Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 9 · Next
Author Message
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1311266 - Posted: 29 Nov 2012, 5:24:20 UTC - in response to Message 1311264.

You can't do experiments in astrophysics, only observations and infer an hypothesis from that observation.
Tullio


Really? Mr. Einstein might disagree with you?

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8525
Credit: 59,064,819
RAC: 81,663
United Kingdom
Message 1311278 - Posted: 29 Nov 2012, 6:39:31 UTC - in response to Message 1311262.

Nice math. Not proof.


Sorry, wrong on TWO points - not "math", very simple arithmetic, backed by some very interesting and involved astronomic observations.
And if the answer is non-zero then not only do you have PROOF, THAT IS SCIENTIFIC PROOF, you have the magnitude of dark energy, its sign, and its directionality.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12704
Credit: 7,191,504
RAC: 15,509
United States
Message 1311293 - Posted: 29 Nov 2012, 7:51:44 UTC

Gentleman, you can't reason with ID, he has belief, which trumps reason.

Also in this case he is correct, first you have to prove the law of gravity applies the same in all places in the universe and that it doesn't vary with time. While this is accepted, it has not been proved, so the effects could be explained with changes to the theory of gravity just as easily as dark energy. Never mind that there is no proof that your yardsticks don't vary in some manner.

Unfortunately you can't prove any of nature's laws, because first you have to prove existence, and unfortunately, Renee Descartes proved that can not be established.

____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3753
Credit: 387,845
RAC: 136
Italy
Message 1311345 - Posted: 29 Nov 2012, 15:32:18 UTC - in response to Message 1311266.
Last modified: 29 Nov 2012, 15:36:16 UTC

Perfect. That was an observation. But recently people at MIT started making Lab astrophysics using the powerful magnets of the ALCATOR tokamak built by Bruno Coppi. They created waves of plasma and made two of them collide creating a third wave at a much higher temperature, simulating what happens in the Sun's corona, which has a much higher temperature than the photosphere. So I was wrong, a Lab astrophysics is just starting. But the observation made at Principe Island of the deflection of light during a solar eclipse, which gave the first confirmation of General Relativity was just an observation, not an experiment.
Tullio
____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1313593 - Posted: 10 Dec 2012, 17:45:08 UTC

More proof...

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2591
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 93
United States
Message 1313812 - Posted: 11 Dec 2012, 1:42:09 UTC - in response to Message 1313593.
Last modified: 11 Dec 2012, 1:42:32 UTC

I don't think that Darwinism rules out a benevelent (?), old god putting the whole thing in motion. If so she made a good many mistakes which would put into question the infallibility thing. Did Darwin opine on this ?

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1313820 - Posted: 11 Dec 2012, 2:27:49 UTC - in response to Message 1313812.

I don't think that Darwinism rules out a benevelent (?), old god putting the whole thing in motion. If so she made a good many mistakes which would put into question the infallibility thing. Did Darwin opine on this ?


Neo-Darwinism does rule out a God.

Did Darwin opine on infallibility? Is that your question?

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2591
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 93
United States
Message 1314071 - Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 0:41:36 UTC - in response to Message 1313820.
Last modified: 12 Dec 2012, 0:42:38 UTC

Did Darwin opine on infallibility? Is that your question?


I was wondering whether Darwin stated that there was no God involved in Evolution.[/quote]

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1314092 - Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 1:23:49 UTC

I'll get back with you on this one late tonight. Sorry, gotta run right now.

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,498,352
RAC: 1,687
United States
Message 1314123 - Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 3:40:11 UTC - in response to Message 1314071.

Did Darwin opine on infallibility? Is that your question?


I was wondering whether Darwin stated that there was no God involved in Evolution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Religious_views

Religious views
For more details on this topic, see Charles Darwin's religious views.

In 1851 Darwin was devastated when his daughter Annie died. By then his faith in Christianity had dwindled, and he had stopped going to church.[155]

Darwin's family tradition was nonconformist Unitarianism, while his father and grandfather were freethinkers, and his baptism and boarding school were Church of England.[19] When going to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible.[24] He learned John Herschel's science which, like William Paley's natural theology, sought explanations in laws of nature rather than miracles and saw adaptation of species as evidence of design.[26][27] On board the Beagle, Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality.[156] He looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution,[48] and related the antlion found near kangaroos to distinct "periods of Creation".[50]

By his return he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid.[156] In the next few years, while intensively speculating on geology and transmutation of species, he gave much thought to religion and openly discussed this with Emma, whose beliefs also came from intensive study and questioning.[85] The theodicy of Paley and Thomas Malthus vindicated evils such as starvation as a result of a benevolent creator's laws which had an overall good effect. To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,[157] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[131] He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin was reluctant to give up the idea of God as an ultimate lawgiver. He was increasingly troubled by the problem of evil.[158][159]

Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[160] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[155] He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[161][162] and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."[85][161]

The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were repudiated by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[163]

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1314149 - Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 5:41:25 UTC - in response to Message 1314071.
Last modified: 12 Dec 2012, 6:19:01 UTC

Did Darwin opine on infallibility? Is that your question?


I was wondering whether Darwin stated that there was no God involved in Evolution.
[/quote]

Darwin as a young man embraced Intelligent Design. He was a big fan of the "Watch Maker" argument. Kinda strange that he spent the rest of his life showing us the Design in nature and then called himself an agnostic. I have a copy of his autobiography that I picked up some 5 years ago, it's a little worn and has post-it notes all over it. I also believe that nature took millions of years to come to what we see now. However, the Guiding Hand of the Causal Agent is needed for what we see, not chance. There are way too many gaps in nature for the seamless evolution that Neo-Darwinist like to call the "Tree of Life."

Darwin often, very often, talked about "fixed laws" in nature but didn't bother to tell us how or why they was fixed. If such a thing is fixed, and cannot be broken, then that in and of itself implies a Designer. On page 85 to 96 he takes a HUGE shot at Christianity. And here we get to your point (in general), he denies the miracles of Christ. The Gospels are a lie to him. He points out that they cannot be proven to have been written at the same time as the events, also, that he does not believe in Christianity as a divine revelation. He likes to argue in a circle a lot. Many people here say this is what I do. Yet they accept Neo-Darwinism that does this in spades. Darwin dismisses the Bible by dismissing the the four who wrote the Bible(Gospels), and he dismisses the four who wrote the Bible(Gospels)because they contain miracles. And yet he believes in fixed laws that can only be made by a Designer(Causal Agent), not chance.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1314180 - Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 7:34:36 UTC

Stossle, Thursday 8 pm our time.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1314388 - Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 19:36:01 UTC

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. ~Albert Einstein~


Darwins Faith

More on his Faith

"Darwin" wrote:
Darwin in his autobiography he was to be Ordained,[never was] at Christ's College, Cambridge wrote:

...I asked for some time to consider, as from what little I had heard and thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of becoming a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with great care Pearson on the Creeds and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted....


later in the book he wrote....




"Me" wrote:
Religious Belief <<<<<<------Darwins words below, not mine.



During these two years (i.e. October 1836 to January 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,—is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible.

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.

But I was very unwilling to give up my belief;—I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed 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.

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.

But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the Variation of Domestic Animals and Plants, and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered.

But passing over the endless beautiful adaptations which we everywhere meet with, it may be asked how can the generally beneficent arrangement of the world be accounted for? Some writers indeed are so much impressed with the amount of suffering in the world, that they doubt if we look to all sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of happiness;—whether the world as a whole is a good or a bad one. According to my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very difficult to prove. If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it harmonises well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree they would neglect to propagate their kind; but we have no reason to believe that this has ever or at least often occurred. Some other considerations, moreover, lead to the belief that all sentient beings have been formed so as to enjoy, as a general rule, happiness.

Every one who believes, as I do, that all the corporeal and mental organs (excepting those which are neither advantageous or disadvantageous to the possessor) of all beings have been developed through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, together with use or habit, will admit that these organs have been formed so that their possessors may compete successfully with other beings, and thus increase in number. Now an animal may be led to pursue that course of action which is the most beneficial to the species by suffering, such as pain, hunger, thirst, and fear,—or by pleasure, as in eating and drinking and in the propagation of the species, &c. or by both means combined, as in the search for food. But pain or suffering of any kind, if long continued, causes depression and lessens the power of action; yet is well adapted to make a creature guard itself against any great or sudden evil. Pleasurable sensations, on the other hand, may be long continued without any depressing effect; on the contrary they stimulate the whole system to increased action. Hence it has come to pass that most or all sentient beings have been developed in such a manner through natural selection, that pleasurable sensations serve as their habitual guides. We see this in the pleasure from exertion, even occasionally from great exertion of the body or mind,—in the pleasure of our daily meals, and especially in the pleasure derived from sociability and from loving our families. The sum of such pleasures as these, which are habitual or frequently recurrent, give, as I can hardly doubt, to most sentient beings an excess of happiness over misery, although many occasionally suffer much. Such suffering, is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to render each species as successful as possible in the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing circumstances.

That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.

At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God. There are also many barbarian tribes who cannot be said with any truth to believe in what we call God: they believe indeed in spirits or ghosts, and it can be explained, as Tyler and Herbert Spencer have shown, how such a belief would be likely to arise.

Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to, (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, 'it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.' I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind, and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes my present loss of perception of not the least value as evidence. This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music.

With respect to immortality, nothing shows me how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is, as the consideration of the view now held by most physicists, namely that the sun with all the planets will in time grow too cold for life, unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun and thus gives it fresh life.—Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful.

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.

This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbation he will then not receive; but he will still have the solid satisfaction of knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience.—As for myself I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to science. I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow creatures. My sole and poor excuse is much ill-health and my mental constitution, which makes it extremely difficult for me to turn from one subject or occupation to another. I can imagine with high satisfaction giving up my whole time to philanthropy, but not a portion of it; though this would have been a far better line of conduct.

Nothing is more remarkable than the spread of scepticism or rationalism during the latter half of my life. Before I was engaged to be married, my father advised me to conceal carefully my doubts, for he said that he had known extreme misery thus caused with married persons. Things went on pretty well until the wife or husband became out of health, and then some women suffered miserably by doubting about the salvation of their husbands, thus making them likewise to suffer. My father added that he had known during his whole long life only three women who were sceptics; and it should be remembered that he knew well a multitude of persons and possessed extraordinary power of winning confidence. When I asked him who the three women were, he had to own with respect to one of them, his sister-in-law Kitty Wedgwood, that he had no good evidence, only the vaguest hints, aided by the conviction that so clear-sighted a woman could not be a believer. At the present time, with my small acquaintance, I know (or have known) several married ladies, who believe very little more than their husbands. My father used to quote an unanswerable argument, by which an old lady, a Mrs Barlow, who suspected him of unorthodoxy, hoped to convert him:—" Doctor, I know that sugar is sweet in my mouth, and I know that my Redeemer liveth."


His Faith could be called AGNOSTIC

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1314447 - Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 22:49:11 UTC - in response to Message 1314149.

Did Darwin opine on infallibility? Is that your question?


I was wondering whether Darwin stated that there was no God involved in Evolution.


Darwin as a young man embraced Intelligent Design. He was a big fan of the "Watch Maker" argument. Kinda strange that he spent the rest of his life showing us the Design in nature and then called himself an agnostic. I have a copy of his autobiography that I picked up some 5 years ago, it's a little worn and has post-it notes all over it. I also believe that nature took millions of years to come to what we see now. However, the Guiding Hand of the Causal Agent is needed for what we see, not chance. There are way too many gaps in nature for the seamless evolution that Neo-Darwinist like to call the "Tree of Life."

Darwin often, very often, talked about "fixed laws" in nature but didn't bother to tell us how or why they was fixed. If such a thing is fixed, and cannot be broken, then that in and of itself implies a Designer. On page 85 to 96 he takes a HUGE shot at Christianity. And here we get to your point (in general), he denies the miracles of Christ. The Gospels are a lie to him. He points out that they cannot be proven to have been written at the same time as the events, also, that he does not believe in Christianity as a divine revelation. He likes to argue in a circle a lot. Many people here say this is what I do. Yet they accept Neo-Darwinism that does this in spades. Darwin dismisses the Bible by dismissing the the four who wrote the Bible(Gospels), and he dismisses the four who wrote the Bible(Gospels)because they contain miracles. And yet he believes in fixed laws that can only be made by a Designer(Causal Agent), not chance.[/quote]
why are you arguing with yourself. Imply what you will on others there statements stand true.
Darwin saw that nature chose the changes in animals and that animals though different are actually related in generations past. that the environment has an affect on physical changes in animals and plants is without a doubt the greatest thing we could know. We know similar looking bird species are probably related, that bacteria, even in its uniquely unevolved state, evolves, changes to make itself better suited to its environment. Why else would a bacteria develop immunities to antibiotics? Not Gods choice but survival.

You keep bleeting out the same old nonsense of what one person believed in a moment in time, yet completely ignore the persons remaining life. If anything it should freak you out that you don't see that this could possibly also be you. Maybe someday you'll wake up and find you've not lost your faith but come to understand that evolution is a reality not because of God(its not mentioned in the Bible) or despite. it just is what it is. A working model of our understanding of the creation of life and how life changed due to its environment.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2591
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 93
United States
Message 1314473 - Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 23:54:43 UTC - in response to Message 1314447.

Skil,

Thank you for your post. We were discussing evolution and I made the statement that it shouldn't matter whether a "God" started it or it is the result of pure chance and survival in Nature. I don't think that those who mire themselves in controversy on this subject actually dispute that evolution took place and is taking place.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1314480 - Posted: 13 Dec 2012, 0:37:43 UTC
Last modified: 13 Dec 2012, 1:36:36 UTC

No such thing as chance. The design is clear to see.

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,498,352
RAC: 1,687
United States
Message 1314485 - Posted: 13 Dec 2012, 0:55:49 UTC
Last modified: 13 Dec 2012, 0:56:06 UTC

No such thing as clairvoyance.
Hence, chance exists.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1314796 - Posted: 13 Dec 2012, 19:07:45 UTC

"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
~ The Weight of Glory; C.S. Lewis

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1314857 - Posted: 13 Dec 2012, 21:07:58 UTC - in response to Message 1314796.

"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
~ The Weight of Glory; C.S. Lewis

quite right he was. zIt's pretty clear he was calling Christians to task and not the other way around. Christians simply take things for granted, that their religion answers everything.

Quite honestly Christianity has done its level best to hide obfuscate and befuddle science at every turn. you are a perfect example of the sick perverted idea that God told us everything we need to know in 1 simple book.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1314901 - Posted: 13 Dec 2012, 22:58:20 UTC
Last modified: 13 Dec 2012, 22:59:05 UTC

No, you are quite wrong. Nor did you understand the quote. Taking ONE quote and therefore making an attempt at understanding the whole book, are you? Not good science at all. Christianity does not do what you have just done. We do not take one quote from the Book and apply just that. We apply the life of Christ. No wonder you have such a problem with the Faith, you have little understanding of it. Your Prejudice has trumped the hard Science of actually reading the Book and applying It to your everyday life as best you can. The Weight of Glory has more to do with being informed as best you can and the application of that information.

There is NOTHING simple about being a Christian. Nor is it a sick perverted idea. Do you assume that anyones mind, let alone God's, can be contained in a book?

I'll give you this...yes, it took the Catholic Church 400 years to hand Galileo Galilei the apology he was due. But the Church has made great progress of late in science. It will also do you no good to pop up people from the Church that disagree with me on Intelligent Design. I am free to believe in it and the Chuch will not burn me at the stake for it nor Excommunicate me for it.

Whats " pretty clear" here is what you DON'T know.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence

Copyright © 2014 University of California