Doubting Darwin

How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A controversial new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural agent was at work

How could the eye, with all its complex parts working in concert,
have arisen by a series of discrete steps?

Feb. 7 issue - When Joshua Rowand, an 11th grader in Dover, Pa., looks out from his high school, he can see the United Church of Christ across the street and the hills beyond it, reminding him of what he's been taught from childhood: that God's perfect creation culminated on the sixth day with the making of man in his image. Inside the school, he is taught that Homo sapiens evolved over millions of years from a series of predecessor species in an unbroken line of descent stretching back to the origins of life. The apparent contradiction between that message and the one he hopes someday to spread as a Christian missionary doesn't trouble him. The entire subject of evolution by natural selection is covered in two lessons in high-school biology. What kind of Christian would he be if his faith couldn't survive 90 minutes of exposure to Darwin?

link-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/

is the highest form of thinking (and non-thinking), it's the ultimate science.

FM = Fucking Magic :silly:

They are so far disconnected from reality.

and laughable. I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools and was never taught anything about evolutionary theory in bio class. Once you enter a public university and pick up a bio book your point of view changes. Being exposed to science and the wonderful discoveries that have been made about our planet is just amazing. To only believe in one theory, being that the earth was created by this supernatural being, is just plains nuts.

The Discovery Institute, which sent materials and offers of help to Cobb County but was not involved in drafting the sticker, takes pains to distinguish its critique of Darwinism from the Biblical fundamentalism espoused at the Institute for Creation Research, near San Diego. The view that the Earth was created by God within the past 12,000 years is thriving at the institute's museum, where school groups study murals of men cavorting with dinosaurs, before the beasts were wiped out by Noah's flood.


The institute's vice president, Duane Gish, a biochemist, has managed to fit every observation from paleontology, astronomy and nuclear physics into a theory derived entirely from the Book of Genesis. The problem for Gish is that, although polls consistently show that nearly half of all Americans believe in the Biblical account, it has been a loser in the courts since 1987, when the Supreme Court (with Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissenting) struck down a Louisiana law calling for equal treatment of evolution and "creation science."

-Do 1/2 of Americans really believe that?

"There is a lot of ambiguity and dissent about the lines of evidence," insists Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
-Therefore, the Discovery institute, who teaches that the earth was created 12,000 years ago(!), creates base language that any one can
understand in order to shape their views of the world. These groups try to dumb down the masses with their simple message.

(On edit) I can't believe that this article was under the Science & Technolgy section. Newsweek is such an ass magazine... even the link reads " A New Theory on the Origins of Life." How about, " A New Theory on Why People Choose to Remain Blind."

How can anyone be so abysmally uninformed about reality?

even though it clearly goes against church teaching.

Then again, my church was probably more liberal than most. They didn't mind hiring lesbian teachers. And--GASP!--those darn lesbians didn't harm the kids, after all!

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14744291

The nuns not only didn't teach me about evolution, but Sister Perpetual Agony and the other nuns they taught me that earth was only 6,000 years old ...I'm a '64 grad of sister school. I'm astounded this article says the pope excepts evolution....WHEN IN HELL DID THAT HAPPEN?

um last I checked it was david hume's 19th century work "dialogues concerning natural religion" that explored intelligent design...

and that's philosophy 101 I learned that in

If you want to get someone's attention, it has to be something NEW! IMPROVED! and preferably in a bright red box placed just about eye level.

So they put an old idea in a bright red box at eye level, put NEW! IMPROVED! on the side, and gave Fox News a call. And I would bet that none of them ever took Philosophy 101.

the old if you found a watch on a path wouldn't you think it was built by a watchmaker?.

Which has been pretty much debunked. Talk Origins has pretty good info against the watchmaker argument: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html


Although I haven't read too much of Hume, but I don't think he supports intelligent design.

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4v.htm#god

this theory long ago as well Aquinas.

So-called intelligent design theory has been around for a loooooong time.

the creator being that designed life and set evolution into place is far too complicated to just exist on it's own, and therefore must have been created by an even greater intelligence.

Everything must be someplace.

No?

180

we and it are trapped on our "brane."

It is all so confusing. Sky creatures are way more easy to understand.

It is a 'Just because' sort of thing.

just because none of the mathematics works unless you've got 5 times more dimensions than you can percieve. Just because you don't have the problem of time before the bang...just because you don't need a big crunch...

Well, just because it reconciles some of the most difficult mathematics.

I thought.

And of course I do not understand a word of it.

I am being called to supper (Dinner) what is in a word?

Later

180

Local and non-local usually refer to subluminal Einsteinian 4D-metric (ie the "naturalistic" world). Quantum Theory still utilizes mathematical concept of Hilbert-space, of which 4D is just one actualization. Coordinates and vectors are not dependent on the number of dimensions, so in Hilbert sense QT is (at least mostly) "local", even if not 4D-metric. I don't claim to understand anything of what I just said.

In a High School sociology class back in the late 1960's, the notion, in terms of the "social science" community, was that there was an "immovable mover". Later on, I thought that to be a rather strange term. While taking courses in Psychology, Sociology, and Philosophy in my post secondary years, I found an increasing dogma of redefining the basic constructs within the "social science" indirectly relative to the term of "immovable mover".

Philosophically, I asked the question: "From where did the matter originate that is being placed in a perpetual state of infinite "collapse and expansion"?

Questions:

1. The "immovable mover" was created by........?

2. The "creator" was created by................?

3. "Matter/Energy" was created by..............?

Great questions! Unless there is a "leap of faith", are any of these questions capable of being answered?

:-)

It takes one even to propose such questions.

But I'll answer them for you anyway:

1. There's no such thing
2. There's no such thing
3. There's no such thing

It would be helpful for me to understand the empirical definition of "one" in your statement. I would also care to ask "what" :-) - "There's no such thing" refers to, as I am confused by, not only, a rational empirical explanation of a "no such thing", in addition to understand the explanation as Hume, or, "what" any of the other British Empiricists would possibly have "empirically" offered in a rational response to my inquiries.

:-)

Intellectual, not "reactive"!!!

Please!

:-)

The empirical definition of "one" in my statement is exactly the same as empirical definition of "leap of faith" in your statement.

"There's no such thing" refers both to the answer of each question and premisses of each question.

I agree with you that rational empiricism and especially the British "one" is very confusing, as I can hardly refute the empirical evidence of confusion that your post so readily offered. :-)

Re Hume, I'm quite willing to inhume all but his contribution to phenomenalism...

Assuming natural selection can be or should be the sole ultimate explanatory mechanism in nature, and not something else (such as purposive design by a god), then essentially, the natural selection process has to explain not only why something became a gene in the first place (and, as noted, the answer to this is not so obvious, or established); it also has to explain why chemistry and physics and the other laws governing the universe have the structure and properties they do; and why the multiverse if there is one has the properties it does; and why the multiverse of multiverses, if there's one of those, has its properties, and so on and so forth.

The problem is that natural selection on its own does not seem to be a genuinely ultimate explanatory mechanism, since at every stage there is some kind of order assumed, and to avoid positing some ultimate ontological order but rely only on order that merely happens to be generated by chance, it would seem to have to posit an infinity of unobservables, or at least one infinite unobservable (such as a multiverse, or a multiverse of multiverses, or a multiverse of multiverses of multiverses, etc).

Which kind of defeats the point of introducing the natural selection principle in the first place, does it not? Naturalism does not want to have to posit anything that is infinite and/or unobservable.

The bit about genes was just meant to be merely illustrative of this point.

In other words, natural selection of species works fine as an explanatory mechanism---provided you've got ordered things like genes. And natural selection of genes works fine---provided you've got ordered things like chemicals. And natural selection of chemicals works fine---provided you've got ordered things like matter as governed by the laws of physics. And natural selection of the laws of physics works fine---provided you've got an ordered thing like a multiverse. And natural selection of a multiverse works fine---provided you've got an ordered thing like a multiverse of multiverses. And so on.

See my point?

Incidentally, multiverses etc have to be ordered kind of things in order to be validly posited by science in the first place. For them to be scientifically respectable entities, they have to conform at least to some form of mathematical definition and, perhaps, to be predictive of certain observations.

So you see, there seems to be a need to posit some form of order all the way down (or all the way up, if you prefer). But the point of natural selection as a cosmic principle is that order must be generated by chance selections. And of course, the unwanted features of infinity and unobservability become acute at that stage.

This is the third time you've posted the same thing.

Can't you just post it once?


On Edit: Compare to posts #104 and 107

but still insist on the 6-day time line?

And that's why they have learned to block their ears (figuratively) and say, "la, la, la, la, la" when anyone starts talking about logical and empirical methods of the evolution on planet Earth.

Seriously, the radical right wing and all these fundies who are creationists have learned to turn off a portion of their brains that most of us use to ask the "why" questions. For them, questioning their faith is the worst possible sin, and to cope with that, they have closed themselves off from learning more and asking the correct questions.

My best friend is an intelligent, compassionate woman who has come to hate organized religion, but she has also, at the same time, become someone who believes in a literal translation of the bible. She IS curious, but has been seduced by the people in her "bible study" group into seeing anything that disagrees with the biblical teachings as propaganda spread by the devil's disciples. I love her dearly, but I find myself completely at odds with her in respect to religion, and sometimes I just give up trying. My life isn't worth the trouble of arguing with someone who is so totally convinced that their viewpoint is the real one, when I am pretty darn sure it isn't--in that sense, I'm as stubborn as she is when it comes to what I believe in.

Many moderate Christians are believers in ID, but that is not because they believe in the literal translation of the bible, but because many of them feel it's the only way to reconcile their belief in a supreme deity and the teachings of evolution.

It isn't even a hypothesis! There is no body of scientific research to support it. There aren't even PLANS to research it.

just it's colloquial use.

Thus proving, God is an Englishman.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_826999.html?menu=news.quirkies

In the 80's, the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public schools endored Christianity so it wasn't allowed. Then they altered some words and have intelligent design so they can pass it as a theory and force Christianity onto kids.

The media is stupid.

1. The sun and planets revolve around the Earth

2. The Earth is flat

3. Dinosaurs existed between 3:45pm and 6:20pm on the 5th day.

4. Gravity is actually the Devil trying to pull you towards Hell.

trying to pull you towards Hell."

Hah hah hah! Funny. :)

"How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? "

From what I can tell, "intelligent design" is the study of *not* answering this question.

I saw a cartoon once where two mathematicians were standing in front of a chalkboard. One had written an exceedingly complex equation, taking up most of the board, and then at the penultimate step, had written, "then a miracle happens," followed by the answer. The caption was the other mathematician saying, "I think there's something wrong with your figures."

In science, "I don't know" is a legitimate answer to an issue for which there is not enough empirical evidence to resolve. However, talk of "miracles" is tantamount to the statement, "I don't know, and I'm not interested in finding out."

As National Geographic recently said, the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory like their theory of electricity and theory of gravity, both of which NOBODY (least of all the facts) truly argues with.

In the vernacular (everyday and spoken language( we mean something different than scientific theory.

What kind of Christian would he be if his faith couldn't survive 90 minutes of exposure to Darwin?

Probably one not worth wasting alot of time on.

people the working of a FM radio is very complex but god
is not involved in its design.

Every single story about 'religion' in the CIA-steered mainstream media is pushing ignorant, fearful, US vs THEM-thinking Americans TOWARDS RELIGION. This is part of the 'blue vs red' or 'saved vs sinner' strategy to divide the country and create a brownshirt movement.

Why? Because dictators need a 'blindly follow the leader'-mentality in the masses.The Father/Fuhrer/Lord emotional appeal works as Hitler knew.

That's THE REAL 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' BEHIND THIS STORY!
This is creating and exploiting the 'Authoritarian Personality' that is the root of BOTH fascism and fundamentalism as discovered by researchers after the massacres of WWII.

This 1979 US Army Psychological Operations Manual says it all. It was meant to be used in Nicaragua but is used on Americans as well:

http://www.tscm.com/CIA_PsyOps_Handbook.html
(Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare
Army Manual 33-1 1979)
>snip<

"The target groups for the Armed Propaganda Teams are not the persons with
sophisticated political knowledge, but rather those whose opinion are formed
from what they see and hear. The cadres should use persuasion to carry out
their mission. Some of the persuasive methods that they can use are the
following:

Interior Group/Exterior Group. It is a principle of psychology that we humans
have the tendency to form personal associations from "we" and "the others," or
"we" and "they", "friends" and "enemies," "fellow countrymen" and
"foreigners,""mestizos" and "gringos."

The Armed Propaganda Team can use this principle in its activities, so that
it is obvious that the "exterior" groups ("false" groups) are those of the
Sandinista regime, and that the "interior" groups ("true" groups) that fight
for the people are the Freedom Commandos.

We should inculcate this in the people in a subtle manner so that these
feelings seem to be born of themselves, spontaneously.

"Against" is much easier that "for." It is a principle of political science
that it is easier to persuade the people to vote against something or someone
than to persuade them to vote in favor of something or someone."

http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm
(Fascism Receptivity Questionairre plus explainer)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html
(Operation Mockingbird: The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA)

http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html
(The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism)

ANY so-called 'faith' which can't even bear to hear the facts....is NOT a faith at all.

Not a faith in G*D, anyway.....

I happen to ENJOY learning about the immense complexity of "reality"; every new insight made by science STRENGTHENS my sense of wonder and awe...I believe in a 'supreme being' because I _CHOOSE_ to BELIEVE; and that is the very DEFINITION of "faith".

Some of the churches brightest philosophers figured this one out CENTURIES ago: PROOF DENIES FAITH.

Proof and faith are mutually exclusive concepts...so the ONLY reason that anyone would fight against PROOF is: They don't believe. They have no REAL faith, only dusty dogma; pre-literal subconscious tribalism dressed up with a few robes and crosses.

In their hearts, they don't believe, so they must FIGHT against proof...because they fear it will expose their G*D as a fiction.

None need fear the TRUTH, except the FALSE.

and while we're at it, the Earth is flat and the center of the universe, girls are incapable of math, masturbation will make you go blind, and sex is EVIL. Yep. That should set kids up for complete success later in life. :eyes:

Or did always exist?

:-)

we'd all be typing in braille.

.. . . .. . ..
. .. . . . .
. . . . ..

...if he he created us in "his own image," that image would likely be SPIRITUAL, not physical in nature. Mankind would be unique in that it's the only creature endowed with a spirit.

That alone would resolve this whole situation but I guess it's too complicated for some narrow minds to grasp.

BTW, if God's creation is so sacred, why is it that the same folks that get their panties in such a bunch about evolution have no hesitation supporting policies which allow countless numbers of creatures to become extinct?

put some lipstick on it and are trying to advance the same concept as a "scientific" theory. When, really, ID is all about NOT questioning, NOT seeking answers through logic, experimentation, and unbiased examination of the evidence. ID is, at its core, a refutation of science itself.

ID=creationism. The RW had their language wiz come up with a term that is less controversial than creationism. Next they will be describing sex as the insertion of tab A into slot B.

:scared:

repeat as needed.

1. Lather
2. Rinse
3. Repeat

cheap tuxedo." --Dr. Leonard Krishtalka, director of the University

of Kansas Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center

Please don't tell me this kid actually believes that the 'days' mentioned in the Bible are the 24-hour, 1,440-minute, 86,400-second days we have today. They aren't. In fact, "6 days" is more like "6 time periods" - and nobody knows exactly how long that is.

And, by the way, Genesis DOES describe evolution, albeit in a primative form:

On the first day, light and darkness were formed.
On the second day, the sky and ocean were formed.
On the third day, land was formed with trees and plants.
On the fourth day, the sun and stars were created.
On the fifth day, animals living in the ocean and birds were created.
On the sixth day, land animals and humans were created.

Hey, guess what we call that in science?! ... EVOLUTION!

(By the way...how could light be created before its source, the sun and stars anyway??)

less competition for my kids once they're heading off to college.

Let the fundies have their way with their kids. Less competition in med. school, engineering school....wherever. Just as long as the public schools still teach real science.
But, I also think this is a form of child abuse. Many of these parents are short-changing their kids. If they don't get a decent education, their options will be limited. And, I find that quite disheartening.

Why is any of this less miraculous than an eye?
Consider: Life if 4 billion years old on our planet. Consider the number of generations that have had the chance to evolve. Consider what has occurred with domestic dogs, horses, etc., in decades or hundreds of years, and extrapolate back tens or hundreds of millions of years. All that's required is a slight change that is advantageous through mutation in dna, and an isolated population where this change spreads through the population. Evolution happens again and again and again, and we can see it. Isn't life amazing? Why spoil it by bringing a miracle into the picture?

Which came first the "chicken or the egg"?

Where does the universe begin?

Where does the universe end?

When did matter/energy begin, and what came before it?

Let's start with those!

:-)

Keep it friendly!

Biology, biochemistry, physical chemistry, organic chemistry, biology, physiology -- intelligent design makes some scintilla of sense.

As soon as you reach a level of sophistication of a good high school AP science curriculum graduate (not even a real college general science curriculum) and can skim a Scientific American and at least understand the first few paragraphs of a few of the articles

You see ID for what it is - superstition and ignorance.

Why don't they attack high school physics as well --

"Semiconductors" are based on "quantum theory" which is also "only a theory"

Wireless communications - from cordless phones to FM radio, plus microwave ovens are based on "Maxwell's Theory" which is also "only a theory"

In turn, "Maxwell's Theory" is based on

1. "Imaginary Numbers" - which are self admitted "imaginary" - the square root of minus 1; and
2. Vector Calculus - which uses GRAD, DIV and CURL - which are, in turn, based on "Imaginary Numbers".


So, all of radio is based on a house of cards - of "quantum theory", and "Maxwell's Theory", and "Imaginary Numbers" - a total house of cards.

Sheesh

very challenge to the theory in Origin of Species:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html

Organs of extreme perfection and complication. To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected.

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.

He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.

Sid

Creationsists are always claim that Darwin didn't believe the eye could have evolved. Nice to see what he actually wrote.

Welcome to Frank Zappa's predicted Theocratic Fascist State.

since 2000. Broadway The Hard Way has come true. They've got lies so big don't make a noise. They tell them so well like a secret disease.

Every single story about 'religion' in the CIA steered mainstream media is pushing ingnorant, fearful, US vs THEM-thinking Americans TOWARDS RELIGION. This is part of the 'blue vs red' 'saved vs sinner' strategy to both divide the country and create a brownshirt movement.

Why? Because dictators need a 'blindly follow the leader'-mentality in the masses.The Father/Fuhrer/Lord emotional appeal works as Hitler knew.
Every single story about 'religion' in the CIA-steered mainstream media is pushing ignorant, fearful, US vs THEM-thinking Americans TOWARDS RELIGION. This is part of the 'blue vs red' or 'saved vs sinner' strategy to divide the country and create a brownshirt movement.

Why? Because dictators need a 'blindly follow the leader'-mentality in the masses.The Father/Fuhrer/Lord emotional appeal works as Hitler knew.

That's THE REAL 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' BEHIND THIS STORY!
This is creating and exploiting the 'Authoritarian Personality' that is the root of BOTH fascism and fundamentalism as discovered by researchers after the massacres of WWII.

This 1979 US Army Psychological Operations Manual says it all. It was meant to be used in Nicaragua but is used on Americans as well:

http://www.tscm.com/CIA_PsyOps_Handbook.html
(Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare
Army Manual 33-1 1979)
>snip<

"The target groups for the Armed Propaganda Teams are not the persons with
sophisticated political knowledge, but rather those whose opinion are formed
from what they see and hear. The cadres should use persuasion to carry out
their mission. Some of the persuasive methods that they can use are the
following:

Interior Group/Exterior Group. It is a principle of psychology that we humans
have the tendency to form personal associations from "we" and "the others," or
"we" and "they", "friends" and "enemies," "fellow countrymen" and
"foreigners,""mestizos" and "gringos."

The Armed Propaganda Team can use this principle in its activities, so that
it is obvious that the "exterior" groups ("false" groups) are those of the
Sandinista regime, and that the "interior" groups ("true" groups) that fight
for the people are the Freedom Commandos.

We should inculcate this in the people in a subtle manner so that these
feelings seem to be born of themselves, spontaneously.

"Against" is much easier that "for." It is a principle of political science
that it is easier to persuade the people to vote against something or someone
than to persuade them to vote in favor of something or someone."

http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm
(Fascism Receptivity Questionairre plus explainer)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html
(Operation Mockingbird: The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA)

http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html
(The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism)
Read this one several times.This is a deep article explaining the difference between looking inward to examine your fears and looking outward to demonize infidels and sinners.

The suicidal impulse towards Armageddon is explained here along with the sexual aspect of shame that feeds the 'bedroom moralizing' on abortion and homosexuality.

In order for something to be scientific, it must possess the possibility of being proven false.

So how can you prove that "intelligent design" is false?

Oh, wait...



Say no more...!

Just curious!

:-)

That's one example.

carbon dating. They believe that carbon decay is the work of the
devil to confuse the sheep of god.

But that's hardly new. The Bible logically contradicts itself in numerous places, so a literal interpretation disproves itself.

scary in here, very scary. I hope I can find my way back home.

Way too many contradictions to be literally true.

sinning mortals....

the whole problem is faith in any god does not belong any where near a science class room. and the ideologues who spout this crap will also say that science is itself a religion a form of SECULARISM... its all crap, this is why I am on my towns board of finance and will watch closely the board of ed and the bio books bought for the middle school and high school...

What are the archaeological tools which are utilized in dating? If every element and the sub breakdowns exist in "half lives", how are we sure, that, in this infinite "slice" of time that the rate of, for example, "carbon dating" is consistent throughout universal history? Now! Since you are currently working on your doctoral dissertation in chemistry, I am sure that your knowledge of a scientific discipline is far more advanced than mine. The questions which I have been asking are far more concerned with "leap of faith" of any one who believes anything as "truth" more than they are concerned with the philosophical underpinnings of "ASSUMPTIONS" of Empiricism, Parsimony, Determinism, etc.; which ARE the basis for scientific inquiry. It is really more a philosophical inquiry than it is an experiment by those who have chosen to "ASSUME" that the "chicken or egg" came first based upon the correlation and t-tests, etc. The simplistic "example" which you provide is quite dramatic. It certainly deserves to be questioned further, even though, I understand that it would be quite difficult to find a "human" fossil of less than 10,000 years (maximum), even assuming that the "dating technology" is consistent throughout "infinite" time.

:-)

My initial questions had more to do with the assumption of the "big bang" concept as it would relate to "conservation of energy", half lives; questions asking how would matter be existent without a "causal-effect" assumption. How did this "mass/energy" get there, here, or, where ever?

You cross reference them with other dating methods. Dendrochronology, for example. Or the natural reactor at Gabon, West Africa. If you're asking if carbon dating is accurate over infinite time, of course it isn't. It's only good for a few dozen thousand years. Nobody's ever argued otherwise. As for my example of human fossils, there's lots of other examples. You can look for whale fossils that are 75 million years old. Or mammal fossils that are 200 million years old, the principle's the same. And there's plenty of human fossils and artifacts older then 10,000 years.

It always amazes me how people who want to decide what's taught in science class in high schools wouldn't pass junior high science class.

As for the philosophical "is anything true" "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around" mumbo jumbo, that's all well and good. But radiometric dating is very real. It's a fact. All life on Earth evolved from a single common ancestor. That's a fact. No amount of deception and philosophy and outright bullshit will change that fact.

You know, my grandmother laid the tree in the woods deal on me and my brother when I was 13 and my brother 10. We both laughed at her.

Now that I'm older and a little better versed in physics, I have a more solid understanding of what sound is...our brain's interpretation of fluctuations of air density, which is caused by movement.

Anyway, back to the subject of dating...you've probably already seen this site, but here's a link for you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html


Enjoy!!!

You do "seem" to have a a somewhat condescending attitude toward those who may not be in consideration for a Phd in Chemistry. However, I would expect that the academic philosophical background in the hard work that you have obviously applied, should be more present. Your comment:

"It always amazes me how people who want to decide what's taught in science class in high schools wouldn't pass junior high science class."

seems to be quite prevalent in your opposition to anyone who disagrees with you in an area of your future expertise. Almost two weeks ago you took upon yourself to almost precisely state the same, regarding a thread related to "Agent Orange" and the effects upon our service people. You had ignored the studies and research conducted by experts far more advanced in their fields in "POST ACADEMIA"!

The philosophical basis of the "leap of faith" to assume these constructs as acceptable are only "belief" systems, as much as any other. If you do not understand that you will not be looking for truth without a bias, based upon your lack of understanding the "mumbo jumbo" philosophical derivatives, that, scientific inquiry MUST not make assumptions in the methodological process, then your research in your "money making" years may be questioned. My background is in Psychology. I understand the conventions for scientific research, whether it be a "suedo-science" as psychology is, or, the natural sciences. The methodology is still the same. The philosophical assumptions are still the same. But, there is still the "missing link".

As I have posted "openly", my posts were more concerned about the philosophical aspects of the discussion as opposed to anything else.

"As for the philosophical "is anything true" "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around" mumbo jumbo, that's all well and good. But radiometric dating is very real. It's a fact. All life on Earth evolved from a single common ancestor. That's a fact. No amount of deception and philosophy and outright bullshit will change that fact."

So! Where did all that matter/energy come from in these "theorized", infinitely "collapsing and imploding" universal structures originate??? What is the "causal-effect", and when did it start? What happened before? What will happen after? This is not "mumbo jumbo"! This is the ROOT of scientific inquiry!

As for, “But radiometric dating is very real. It's a fact.”, There are no facts, unless there is a 100% correlation on repeated studies to substantiate the findings! There are "not yet" these results.

safely down the mountain.

My expertise in chemistry has nothing to do with evolutionary biology, or nuclear physics, or physical geography. In fact, I haven't had any classical training in those subjects apart from what I took in high school.

And I expect functionally literate adults to have at least some understanding on these subjects, especially if they're going to be advocating what is, and what is not taught in public education.

As for the Agent Orange discussion, as in this thread, I said nothing in that thread that wasn't true, or widely accepted by other scientists, and the challenge for anyone to show otherwise still stands.

As for philosophical mumbo jumbo, I have the utmost respect for philosophy, it's when it gets used as a substitute for intellectual honesty that I take an exception. Would you talk about the subjective nature of truth and proof in a discussion of holocaust denial being taught in history class? I certainly hope not.

"So! Where did all that matter/energy come from in these "theorized", infinitely "collapsing and imploding" universal structures originate??? What is the "causal-effect", and when did it start? What happened before? What will happen after? This is not "mumbo jumbo"! This is the ROOT of scientific inquiry"

I'll tell you what's the root of scientific inquiry. Intellectual honesty.

"There are no facts, unless there is a 100% correlation on repeated studies to substantiate the findings! There are "not yet" these results."

This is blatantly false. Given you're earlier demonstration of knowledge of Student T tests, I'll repeat my statement about intellectual honesty.

for science to bloom. I am a Computer Scientist but I
was working on a PhD in Physiology before I switched.

Here's an issue I have...

Assuming natural selection can be or should be the sole ultimate explanatory mechanism in nature, and not something else (such as purposive design by a god), then essentially, the natural selection process has to explain not only why something became a gene in the first place (and, as noted, the answer to this is not so obvious, or established); it also has to explain why chemistry and physics and the other laws governing the universe have the structure and properties they do; and why the multiverse if there is one has the properties it does; and why the multiverse of multiverses, if there's one of those, has its properties, and so on and so forth.

The problem is that natural selection on its own does not seem to be a genuinely ultimate explanatory mechanism, since at every stage there is some kind of order assumed, and to avoid positing some ultimate ontological order but rely only on order that merely happens to be generated by chance, it would seem to have to posit an infinity of unobservables, or at least one infinite unobservable (such as a multiverse, or a multiverse of multiverses, or a multiverse of multiverses of multiverses, etc).

Which kind of defeats the point of introducing the natural selection principle in the first place, does it not? Naturalism does not want to have to posit anything that is infinite and/or unobservable.

The bit about genes was just meant to be merely illustrative of this point.

In other words, natural selection of species works fine as an explanatory mechanism---provided you've got ordered things like genes. And natural selection of genes works fine---provided you've got ordered things like chemicals. And natural selection of chemicals works fine---provided you've got ordered things like matter as governed by the laws of physics. And natural selection of the laws of physics works fine---provided you've got an ordered thing like a multiverse. And natural selection of a multiverse works fine---provided you've got an ordered thing like a multiverse of multiverses. And so on.

See my point?

Incidentally, multiverses etc have to be ordered kind of things in order to be validly posited by science in the first place. For them to be scientifically respectable entities, they have to conform at least to some form of mathematical definition and, perhaps, to be predictive of certain observations.

So you see, there seems to be a need to posit some form of order all the way down (or all the way up, if you prefer). But the point of natural selection as a cosmic principle is that order must be generated by chance selections. And of course, the unwanted features of infinity and unobservability become acute at that stage.

For natural selection to work at all, it must work upon some domain.

To identify any domain whatsoever in the first place, science must find order of some kind pertaining to that domain.

Hence, every domain upon which natural selection is to operate must already be ordered in some way.

Hence, natural selection cannot be the sole explanation of order, unless one posits an infinite unobservable or an infinity of unobservables, which defeats the purpose of relying on natural selection in the first place, which was to explain phenomena without positing anything infinite and/or unobservable.

I.e. Some order, at some level of scientific analysis, must be primitive. It can't all be generated by natural selection.

Or else, one must posit an infinity of some kind, which by definition must be scientifically unobservable by finite scientists.

not physics or chemistry. Is there anyone who has ever said natural selection generated the universe?

The British astronomer royal Martin Rees. Leonard Susskind, Andrei Linde, and quite a few others. Richard Dawkins has used the principle to suggest that because of it, it is now possible to be 'an intellectually fulfilled atheist', which he says he couldn't have been prior to Darwin.

But if natural selection is only relevant to biology, then how does Dawkins come to that conclusion?

It's the Blind Watchmaker argument. And the trouble is, if you came across a large automated factory producing watches, you'd be even more inclined to posit an intelligent factory designer and builder than you'd be inclined to posit a watchmaker because you came across a watch. So clearly Dawkins intends the principle to apply to the universe as a whole.

their successors? And that some universes survive to produce more universes than others, due to their characteristics, so that those types of universes come to predominate?

Wow, there's a whole new science opening up in front of me. I can't wait. Can you give me a web reference or two, so I can start learning about this?

This is enough to get you started.

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00004155&channel=university%20ave&order=0&start=10&end=19&page=2&chapter=1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981660/posts
http://www.wisdomportal.com/Stanford/UniverseOrMultiverse.html
http://www.parcellular.fsnet.co.uk/parc.mech.22.htm.htm
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/finetune/stanford%20multiverse%20talk.htm

Numbers 1,2 and 5 seems to have nothing to do with natural selection, and in 3 Davies mentions in passing universes that inherit their mother's characteristics, but without any follow up.

But 4 is interesting. It's the reference to Lee Smolin's hypothesis. Anyway, here's a link to a brief discussion of it: http://www.edge.org/discourse/smolin_natselection.html
and his book The Life of the Cosmos". That give me lots of directiosn to go in.

you need a domain upon which it operates. The other links were meant to show how such a domain might be scientifically inferred, so they are relevant to cosmic natural selection for that reason.

The problem with Smolin's version of a cosmic natural selection mechanism (apart from whether the overall physics is even right, which some are not sure is the case) is that it doesn't help overcome the basic problem affecting any alleged global explanatoriness of natural selection as a scientifically inferred mechanism.

For natural selection to work at all, it must work upon some domain.

To identify any domain whatsoever in the first place, science must find order of some kind pertaining to that domain. For example, Smolin has to mathematically construct a physical theory in order to infer the existence of the domain upon which his natural selection mechanism is supposed to work. But if the domain in question was devoid of order altogether, Smolin couldn't mathematically construct a coherent physical theory referring to it or identifying it.

Because science always needs to identify some intelligible order in order even to identify anything at all as being a physical reality, every domain upon which natural selection is proposed to operate must already be ordered in some way.

Hence, natural selection cannot be the sole explanation of order in nature, unless one posits an infinite unobservable or an infinity of unobservables----which kinda defeats the purpose of relying on natural selection in the first place, which was to explain phenomena without positing anything infinite and/or unobservable (such as God is supposed to be).

I.e. Some order, at some level of scientific analysis, must be primitive. It can't all be generated by natural selection.

Or else, one must posit an infinity of some kind, which by definition must be scientifically unobservable by finite scientists.

Have great night!

:-)

Is there someone who might direct me to a link that would "empirically" define this concept as to help alleviate my quandary? I would be most appreciative!
:-)

which certainly encompasses a whole lot of territory!

:-)

three options. I would personally combine philosophy
with religion, but some may object.

He discusses that and several other concepts in a way that's pretty easy to comprehend. :D

Darwinian evolution presupposes the existence of genes. It does not itself explain where genes came from.

... can be used to support a theory of the origins of life as well as evolution. See Dennett ('Darwin's Dangerous Idea') for the relevant description.

Isn't it the case that there is as yet no generally accepted and confirmed scientific explanation for the origin of life?

I read a book by Paul Davies, entitled THE 5TH MIRACLE, which explores this question, and I was surprised to find that the origin of life itself is still a matter of considerable speculation and dispute.

That fellow Fred Hoyle who died recently championed the theory that life came from outer space, didn't he? But that would just seem to push the question back a bit.

Essentially, the natural selection process has to explain why something became a gene in the first place, and the answer to this is not so obvious, or established.

And of course, you then need the natural selection process to explain why the physics and chemistry is like that, and why the multiverse is like that, and why the multiverse of multiverses is like that, etc.

Or do you? And is this really explanatory? For some doubts, see http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52">this piece which really gets to the heart of the matter, I think.

This one is rather challenging also. It's certainly a fascinating read.

As far as the theory of evolution goes, "natural selection" is what happens after life is already underway. The current theory is a very solid description of how allele frequencies change over time.

Much of the angst directed at the theory of evolution is an undeserved redirection of concerns more rightly aimed at a theory of abiogenesis.

As my first post on this thread makes clear:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1206770&mesg_id=1207154

"Essentially, the natural selection process has to explain why something became a gene in the first place, and the answer to this is not so obvious, or established."

Why must the natural selection process explain why something became a gene? That seems oxymoronic in the context of your first post. On the subject of that post...

"Darwinian evolution presupposes the existence of genes"

when in fact Darwin himself knew nothing about genes at the time he wrote Origin of Species. We have his contemporary Mendel to thank for that research, which he published several years after Darwin's.

"Assuming natural selection can be or should be the sole ultimate explanatory mechanism in nature, and not something else (such as purposive design by a god), then ssentially, the natural selection process has to explain not only why something became a gene in the first place, and the answer to this is not so obvious, or established. It also has to explain why chemistry and physics and the other laws governing the universe have the structure and properties they do, and why the multiverse if there is one has the properties it does, and why the multiverse of multiverses, if there's one of those, has its properties, and so on and so forth."

The problem is that natural selection on its own does not seem to be a genuinely ultimate explanatory mechanism, since at every stage there is some kind of order assumed, and to avoid positing some ultimate ontological order, but rely only on order that merely happens to be generated by chance, it would seem to have to posit an infinity of unobservables, or at least one infinite unobservable.

Which kind of defeats the point of introducing the natural selection principle in the first place, does it not? Naturalism wants to not have to posit anything that is infinite and/or unobservable.

The bit about genes was just meant to be illustrative of this point. In other words, natural selection of species works fine as an explanatory mechanism---provided you've got ordered things like genes. And natural selection of genes works fine---provided you've got ordered things like chemicals. And natural selection of chemicals works fine---provided you've got ordered things like matter as governed by the laws of physics. And natural selection of the laws of physics works fine---provided you've got an ordered thing like a multiverse. And natural selection of a multiverse works fine---provided you've got an ordered thing like a multiverse of multiverses. And so on.

See my point?

Also, I know that Darwin didn't know about genes. That's why I used the phrase 'Darwinian evolution' as against 'Darwin's theory of evolution'. Sorry. I should have made that clearer.

Creation ... and change ....

The introduction of 'living matter' is the subject known as 'Abiogenesis', and is primarily speculative ... Those who study abiogenesis legitimately have not come to any hard and fast conclusions as to the actual source of life .... nevertheless, that area of discussion is Abiogenesis, NOT evolution of 'natural selection' ...

Evolution deals with pre-existent genetic material, and how it becomes modified over time to adapt to specific environmental pressures ... Natural selection encapsulates the process by which 'nature', through natural forces, affects the development of existent organisms over time .... It does not explain HOW life came to exist ....

"Essentially, the natural selection process has to explain why something became a gene in the first place, and the answer to this is not so obvious, or established."

This statement does not make sense, and is fallacious, since natural selection has nothing to to do with abiogenesis .... Natural selection does NOT have to explain how 'something' became a gene in the first place ....

Assuming natural selection can be or should be the sole ultimate explanatory mechanism in nature, and not something else (such as purposive design by a god), then essentially, the natural selection process has to explain not only why something became a gene in the first place (and, as you note, the answer to this is not so obvious, or established); it also has to explain why chemistry and physics and the other laws governing the universe have the structure and properties they do, and why the multiverse if there is one has the properties it does, and why the multiverse of multiverses, if there's one of those, has its properties, and so on and so forth.

The problem is that natural selection on its own does not seem to be a genuinely ultimate explanatory mechanism, since at every stage there is some kind of order assumed, and to avoid positing some ultimate ontological order, but rely only on order that merely happens to be generated by chance, it would seem to have to posit an infinity of unobservables, or at least one infinite unobservable (such as a multiverse, or a multiverse of multiverses, or a multiverse of multiverses of multiveses, etc).

Which kind of defeats the point of introducing the natural selection principle in the first place, does it not? Naturalism wants to not have to posit anything that is infinite and/or unobservable.

The bit about genes was just meant to be merely illustrative of this point.

In other words, natural selection of species works fine as an explanatory mechanism---provided you've got ordered things like genes. And natural selection of genes works fine---provided you've got ordered things like chemicals. And natural selection of chemicals works fine---provided you've got ordered things like matter as governed by the laws of physics. And natural selection of the laws of physics works fine---provided you've got an ordered thing like a multiverse. And natural selection of a multiverse works fine---provided you've got an ordered thing like a multiverse of multiverses. And so on.

See my point?

Also, I know that Darwin didn't know about genes. That's why I used the phrase 'Darwinian evolution' as against 'Darwin's theory of evolution'. Sorry. I should have made that clearer.

Incidentally, multiverses etc have to be ordered kind of things in order to be validly posited by science in the first place. For them to be scientifically respectable entities, they have to conform at least to some form of mathematical definition and, perhaps, to be predictive of certain observations.

So you see, there seems to be a need to posit some form of order all the way down (or all the way up, if you prefer). But the point of natural selection as a cosmic principle is that order is supposed to be generated solely by chance selections. And of course, the unwanted features of infinity and unobservability become acute at that stage.

NT!

Currently popular scientific theorizing posits 'string theory' and a 'multiverse'. Let's think about that for a minute.

I'm not suggesting that string physics is incompatible with a multiverse, nor am I suggesting that a correct string physics might not one day be shown to entail the existence of a multiverse. But I am saying that string physics, in its current formulations, does not entail a multiverse. There are in fact millions and millions of solutions to string physics equations that would involve something much less than a multiverse.

I'm aware of one model in which the solution involves a brane of infinite dimension, which I suppose can be shown to suggest a multiverse (the Randall-Sundrum model), and Susskind and Linde who also propose multiverse models are now incorporating insights from string theory. But string theory as such, as currently understood, does not entail a multiverse, and some string theorists are even hopeful that string theory will render the multiverse hypothesis superfluous (for example, Brian Greene, author of THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE).

String theory itself is highly controversial within physics, of course.

But let's cut to the chase. The point I'd make is that there is no way string physics or any other physics can avoid positing an unobservable, spaceless, timeless, infinite reality of some sort. Let me explain why.

Let's suppose that string physics, or some other development in physics, becomes scientifically established, and is shown to entail a multiverse. Immediately we'd want to know why there is any such thing as this physics, and why there is any such thing as a multiverse. Well, there's two ways to go at this point.

One way (that favored by Greene) is to say that the physics will turn out to logically necessary and that this follows from the mathematics exhibiting it. But how would this ultimate theory establish the validity of mathematical reason itself---the very mathematical reason that underlies the ultimate theory?

After all, the construction of the theory would be presupposing the validity of the mathematical reasoning involved, and it would be suggesting that mathematical reason is valid not only for this universe, but for the multiverse as a whole. And why would this universally valid Mathematical Reason be such as to instantiate anything in physical reality, not least ourselves, who can appreciate and grasp and understand it? Or to put it another way, why is there something (even this multiverse generating mathematics), rather than nothing at all? Hawking famously asked why the equations would go to the bother of making anything like a universe, and one could ask the same thing about the string (or whatever) equations that make a multiverse. Why, in other words, would the equations be self-instantiating in physical reality. Maybe you'd need another equation for that.

One would seem to be left with the choice of either theism, or a form of mathematical Platonism, and in either case, one would be positing a non-physical unobservable something as being responsible for both the multiverse and our reasoning about it. Moreover, mathematics itself is an infinite abstract structure. And it's physically invisible.

The trouble with Platonism as an account of reason is that if the Platonic entity itself is suitably to be grasped by mind, then it's deeply puzzling why it should not be intimately connected with mind (or intellect, or consciousness), and in fact be the content of a mind, or intellect, or consciousness. We never encounter Platonic entities as freestanding objects---they are always encountered as contents of minds. But an infinite mental content, such as mathematics is, would need an infinite mind, or intellect, or consciousness to comprehend it.

There is a way around this problem though. And that is to invoke once again the principle of natural selection. It would go like this: We get this universe because it is naturally selected within a multiverse. And we get the multiverse described by the equations of string theory (or whatever the final theory is) because it is naturally selected within a multiverse of multiverses. And we get the multiverse of multiverses because it is naturally selected by a multiverse of multiverses of multiverses.... And so on, ad infinitum.

But either way, you have to end up positing a physically unobservable infinite. Either, Mathematical Reason. Or, an infinity of universes/multiverses.

But the point of going this route was to avoid having to posit a physically unobservable infinite. But the point turns out to be self-defeating. And we see this ahead of time. E.g. the Randall-Sundrum model posits an infinite brane. Obviously we could not observe an infinite brane, even if we had a reason to infer that there must be one. Well, similarly, we could not observe a theistic God, even if we had reason to infer that there must be one (as an explanation of mathematical order, rational consciousness, moral, aesthetic and religious experience, and the existence of a physical world intelligible to mathematical reasoning. Cf. Wigner's famous remark about the 'unreasonable' efficacy of mathematics). But if the natural selection principles themselves lead us to posit an unobservable infinite, how are they superior to the theistic hypothesis?

I have to laugh when atheists complain that God 'doesn't explain anything' and then are driven by science itself to posit things like infinite branes, and an infinity of universes, and maybe even an infinity of multiverses, for heaven's sake, etc---none of which our finite minds could grasp or observe, and which are of course forever so.

Then there's the issue of consciousness. Doubtless more conceptual work is needed on all sides. Even from a scientific viewpoint, I think more and more we are finding that notions such as 'information' are fundamental and irreducible. Philosopher David Chalmers talks about matter being information from the outside, and consciousness being information from the inside. One can think of God as self-subsistent Reason--one can conceptualize God as unlimited, pure information communicating itself to itself, which just is, or which eternally generates, Consciousness, and therefore also Value. It generates Value (goodness, love, beauty, etc) because this unlimited self-communicating, self-revealing information is eternally united in harmony with itself, and thus is eternally One and Whole. (These concepts are also partly inspired by and suggestive of St Augustine's theology of the Trinity, which he suggests we try to grasp on an analogy with the operations of intellect/knowledge and will/love of the mind.)

And if one runs with Chalmers' idea that information is matter from the outside, the reason we don't see God is not so much that God isn't physical---it's rather that God is infinite. God is the unlimited self-communicating rational consciousness that knows the mathematics of string theory (or whatever the ultimate theory is). Or, God is the infinite self-communicating consciousness that grasps the infinity of multiverses, or multiverses of multiverses, etc.

So the reason we don't 'see' God is that there's just too much information for anyone looking at this unlimited information from the outside to be see it---finite minds can only fully comprehend finite information. But 'inside' the unlimited information , it's infinite consciousness--God fully comprehends Godself---and thus all of reality is ultimately intelligible (though not by us), because God is an unlimited act of rational understanding and self-communicating information.

In short, if your epistemology requires observation and rational intelligibility, and yet your ontology is infinite or quasi-infinite, then you need an infinite mind to 'do' the observing and rational understanding of that ontology, which of course will include itself.

Science kind of gets there in the end, but I suspect religion had it essentially figured out a long time ago. :-)

but, if not a "missing link", then, ultimately there is no fact. Let us not arrange our lives upon the lack of facts. Let us not be arroused by "RELIGIOUS" entities that are only "worldly" in their nature. Let us continue to look for truth.

:-)

Maybe you could address the issues I raise here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1206770&mesg_id=1207203

and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1206770&mesg_id=1207255

"I'm telling you, an unobservable infinity of universes or multiverses or of anything at all (except God), is less complex than a single infinite consciousness, because I say so. And no, none of those infinite universes/multiverses/things could possibly contain an infinite consciousness, even though there's an infinite number of them, because nothing could be infinite, except an infinity of things other than God."

:shrug:

They use too many big words and stuff like that:


«How could the eye, with all its complex parts working in concert, have arisen by a series of discrete steps?»

Obviously only humans have eyes. It's not like some shit that was passed on from other creatures who if they do have eyes, it is obviously the evil eye at work , eye bet. Eye caramba!

«United Church of Christ»

See. This settles it. All you have to do is slither out of some womb and presto all your religious decisions have been united for you. Be careful with nudism...

«that God's perfect creation culminated on the sixth day with the making of man in his image.»

That's why we all look the same. We all look like God, every last one of us. Nobody looks any different. We are all the same size, age and sex for that matter. It's all so convincing. And no babies ever die, 'cause God didn't die!


«he is taught that Homo sapiens»

Notice the word Homo, as in Homo Please Don't Erectus! 'Nuf said, huh?

«evolved over millions of years from a series of predecessor species in an unbroken line of descent stretching back to the origins of life.»

Who has time to wait millions of years in this gimme now microwave world? Six, seven days is better for a short attention span.

«What kind of Christian would he be if his faith couldn't survive 90 minutes of exposure to Darwin?»

and what if those pagans wanted equal time in the church? And chocolate dinosaurs? And you will evolve into a dung beetle if you do not believe.

You see religious geniuses have it all figured out. It is explained how God's tiny penis kept Mary a virgin, despite her previous children. And how Joseph dropped his infidelity lawsuit against God for diddling his wife without the standard Redford million buck offer.

Also religion is very clean, you see. First, you have this guy Adam (Clay, but not Cassius) and he gets all horny thinking about sex because there are no women. So God rips out a spare rib and bingo a woman pops out. Naturally, he starts humping her right away while God tries to learn a few things. Then 2 male children pop out Raising Cain and I Am Abel. So they grow up being horny bastards. And they are bastards 'cause there was no church or other religious institution to hitch their horny parents. But there is no Viagra for Adam who is now more fond of sheep. Eve (east) gets horny and takes on her kids, since they have no females to hump other than their mother. She gets knocked up and maybe has some girls so the incest can reach its natural level. But what the hell, the Bible is just about men anyway, unlike gay clubs.

Anyway this is how we came to be equal. There are no races, no genders, just pure equality in everything.

It is much easier to be a religious genius and if we all joined them, maybe we would actually frighten the believers...

Is this your own?

All "intelligent design" does is remove the mystery one degree. Now the big unanswerable question would "Where did God come from?" instead of "Where did life come from?"

Science isn't complete, yet, but what's there works quite well for me. Putting some Guy in charge of making everything just makes it all "magic."

Why in the world would I take the word of someone who is so clueless as to how something could have happened, that their answer to everything is "Faith."

Socrates!

:-)

Are we having fun being respectful and disciplined....YET!

Requires neither respectfulness nor social discipline to be true; it requires only an honest appraisal of facts ....

as compared to Sartre!

:-)

people who were not able to answer the questions of my "original posts"..nite-nite!

:-)

...is about the last place you're going to hear someone preaching intelligent design and Biblical literalism. The United Church of Christ (UCC) is a liberal denomination that is open-minded, affirmative, and completely comfortable with modern science. Most members of mainline Protestant organizations (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc.) think of the Genesis accounts as mythological, rather than scientific fact. Even the much-maligned Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution as the best explanation for the origin of life that we currently have.

Sidenote: The UCC is the denomination that has recently made splashes by attempting to run "controversial" ads showing gay and minority people being excluded from a narrow-minded church (and welcomed in the UCC) and the hilarious photo spread showing Sponge Bob Squarepants visiting the UCC headquarters.

Check them out at: www.ucc.org

NT!

Natural selection is the best model we have to explain how life has evolved upon our planet.

Proponents of the current "creationism-in-the-guise-of-intelligent-design theory" assert that ID is simply an alternative theory. The problem is that it's an theory without a basis in fact. ID doesn't belong in a science classroom because it's not science.

If we want to further the progress of human understanding, we must preserve the sanctity of critical, evidence-based, scientific thinking and keep religion out of the science class.

Bush isn't going to hell then!!!


(kidding btw)