelevant.

I am busy in Politics.

I'll come back. Keep it alive, if you want a response.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Actually, I was being sarcastic. She has abandoned quite a few threads since she's been on totse, and coincidentally or not, they all happen to be threads in which she's thoroughly decimated.

I've never been thoroughly decimated. You have though, and you slinked away into the darkness, never to return.

Hypocrite.

quote:When asked why, she always says that she is pressed for time; an excuse that loses it's weight once you keep making posts, making threads, and talking on IRC.

The times I have said that in the past could have easily been verified by my lack of posting in ANY thread, which is the case.

For this thread, I never claimed any such thing. I am busy in Politics. Again, how do you know how much time I am spending on IRC ? Thanks for playing the ASSumption Game.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Thats actually pretty funny. I guess she debates and "refutes" anyone.... as long as she doesn't lose the debate. This is the only thread in the religion section of this site that I look at, so I take it she is still posting in other threads dispite being pressed for time? I can see how that can happen. Time must move slower in this thread. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

But just look at how well ignoring things till they went away has worked throughout history for the church. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Though I started this thread, I am entitled to be interested in other threads as well, whether in this forum, or not.

How silly of you to think I want to spend all my time in this single thread.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Don't we all just want to hug her?

I have an aversion to cooties. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

She may yet return. It's not unusual for her to be gone from totse for several days at a time. I have no problem giving her the benefit of the doubt as to the reason for her absence. I doubt that she has even read most of the recent posts as she hasn't posted anywhere on totse since the 20th. I , for one, am interested in reading her response.

Thank you. At least one of you is sane.

I have been posting elsewhere, and that's truly the reason I haven't dedicated any time to this particular thread.

I am sure you can appreciate the hours it takes to research, and back up assertions.

quote:In an effort to keep the spam to a minimum, I suggest that we decline to post further in this thread until such time as DS returns. We can simply bump the thread at that point in time to bring to her attention that it is still open.

I'll come back soon.

Just a reminder, page number in Origin of Species where Darwin says God doesn't exist.

Love ya hun! http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

DS, keep on with the sarcasm, cause in the end that's all you got. You've lost the argument.

wow, 9 posts in a row with no informational content whatsoever. that's gotta be some kind of record.

NOTE: Feel free to not reply to these two posts of mine, as I do not want you to take precious time away from your quest for accurate research on the subject at hand.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The obvious would be that I was more interested in threads I had open or was contributing to in Politics.

Since you had posted in at least two different threads in 'My God...' your interest in Politics became irrelevant.

It appears you had more interest in posting in those two threads, instead of threads which you yourself created, and in which people patiently await your replies. That would be obvious.

quote:

Since you like to search for my posts (don't YOU have anything better to do ?), why did it escape your attention that I go in trends ?



I don't like to search for your posts. I believed that truckfixr was wrong in what he said, and I searched to make sure. Simple as that.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



How might you know how much time I have spent on IRC, pray tell ? This will be interesting.

I never said I knew how much time you spent. I actually said the opposite... "countless" as in, "the amount of time you spend on IRC is incapable of being counted by me".

quote:I've never been thoroughly decimated. You have though, and you slinked away into the darkness, never to return.

Hypocrite.

No, I have left threads in which the person who I was replying to has made such a humongous fool of themselves that replying was rendered pointless. I, unlike you, explicitly requested that anyone else who wanted to continue the argument was completely welcome to do so. Nobody did. That's nothing alike to what you do.

If you have a thread in which that didn't happen, then by all means, point me to it so that I may reply.

quote:The times I have said that in the past could have easily been verified by my lack of posting in ANY thread, which is the case.

For this thread, I never claimed any such thing. I am busy in Politics.

Hence, why I never said what your excuse was this time...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No one taught me anything. Everything I know about this subject I learned of my own volition, on my own time.

Learning from someone else, being taught by someone else. Same difference. The fact of the matter is you seem to learn from bad sources. That's not your fault. However willingly ignoring accurate facts and data to continue to spread false information is (although everyone else is complaining about you staying away from the thread, not continuing it with the same old arguments is a good start).

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

you dumbshit, i was obviously making fun of creationists. i can't believe you took me seriously.

I knew what you were doing it was just... stupid.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I'd LOVE to talk to you on an IM program! Which one do you use? I am MSN, AIM, and Yahoo. Which do you use? How can I add you?

Yeah I didn't understand what the phycedelics was reffering to:

did you mean:

psy·che·del·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sk-dlk)

adj.

Of, characterized by, or generating hallucinations, distortions of perception, altered states of awareness, and occasionally states resembling psychosis.

Hope to see you soon on one of the IM's I'll add you, or you could add me at abrahimesker@hotmail.com , abrahimesker , or abrahim_esker@yahoo.com

Heh, do you have to define everything?

Yes that psychedelic.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

If we are Aware, Reality "posesses" Awareness. If it did not, we would not be Aware. Its language trickery maybe, but its literal too.

You are right about the second part, Reality would remain.



Are you saying if we are aware of a rock, the rock we are looking at is aware? Elaberate?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have said in the past that I was busy as

an explanation for not posting in certain threads, and said explanation could have been easily verified by checking my posts in other forums as well.

As I have not made the claim that I am too busy for this one, it's completely irrelevant.

I am busy in Politics.

I'll come back. Keep it alive, if you want a response.

By checking you would accuse me of being a stalker anyways.

Also if you wanted to respond about the actual content of the thread you would have, we know your not shy.



"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it."

Feel free to present that science, evidence, and mathematics anytime.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Though I started this thread, I am entitled to be interested in other threads as well, whether in this forum, or not.

How silly of you to think I want to spend all my time in this single thread.

I never said you spend all your time in this thread, I said you will avoid responding to the points made in this thread. So far you've proved me right.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



I am sure you can appreciate the hours it takes to research, and back up assertions.

Hours and you still havn't found that evidence, explanations, and mathematics backing you up? There is a very logical reason for that.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

wow, 9 posts in a row with no informational content whatsoever. that's gotta be some kind of record.

Thats exactly what she did, it shouldn't be a record though considering she has an extremely high post count.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:



Learning from someone else, being taught by someone else. Same difference. The fact of the matter is you seem to learn from bad sources. That's not your fault. However willingly ignoring accurate facts and data to continue to spread false information is (although everyone else is complaining about you staying away from the thread, not continuing it with the same old arguments is a good start).

Maybe her interpretations of the sources are the problem.

Well I would like to repeat, in hope of her not avoiding it:



"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it."



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 05-28-2006).]

I'd say she's done a good job at interpreting ICR and repeating them.

I've heard her make the claim "it takes hours to research stuff" before, yet you would think if she is here making claims about stuff she should have already researched it.

The big problem is that most creationist literature only gives you shell arguments. It gives you enough to say that x is false but not enough to seriously debate why x is false or any of the details about x. So many creationists are left pretty empty after the original claim.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I've heard her make the claim "it takes hours to research stuff" before, yet you would think if she is here making claims about stuff she should have already researched it.

quote:Posyed by After Image:

Hours and you still havn't found that evidence, explanations, and mathematics backing you up? There is a very logical reason for that.

Oh, so you know everything there is to know about evolution and the science used to support the theory off the top of your heads ?

Yeah, I don't think so.

Ah the warmth of a burning strawman.

I never said that. I do know a number of things off the top of my head when it comes to this debate, especially when I make a claim. For example, I know most creationist groups will ignore evidence they don't like, and I knew off the top of my head where to find a source for that (which I have shown you).

See, I made a claim and I backed it up. Now can you do the same?

Now I could understand if you and those here got into an indepth debate and you needed to research the details, but so far you haven't even made an attempt. You just dodge. Which is what you continue to do.

ds hasn't backed up a claim since page one, what makes you think she will start now?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Oh, so you know everything there is to know about evolution and the science used to support the theory off the top of your heads ?

Yeah, I don't think so.



I have not supported evolution beyond saying it is a more viable theory than creationism, I have repeated this MANY times throughout the thread, you assume I support evolution and attack it INSTEAD of addressing points refering to creationism. This is not ID vs Evolution this is ID vs Science as a whole.

Why havn't you responded to my challenge to present scientific evidence?

I specifically put it in bold and italics in hope of you not ignoring it.

Please do not respond to any of my posts without addressing this next point:

"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it."

Since you missed it the last, possibley 8 times? Here it is again:

"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it."

This thread will not be forgotten.

Most of what happened yesterday is unknown and unremembered, unverifiable, unproveable.

Were we created?

Were we manifested?

Were we molded by evolution?

Why can't people understand whatever the case, they are all the same, and the proof is that we are here.

We are manifestations, manifested within Reality and this Universe, and molded/created by evolution, a process which was originally manifested as a possibility within Reality and this Universe. The argument goes into semantics, language, and philosophy. There is only One God worthy of Worship, Understanding, Submission. There is no Being within this Universe or outside it worthy of worship save the one thing.

The one thing has been described in a billion ways over history by different people, and it is always an attempt to explain the one thing which EVERYONE knows willingly or unwillingly. There is no Elephant, Bearded man, Spirit Being, or any other explanation of the One thing.

The One Thing is not seperate from anything, or any of us, we are within it, a part of it, manifested by it, within it, and are completely dependant on it.

Some call it "What is Real" some give it other images and forms, thus limiting it in peoples minds and ruining the original concept.

Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, they all talk about the one thing and describe it in various fashions. Even Zoroastrianism, even Athiests can't deny the One Thing, they all call it by different names, it has no name save a name we give it.

Even the oldest religions, the most ancient hunter gatherer beliefs try to describe this one thing and mention it in their various fashions.

I call it "Reality" what encompasses all of us, objective, subjective.

Hindu's call it brahma (nominative singular), brahman (stem) (neuter[1] gender) means the concept of the Supreme transcendent and immanent Reality or the One Godhead or Cosmic Spirit in Hinduism; this is discussed below.

The Vedas depict Brahman as the Ultimate Reality, the Absolute or Universal Soul (Paramātman) [6]. It is the ultimate principle who is without a beginning, without an end, who is hidden in all and who is the cause, source, material and effect of all creation known, unknown and yet to happen in the entire universe.

Bhuddists include this belief as well as other religions that have sprung from Hinduism.

The same goes for "The Tao" in Taoism.

The same with "Allah" in Islam, it is a description of Ultimate Reality.

Everyone from the beginning of our attempts to explain things, have been attempting to explain one thing, which we exist within, interact with, are controlled by, has an infinite potential of aspects (manifestations) but is One, call it what you want, Reality, Tao, The Brahman, Allah, God. It is one thing, and it is One. Nothing is outside of Reality, it is infinite and all encompassing, the most powerful thing. No big man in the sky, beast, or alien creature is worthy of Worship, the most powerful thing is this Reality. It is one Religion, it has always been one Religion, people have tried to describe one thing over and over and people tend to misunderstand it over and over again: They seek what can only exist within their minds, and EVEN THAT is within the bounds of the One Reality, The Ultimate Reality.

"Pantheism (Greek: pan = all and Theos = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God

Debate

Some critics argue that pantheism is little more than a redefinition of the word "God" to mean "existence", "life" or "reality". Many pantheists reply that even if this is so, such a shift in the way we think about these ideas can serve to create both a new and a potentially far more insightful conception of both existence and God."

This forum is for religious debate, it has a name that is very cute: My God can beat the Shit out of Your God, while both are attempts to describe one singular thing.

The other point people can debate on is the afterlife, something which no one has proof or knowledge about or for, what we know is now, and we should use it to the best of our advantage.

Understand: New and Old, attempts have been repeatedly made to describe one thing, there is nothing else we know but Reality, it was what we live in and are made of and are completely dependant on.

The Qur'an says it, Hinduism says it at its core, and Taoism said it too.

It has no name so call it what you want, it is one thing and it is undeniable.

There is no Diety or God but the Reality we exist within. There is no man sitting in the sky waiting for you, there is no man who is God, there is One Ultimate Reality, all that is within it is a part of it equally.

You are all manifestations within Ultimate Reality, this is obvious because here we are, debating what is obvious.

Nothing can threaten the True Religion, and it is one, and nothing can destroy it either because it is True. You can attempt to deny the undeniable, but it is futile because even to deny it you utilize it to do so and are completely dependant. The best you can do for yourself is to humble yourself to it, submit to it, attempt to become one with it, at peace with it, do right: Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, Bhuddism all suggest the same thing. Judaism and Christianity also attempt to describe the path of becoming at peace with Reality.

Do what you know is right, and good for you, good for others, you know it, I know it, we may do it differently. What is wrong is bad for us and others, what is right is good for us, and good for others. Use common sense.

Being human and living in Reality is an automatic religion, you breath, you walk, you talk, you fight, you write, you laugh you cry, you argue about one thing with different names.

All Polytheistic Religions from the past were originally an attempt to describe what is known, and what is unknown. To describe Reality which is one, they gave it aspects, which became known as spirits or Gods, which controlled each aspect, but are all part of the "Creator" or "King" or the "Master" God which is Reality, and all were manifestations of it.

The One Truth, Reality exists, internal or external, we are all here and manifested by it, dependant on it completely.

ya, ok. just spout off some bullshit and completely ignore everything else. that works.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I cannot be both places at once.

The devil can, lol.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I cannot be both places at once.

quote:Originally posted by Barfly:

The devil can, lol.

Aahhhaha... I nominate this as post of the day. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

This thread should of been archived a while ago, it has been abandon by the people who actually debated and now people post irrelevant things, ruining the thread.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

This thread should of been archived a while ago, it has been abandon by the people who actually debated and now people post irrelevant things, ruining the thread.

That is because the debate is over. Right now.

Bump

quote:Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

Aldous Huxley

Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know.

Aldous Huxley

Most of one's life is one prolonged effort to prevent oneself thinking.

Aldous Huxley

/Bump

Can someone give a summary of the debate that occured, the opposing sides, and how one proved the other wrong?

i would expect something like that from you.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

i would expect something like that from you.

Me Too http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif) http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Sure thing.

Creationist side: Evolution is false science because we have deemed it so based on how we read a couple chapters in an old religious text.

Evolutionist side: Evolution is most likely correct because mountains of tested and retested evidence based on tried and true methods says so.

QED

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Sure thing.

Creationist side: Evolution is false science because we have deemed it so based on how we read a couple chapters in an old religious text.

Evolutionist side: Evolution is most likely correct because mountains of tested and retested evidence based on tried and true methods says so.

QED

K thanks. I really appreciate it.

What would happen if Creationists say Evolution was Created?

they would be siding with the catholics.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I'll come back soon.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I'm glad I took the time to read this.

Have A Nice Day.

I would like to add to the civil liberties discussion.



I believe wholeheartedly in the Bohr model of the atom. Electrons orbit the nucleus in fixed, circular patterns. This quantum mechanics stuff is ridiculous. I mean, how can we possibly see electrons that small? We can't. And the entire theory is just that we actually have no freaking idea where it is.

We are expected to believe that electrons, instead of following the laws of gravity and orbiting the much more massive nucleus like they should, they just randomly jump around in completely unpredictable patterns and we can only give probability regions for them? And somehow, based on their spin, some of them have strange 'dumbell' shaped probability regions and stuff? I mean, I think this is all bullshit. Why would an electrion simply leap around a dumbell shaped area? It makes no goddamn sense. No, I wholeheartedly believe that electrons orbit the nucleus in fixed, circular paths like the planets orbit the sun.

I belive we need to teach the Bohr model of the atom theory in school alongside of quantum mechanics. I mean, quantum mechanics even openly admits that they have no idea where the electrons are and are just guessing! How can that be scientific? It is obviously just a made up theory by secular scientists. Therefore, I think this is a good soap box to stand on when I say that the state must change.

I believe the teaching of the Bohr atom model theory must be taught alongside of the quantum mechanics theory because we don't know and so it must be taught due to civil liberties.



However, the Bohr model of the atom will never again be taught in schools by good teachers for the same reason creationism will never be taught in schools again by good teachers:

Because it is wrong, and good teachers know why it is wrong. Nothing, in the least, to do with civil liberties.

The irony of your belief that your doctrine should be taught as a scientific theory, which it as not, as an alternative to a proven scientific theory, must be included in your 'civil liberties' but that homosexual marriage rights are not part of people's 'civil liberties' is overwhelming. I agree with Mark Twain; I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

err, i see your point, but most lower-level science classes do teach the bohr model for the sake of simplicity.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

err, i see your point, but most lower-level science classes do teach the bohr model for the sake of simplicity.



True, but I wanted to point out that its not hard to argue against quantum mechanics even though it is obviously and completely true and has been proven so repeatedly. It's not hard to convince stupid people to go with the simpler theory, whether its the bohr model or creationism.

I noticed DS posting in Politics, so I am bumping this thread to remind her that some of us are still patiently waiting for her response.

Well well, what's going on here?

Thanks, truckfixr. I have to build some computers this weekend for family members. After that, I am finished with school, and have no other obligations, so I will be able to spend some time here.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:



True, but I wanted to point out that its not hard to argue against quantum mechanics even though it is obviously and completely true and has been proven so repeatedly. It's not hard to convince stupid people to go with the simpler theory, whether its the bohr model or creationism.

Quantum theory's difficulty to understand does not undermind it's mathematical elegance in explaining the universe. Just look at the string theory and how far that as mathematically gotten us, and it uses quantum physics, quantum physics are a part of our world like it or not. Quantum physics are weird but have been proven right over and over, and can perfectly predict the outcome of quantum events. If it is easy to argue against this is because of lack of understanding, although I don't think anyone completely understands it, many don't at all. Creationism, on the otherhand, is not even a scientific theory, has no mathematics supporting the conclusion of the theory it's self, and fails to explain most things the universe has occuring in it.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Thanks, truckfixr. I have to build some computers this weekend for family members. After that, I am finished with school, and have no other obligations, so I will be able to spend some time here.

Well thank you for not just leaving but please reply to the many points made against creationism, do not go around them. These are some of many:



"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it."



How the light traveling distances farther than possible in the amount of time given by the creationist model.



Why the universe is constantly changing and new stars and galaxies are being born at this time if the universe was born in about it's present state 6000 years ago?



Why no non-creationist/non-religous scientific source agrees with your age of the universe?



Please answer these questions with the mathematics backing up your responces, and or claims.

Thank you.

Edit:sp



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 06-11-2006).]

This is something I wrote that you should all read. Creationalism is wrong in many ways including but not limited to inmorality, unintelligence, and pushing ignorant humans into a conudrum of cult like propaganda. Christian Creationalism has many flaws, my paper simple shows the flaw of organized religion and the Bible itself. Feel free to email me or add me to msn.



Organized Religion: The Fall of Intelligence

By

Draconius

June 2006

Thesis of Organized Christian Religion



Organized Religion: The Fall of Intelligence

Religion and theology on Earth is widespread with many colorful ideas about why our world works the way it does. Due to this fact, not everyone could possibly be correct, and some believe that none are correct at all. One fact can be certain however; asking questions about everything is the pathway to truth. In this article I do not ask that anyone simply stop believing how they may, only that they should stop and think- is this at all possible, could there be a better way to live my life to the fullest?

Being raised Christian, I can say I am no stranger to their way of thinking. I did not simply decide one day to step away from the church and its following, on the contrary, I began by asking questions. For years now I have been questioning absolutely everything, for questioning is the pathway to truth.

For over two thousand years, Christian philosophers and worshipers alike have agreed that their God is All-Powerful, All-Good, and All-Knowing. To question and therefore disprove this basic ‘fact’ of Christianity is a simple task, all one must do is define these three words. The answer to the question we seek is in the statement itself.

First, we will define the idea of an All-Powerful being. To be All-Powerful is to be in control of all objects, alive and inanimate, simultaneously with no exceptions.

Second, we define All-Good as a being completely incapable of evil. To be All-Good is to be only right and just, without flaw. A being, a god, who is All-Good must be, and is, perfect in every way.

Finally, the attribute of being All-Knowing is to be in control of all knowledge as well as being aware of all happenings and actions as well as thoughts. To be All-Knowing is to see all and know all.

Separately these attributes make a fine god indeed. Yet together the mixture is not possible in any form. If we look but do not see, all seems well and good. Although if we begin to question and think intelligently and individually, we see the impossibility of this equation.

Subsequently, by using our human knowledge, we find that the traits of All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and All-Good cannot exist in the same place, or being, simultaneously due to the fact that the creatures of Earth, namely humans, are not ‘Evil-less’, so to speak.

The Christian God, who is said to have created all life and objects on Earth, then cannot be a god who is in control of all objects, and yet only capable of good deeds. If the Christian God did indeed create all living creatures, this God cannot be all the ideas in which most Christians take as truth. Therefore, the Christian God is an impossible being in the form all church-going Christians believe it to be.

Therefore, perhaps it is not the Christian who is wrong in being misled, but instead it is the unquestioning churchgoer. As the American Philosopher Thomas Paine once wrote, “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish (Islamic), appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” (Paine, Age of Reason). To those who consider the Church to be of truth only, and directly from the Bible itself, I ask that these people consider where this unquestionable knowledge comes from.

In the case of the Christian Bible, it is said that the writer had divine inspiration, or help from God or an angel. The fact is that no one knows who wrote the gospels under the pen names of Paul, Mark, and so on. Although the Bible has many wonderful ideas on how one person should treat another, this still does not make any of the stories true. All the stories and tales of the Bible are hearsay from those around Jesus Christ, but none of the books are actually written by Jesus.

Furthermore, not all the gospels were put into the final copy of the Bible; in fact church officials voted down most. Some 92 gospels were deemed unworthy because they did not teach as the church wanted to teach. Due to this, what Bible-believing Christians see as truth now could have simply been voted down by this ‘council’, and a different idea incorporated.

In order to show the truly devastating effect that the church has on the world, I wish to bring to mind the Christian Crusades of the middle ages. Many historians believe the death toll of all the wars to be in the hundreds of millions including Christians, Muslims, Jews, and so many more innocent people. The battle cry of the Christian raiders became "Deus vult!” (God wills it). In a speech by the pope at the time of the war, he stressed the importance of God’s will of the war against the Muslims. A segment of his speech shown below represents the lies the pope tells the people in order to build the ranks.

"God himself will lead them, for they will be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it!” (A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker)

Perhaps there is also error in the Bible itself and not only in the established church. The Bible has many stories of the good deeds of God and Jesus Christ, but how many of these stories have base? Many of the Bible’s stories actually contradict each other, as we shall see.

The story of Jesus Christ sacrificing himself for humanity has its flaws that are quite obvious if we would only look deeper into the message. The creators of this myth make it increasingly obvious that their Almighty God himself is capable of being hoodwinked by Satan. These writers show that the devil has tricked God into believing that he must sacrifice either the whole of his creation, or himself in the form of a man- Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this shows how the ‘Evil One’ has triumphed while the Almighty has fallen. This idea, although a mainstream belief, is directly contrary to the idea that God is All-Knowing and All-Powerful. Was the only way that our sins could be redeemed was by the brutal and painful death of Christ? He was nailed to a cross with nails in his wrists, causing great duress. This man, this supposed God, died in great pain for your sins. Could not the great All-Knowing God devise some alternative method for dealing with the ‘Great Deceiver’?

Yet another fault in Christian dogma comes through the story of the Garden of Eden and the Apple of Knowledge. We can see that God tells Adam and Eve to not eat of the apples on the tree- God told Adam not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and that it was wrong to do so (Genesis 2:17). To eat from the Tree of Knowledge gives one knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil (Genesis 3:5). With the apple representing knowledge, it is clear that God fears what may come if his new creation gains too much knowledge. This idea of the church fearing knowledge is shown even in more recent times. In 391, Christians burned down one of the world's greatest libraries in Alexandra, said to have housed 700,000 scrolls. [The New Columbia Encyclopedia, 61, and Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade.] Also, in modern times, the church has denounced science in the fields of genetics, stem cell research, and many more fascinating fields of study based on imagined rules and morals. This fact furthers the point of the Church denouncing knowledge in favor of blind faith.

Then, after this great making of the world and all creatures in it, the Bible tells us that God rested. Why would an omnipotent being need to rest? I can see no explanation. After all, God is thought to be All-Powerful and should not require rest in any manner. In fact, God simply should have snapped his fingers to bring the perfect world into existence instead of taking the sixth day course of creation in which he did. When God rested though, he defied the laws of logic. A being who cannot get tired, nor weak, nor sleepy - by his implications of omnipotence - would not need to rest or sleep. However, resting on the seventh day was exactly what God did, something completely unnecessary and in retrospect, absolutely ridiculous.

Some facts of the Bible are quite sickening in themselves if we would only see what we are reading. Such instances are the enslavement of Africans or animals (Exodus 21:2-6; Leviticus 25:44-46), the selling of daughters (Exodus 21:7), the killing of witches (Exodus 22:18), the killing of heretics (Exodus 22:20), the killing of violators of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14-15, Exodus 35:2), the killing of children who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9), the forcing of raped women to marry their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28), the killing of adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), the killing of blasphemers (Leviticus 24:16), and the killing of unchaste women (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

Let us then investigate further into the Bible itself in order to show more the fallacy in it. God made "light" on the first day (Genesis 1:3), but then made the Sun and stars later (Genesis 1:16). The light, as we know, comes from the chemical and atomic reactions of Hydrogen and Helium in the Sun. These chemical and atomic reactions cause energy to come out of the Sun in the form of light. God cannot create light and then create the sun a day later. They are intrinsically one and the same thing. One may argue that God created the concept of light, but why would God then have taken a day to invent the concept of sky and ground before physically bringing them into existence, as well as the concepts of vegetation, the birds and the fish, and the land creatures? However, light should not need to be created if God will eventually create the Sun days later. And if light exists without the Sun, then the creation of the moon, the Sun, and the stars are completely unnecessary. Even if God did create the concept of light on the first day, would it not seem logical to then build the concept of light - the Sun and the stars - the day after, instead of then creating the sky and the ground, the vegetation, and then the concept of light?

Furthermore, we find that the creation of man and woman has been arranged quite strangely indeed. God, according to the first chapter of Genesis, made man and woman (Genesis 1:27) at one time, but according to the second chapter of Genesis, there was a time when man didn't have a suitable helper (Genesis 2:20) and a time when woman was created after the existence of man (Genesis 2:22). These are contradictory versions of the story of creation, and both cannot be correct. In one version, man and woman were created at once in the same day, whereas in the other, man was created, God waited around a while (he let man name all the creatures), and then he created woman.

With more research we find that the Bible talks about four rivers coming from the one river in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:10). The rivers are the Pishon (Genesis 2:11), Gihon (Genesis 2:13), Tigris (Genesis 2:14), and Euphrates (2:14). Reality is the only thing that disagrees with the Bible. There is no Pishon or Gihon River. The Tigris River starts in Turkey and goes into Iraq, where it finally empties out into the Gulf of Oman. The Euphrates River starts in Turkey and goes through Syria, and then to Iraq where it finally joins the Tigris and empties out into the Gulf of Oman. Of course, the Gihon and Pishon rivers could simply be names for rivers that we today know by other names, but this is not factual, as there are no other rivers within the area of the Tigris and Euphrates. There are no four rivers leading off into the distances. There is actually only one river that breaks off into the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

To show that the Bible itself could be a symbolism for many things, as many Christians believe, I will show an example. A Christian Theologian could say that a particular verse means something symbolically, but once one verse is molded to mean metaphorically, symbolically, or any form that is not literal, all verses of the Bible could be said to be meant in the same way. For example, if you say that Adam and Eve didn't literally live and that they were a symbol of civilization's grass roots, then would it not also be equally logical to say that God didn't really exist, but he was just a symbol for the dogma and superstition of the people of that time, explaining things (the existence of the Universe, the snakes crawling, pain during pregnancy, the stars, the Sun, etc.) that they could not find out through the science of their time? In fact, I could say that Christ didn't really die on the cross. That was just a symbol for things getting better in the future. Christ didn't really die for your sins. That was just a metaphor to demonstrate the self-centeredness of the people of that time. Heaven, also, is no actual truth. It is symbolic of what we all hope and try to achieve to be. Clearly, once you say one part of the Bible stands as a symbol; nothing stops others from declaring other parts of the Bible as symbols.

I will say this of Faith; it has been the foundation of every religion, every cult, every sect, every religious terrorist organization that desired to gain advocates whose will greatly exceeded their intelligence. When a religion asks that its followers believe all that it declares, and to do so without evidence, it speaks volumes of the intent and meaning of that religion. These churches and mosques, they will keep their followers in the shadows of millenniums past.

Although many ideas in this short essay are controversial and opposing common belief, the purpose behind it is to stimulate thought through individualism. Those who do not think for themselves are not free and are not living life to the fullest everyday. The church oppresses these people’s lives and this is an unacceptable fault. If nothing else has been accomplished in these few pages, I hope that the reader has been stimulated enough to begin his/her own questioning and reasoning of all things in order to rid the mind of painful ignorance and to find the truth in all things.



Contact Information:

Email at enlightend1_truth@hotmail.com

quote:Originally posted by Enlightend1_Truth:



This is something I wrote that you should all read. Creationalism is wrong in many ways including but not limited to inmorality, unintelligence, and pushing ignorant humans into a conudrum of cult like propaganda. Christian Creationalism has many flaws, my paper simple shows the flaw of organized religion and the Bible itself. Feel free to email me or add me to msn.



It is very well written and thought out, you point out besides lack of scientific evidence, lack of logical foundation, and self-contradiction in creationism, the bible, and the concepts of god itself.

+1

Oh and Digital_Savior,

We are still waiting.

quote:Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

Aldous Huxley

Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know.

Aldous Huxley

Most of one's life is one prolonged effort to prevent oneself thinking.

Aldous Huxley

You still need to reply to these:



"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it.

How the light traveling distances farther than possible in the amount of time given by the creationist model, could occur.

Why the universe is constantly changing and new stars and galaxies are being born at this time if the universe was born in about it's present state 6000 years ago?

Why no non-creationist/non-religous scientific source agrees with your age of the universe?

Please answer these questions with the mathematics backing up your responces, and or claims.

Thank you."

We hope to see you soon D_S

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 06-14-2006).]

quote:"Creationist scientists in this country are generally confident that they can win acceptance for scientific creationism in open debate on the scientific issues alone."

lol XD

Bump