Fighting the fight

[Glenn Dawes]

Hello all and happy new year!

Over the holiday period I took the opportunity to surf around older threads on IIS and found the discussions on ID vs. Evolution interesting (please Mr Moderators hear me out).

I have fought ID concepts for many years being touched by creationism through friends and family members. Also having reasonable knowledge of the bible from my teens and having a scientific background touching on chemistry, geology and astronomy (sorry, biology is my weak area) I’ve always thought I’ve had a reasonable understanding of both sides. In my ‘battles’ I now realise I have made mistakes but gained a few insights, which I would like to share with my fellow IISers.

Rule 1. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER try and convince creationists they are wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!! (yes, that’s enough capital letters and too many exclamation marks don’t go astray here either). Reasons:
1) Most creationists I have known have had no background in science or the scientific method. So as far as they are concerned the evolutionists might as well be pushing another religion (eg how successful would a Muslim be trying to convert a devoted Christian to Islam)
2) At the best they will treat your wonderfully thought out arguments (which you are so proud of) as a test of their faith (at the worst they will be think of you as an agent of the devil!). Even if they don’t say so.
3) It has been drilled into them there are too many holes in the Evolution argument to take anything you say as serious (yes, we know there are gaps but does one throw the baby out with the bathwater?).

Rule 2. Many Scientists are apathetic to ID thinking that the followers are as harmless as natives putting pins into voodoo doll. Many refuse to recognise the potential damage this could cause if ID got into mainstream education. I once went to a creationism / evolution debate (never again). The scientist had his facts right but there was something like 3 evolutionists to 200 creationists. There was no interest from the anti ID side to attend and give support. You can guess what happened to the poor scientist – I’m sure if he’d been a lamb he would have been on a spit by the end. We crept out being prepared to do a ‘Peter’ and deign any knowledge of the guy if we were confronted!

Rule 3. The don’t step on someone’s faith toes! (The most difficult one)
I have a lot of interesting discussions with my wife including how misguided astrologers are. However, when it comes to criticising ID she goes quiet. Not because she disagrees with me but she feels I shouldn’t knock someone’s faith. The sensitive reactions, seen on previous threads, attest to this. I think there is a big difference between questioning someone’s belief and personal attacks.

Rule 4. The ID people are cashed up, and live by the line ‘spread the word’. They will use every resource available – even being sneaky. Have you noticed the google add that is on one of the previous threads? Go to:

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=7537&page=4&highlight=creationism

And look under the Aust S&T advertisement on the right. Here’s the link anyway.

http://ucg.org.au/offers/ev.asp?gclid=CIv698DvxokCFSLiYAodEE mquQ

There you go, even IIS is pushing the ‘Good News’! (Even if Mike S doesn’t know it)

Rule 5. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem! (I know an old line but appropriate here)
In recent years I have been guilty of saying/doing nothing. After knocking my head against rule 1 in my early years, for too long, I felt all I achieved was getting well meaning but misguided people upset. However, I am now a strong believer in doing a bit of ‘back burning’ in the school system (or in the community as a whole). I suggest (as a start):

* If you know any teachers make them aware of what is going on. I would target those with a science background (If you know any).

* There are science teacher’s magazines.. Well at least one. I have the contact details if anyone wants them. It would be interesting to know their feelings or would PC scare them off?

* Letters to the Federal Education minister, Brendan Nelson, pointing out to him that ID is not science and shouldn’t be taught.

* What are the Australian Skeptics doing about this?

* If you are serious about attacking the ID’ers, the web is full of good sites such as ‘Talk Origins’ for background info. There was a good little book published in 2006 called Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, Why all the fuss? By Peter Cook ($13) which explains both sides in an unbiased fashion. I got it from A&R.

I have deliberately avoided discussing any specific ID vs. Evolution issues here for I think most of the basics have been brought up previously and I feel it doesn’t achieve anything further going over old ground. It’s time to act.

Yours in the name of Science.

Glenn

[stephenmcnelley]

Why do people seem to need to form opinions and formulate hard conclusions on everything they read? to stamp a little bit of certainty into their lives and to contribute to our collective big picture understanding somehow by their personal identity ?
Seems a good way to get a bit lost along the way judging by the human state and division within this world of people.

Cant see why the two concepts and theories would not somwhow be symbiotic with all life's biological development (which is a form of engineering none the less) it seems beyond our immediate capacity to quantitively reckon its rythm and reason over the long evolutionary term, rather than by our relatively short term perspective which is a commom human cultural feature- its only people that create theorhetical divisions and individual distinctions during our relatively short lives.
Our children and future generations might benefit more from a probing and introspective education framework rather than being told to digest yet more books of 'hard facts'- Our co-operative science is still in its global infancy as are our rough notions of creationism, that should be warning enough!

[xelasnave]

The ratio of 3 to 200 probably carries thru the whole community unfortunately if the truth be known.
But the good news is if we get ID into our schools there wont be a teacher shortage as we will be able to use people without any background in science to teach.. in fact anyone will be able to teach with only one book.
I dont like the chances of stopping it frankly.. I mean Mr B is an educated man a very smart man and he lends it support..who can question that? Sortta makes it right or politically correct at least, sorry politically smart.
I have no objection to ID being taught in schools just make sure that it is not in the guise of science, perhaps in philophosey classes, no one could object to that but no doubt both sides will.
ID is better than witchcraft a predominate tv theme these days.
alex

[iceman]

A very well thought out post, Glenn.


I'd agree with that, and in particular it covers both sides of the argument. It seems in most debates of evolution vs creationism, noone will ever convince the other side to change their mind. Everyone goes over the same old arguments over and over again having to get the last say, without any hope of "converting" anyone to their way of thinking.

That's when people start getting personal, attacking the people not the ideas, and why threads like this have had a habit of being locked.

However I hope that we're all mature enough to have a debate without resorting to personal attacks, so I don't plan for this thread to be locked.


I'd definitely agree with this too - people obviously get very defensive about their faith and will defend it to the death as it's what they believe and in some cases makes them who they are and how they live.


Interestingly, there was an interview on Sydney ABC 702 this morning with someone called Richard Williamson (I think) who was talking about the evolution vs creationist debate, as well as religions in general (he was an aethiest). It was a good interview, I was enjoying listening to it, and then all of a sudden he got cut off and they didn't get him back.

I suspect someone up high in the ABC didn't like what he was hearing (or they got a complaint from a creationist in big business) and they cut the interview.

Conspiracy theory, but i'm sticking with it. :D

[Doug]

Mike, why not ring the ABC and enquire?;)
Maybe if he was passionate enough about his position he might have said something that contravened the Broadcast act and up popped the 7 sec delay cutout thingy.........maybe. One can never be sure unless unbiased research is undertaken. Is this germane to this thread? If you think about it........yes it is.:whistle:

Cheers,
Doug

[matt]

This is an aspect of the nature of the ID camp I find very concerning.

It's no good believing in anything so feverishly that you are incapable or even unwilling to listen to the views of your opposition.

I think it's a poor sign when you feel the need to completely silence anyone with a differing view...

Perhaps you're worried they're going to sound too believable and reasonable and argue their case with science and provable fact?

[ving]

ID say they are right, Evos say they are right... the fact is that there are holes in both arguments. People should keep an open mind to all sides of the question at hand because niether side has been proven 100% correct. who knows, maybe both are right? evolution within creation? :shrug:

peace out bros! :)

[matt]

Peace to you too, Bro!:lol:

I guess my big concern is with reports the current US Administration is looking to institute ID as a "science" and have it included in school curriculum, as such.

There are those (predominantly in the powerful US Bible Belt) who would have real scientists tarred and feathered and run out of town as heretics.

These are the people who won't even tolerate the sound of a non-religious dissenting voice.

I totally agree with you Ving that we all need to keep an open mind. All of us. Including zealous devotees of ID.

Again ... peace ... maaaan

[avandonk]

When I get someone knocking on my door and declaring they have some of the answers and then refer to all the scientific peer reviewed journals as a source. I may then let them in.
My only real concern is these people of faith are the ones inappropriately forcing their beliefs into areas that have nothing to do with any faith. At the moment some parts of current scientific thought are being questioned by their beliefs. They should simply supply the evidence.
They seem to act as if 'they' are under attack by science. I think the converse is true.
I am also amazed that somone elses precepts of faith are not to be questioned as some sancrosanct 'fact' of faith. If they want to get into the discussion of ideas and proof then everything is open to scientific scrutiny.
The real problem with this 'controversy' is that one side wants to hide behind
an impenetrable wall and then snipe from behind this wall under the guise of scientific arguement with totally unsupportable 'evidence' or even worse misquoted half truths.

When my scientific beliefs are as sancrosanct as theirs, we may have a level playing field.

Don't think this is not important. This is not about the TRUTH, it is about power via the votes of the uninformed.

Bert

[matt]

Spot-on, Bert. Spot-on.

A solid gold handshake is in the mail to you, Sir.:thumbsup:

[Kal]

The debate of evolution Vs Immaculate Design is about as productive as a debate of Christianity Vs Islam. At the end of the day, it is impossible for either side to come out ahead. We all have our own beliefs, and there is no real point in trying to prove the merits of one belief over the other. To allow a debate can only lead to one result, which is why there is good reason to lock all threads on this topic.

We live in a secular country, and I love Australia because of this. We embrace any belief be it athiest christian islam buddhist hindu etc. So lets keep any religious related discussions off these boards.

[matt]

Hmm.

That approach is as problematic as it is potenitally helpful.

As far as keeping any religion based debate off these boards?

Up until now, Kal, that has pretty much been de rigeur.

However, this is an internet website with many and varied fora where members can discuss everything and anything relating to this fabulous hobby/obsession.

And like it or not, the evolution-creationism debate does have some significant interest and impact on many people participating at this website.

If it's your choice to turn away from the debate, that's OK. Just don't seek to stifle or constrain those who want to participate.

Just my 2c worth:)

[Kal]

Personally, I wouldn't turn away from the thread. Any thread which has the potential to break down into a flame war before being locked is usually quite entertaining.

Yes it does have implications to the hobby we love. But the potential benefits gained by allowing discussion are outweighed by the potential conflicts and divide that could also be caused.

Think of it this way, do you honestly think it will bring the IIS community closer together, or will it simply cause a divide?

[matt]

So you'd like to stay in touch with this thread in case a fight breaks out, which would be "entertaining"?

I won't comment on what that signifies.

I don't think the purpose of a healthy and vigorous debate necessarily is to bring anyone closer together. Perhaps, if the 2 sides refrain from getting personal or attacking each other, they both might leave with a little food for thought and some enlightenment. Maybe not. But does that mean we shouldn't sometimes engage each other from completely opposite sides of the "divide"?

But I think any really great divisions which exist between members are already there. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to understand each other a little better.

Anyway...what hope is there when people can't even agree whether or not the issue should be debated?:lol::D

[sheeny]

Good thread and discussion guys!

Some views are promoted for political reasons, it is a fight for power. The apathy that is often displayed by "scientists" is probably because science is less political than religion.

I am concerned when:
1. The person and their views are not respected.
2. A person's views are not tolerated.

So I don't mind what you believe, I'm happy for you to believe it, and I'm happy to debate and explore and argue different philosophies, but don't try to change my mind, views or beliefs. My beliefs are mine, and no one else's to change - so if someone tries to "convert" me I will resist, as everyone should (that's just my belief!;) ). Hell, I've walked into more than one shop to buy a specific item and walked out without it because a salesman started the heard sell!

Be wary of the politics!

I also think exploring a lot of ID v science debates via written text can be quite dangerous. It is impossible to judge the nuances a speaker provides from a remote writer, and in a face to face debate you can judge when to back off... The level of understanding is easier to control face to face. So sometimes blocking threads is not a bad thing to do.

Al.

[xelasnave]

There is no problem. If ID wants to be a science let it:eyepop: that means it throws the door open to the rules of science... scientific method, peer review (all scientists in the field... although a field that presumably all peers will have the same view) experiment etc etc...Its not easy growing up to become a science there are huge responsibilities that if ID wants to join the club they must except.. they could end up proving themselves wrong. After careful consideration of the implications of the requirements of science maybe ID will properly elect for the class I first suggested.
On the positive lets see it as spiritual folk wanting respect for their beliefs rather than ridicule.. They can achieve respect as a science by simply doing what everyone else in the game must do..come up with facts, observations, proofs and just to be difficult some math to cement it all together.
Now as I cant do that with my gravity rain idea it reamins in the belief basket.. I accept that and respect science for its firm entry rules to the club.
But if you are a scientist being of whatever school you must already know the rules of the game... I will entertain "the science"if it entertains the rules of science.
However as others have obseved ID is not at the level that it can claim to be a science as it does not subscribe to the rules of the very club to which it seeks to belong.. it therefore belongs in the other class room.
Observe the dress rules and you can come in ..otherwise no entry.
But its the politics at play that should be of concern .. when someone like MrB lips move look whose hand is up his back.
alex

[Doug]

I believe the case for/against ID, for/against evolution is not being presented in a balanced fashion. ID is not on the table as a science in the strictest sense of the word. What the ID proponents want to see is ID taught alongside of evolution as a plausible cause for those things which science has no hard evidence for within the framework of evolutionary thinking. There is a lot of talk about scientific proof, yet none is ever actually provided, because none actually exists. By proof, I mean hard scientific data that can not be refuted. There are many equally qualified scientists on both sides of the debate, and by suitably qualified, I mean having PhDs in there respective fields. To say that those pushing for ID to be taught, are pushing it as science, seems to be not really comprehending the issues.

I have attended a few lectures by creationists and I'd have to say that I could not agree with everything said by the speaker, but on the other hand there were some present who clearly were opposed to his position. The notable thing was that objections raised were centered on fields of science outside the speaker's area of expertise. It seems there exists unreasonable bias in both camps, but to misrepresent some-one's position is a sad thing.

Doug

[xelasnave]

The thought just occured to me I have never heard these questions asked or answered.. Does the ID scientist site how "the design" comes about..is the "design" attributed to an entity or nature?...If nature all may be able to live together.. if an entity will there be a fight between different scientific factions for their "entity" to be chief designer. AND specifically I have wondered exactly what a science course course in ID would cover by way of introduction.
Also I ask what scientific evidence exists for the evolution approach I mean what is the proof, have experiments shown that the strong survive and the weak fail? I think some fruit fly experiments have been conducted showing stuff but I cant recall if the results were for ID or Ev.
alex

[ballaratdragons]

There has been some very well thought out and carefully worded opinions in the posts above, but there has also been some blatent encapsulation.

Be careful when generalising one side or another. To give you an example, I will use myself. I am a believer in Creation and I am not afraid to say so. But I do not go for the ID proposal. As a Creationist, I also believe that the earth is MILLIONS, or even billions, of years old. This is in no way contrary to biblical writings. But this is not the website to go into that.

I personally have known highly educated Scientists who will not 100% categorically say one way or the other. Approx 90% of my friends are Athiests and they know what I believe and are fine with it. I also totally accept that they are happy in thier beliefs. It makes us no less of friends!

I totally enjoy visiting Bert who explains his beliefs and reasons, and I sit enthralled at not only his commitment to his beliefs, but his knowledge of his beliefs. Doesn't mean I have to agree (with some of his facts, I do), but I enjoy listening to his intelligent views.

Of the Christain friends I have, none of them believe that the world was created 6000 years ago! All share my same drive and thirst for knowledge of both Theological and Scientific aspects of the beginnings of 'it all'.

All I ask is if you intend to post intellectual comment in here, please do not wrap each side up in a packet marked 'Identical part, number 36890'. There are many shades of grey in all of us. Don't generalise. that's when I get my back up. Comments like 'all Creationists' or 'us Evolutionists' is like saying all dogs are black.

[fringe_dweller]

that is seriously disturbing! thanks for pointing that out Glenn - as mentioned we need a change in US administration to really get clear of this stupid depressing era - I think there was a similar flare up of cretionism/fundamentalism during the 80's hardline conservative era of raygun, and it dissappeared with his presidency I believe - I think the scientist are just hoping its a fad that will go the same way when it loses legitimacy
by proxy when 'you know who's' is history - lets hope so!

[mickoking]

Let people believe in what they want to believe in. What does it matter if someone believes in ID? Are we, those of us who don't believe in ID, any better or less zealous than those who do believe? Every one to their own, thats what I say; and perhaps the world would be a more peaceful place.

Nuff said.

[Doug]

G'day Alex,
As I understand it, fruit fly experiments and moth population studies can indeed support the idea of natural selection, however I can't see this as being part of the same argument as evolution, nor does natural selection support it. I might be wrong here but I think natural selection is why Doctors tell us to complete a course of antibiotics; to avoid a residue of stronger bugs that have a higher tolerance living to fight another day.
Natural selection deals with things already here, and sees one population type thrive while another less able diminishes.
Evolution requires new things from old. For example a frog or a frog population perhaps, producing fertile offspring that are not frogs anymore, but some other type or maybe sort of frogs but with some extra qualities that places them in a genus of their own. That is not natural selection, that would be evolution. The observable truth seems to be that anytime there is a mutation it causes premature death, or infertility, or in some other way weakens the mutants, and natural selection will clean up the mess.
Even Genetic engineering only produces Tomatoes for example that package better, but taste like trash and have skins more like leather than edible skins; but they are still tomatoes for want of a more printable term. Same thing with these so called seedless watermelons; less seeds, less flavour.
That is why I said there exists no hard scientific evidence for evolution.
But equally there is no hard scientific evidence for creation or intelligent design. Frankly if the only real objection to ID is it might need an entity to be the controller, how scientific is that? Doesn't that become a philosophic choice for evolution rather that a sound scientifically arrived at conclusion?
Mind you that is fine as long as it is understood fopr wjhat it is.

cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

Thanks Doug.
Mick is on the money I recon which says much about his belief.
Well I dont believe even in the big bang and there is a pile of science to support it... but I dont and wont accept the concept of inflation..the premise that the Universe at a point expanded at a trillion times in a split second is harder to believe than God doing it in six days.. and without that moment in the big bang it falls down.. The big bang relies on the idea of inflation so how can we have a theory part of which relies on an idea.
I recon the big bang was invented to lead minds to a point where they must say .. at that point it was in Gods hands.. everything from nothing certainly points that way. Still to buck the big bang has cries from scientists that I am a fool who will not take into account "the science" ... well I was not there but neither was anyone else around here so who can really say.. So to the horror of scientists I call the big bang merely a belief.
Logic would suggest to me if there is a God there would be no point at which time began that is a mere requirement of humans not Gods.
So finally I am with Mick ..live let live dont worry me I wont worry you.
Well I will we all know that but as a general approach to life I mean,
alex

[Kal]

Evolution deals with things already here as well, however when dealing with evolution you have to look at small steps over tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of generations. The premise that evolution requires a single generation to produce something completely different (your frog example) does not fit in with the evolution model. It is because of this much larger time scale, and the massive amount of generations, that natural selection combined with micro changes can tie in with evolution.

[ballaratdragons]

To throw a lighter side into the thread, one of my christain friends often gets people saying to him that they don't believe in God.

His reply is: "if he ain't real, how come you know his name?" :lol:

[GrahamL]

oops

[GrahamL]

Well said alex .. science and religion have always had there tussles over the course of history .. today is no differant IMO, I think both will coexist as they always have , the human condition of challenging
whats dished up will always win the day ..no matter what
threats stack against it today or times passed.
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Bruno.htm

The little I have read on the ID side from memory was a single state
in the US attempted to pass this as law ,quite a lot of years ago
and failed ..happy new year and festivus greatings to all from
an optimistic athiest :P

[fringe_dweller]

Mick, I believe the arguement lies in the fact that a group of like/single minded people with a very solid agenda, are perhaps/possibly? behaving fraudulently and dishonestly when they claim they are unbiased by their faith, and that a matter of faith is actually a scientific fact, and claim it is factual real science, and ipso facto should be included in science curriculums/books, thats where the arguement lies, not wether some people are somehow being persecuted and not allowed to believe what they want to believe - I see no evidence of that? I believe the persecutiion is the other way round.

interesting to read in todays paper (adelaide, advertiser jan 5, page 19 article titled 'no doubting thomas') Australian Astronaut Andy Thomas express his views on ID and other things!
One of the things he says amongst others is ... ' ..the internet is full of "snake oil merchants" who use the language of science to look like experts.." '

i just hope this wonderful gift from God/the great spirit/ universe in the organ we call 'the brain' is not wasted, as in the parable of the geezer who just sat on use his gifts or put them to healthy use and gain, naughty man ;)

[xelasnave]

I think the moderators need a big thank you ..it must have been a hand wringing experience letting this thread run, holding the very real expectation that the next post could see blood in the streets as it were... Having thought about it more I want the big bang taken from science classes as well and recognition given to the only true religion..economices.
AND when you think about it, how much scientific work has come from the big bang theory for example.. to me this means it matters little be it right or wrong it has kept many humans fed and with purpose. No doubt ID can do likewise... now is that giving them a fair go or what..and I think you all know my personal views by now lean the other way.
alex

[Ric]

This thread has proved to be a fascinating and thoughtful discussion, I have really enjoyed reading it.
There is not much I can add that has not already been said.
My thoughts are that throughout history people have and always will have a belief or an opinion that will differ, that is fine. The hard part comes with not forcing it upon the next person.

Cheers

[Doug]

Andrew, you said:
Ok, so that is probably cutting to the chase on this issue.
Firstly my Frog example did not specify the degree of change, only that it was sufficient to warrant a new (hypothetical) genus. It doesn't matter if the frog has been a frog for a million or so generations first, there must ultimately come a point (according to evolution) when the offspring of the frog is no longer a frog. Where oh where is the sound irrefutable evidence? The fossil record isn't exactly bulging at the seams with millions, or thousands or even hundreds or tens of transitional types. In about every case, a fossil is already fully whatever. The early horses for example were about the size of a dog, but they were still horses, not some transitional thing between a horse and a ???

That is what is lacking, not theories, just hard plain good old fashioned solid evidence. You or I might be content to accept certain things, however as I pointed out earlier, the PhD set can not universally agree on these things, and we lesser beings ought to respect the learning of both sides, but in all fairness place the unproven/unprovable things in the faith basket until............

[xelasnave]

My wife levelled this critisism at me...

"We have to do things your way! You never let me have my opinion"
My answer was..

"what if I am right should we not follow that course"

AND here is the botom line to everything folks her reply says so much.

"It has nothing to do with who is right or wrong I am entitled to my opinion"

and is that not it in a nut shell? I took that on, and in spite of the way I present as single minded and cranky, as the foundation of our new relationship of mutual respect. Since then I try to have that approach with all... my manner probably says otherwise but I try to live this way now.

Opinions are like our children, no one else but us can challenge them, we ignore their faults as others see them but try to guide them to a time where they dont need us to survive.
alex

[Doug]

:thumbsup:

[ving]

I am with you on this one doug. there are no inbetween fossils, just theories to try and explain how a creature came to be as it is...
evolution is a theory, and until there is proof it will remain a theory. it reminds me of some one i was once talking to about conspiracy theories. he stated that there was evidence of said conspiracy and so therefore it lost its theory status... of course this guy was a nutter and was talking about govt cover ups of alien technologies or something (yawn).

and of course we come to ID... much if not all of this is built on faith... 'I know it to be true because i am told it is'. i would think it would take the type of person who believes in miracles and magic. whos to say these thing dont exist. maybe not all magicians are mere illusionists? maybe some can bend spoons just by rubbing them? i know someone who has seen a guy do this and he swore it really happened right in front of his eyes.
why not believe in magic? or maybe this is just more theories?

as for myself I dont think theres enought hard cold evidence either way to form a solid conclusion, and so i dont really have one :)

[ballaratdragons]

For the answer to all this and more, we need to ask teenagers.

They know everything!

[avandonk]

Let us get a few things straight

1. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
2. It follows from this that any scientific theory no matter how controversial has any bearing on the existence of God.

The major problem is that in the past and now, it is about power over others by setting the rules that are declared to be absolute,so that even the slightest doubt that arises can erode the power of the self appointed guardians of truth and justice.
Why these people of doubtful motive are scared about any new insight is that it shows them for the ignorant hypocrites they are. Thus any source of knowledge that erodes their absolute view of the 'truth' has to be stopped.

The word Heretic comes to mind.

There was a time that the major problem that faced forward christian thinkers was how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Maybe we could have a thread about this one. I doubt it.

All I ask all of you is to think carefully about how the Universe works. Superstition only seems to work if you have no real answers.

The Ipod would have brought gasps of amazement even in the 1950's let alone a GSO 16" Dob for less than the cost of a car in 1970's.

I will not argue about scientific fact such as Evolution as it is all in the peer reviewed literature.But to turn one facile arguement around...
Has any one seen a quantum mechanic ;) ? Ans. No.
The computer you are viewing this post on would not exist if it was not for a deep understanding of solid state Physics and the fabrication of devices that work on these principles.

Bert

[Doug]

Ahhh! I see, and this is ID? We are living in an Intel universe.:lol:

[Kal]

(in the spirit of the OP and the concensus that followed)

you can place unproven/unprovable things in the faith basket, and I respect that and have no qualm whatsoever with it, but for a faithless athiest like myself I cannot do this. Since I have no faith, I can only take small peices of evidence and make my own decisions and conclusions from them.

[xelasnave]

Bert said.....
"Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God".
I say....This is the current inadequacy of science;) .
Current science cannot prove the exsistence of God thats for sure and that is the problem that the "New" science of intelligent design seeks to rectify:D .
In a country that still has God referred to in the openning of parliment and generally recognised by the system... (consider the court room when evidence is taken from a witness on oath..an absolute recognition of God) we need science to get up to speed.
So it defies logic not to bring our science up to date with our legal system...Science is dragging the chain here and needs review to bring it in line with our legal system which when one thinks about it totally embraces the concept of God and his (her or it) real involvement in our day to day lives by being right there in the parliment and our courts.
The only remaining difficulty for the new science is to determine who is responsible for the unintelligent designs out there. No doubt research will determine Lucifere somehow was behind the faults showing up in some of those designs that will be found to be unintelligent ;) Of course I am joking but for serious inteligent design scientists I see a branch of the intelligent design science developing to cover the aspect of the designs that appear to ignorant humans as being unintelligent and reconcilling any difficulties or at least explaining them in a serious scientific context.
I have faith that our legal system can lead the way. Lawyers will be able to show scientists how one can work in an environment where God is recognised and respected yet all can still use his (her or it) backing to support their case, be they for the plaintiff or the defendant, or that they represent a serial killer or thief , without the fact that the other side will use the same God to support their side, seeming an inconsistent proposition. Many will say that the legal system is hypocritical but it just supports the proposition that everyone is equal under the law. It merely forces us all to recognise that God does enter our lives and has an active part in the running of things. Is not a murderer deserving of compassion, a thief forgiveness so why cant ID be given a chance???
alex

[Doug]

Ansrew said:
And you have faith in this process:D
cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

The intelligent design scientist can give us a better understanding of mass extinctions one would think... the species that become extinct presumably represent designs that have found wanting after trials and scrapted .. thats only a laymans view but it would be nice to get the scientific explanation of why certain designs are left run and others are scrapted... mmm now this is where the two sciences can nearly meet one would think.. scraping a design, alterring a design must come close to an evolutionary approach... see all can live on it seems.
... neither science probably realise they have such in common.
alex

[Rodstar]

Thanks Glenn for starting what has been a rather revealing discussion.

It seems to me that the debate on this thread is not ultimately about faith in creationism or ID, but rather, fundamentalism.

The classic features of fundamentalism, as I would define them, are:

1. A rigid uncompromising belief system.
2. A tendency to characterise the world in black and white terms.
3. A tendency to divide people into two camps, "us" and "them".
3. Arrogance and contempt for the belief and ideas for those who don't agree, adopting a language of exclusion where others are not allowed into the group unless they subscribe to mandatory beliefs.
4. A determination to convert "them" into becoming "us", often spoken of by adopting the language of war or a battle.
5. Holding such a belief system will often result in actual conflict, whether verbal or physical.

There is reference in the thread to the right-wing fundamentalism of the Bush administration. That administration is well-known for its very black-and-white analysis of world affairs, and in many ways may well reflect the definition given above.

Drawing upon the four features of fundamentalism I cited above, as example I note:

1. This thread is commenced by a call to war, "fighting the fight" and the thread starter describes interations with creationists in his early attempts as "battles". One of the battles he describes between 3 evolutionists and 200 creationists. He is now a strong believer in "doing a bit of 'back burning' in the school system (or in the community as a whole)". He recommends "targetting" teachers with a science background. He asks whether we are, "serious about attacking the "ID'ers". He declares that "It's time to act".

2. The thread-starter groups all creationists together with some very unfortunate perjoratives. Creationists "have no background in science or the scientific method" and have had their beliefs, "drilled into them". They are compared with "natives putting pins into a voodoo doll", are "cashed up", "live by the line 'spread the word'", use every resource available - even being sneaky". They are "well meaning but misguided people".

3. Another author says (referring to creationists), "one side wants to hide behind an impenetrable wall and then snipe from behind this wall under the guise of scientific argument with totally unsupportable 'evidence' or even worse misquoted half truths" and yearns for "an even playing field". The same author also speaks of the impact of the creationist movement as being "about power via the votes of the uninformed."

4. Another author decries creationism as unscientific. "if you are a scientist being whatever school you must already know the rules of the game....I will entertain "the science" if it entertains the rules of science." After asserting that creationism does not play by the rules of science, the author evicts creationists. "Observe the dress rules and you can come in....otherwise no entry".

I have the greatest empathy and agreement the most with those who speak of the importance of respect and tolerance. By attacking those of a creationist belief set in the way they have been attacked on this thread, the self-styled scientists are actually committing the same offence of which they accuse the "creationists". I would describe this attitude as scientific fundamentalism. I think there no place for scientific fundamentalism, in the same way that there is no place for religious fundamentalism.

It is simply inaccurate to assert that all creationists are unscientific (just as much in fact as it is to assume that all evolutionists are well-researched scientists!). There is a host of scientists in academic institutions in Australia and around the world who embrace scientific method and who also believe in a creator. The best man at my wedding is a CSIRO scientist who believes in a creator. In 2003, 50 scientists banded together to publish a text, "Why 50 Scientists Choose to believe in Creation".

As some have observed, it may be that the majority of those who believe in a creator are not included in the consideration of scientific fundamentalists because they DO NOT engage in fundamentalist tactics. Also, as Ken has rightly observed, most modern Christians do not fit the stereotype of "creationist fundamentalism". Most Christians I know accept that the universe is billions of years old, that geological processes takes millions of years, etc.

It is an interesting irony that modern science actually arose because it was assumed that there was a Creator who had made a world of order, which should therefore be capable of being studied. Science and faith are not the opposites some would assert.

[ving]

sir, you are not as faithless as you make yourself out to be! faith is not just about religion you know, we all have faith in one thing or another.

I have heard that if you jump off the sydney harbour bridge holdong a cat you are very likely to do great harm to yourself.... having said this are you going to try it to see if i am right or are you going to believe me? I dont think anyone has actually tried it so who knows, maybe what i heard is wrong :shrug:
;)

[xelasnave]

RE............
4. Another author decries creationism as unscientific. "if you are a scientist being whatever school you must already know the rules of the game....I will entertain "the science" if it entertains the rules of science." After asserting that creationism does not play by the rules of science, the author evicts creationists. "Observe the dress rules and you can come in....otherwise no entry".

So is such a position fundamentally wrong or right;)

I may not agree with what you say and will not fight to the dead for your right to say it but I enjoyed reading your thoughts and compliment you on a very well presented proposition.
Again thanks to the moderators for sufferring the pain of anticipation so that folks can present their views.
This is healthy and I for one now hold more respect for the ID scientist than I did only days ago when I thought they would not recognise the expectations of science.
Clearly many scientists have faith ther is more to things than their observations confine them to.. maybe I am jealous having fallen victim to a cynical view of life... sad when life has dealt me a fantastic hand.
My concern with our society is that the morals are going down hill.,, and frankly I will support anything that gives folk something to believe in, a purpose and a meaning... and above all a reason to be good and just.

Just remember folks I dont think I have ever said that I dont believe in God:eyepop: my lack of belief is in religion and its application by man.
OK I am prepared to listen.. what I would like to hear is some specific proposals as to what is to be taught... after all this is about education not religion ,faith or God. Specifics can be managed and hopefully minimises the possibility of a fundamentalist responce from either side.
alex

[xelasnave]

To Rod...Sorry I thought I had addressed you by name at the begining of my post.. I only just noticed and felt it proper not simply to edit and add in case you had read it already. I tend to write fast and loose (no doubt all have noticed) but if I take time to think things through I would not post one single thing anywhere anytime... so I send things off somewhat half baked and somehow learn to live with the mess. Down side sloppy text upside you all know what is on my mind...not suggesting anyone needs to know however... but I like to think this enables me to be candid.

Have a great day and keep the observsations coming.

alex

[fringe_dweller]

To my knowledge, there hasnt been in history one act of violence, coercion, invasion, political power hungry/seeking movement/party/army, war. mass murder by an organised group of these dangerous 'scientific fundamentalists'.
Sadly, cant say the same for the faith based fundamentalists of the many persausions throughout history. I think on the british tv crime shows they call this having 'form'.
As had been said many, many times before, with the term Creationism having so many different shades of gray in its camp, all the way from yes, darwin is maybe sorta onto something possibly, and that God moves in mysterious ways, and so who knows? maybe thats the way he/she did it, all the way up to the hardline 6000 yr old earth scenario (which btw is the main version I see when reading the modern current ID U.S evangelical version, which is really the version this thread is about, or so I thought)
how does one take ID seriously as a political/scientific movement when even amongst the creationist camp there is so much confusion and division!? is it like a icecream bar and you just pick what flavour suits your taste/mood? pretty hard to hit a moving target eh! its like fighting shadows! whereas 'science' is just a sitting duck due to its characteristic and pre-requisite openess and accountability to the ID snipers and their nothing better to do think tanks/marketing juggernaughts.
wow a whole 50 scientists!! must be true! geez how does that compare to the 70 000 aussie scientists/science teachers who signed the anti 'ID in aussie schools science classes' petition last year?
and I dont think you need a PhD to know when something is far fetched and a bit smelly, just common sense and experience?

[Kal]

In the context of my answer, I was referring to faith as religion, since that is how I interpreted the usage of the word from Doug who I quoted.

Out of context to what I quoted, of course I have faith. If I hold a pencil outstretched and let it go I have faith that it will fall :lol:

[mickoking]

I am, like the majority of posters here, a evolutionist. But I will defend the right of creationist's to put their theory forward and to have it intelligently debated in an open forum such as IIS and even at school.

I think that is the way to go :thumbsup: BTW good thread.

[mickoking]

They exist and science hasn't been 100% for humanity either. The Atomic bomb is probably the best example of science being used against humanity. There were also plenty of scientists who worked for, and used data from the Holocaust. Science is simply a tool, not something to be venerated. It is very good in achieving its aims but it also has short falls.

Just my 2 Bobs worth ;)

[matt]

Well, a corruption of Oppenheimer's original work. He himself later denounced the monster that his work later became.

But yes, science can also be turned to evil pursuits. Again, a reflection of the individuals who make the decision/s to twist something beautiful

[ballaratdragons]

God did a good job creating Evolution ;)

[Doug]

Well actually Andrew you mis uderstood my reference to faith.
Since I was talking about both sides of the issue, ie theists and atheists, I meant by faith, those things we can not prove empirically, but are most happy with, go into the respective faith baskets. So in my book an atheist has as much faith in his beleif as a theist has in his. Sorry if I did not make myself clear.

Doug

[Orion]

:) God did a good job creating man who created Evolution;)

[Glenn Dawes]

Hi guys,

I haven’t looked at this thread for a couple of days – talk about busy and I am pleased with the way the discussion has been conducted.

Firstly thanks to Rodstar for his great post and you are right I could be taken as some war monger! This probably needs a slight explanation. The opening thread was something I have been looking to put into words for some 30 years (why rush into anything ). I’ve seen immense frustrations across a wide range of people in the community from the obvious ones like teachers to even a perplexed guide at Jenolan Caves who was baled up by a Creationist when explaining the geological history of the caves to a group.

Rodstar , I never stated ALL ID people were uneducated about science, in fact I know of a well known astronomer in Aust who is. But overall they are in a minority.

I think we need to also think of what we are referring to when we say ‘GOD’. The God of ID is based on the literal description of a dubious text written by MEN around 1800 to 2000 years ago. Why do I say dubious? This is not from an atheistic view but are you aware there are a number of other documents (scriptures?) that didn’t make the cut? So the bible was not only written by men but somebody/people then decided what made the holy text and what didn’t. I was told this by a bible scholar who also told me that the original Hebrew word “Yom” (no idea of spelling) used in Genesis can just as easy be translated to ‘a period of time’ and not necessarily ‘a day’! But the creationists took this as the first few days, then counted (made an educated guess) on the number of generations, multipied by whatever, and you get 6000 years.

The other classic is the phrase “word of God”. As you can see from above I have gone to some length to lay its authorship on men but we can go further. The fact is the bible contains no information not known in the general population at the time it was written. Except for a wonderful philosophical basis there are no divine revelations, no specific predictions of future events. Remember, for hundreds of years the Earth was supposed to be the centre of not only the Solar System but the whole Universe. It took a while but science (using the scientific method) finally proved this, purely faith-based concept, as false. No Christian today would dare question this, but they used to!

This might surprise some, but I feel the IDers real motives has little to do with the Creationist concept. They know, even in the Christian community they are in a small minority. Church attendances have fallen dramatically and parents today don’t automatically send their children to Sunday School. This is their way of getting the word out to the masses.

(and may God have mercy on my soul)

Glenn

[Orion]

Amen.

[Kal]

OK, I misinterpreted what you meant. In a discussion of ID Vs evolution I see the word faith and think of Church on Sunday :sadeyes: :lol:

Yup I agree with what you are saying. If I have faith in one thing, it is my own judgement! :D

[Doug]

Glen wrote: Actually, the Bible never claims to be written by God, and only some parts are said to have been inspired by God, but still written by men except for the stone tablets Moses lugged down from the mountain. Please don't go on through life thinking the Bible claims it was written by God; well meaning, but misguided men make that claim.
'Yom or Yome, mostly means a day, however if accompanied by suitable other words and context can mean a period or an era eg 'in the day that....' could mean an era or a period, whereas; 'there was evening and morning the second day' etc. is a bit difficult to stretch into a billion years or so.
The other interesting comment you make is referring to the claim that the Earth is the center of the Solar System. Again, the Bible makes no such claim, nor does it support a flat Earth understanding. It is a great pity that people just assumed that the Earth was the center of all things, just as it is a great pity that the RC Church decided to butcher 'unbelievers' during the times of the Spanish inquisition and other incidents, I could go on and on as no doubt could you and others.
My point in addressing these issues is not to generate strife, rather to set a few records straight and to acknowledge that there have indeed been some unfortunate stances taken at times. BTW As I understand it, Universities were originally founded by the Church, which was a good thing, but then again it made life difficult for pioneers like Galileo and friends.
Well I don't want to take this off topic, so I'll leave you in peace at this point,
cheers,
Doug

[Glenn Dawes]

Hi Doug

[QUOTE=Doug;180067]Glen wrote: Actually, the Bible never claims to be written by God, and only some parts are said to have been inspired by God, but still written by men except for the stone tablets Moses lugged down from the mountain. [QUOTE=Doug;180067]

I agree, of course it was written by man. The 'word of God' phrase was what was pushed by my church (when I went) and quite commonly used by the people supposed to know.

[QUOTE=Doug;180067]'Yom or Yome, mostly means a day, however if accompanied by suitable other words and context can mean a period or an era eg 'in the day that....' could mean an era or a period, whereas; 'there was evening and morning the second day' etc. is a bit difficult to stretch into a billion years or so [QUOTE=Doug;180067].

Do you think the people of the day would have any concept of billions anyway (no wonder it is interpreted as 'day')

[QUOTE=Doug;180067] The other interesting comment you make is referring to the claim that the Earth is the center of the Solar System. Again, the Bible makes no such claim, nor does it support a flat Earth understanding. It is a great pity that people just assumed that the Earth was the center of all things, just as it is a great pity that the RC Church decided to butcher 'unbelievers' during the times of the Spanish inquisition and other incidents, I could go on and on as no doubt could you and others.
My point in addressing these issues is not to generate strife, rather to set a few records straight and to acknowledge that there have indeed been some unfortunate stances taken at times.[QUOTE=Doug]

I certainly accept what you say and that many stances taken reflect the attitude of the church at the time - which really are Men (often peddling their own self interests in the name of God)

[QUOTE=Doug;180067] BTW As I understand it, Universities were originally founded by the Church, which was a good thing, but then again it made life difficult for pioneers like Galileo and friends.[QUOTE=Doug]

Absolutely, the Vatican Observatory remains a major astronomical research body. There is no conflict here with ID because the Catholic Church has rejected creationism.

Glenn

[astroron]

I have followed this thread closely and with interest.
I came across this article on the BBC website, take a look it will concare with all Glenn says.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm

[ballaratdragons]

After much reading on the subject of ID, I have selected some notations worth placing here.

You may notice that ID is NOT a Christian belief or faith. The proponants of ID are attempting to 'attach' it to Christainity to use Theology to give their theory a basis.

This first Quote is the basis of the ID theory:

"The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" (ID) was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes."

This 2nd quote shows their own confusion

"Intelligent design does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation – it merely states that one or more must exist."

One or More?

This 3rd quote shows he does not have a clue

"Dembski in The Design Inference speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements."

This 4th quote shows that not only Atheists are against ID

"The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, often on theological or moral grounds. Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material."

The unfortunate part of this ID is that the 'Church' is being dragged into it without being taught the actual beliefs behind the founder.

Blame the founder, not sections of the community.

I (a Christian) do not take hold of this ID.

This theory could almost be labelled as a 'cult'.

[ariane]

Put simply, Intelligent Design (ID) cannot be a theory, because it has no real physical or observable evidence to prove its case - either for or against.

Science has never, and never will, be founded based on religious faith but on realistic empirical and verifiable evidence. A theory (or postulate) is then produced to objectify the facts of that available evidence. Further scientific observations either confirms or denies the theoretical basis, under strict rules which then often leading to new advances via further experimentation and/or improved methodologies. Sometimes we refine the results, other times they are discarded them and create new improved theories.

Some do argue that evolution is an "opposing metaphysical theory" - keeping on the fence. Here metaphysics means an actual theory transcending physical matter or the laws of nature - the realm where "God" is supposed dwell being - a spiritual concept. Clearly nothing in science is metaphysical. If it is - then it is not science!

This is basically why Judge John Jones tossed out the Dover case in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in the recent judgement (14th Feb 2006) banning intelligent design from American classrooms.

To quote him exactly, Judge Jones said in the 139-page decision;?
"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,"

He went on to say;

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions,..."

Most creationists still hold the old middle-ages myths and suppositions that those against religion at heart are to be classed as evil and heretical. Ie. Having classical concept of religious faith that; "Good and Evil are inextricably linked in a metaphysical battle across space and time."

Evolution is neither good or evil - its just a theory to explain how the world changes.

Frankly ID is just a "cult" not really about God but more about "being right".

More worrying is these now desperate zealots recently have again changed tack - now calling intelligent design as the "critical analysis of evolution."

Clearly this is just creationism with a new name.

[ariane]

I have recently personally gained a number of very significant enemies in the last few years regarding ID - especially among the members of the "Discovery Institute" (http://www.discovery.org/). :scared: :scared:
This is mainly because I have repeated toy describe them as a "fanatical religious cult", but oddly my only written ideas on this subject have been mainly I have been made within Australia.

While I do see there seems a fair balance of contributors, I am slightly concerned with the merits of what is aimed to be achieved here.

If, as Glen argues, we should be respectful of those holding "faith" views that cannot be validated in the physical world?

Should we not be instead informing and educating the genuine scientific views of the world based on available empirical evidence.

Perhaps, the opposite is true. Shouldn't those with "non-faith" positions have the very same respect from the ID'ers ?

Perhaps you might like to read the ID'ers view of teaching evolution ann ID in schools at http://www.discovery.org/csc/scienceEducation/, under the article "Teaching About Evolution in the Public Schools: A Short Summary of the Law."?

As towards my own personal stand against ID, some of my views are;

For me, many of those who hold the views of intelligent design (ID) are just religious extremists hell-bent on bamboozling the average Joe to enter into a second dark-age of ignorance and intolerance and are against genuine understanding of human social advancement or the human condition. Concerning to me is that if they do gain a strangle-hold in the Western-world, it is almost believable that they would soon derail the honest gains of science and be willing to take extreme measures against those who disagree - on the dubious grounds of heresy. (Think of Joan of Arc here)

The ID's say as their main caveat;

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged,"

However, their agenda is broader, being in fact almost against anything in science have the word "evolution" associated with it. Ie. Cosmology, stellar evolution, astronomy, biology, psychology, and even animal and human physiology.

They also believe that the metaphysical constrains on the science makes them off limits to their religious views.

One specific example is about stellar evolution - mainly to claiming it is wrong mainly because the Bible says "the stars are the same age". If you inspect a number of their web-sites - although indeed the biological and human evolution are attacked with some vigour - and so are those who adhering to stellar evolution.

Simply, compared to Darwinism, stellar evolution is probably beyond any real question - we see changes in variable stars all the time. So much so, that if the present theories were so wrong we would have to return to believe he Earth-centred system and just start again! The problem is that the Discovery Institute ACTUALLY BELIEVES that the Earth is 6000 years old, which was said to be started in 4004 B.C. (23rd Oct, 9pm) as calculated by Bishop Usher in the 15th Century. They say; Evolution must be wrong - whether you agree to it or not - because the evolutionary process cannot take less than 6 000 years. All observational and scientific evidence points clearly to the fact that the Earth is very much more than 6 000 years old.

Regarding the creation and nature of the stars, sun, moon and the heavens are often quoted by ID's from Genesis. Interestingly, there are revealed in the Bible with Matthew, Mark and Revelation about the biblical view of the nature of the sun, moon and stars. Those who believe in these aspects of eschatology during arrival of the so-called Great Apostasy, also agree Matthew 24:29; "...that the Sun will be, darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven." This is also repeated in Mark 13:24; "...the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light."

[The literal interpretation is also interesting. If we look in Isaiah 30:26, which says the same thing, it is said "The light of the moon shall be as the light of the Sun", suggesting that the the light of the moon does comes by reflection of light from the sun. What is also interesting is there are 12 references to the moon and its light being extinguished, and 29 references for the stars to do the same.]

From these two earlier quotes, it is clearly sunlight will weaken in the last days, and this is often quoted as having an understanding of the geometry Earth, Sun and the Moon. However, what is not right, is that the stars falling from heaven is not even remotely possible.

ID's have no alternative, if the literal writing of the Bible is accepted,that this is true, but clearly the real world just isn't like this. If the sun is claimed to stop shining by natural processes (stellar evolution) in these remarks, then for it to do so would take more than one million years to do so just from the stored amount radiant heat held in the sun. Others in the 19th Century considered this as indication that the sunlight here was going to be extinguished by an interstellar nebula, like the Orion Nebula. Unfortunately, the density of these clouds is not great, and it was calculated by the late-cosmologist Fred Hoyle, that if this happened the sun would drop in brightness by 0.05% - thus not really noticeable!

So in my iew, either the ID is correct, or the whole science of astronomy is just a lie!

Another of my interests is the apocrypha book of Enoch; the deemed "secret", missing or hidden book. It is interesting to me that this once popular book was slowly hidden by the Christian Church because of the views on the structure and nature of the Heavens. The book was simply eliminated because it describes the geocentric view of the Universe - the Earth being the centre of all - holding the Aristotle's universe as being God's word. It is also the basis of the Catholic views on the order in Heaven of the angels, archangels, saints, etc.

From Enoch's point of view of God, everything is in a natural and supernatural order, mirroring the relationships between the old feudal pecking order of the god-given social need of authority over the whole population and the controlling means of a huge descending social order of any master to his servant(s).

(Some, for example like, the Jehovah's Witnesses have extended this to the 144,000 of them reigning with God - 12,000 from each of Israel's Twelve tribes - who will be the as deemed authorities 'rulers' over all those saved in heaven who will live in the presumed New Earth.)

It is the very essence of imposing one's religion on the rest of humanity, and the traditional means of religious control of the church on the state. From this view, The Bible is not only a religious or theistic book but a political one - and cleverly written. The text is the basis on the moral and humanistic control of individuals via a minority by the 'adherents to the faith', that cannot be challenged without eternal retribution from a presumed ruler in an unseen metaphysical realm.

This is the clearest example of improper interference by the Church is the imposing humanistic control on Christianity. If the ID followers want us to follow the absolute written interpretation of the Bible, then why cover up the book of Enoch (and other apocryphal books) when it clearly holds the wrong view of the cosmology of the world? Ie. If this is deemed not to be true, as it was by the Romans representing the Church in 324AD, then how can one accept the book of Genesis as being correct. Who decides that one book is based on the true doctrine and another is not?

[ariane]

An further interesting discussion on this can be read at;

http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

[ariane]

One of the interesting places for ID and Astronomy is at "Answers in Genesis" Those who are interested might like to see all the ID/Christian astronomy articles at;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/astronomy.asp

The stellar evolution example, quoted in my previous posts are at;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#55

This site also has a commercial book section;
(See http://www.answersingenesis.org/)

I have purchased the books below for my own interest, the bettr astronomy ones being;

"Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe Through Biblical Glasses" DVD
"Distant Starlight : Not a Problem for a Young Universe" DVD
"Starlight and Time Pack" Book & DVD
"The Astronomy Book" Dr. Jonathan Henry (Book)
"Taking Back Astronomy : The Heavens Declare Creation" (Book)

[See http://shop5.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/30-9-087]

I should say, one of very best is "What Does the Bible Say about Astronomy?" by Dr. Jason Lisle. This is the cheapest new astronomy book in the whole world, being priced a $0.75 US, $0.50 for discount members, and only $0.29 each if you buy 100 of them!

Some other interesting technical articles include;

Dr. Jason Lisle;
"Taking back astronomy: the heavens declare “creation”! "
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0711astronomy.asp
and
"Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.asp

John G. Hartnett;
"Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/microwave.asp

and "Echoes of the big bang … or noise?"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/echoes.asp

Dr. Danny Faulkner;
"Have cosmologists discovered evidence of inflation?"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0329inflation_indepth.asp

Disclaimer: I have no personal connection with these authors or this site, and only do so to tell members here of some of the astronomy related issues with ID resources.
I also DO NOT hold many of the views stated within these given items.

[ving]

actually it is the lack of physical evidence that makes both ID and evolution theories. neither of them have enough eveidence in my mind to call them fact.

Theories: lets take for example the term conspiracy theory. one might say 'theres a strange turn of events, someone must be behind it' and theres your conspiracy theory. theres no real evidence exept for the fact that an event happened and didnt happen by its self... now some paperwork is found regarding the planning of said event, so it is no longer a theory but a fact but if there is no name attached one might form thoeries on who might be behind it.

so being that in both ID and evolution there are no hard cold facts but huge holes they are both theories, yes? :)

[xelasnave]

Thats fine Ariane but do you have any real proof:D ;)
Thank you for an such a comprehensive presentation of facts. Excellent.
Still I would love to hear a specific proposal as to what it is that those for the ID camp propose that should be taught in our schools in Australia such that Mr Brendon Nelson can even entertain the proposition for a moment (or more it seems). After all we have the recurring concern that ID will be slipped in upon us when our attention (politically) is focused elsewhere... mmm now has that been done before? SO what can we expect to wake up one morning and find.. politics being politics my fear is not unreasonable.
Great work I thank you for the time you have taken to present the real facts to the forum.
I salute you:thumbsup: .
alex

[ving]

hi alex,
i dont see what the problem with ID being taught at school is... i was taught ID and it hasnt harmed me. I am as openminded to both sides of teh debate as anyone could be. I am not brainwashed...

maybe both theories should be taught?

and why is the word fear being used in reagrds to ID so much. is it because if we find it to be true then all those with faith in teh evolution theory fear the concequences? ;)

[xelasnave]

Er Ving the term theory in science could be substitued with the phrase.. a collection of ideas supported by evidence supported by experiment and observation, taking the ideas beyond mere supposition. In science the term theory has strong implications and in fact the use of the word theory is misleading to those who do not understand the requirements of a theory in science... the "theory" of evolution is as such more than a "theory" because of the requirements demanded by science of a theory. For those not undestanding of the special meaning the word theory hold in science leads them to believe its use indicates merely an idea or unproven notion. This is not the case.
For science to embrace a concept and let it wear the term theory requires much more than I suspect the average person thinks..much much more.
The fact that science calls Dawins proposition a thoery means that there will be found much evidence (if one looks) that says research shows an almost inescapable conclusion based on experiment, observation and prediction.
This is my way of trying to say..using the word theory is dangerous when talking to a scientist because you say theory he does not hear the word that way. To a scientist a theory is closer to fact whereas the layman thinks theory suggest room for doubt.
I mistakenly would call my ideas about Universal pressure..my "gravity rain theory" ...well that is wrong it is nothing more than an "idea" as it has nothing of the requirements demanded by science if one uses the term "theory".
The use of the term theory almost implies the opposite for science to what a laymen would think. I am sorry if this sounds unclear perhaps someone with better ability to express the situation I seek to outline can make it a little clearer.
alex

[xelasnave]

AND I simply want to know what is proposed.. a nuts and bolt statement as to what is to be taught.. I honestly am not seeking to dismiss ID. I like most may have a confused idea of what it is that is proposed.. now all I ask is some specific statement. Do Intelligent Design Scientists have any text books in mind, can I see them? What will students be examined upon in the proposed courses.What will they be expected to understand in order to pass. As I mentioned earlier some specifics may see those who are in opposition come around and say "well fair enough if you put it that way...go ahead".
Seems a reasonable request to me unrelated to matters of faith, science, politics and religion..the issue finally is one of education and what education is being proposed.. If we are dealing with education lets put on the table the matters being taught.
Some specific direction is needed. I feel that if we are talking about ID as a matter to be taught to our children we need to know what is going to be taught.. thats not unreasonable, that is not confrontational ..that is a parent of a child attending school asking...what do you propose in my kids classes..
an simple question seeking a relatively simple answer. I am adopting an open mind for a change take advantage of the narrow window of time presented.
alex

[ving]

well in that case I like both the ID and evolution ideas. because by the definition given theres just too many hole for evolution to be a scientific theory ;)

the ID textbook have been around for eons by the way... its called the bible. :P
what will the children be taught? religion.... theres a nice thread onthe forum about religion being taught in schools. alot of people said something along the lines of 'I wont have that stuff forced down the throat of my kids'... but once again, it doesnt hurt and I am proof of that myself. I was tought religion at school and tho i am not a relgious person (contrary to my teachings) i think it has taught me some good values. So just what are we all afraid of? Maybe its true and all the non-believers (including myself) are going to hell? where is the harm? I personally am able to make up my own mind on issuse reagarding ID and evo. I do tend to prefer the evo idea(:P) but i am open to a faith driven idea of how things came to be too.
just because children might be taught ID school doesnt mean they are going to be closed or single minded individuals that believe naught but what the bible tells them.

[xelasnave]

Gee Ving I cant complain I asked for a simple answer and got one:eyepop: :thumbsup: .
I like to take the ruling classes view of it all ..we need religion taught in schools to give a moral basis to our society.
When I was a kid people seemed to do the right thing because they feared God would know and punish them.. today without that fear the choice between wrong and right is determined by an assessment of will I get caught..God is being replaced by closed circuit cameras as the observer of all... So the question presents to one..how does one instal decency and a respect for the law other than to be motivated by fear of getting caught.
So it comes down to this we are talking about religious classes when we talk of ID ...fair enough I have no problem with that:eyepop: . Its nice to have someone say what they mean not try to hide the real addgendah.
Thanks for your truthfulness I respect you for that.
alex

[oziemouse]

One of the interesting facets of human nature is the never-ending quest to compartmentalise everything.

To explain things that appeared un-explainable, indigenous Australians used stories passed down from generation to generation. To these people, their stories were their religion.

And so the same goes for every other religion around the globe, each believing what it is that they have been told – Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Pagan etc etc.

Perhaps “God” and “Evolution” is in fact one of the same. Its just that the “God” version takes on more of a animate character as a creator – and therefore more “appealing”, or perhaps more easily understood at the time of the writings – than purely the shifting of genes or rearranging of DNA.

Steve

[ving]

:lol: no prob alex :)
mind you, once again despite me teachings in religion at school it was fear of my fathers wrath that made me do the right thing (btw he is not religous at all)
what can you do? some people are just born without morals...:shrug: even i fell off the rails (to coin a phrase) a few times. it happens. we thrown all sorts of obstacles in our lives and hopefully by the time we are adults we can distinguish right from wrong.
:)

[Omaroo]

One thing I'd like to know: Why can I find plenty of information about WHO contributed WHEN to the Bible (as a work of fiction), but cannot easily find anyhing describing WHY it was written .... what was the impetus? :shrug:

[ving]

apperently god told them to... thats why ;)

[Doug]

Fiction:eyepop: Well anyway maybe this will suffice: Luke 1 1:4

That is Luke's motive anyway, not hard to find really.
Other than that there are about 18 direct and several other references to writing the various books of the Bible, some of which are historical, not fiction. Some are wisdom, not fiction, still others are poetry, not fiction. Some are pastoral, hardly fictional even if their message is not valued.

[Omaroo]

Fiction? Almost certainly... and from what I can gather it is a collection of Hebrew myths and history most likely distorted over time. We have trouble accurately interpreting events that happened 200 years ago, let alone thousands. It is, however, a best seller I believe.

[ving]

...and has a plot thick with murder, mystery and hayhem! wiht a love interest or 2 in it to keep the girls happy ;)

not that evolution has any more fact to it mind you... mostly guess work from what i can tell ;)

[Doug]

I have heard evolution described as nursery rhymes for grownups.:rofl:

[Omaroo]

We're not stooping to this are we? It's an excellent way to lose any credibility.

Time to exit...... :) This appears to be going nowhere.

[Doug]

Well that should evoke no more offence that references to other things being fictional should it? But I do agree this thread has been showing overall a tone of mutual respect, lets 'ALL' endevour to keep it that way.

[RB]

This would be nice guys, please try and keep it civil.
Makes our job a lot easier.
After all us mods are only human too. :D

[ariane]

While I also admire the idealism of tolerance towards religion - especially if it teaches useful moral values - but what has this to do with the nature of the physical world and the changes that occur in it?

Essentially, the problem with any believed religious text is that its indoctrinated followers of its sacred words cannot really deviate AT ALL from its basic precepts - unless you are willing to be labelled a heretic. ID'ers have absolutely no choice but to "stick like glue" to their religious beliefs - without any wavering, questioning or compromising - else they have to abandon the basis of heir faith and look for something else with better or more useful meaning to them.

In science all fundamental or considered theories are up for grabs, and can be shattered if sufficient evidence can be mounted against it.

To compare these two views, let's take a silly but useful example.

Premise : Gravity always makes something fall to the ground

But what if it once did the exact opposite, and rose into the air? If this happens, do you just throw out all your gravitational laws of physics deduce from Einstein to Newton?

If any religious or firm ID'er mind - does not this amazing "miracle event" simply reinforce your faith - again directly proving the existence of God (or the aliens) - proving his absolute mastery over the laws of nature? The question remains; How do you decide if this is a true "miracle" or an unknown quirk of the laws of nature that you just don't understand?

On the other hand, if you use science - there are at least logical steps to solve it.

You would first investigate the phenomena. Usually, this would be done in two simultaneous ways. First you would design experiment(s) to reproduce or observe the event again, while considering what situation would cause you laws to deviate then formulate new ideas - using other tools like maths or other physically observed laws and precepts - to explain the actual observations.

You may fail many times. You might find the reason, then produce a modified "law of gravitation" to explain it. You might never see gravity do this again - but at least you have made a logical and realistic means of explaining how the world behaves and works.

This is the basis of the so-called scientific method - based on the philosophy known as reductionism. (Looking at something, then inspect the components to explain how it works.)

In the end, in fact really all science is based on many many different theories, which are never really absolute. We know gravity has always caused things to drop to the ground - and it is for this reason - that we can use the theory of gravitation with much certainty without any fear that something contrary to it will unexpectedly happen.

The one thing the ID'ers miss is that science is about a logical methodology of learning how the world works, then applying this knowledge to our lives.
The reason you teach science so people can learn the rules of the scientific method, and if they are clever enough or lucky enough, use their abilities to find another way of explaining how the world works. In turn, this knowledge can be used for invention - via applied science - and advance technology for the benefit of others.

The real evil of ID is that it has NO methodology to prove or disprove anything. All it has is a series of premises or calverts which it believes to be true - not based on any known scientific theory - but from their personal or collective "faith" of interpretation of words written in some revered religious text.

In summary;

All ID is designed for is one main purpose, that is, to attempt to prove God's existence via the complexity of the world.

Science is only explaining this same complexity by is attempting to understand how the physical world works by experimentation and developing our theories of the world into knowledge.

These two incomparable views are like day and night - totally separate
from each other.


So the bottom line is that God may or may not exist. Whether you believe or not is based solely on having "faith" in the kind of world-view you have exposed too. Regardless, being an ID'er or "Evolutionist, if this makes you feel happier or better about yourself, then good luck to you.

[ving]

and why would they want to abandon thier beliefs, for is it not the word of god that drives them? god cannot lie therefore if it comes from god then its the truth and theres no reason to want to question it. if its god miracle then its god miracle, theres no need to probe it with 1 thousand scientific experiments.
jump off the harbour bridge and you'll hurt yourself, its the truth! you dont need to go and try it to find out cause thats silly. :)

yes its single mindedness, but i respect that even if its not my own belief.

[Kal]

That's a pretty broad generalisation/stereotype. Straight off the top of my head I can think of religious organisations that are making changes to things such as female priests, or their approach to homosexuals or contraception. Religion doesn't necessarily follow the text of the bible to the very letter, and it is often changing as necessary as the civilisation around it changes.

[xelasnave]

Kal said........
Religion doesn't necessarily follow the text of the bible to the very letter, and it is often changing as necessary as the civilization around it changes .

This is the problem... and the expression.."You can’t have your cake and eat it" springs to mind.

Have you read the bible from cover to cover? I have many times..Why because I attended bible readings where certain parts were reviewed and yet other parts of the book were never never touched upon..I read it all and when one reads it all an apparent truth becomes self evident.. If one reads the bible from cover to cover and then hears someone call it the word of God ones respect for God will fall away..That is/was the situation for me.. Read proverbs for example and try and make sense of it..(Let alone the horseman ramblings which are capable of any interpretation you place upon them such is the ambiguity of that section...I know you have to be wise to interpret it etc..hogwash it says what it says..simple... sure parts are profound yet other bits are undeniably nonsense... I like some one here observing that it was man who said the bible was the word of Man not God... well I say one can not have it both ways ..it is or it is not the word of God.. if it is not we have no problems at all and can use it (the bible) as a guide for morality, use it as revealing histories of various people and how patience and decency prevailed against difficult times presented to them.. I like the bible in that context.. But I freely admit my use of it is selective somewhat like seeking good quotes from famous people... So it beggars belief there are those who quote only parts that suit their case and overlook the nonsense set out at length elsewhere.. I guess my real concern is that so many professing faith simply hold onto a text they have not read for if they had they would have different views to those they currently express.
However if one say it (the bible) is the word of God we must of necessity give it a very high degree of reverence... which if I were convinced that such was the case would be doing myself.. if it were not for the nonsence..which would then have me questioning God's ability to hold reasonable logic.
My point is that if one sees the book for what it is it can be meaningful..a collection of stories seeking to demonstrate how to deal with life in general..
Again the problems surrounding these matter come down to fundamentalism.. but if anyone want to take the bible as literal before you say one more thing read all of it... if you have not be prepared to be made a fool of many times over.
Having said all that lets review our progress. Those of faith want recognition of their position.. fair enough.. but you can throw out science to have this or you will take us back to the dark ages.
Those who argue the bible is the word of God say his hand was ever present in the putting together of the texts ..the editing, the publication etc well I say if so God left to much in the hands of humans because their are some very human oversights contained therein.
I am not here to try and destroy your faith in God but to ask fundamentalists go away and rethink it all... and then agree with me..is that unreasonable.. well yes maybe that is..
I live by Christian principles not because I fear God, I observe the law not because I fear imprisonment but because I strive to be a decent human being.. I want to feel that being decent is a good thing in its own right not needing fear motivation. I don’t need religion to do that or even a belief that anything has purpose or meaning.. Look to yourself and be proud of what you can be without being forced to follow rules.
JC said love your fellow man..who really does this.. I do and that means one can extend respect to others simply because it is the decent thing to do..
AND if your faith is that so tenuous that you need constant support by reading a collection of ancient books to justify your position what does that really say about where you are coming from and more important where you will end up...
At lunch today I eavesdropped a Christian group planning. nay plotting politician strategies .. most concerning.. I have not heard any atheists plotting same. Shame on them ..shame on them.
It strikes me the folk who have contributed the most here for the case against ID actually know more about the bible than those who profess to follow it.. think about those implications my friends.
What would God say if he saw the way his name is taken in vain to push one barrow or another...
alex

[Glenn Dawes]

Hello all,

I would like to thank ariane for his wonderful posts. He has reminded me of a lot of things I’d forgotten – such as the book of Enoch.

I admit to being a little shocked, but not surprised, by the creationist natural museum (thanks to astron for pointing it out)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm

We know one of the major criticisms levelled at evolution has been the lack of transitional fossils (even this isn’t true but I’ll leave it at that). It is obvious the IDers give some credence to fossils, and what science says they represent, or they wouldn’t have life size models of them at this museum. Unfortunately, they have them happily co-existing with primitive humans. Now there are few certainties in science, but there is universal agreement that Man and dinosaurs never met. So a requirement to be an IDer is to happily accept what science says to suit their arguments and ignore what doesn’t – not exactly critical thinking!

At the start of this thread I made a call to arms to combat ID penetrating the school system. I mean here avoiding it standing side by side with evolution in the science classroom (and don’t be fooled, that IS what they want – not just in a scripture class). They are happy to hide behind PC to get their way, such as demanding they have a right for equal time (but not too strong on the why?). Well I have the solution to kill it. We need to point out to all ethnic communities in Australia what ID really is ie. Thinly disguised fundamentalist Christianity. The same mobs that complained about even Christmas being celebrated in your local shopping centre will shut it down real fast! (I know a lot about this, my wife’s family is Lebanese Muslim)

There is a real passion in IIS on this subject. I would love to see some positive actions taken, not just further talk on this thread. I intend to make a start.

Regards

Glenn

[Lester]

Man and dinosaurs did co-exist. The word dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible because the word "dinosaur" only originated 165 years ago= well after the Bible was written.

The book of Job talks about Behemoth and Leviathun.

[Glenn Dawes]

Lester,

I see you have pulled out the 'because the bible tells me so' card.

Based on this I could say the creatures from the legends of the Greek and Norse Gods were real as well because they were written down thousands of years ago by what I consider to be a reliable source.

In your and my case Science would quite correctly ask for independent evidence to back up our claims. And we don't have any.

Glenn

[xelasnave]

Now Glenn lets back it off a little...Lester in fairness feels his beliefs are under threat because lets face it this thread has revealed some rather alarming aspects about fundamentalism, which may not apply to all persons of faith.
Let’s interpret his input with respect and an effort to explain a possible misconception. We can make statements in this area that seem black and white to cover a grey area. I had hoped someone would pick up on my eaves dropping and particularly point out that no doubt atheists are guilty of the plotting I suggested.. It was a nasty trap and thinking about it I really feel guilty setting it.. Maybe it was so obvious all stepped over it.
But the solution must be found by seeking common ground that we can all happily share.
I can understand the frustration and concern of a parent having guided their child to believe in God and use such as a basis to build a simple morality set of norms for the child to have it all called into question when the child comes home from school saying that the science master said Darwin has in effect proved the bible incorrect. In many regards the truth in that instance may be damaging. I suspect much of the problem for the average person can be found here. I sense that apart from the fundamentalist there is a genuine need to address this issue at the level. After I found out Santa Clause was a hoax I never trusted anyone again as it was the first lie I felt I was a victim of.. I suspect that the damage to a young person finding out Santa was a lie is nothing compared to the revelation that the science master says that the bible is wrong. I bet most persons of faith merely want a proposition put that there are various views available and leave the final choice as to what should be taken literally in the bible put off to such a time where the child can make more advanced assessments. If the child is intelligent in time they can build their own faith, taking from science and the bible.. Their facts may be disjointed but at least the "fundamental" goal of a moral foundation has been laid.
I went to Sunday school and in truth it did me more good than harm.. I wish there was a better alternative but I am at a loss to suggest one. Many people don’t really need to know the truth if you think about it... and are very happy being distant from the truth. That does not make them bad or stupid.. But it gives them something to hang onto. Life for many is without meaning or purpose if faith can give it I say why not.. So it turns on how to get around the Santa syndrome I recon. Maybe a disclaimer at the start of a Darwinian lecture that science cant say why its done this way but that God must have his reasons. If we could seek the innermost views of the Pope I suspect he would not be taking the Bible literally for he would have read it cover to cover many times and would be more aware of the shortcomings than most.. even me or you.. But I doubt that when on the balcony he is going to try and explain that to a mob of people of various backgrounds, experience and intellect.
The solution is perhaps to lend an ear to the concerns of the ID camp, the troops as it were not those who use the parent’s fear of a moral collapse to build a pretext for a new science. I have in my postings here tried to put aside my strong opposition to look behind the fundamentalist view to see what it is that concerns the Mum and Dad who spend the money for an education at a school that supports their beliefs.. I think they are finally not trying to instill religion into their children as much as they are trying to lay the foundations a decent moral outlook.
Think of my case, here I am someone who in effect practices the moral principles of Christianity yet does not believe Jesus was the son of God or the resurrection or that 144,000 Jews will rule us from heaven.. curious really.. maybe the reason why I challenge all thinking now is because of the many anomalies I found. by myself at my pace through out the bible.
Maybe the Santa syndrome has built a large part of who I am today.. cynical yet analytical, suspicious but caring, open minded but not gullible.
But one thing is for sure if we offer no refuse for the parents I see in my minds eye the fundamentalist can only prosper as they have no where else to turn.
I still see the fundamentalist ID er in a very poor light as I do the person who professes faith who has never read all of the bible cover to cover.(read the parts before the start of Genesis for a good insight)
I agree ID must be headed off but lets try and bring the more sensible folk back to the real world and save them from these fundamentalists.
alex

[avandonk]

The basic problem here is that a Faith based construction is masquerading as Science and there is a very powerful push to teach it as such.
I have no problem with any Religion or any Faith based teaching as long as it is taught for what it is, a moral guide to living with your fellow humans.

Secondly these same fundamentalists no matter what flavour are about absolute power over all their fellow mankind. In order to do this they define what is correct only to maintain their power. Anything that shows how lacking they are in any real knowledge is a threat to their absolute self appointed power so must be negated.
How many people have been tortured,killed etc through history because of mere fact of their doubting of these 'absolute truths' no matter how implausible. This is happening at this moment. Nothing has changed only the cast.

There always seems to be an over abundance of people lacking scruples to use any means to gain and maintain power.

The words sociopath and psychopath come to mind. I wont go into all the scandals of the hypocrites through history and in current times. Preaching from on high and sinning better than the worst of us.

There are only two sins Hypocrisy and Ignorance. If you think carefully it covers the lot.

Bert

[ariane]

Oh my god!

Is Santa really a hoax?

Tell me its not true.....

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[Doug]

Dinos and man?? well there exists on scientific record a Dino footprint fossil with a human foot print embedded in it. 70 million years part? I donut think so. The fossil, from memory was found in Wyoming USA and as far as I know there exists no refutation of this find or its time-line interpretation, unlike the fragment of pig jaw that was hailed for many years as an important homosapien find in china. Pilkdown man, was perhaps the greatest 'missing link' fraud ever perpetrated by evolutionists, unless someone wants to form a conspiracy theory and blame fundamentalists. Let's be honest; both sides have agendas; both sides have less than ultimately honest adherents.

Glenn, all I ask of any evolution evangelist is show me scientifically based proof. Don't just say there is proof and move on......put on the table if it exists.

Alex, you admit to having read the Bible cover to cover, ok fine believe me when I tell you that if I picked up a book on the 'Law of Tortes' and read it from cover to cover I would still know or understand nothing of any value about its contents.

The book of Enoch has been devalued by the 'Church' as being non canonical because like other books collectively called the 'pseudepigrapha' it was not written by Enoch, it contains discrepancies and there are at least 2 different versions of it. The pseudepigrapha collection also contains writings titled the book of Adam and Eve, to name just one of several. Now how pseudo is that? It was common practice and acceptable to write under a pseudenomen a few millenia ago, today we might loosely call it plagiarism. Enoch is not really considered part of the Apocraphial literature, it is pseudepigraphic material it is as was much literature of the intertestamental period apocalyptic in its nature.

Doug

[ariane]

Ving and Kal

I have had to be broad here, without attacking any one's real beliefs, and have avoided really attacking individuals.

Let's be perfectly crystal clear here...

Here I am really talking about all the religions and their followers - and not just Christianity. I am also not quibbling about the incidentials here, but the very foundations of the religion itself. Ie. "The Earth was created in seven days", "God created Man" or "JC was the son of God", etc.

Anyone who holds faith in their religion cannot readily abondon these foundations - else the rest of their precepts just fall down on top of them. Really it is these passion is which these religions survive and thrive.

As for the statement;

"If its god miracle then its god miracle, theres no need to probe it with 1 thousand scientific experiments."

If this is so, then how do you verify the physical reality of the world if you are not willing to question it? If God has given humans a mind to enquire, reason and explain the world - why deny the process of critical thinking to explain ANY phenomenae?

Really, is the world just only based all on some unknowable supernatural intervention against all the natural laws of the physical world? Is it based on magic or even a better technology?

Perhaps the only true miracle is that people continue to believe to want to believe in Him!

[xelasnave]

Doug said.........
Alex, you admit to having read the Bible cover to cover, ok fine believe me when I tell you that if I picked up a book on the 'Law of Tortes' and read it from cover to cover I would still know or understand nothing of any value about its contents.
Dough I find that difficult to accept as my impression of you is you are no fool with excellent powers of comprehension and deduction. Torts is perhaps the easiest thing in law to grasp.. it all turns on one person owing others a duty of care.. a simple effort by the law to set forth responsibilities of one person to another.
As with any book dealing with English law (and for this purpose English law is Australian law) it is written in English and I doubt beyond your ability to comprehend but if it is this way for you your presumed inability is no guide as to my ability to understand the words set out in the bible. I wont produce examples to prove the aspects of nonsence I alude to..as that is counter productive to my effort here to bring the concerns of one side to the other. But I suggest this proposition for your consideration... books are written to convey ideas and thoughts, if the bible unsuccefully does this I dont think I can be blamed for not getting it.(and I wont accept that I miss anything).it is clearly the fault of the writer(s) who if seeking to record fact or thought owe a duty of care that they responsibly set out the matters to be conveyed in a manner that it can be read and reasonably understood by those who take the time to read it.. I dont need to be a priest as I can read and write. Some, given my slack attention to spelling, may say the art of reading and writting is indeed beyond me..but not so.. after all if with my background it (the Bible) presents areas open for ridicule to me one could say then of what use is same to convey meaning to anyone else.. you are not suggesting that one must read past what is written and place a different meaning to that delivered.. if you do I say it is of no use for then the meaning can only be drawn out by ones personal additional input. Still to put a finer point upon your observation I was not commenting that I could not understand it (I think that was the case)..I say that I can understand what is written and there are many examples of nonsence, and many examples that one can place any meaning one cares to...horsemen etc is inappropriate metaphore leaving open the door to varied interpretations.. and as such meaningless one could argue.
But it is not particularly relevant to the overall proposition I propose of all in making an effort to solve the problem faced by the Mums and Dads with children at a school supporting their faith.
My point is nothwithstanding the "is and isnt" cries herein a problem exists very much along the lines I suggest. I am seeking a reasonable result for reasonable people. It seems that I alone seek such a possibility and others wish to carry on with the "is isnt" game... that wont move things forward.
Jesus teaches us to love your fellow man..love is respect. I seek a result for those who feel their voices are not heard . It is not easy for me given my personal views as expressed but notwithstanding those views I still seek a solution.. I am not trying to be cute and although many of my words may seem so I still say I offer respect to those who are not happy with evolution undermining their views and more important the method they have choosen to educate their children.
But feel free to pull me up if you think I am slipping in sneaky blows beneth the belt as they say. ( even with inoccent intentions I cant resist a little jab now and then). do this so I have to opportunity to withdraw an inflamatory statement... please keep the list as short as possible however.
At this stage I am not sure of what you are saying to me as to your position I suppose but I will re read all the posts as maybe I have missed something.
But if you want to play the is isnt game with me thats ok (we both enjoy that stuff I suspect) but if we do that lets not carry the fate of the respective sides on our backs simply to see if we can come up with something to make those of faith feel important enough to us that their concerns are our concerns and appropriate respect available.
I ramble but I am tired. best wishes
alex

[xelasnave]

Bert properly said....There are only two sins Hypocrisy and Ignorance.
I agree let all look at themselves and ask if they are guilty of same...
I try to avoid hypocracy but maybe ignorance is my problem..but if one is ingnorant how would one know I wonder.. well I try I read and read and read everything I can in an effort to head that one off.
alex

[Nevyn]

Hi, this isn't the sort of thing I was hoping to find here at IIS. I've been lurking around the forums for a while now trying to learn as much as I could before I started asking dumb questions :P , but I couldn't leave this one alone. I am clearly biased on this subject :whistle:
I have to ask Glenn, what exactly are you hoping to achieve? Is it your position that only evolution should be taught in schools and not questioned at all? Dogma anyone?
What exactly, in your opinion is wrong with critical analysis of Darwinian thinking? By dismissing and not even entertaining or experimenting with the notion of 'irreducible complexity', the main point of ID, would be unscientific don't you think? If you still think it has no merit then take out 'both'* of your kidneys ;) *how exactly did we end up with two?? Why two???

Um, Hitler....master race, experiments on Jews...........eugenics etc. etc.
You might want o rethink or read what the Vatican really thinks http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

And just for th heck of it I'll throw in some compelling reading, here's a small tidbit http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/#elephant
and "Unintelligently Attacking Intelligent Design" found here http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4704/#author

Cheers Brad

[xelasnave]

Ariane said.......
Is Santa really a hoax?
Well in the context that Santa as described to children lives and breathes and is responsible for presents via the chimney yes it is a hoax unfortunately.
However make no mistake Santa is real by any definition. He is better recognised than you or me and his presence in our lives is undeniable. I fact I represented him this year at Tabulam and very happy to do so..
Even to an athiest God is real ..all know who you are talking about, he is referred to by the speakers of our houses of parliment in this country and stands behind our law... and his presence in our lives is undenialble.
Can we meet the real Santa ..no because in the real world he does not exsist.
Can we meet God? not yet anyways;) I personally live in hope and have no fear of that day should it occur.
alex

[xelasnave]

Hi Brad, welcome to the forum and thanks for your input.
Now that you have joined us what do you think should be done?
alex

[fringe_dweller]

I cant help getting the impression that some non-(practising?)christians think religion is the panacea for all the changes in the world brought on by mainly, lets face it, technological advances and social adjustments over the last 35 years, not loss of christian values.
And of course after 9/11 and all the west V's radical/fundamentalist jihadist edges of Islam stuff. We naturally saw many people turning to churches for comfort and dignity/sense of purpose in these times of national tragedy and grief.
But I personally saw an ugly side to that to, during the worst backlashes, suddeny some of the most un-godly people one could meet, who probably never set foot in a church or read the bible, or adhered to its teachings in any way were boasting loudly 'yer i'm a christian' as if it was something you did out of nationalistic pride, or like a footy team barracker identifying his colours against the opponent team.
that made feel a little queasy to say the least.
Also, i sometimes get the feeling that maybe some people feel that that Holy books and religion are purely about moral guides to having a civilised society (the origin of the basic laws of society for instance as you all know), and thats were it all originated, but i think the poly-god ancient greeks political systems and idea's on democracy also had a hand in where we are today ;)
And that its whole purpose is about setting standards for decent loving behaviour - but I always thought/was taught, really the number one thing a christian (or one of most of the larger relgions?) must do in order to be a christian, is to Love God, and secondly, thereby, hopefully, avoiding ending up in hell :) but by doing all that, the rest will follow anyway of course.
I remember the thing that kept everyone in control as a lad (say of school age especially) in the 'good ol days' was the threat of violence from authority ie the cane ect. not the fear of God exactly (altho they put that into you) so unless you are also willing to re-introduce laws allowing parents and authority to once again have the right or at least have the threat of/to 'discipline' ermm thrash their children (and wives?) into line - you are wasting your time in my personal view :D

[Nevyn]

I think we should be out building weather machines so cloud cover is a daytime activity only:D . I got my first look at Saturn (ever) the other night and haven't been able to show my wife since because of cloudy nights!!

Back on track, teach evolution by all means. But teach it warts and all!!!
I find the level of dogmatism when it comes to evolution hypocritical and dare I say it, evolution by the very definition of religion is a "religion". It is every bit as faith based as my beliefs. I could dig up a lot of logical arguements for Creation where observational evidence will and does back it up! But my entire point is lets call a spade a spade. I'll leave off with a saying I read somewhere........"My cat has four legs, my dog has four legs. My cat is my dog!":lol:

Cheers Brad

[fringe_dweller]

Hitler and the fascists were political and opportunistic Idealist/utopians, a military/political movement, and not so much a christian group to my understanding, it was more about destroying the godless-communists and power/economics, world domination, the usual stuff, or so i thought.
Those atrocities werent carried by a scientific/medical ppl 'movement' per se - they were individuals just following orders apparently,
Thats a reaaaaalllyyyy long bow to pull mate!

[xelasnave]

Brad said..........
By dismissing and not even entertaining or experimenting with the notion of 'irreducible complexity', the main point of ID, would be unscientific don't you think? If you still think it has no merit then take out 'both'* of your kidneys *how exactly did we end up with two?? Why two???

I have been wondering why two kidneys... clever really as one can opperate on one and give/sell the other.. that makes sence to me.
I cant wait for the "next" design of humans to appear as I have the silent expectation that vital organs like the heart can be duplicated. Haveing a spare kidney is indeed an inteligent design so given the role of the heart in our system carring this concept over to areas of the heart would indeed be intelligent.
Two brains would be good but given many dont use the one they have probably means no real need is seen in that department, but two hearts makes for a very intelligent design.

By asking what you suggest can be done I was hoping for your input as to how we can arrive at a situation where all can be happy with the final result and all in our happy community agree to disagree and put something in place that all can live with..
I still encourage your suggestions.
I sence that the main objection that creationists have to the concept of evolution is not that it contridicts the Bible but that they may be related to apes.. certainly there is plenty of evidence of such an objection as being one of the stumbling blocks to acceptance of evolution... this is an ego thing on their part.. and certainly understandable. For myself I see humans as animals first so I have no objection to think great great great grandfather was an ape... after all I do "monkey" around a fair bit ..so why not.. Given the very real similarities between us and chimps do intelligent design folk see the chimp as a proto type of the human or the human as a proto type of the chimp.
Now there I go cant resist a little jab.. but take it in good humour and focus on a solution to finding a way we can bring everyone to a happy solution of solving the current problem. AND it is a problem for those Mums and Dads who feel left out, one if no solution is forthcoming can only get worse and fundamentalists on all sides simply burn energy in the "is is not game". Lets design an intelligent plan to arrive at a solution.
I ask all rather than looking for holes in the other sides armour lets seek a common ground and a system that respects the various views.
In addition I bet everyone who has had their say herein feel better having the opportunity to state their case... Poor Andrew and other moderators do you have any finger nails left, and those poor folk who cant tolerate me talking nonsence probably have given themselves manual mohawks by now...
AND to those who question why discuss this at all I say this...because we can ..simply because we can.
Peace to all men, all people of the world and all animals be they great or small.
alex

[Doug]

Alex wrote :
Flattery will get you everywhere:D
Well contrary to what you said, I always thought Tortes were laws about money. Q.E.D.
Ok so let us not spam this thread.
I don't want an "it is... no it isn't" type debate either; that is why I ask for evidence. By evidence I mean irrefutable evidence that can be placed before the judge for his evaluation and ruling, not 'oh yeah well there is evidence but lets skip that.' No evidence = faith stance. Evidence that proves the case = real knowledge.

I have not made a close study of ID, I thought it was a sort of compromise to try and re establish a level playing field.

As I see the situation, the ideas embodied in evolution (lets confine this to biological evolution) are demeaning and destructive of self esteem.

I believe that what follows is germane to this thread.

Any religion that teaches accountability is probably not all that bad, from a sociological point of view. By way of example:
Here in NSW, the NRMA are currently advocating zero tolerance for 'P' plate drivers because of the statistical assumption that they, as a target group have a noticeably high road death rate. Next when this fails perhaps they will want any 'P' platers jailed if they sneeze between certain hours of the day.

When I, like many of us started out driving, there were no 'P' plates, no speed restrictions other than those in general use. No zero Alcohol restrictions, no abnormally high incidence of young road deaths.
Question to be answered here I think is Why?
Is it because our roads are less serviceable than 50 years ago?
Are our young in some way less competent that we were at their age?
Are our laws somehow inadequate.....still?

I believe the answer is to be found in attitude not aptitude.
Attitude comes from perception and training.
Evolution does not teach mutual respect, it does not teach the concept of absolutes, it does not teach or encourage human dignity.
Instead it teaches survival of the fittest, the uncertainty and instability of today's values, the lack of any need for accountability.

Probably the only remedy for this and many other social woes is to go back and start with the preschools and teach self esteem, mutual respect, respect for the law, accountability to a higher authority and a more dignified approach to life,(self and others). that is on one bottom end of things, and at the other end we need to fix up our legal system so that it is worthy of the respect we ask people to give it. I have witnessed a person threaten a Railway employee will legal action if they restrained him for riding on a train without a ticket.........the 'law' would have upheld the fare evader.:mad2:
As a 'P' plate driver I must have zero blood alcohol when driving...the very next day when I progress to an unrestricted licence I can have a Blood alcohol reading of 0.049 (as a private motorist)and be within the law.:rolleyes: How can we ask young people to respect the law when it is so obviously flawed.
I suppose some might be tempted to accuse me of wanting to go back to the horse and cart era, but that is rubbish. If we can't move forward yet carry our goods and chattels with us then we are like a people fleeing in panic from the voice of a harmless dove.

So in summary, I'd be happy if we taught some morality in schools, and in society in general.
I believe we need to provide a level playing field for morality by either teaching creation/Id alongside of evolution, or refrain from teaching evolution as a science with no actual evidence to support its claims, after all, I don't need to be told that a gum tree has the same ancestor as the great white shark in order to learn what makes the two biologically different from each other. So what then is the real undisclosed agenda of the evolutionist??:shrug:

Doug

[Doug]

On the other hand when we read of Leviathan and Behemoth, and we read of St. Geoge and his dragons, the Chinese and their dragons etc.etc, maybe we could be a little less dismissive and concede that though we don't have autographed birth certificates for these things there might be some basis for truth, even if it has been embellished over the years. Same goes for the flood. There is the Bible account, the Babylonian account, even the Chinese, I have read, had their Nu-Wah.
Surely when there are accounts of odd things that span many cultures we need to be open to allowing for the fact that there might be some basis of fact. Lester's reference to Job and Behemoth and Leviathan for example; We do not knowingly have any of these critters roaming around these days so we have no real way of identifying with it or with Job on this point. Is it not reasonable to accept that Job and his contemporaries knew what this Leviathan and Behemoth were?
Why would the writer of the book of Job, when trying to illustrate a point, refer to things unknown and unknowable to his readership? that doesn't make any kind of sense.
It seems to me that commonsense itself is falling victim to evolutionary thinking. Mankind thousands of years ago was a not a group of dumb dim witted apes with scarcely enough sense to get in out of the rain, they were capable thinkers, for example, capable of identifying metallic ores and smelting/ forging metals for tools.....how many of us today could do that from scratch, and with no prior knowledge or experience of these things?
I believe we need to be a bit more open minded in seeking to understand what is what from earlier records.

Doug

[ving]

lets not glenn :)
I want to see hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils. :shrug:

theres a call for those with faith in creation to prove there theory thru science by the Evolutionists yet the said Evo guys cant come up with substantial evidence to prove without a doubt thier own theories (that i am aware of)... maybe we should have neither?

oh hang on i found one... when aquatic life first took to the air no doubt.
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/203500/203653NSVr_w.jpg

look, maybe faith cant be proven with science. maybe thats what faith is all about. i dont know, I am not a christian. I think theres room for both in out schools, evolution :rolleyes: as a science and ID as part of religion. I dont see how this would hurt anyone... maybe we should as a modern society teach more religions than just christianity, but i dont really know tha other religions enough to comment on them... or maybe thats the problem?

[avandonk]

I know that Science is difficult to even start to master. What makes it more difficult for the neophytes (newbies) is the large number of well meaning but deluded people pushing their obsession of choice.
Examples ( not necessarily in order of level of delusion)
Astrologers
Palm readers
Psychics
Water deviners
Tarot Card readers
New age anything
Spiritualists

I could go on but it is a waste of time.

What I would like to know is how the fact that evolution is irrefutable can impact on any moral system including any religion or faith.


I repeat the converse is the situation. It is the Creationists under the guise of a pseudo science called ID (intelligent design) that want to infiltrate the science class rooms.

This was the original point of this thread.

If I have offended anyone I really meant it.

Bert

[Glenn Dawes]

I’ve always thought the difference between a civil discussion/ disagreement and a down and out argument is based on 2 things – a mutual respect between the parties and some common ground to fall back on. I am struggling looking for common ground in some of this (to take up Alex’s point).

Doug, teaching self-esteem, human dignity, moral values has nothing to do with the Evolution vs. ID debate. Any more than a mathematics class should attempt to address the woes of society (unless anyone would like to argue against 1+2 = 3). In fact some people might argue this is in the realm of the family and church responsibilities (whichever faith one believes in), not school. I, like MOST (religious or otherwise), had an upbringing which didn’t need ID to have socially acceptible ethics.

There is even a much more fundamental issue – Jesus Christ either was or wasn’t the Son of God (no in between). So whichever it is there are an enormous number of religious people in the world following the wrong concept of God. They might be all wrong. Instead of attacking science and picking on the holes, with purely faith based assumptions, how about the religions getting their house in order first and work out what is the true faith! Well you can’t anymore than you can prove ID.

Ving, I think there are good reasons why ID shouldn’t be taught in schools (I stress along side of Evo in Science).
1) I think the 2 side by side would be confusing and difficult for young people to grasp.
2) Part of Creationism is the young Earth assumptions. Just about every branch of science has rejected this 6-10,000 year concept. An old Earth/Universe is as fundamental as the gravitational laws mentioned by someone earlier. I know a number of teachers, with some scientific training, that are uncomfortable with presenting the ‘young’ idea.
3) ID has its roots in Christianity and why should people of other faiths have it forced on them?
4) Evolution is the best theory science has without evoking the supernatural. It promotes critical thinking, which is basic to the school system concept.

Glenn

[Doug]

I went looking for evidence of my earlier claim of dino footprints and human footprints in Wyoming. What I have found sofar is not Wyoming, but might verywell be what I was thinking of.
I invite those interested to visit http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm
The above link came by way of a google search for dino fossils and human foot fossils. I had no prior knowledge of this site.

doug

[ving]

hi glen, to your points..

1:its not dificult to grasp at all... i managed. as we age we form our own opinions or we dont care
3) maybe we should teach other religions too? this is my thought on the matter as stated in my previous post.
4) whos to say the supernatural doesnt exist? can you prove it doesnt? i cant. I am not saying that we should teach tarot card reading mind you but... well theres nothing wrong with religion for bring up good morally adjusted kids... science of ant type wont do that.

as i have said, teach ID but not as a science, as part of religion. :)

[Doug]

Here is the proof of transitional change................not.
Read an interview of a Dr. Patterson at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp

These are the guys with the accademic credentials to back up their claims.
An interesting and candid confession by an evolutionist.

[ving]

sorry, i am currently in a position (ona public desk) where i cant give this my full attention but i have thought longer on this point because it stuck in my mind.

YOU CANT BE FOR REAL?:rolleyes:
:)

[Argonavis]

The answers in genesis people are pushing the political agenda really hard - it is a sad day if it inflitrates this country.

The evidence of biological evolution is overwhelming, irrespective of what Patterson says, covering biochemistry, genetics, geology, paleontology, and even field observations. Evolution does not have any holes. At all. Zero. Just because someone has an academic qualification does not make them right. This is not how science operates. This is not the scientific method.

Darwin was a creationist, until the evidence persuaded him otherwise, and the argument has been going on since. The evidence was not as strong in his day as it is now.

This is a real threat to people who base their faith on what some old religious texts say. This is understandable, as the existence of physical and biological evolution means that maybe there isn't a supreme being, and maybe, just maybe, we are all merely the products of natural processes. This is a potential faith buster, which is why there is this movement to promote creationism and its offshoot, ID. These people are fearful and frightened, which is why they assert their beliefs with religious fervour.

It also goes against "common" sense, as aren't we as humans very special? Haven't we been given domination over all the birds and animals of the fields?

Problem is we share the same biochemistry and genetics to a frightening degree. The only remotely plausible scenario is for a supernatural being to breath a soul into a hominoid. There is no evidence for this.

Glen is correct, you can't win a full frontal argument with zeolots. It will be sad if the intellectual integrity of our education system suffers as a result.

[mickoking]

Put both evolution and ID in the school system and let it be taught and debated. As an Evolutionist I have no problems with that :thumbsup:

RESPECT

[Argonavis]

This link asserts that:

"Are there any transitional fossils?
None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms."

This is complete nonsense.

refer to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Again - the answers in genesis people are pushing a political agenda because the US Supreme Court disallowed the teaching of ID in schools as it was held to be a religion. And curricula in the USA is influenced by local school boards which makes it a highly political situation.

Science has been stymed enough by religion. Enough is enough. Evolutionary medicine is merely a research topic at the moment, but has real potential.

[Argonavis]

There is nothing to debate except facts vs a belief system.

What other belief systems would you like to put in schools?

The Universe was created 6000 years ago but it just looks 13 billion years old?

witchcraft?

The problem is the creationists are winning if they can persuade people that their beliefs are as good as science and it is just a matter of choice.

[Argonavis]

Maybe there is some merit in teaching comparative religion in schools so people can appreciate others belief systems. This may be useful in a multicultural society. Problem is, schools ar teaching all sorts of other stuff and the curriculum is very full.




if you assert a supernatural being exists, isn't the onus of proof on you?

[mickoking]

Then why worry?


That'll do, until someone comes up with another theory :)

Then science should be able to stand on its own two feet.

perhaps

Where are they winning? Maybe It is up to to us evolutionists to explain our selves better? By showing humility on our part maybe more ID adherents will be more responsive to well presented scientific argument.

[Argonavis]

A very large pecentage of the US population appears to accept creationist thinking. This in the most "advanced" country in the world.

There is already sufficient well presented scientific arguments available in the public arena:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html

many books too. They just do not reach much of the population who gets their information from more "popular" sources.

What is the worry? The rise of religious fundamentalism and a new dark age. Likely? I hope not.

[iceman]

I think this has been a very interesting discussion, with some well-thought out posts. People have revealed a lot about themselves and their beliefs, with the understanding that they won't be personally attacked.

I'm glad it's kept that way, but we're treading on ground now where most people have said what they wanted to say. What normally happens in these situations is people start to repeat themselves, stating the same arguments or asserting the same facts - sometimes in a hope to convince the other side.

As I said in the beginning of this thread, it's extremely unlikely that people will change what they believe - so people will keep debating and arguing until someone steps over the line and ends up getting nasty.. that's when it degenerates into name calling or personal attacks.

So please, (not directing this at anyone), remember to think before you press the submit button and if there's nothing new to add, then let the thread age naturally and go the way of all other threads when they reach their logical conclusion.

It's been a very interesting discussion! Thanks to all who contributed.

[mickoking]

Yeah, I can't stand religious fundamentalism either but dissing their beliefs will just make problems worse IMHO.

[Argonavis]

I am reminded of C. P. Snow's "Two Cultures", a book written back in the 1950's or 1960's, about how science is divorced from popular culture.

Scientific understanding only seems to seep out into popular culture slowly if at all, if not distorted.

Most people go home and point the magic stick at the magic box and watch the moving images, such is their (including my) understanding of the technology that surrounds us.

I suspect we will always have a society where science operates at the margins but contrubutes so much to our material welfare. I think most people, and our politcal leaders, understand this.

[Argonavis]

spoken like a true buddhist

[Doug]

Argo Navis, here is a direct cut and paste quote from the very web site that you have pointed to:Emphasis added.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm
Change within species are well known and acknowledged by both sides; see post #22
Nuff said.

Oh yes I almost forgot to mention that Creation science had its beginings in Australia in the 1970s.
You said :
You and others can checkout the truth of this at :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/history.asp

I know there have been quite a few posts while my one finger has typed this post, but I like to check the truth of a statement before I either accept it or reject it, like wise I try to present accurate information myself.
Doug

[Argonavis]

This is taken totally out of context, see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran

"Species-to-species transition:
This is a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another. It's a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. These species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Sometimes, these sequences occur only in a limited geographic area (the place where the speciation actually occurred), with analyses from any other area showing an apparently "sudden" change. Other times, though, the transition can be seen over a very wide geological area. Many "species-to-species transitions" are known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the general lineages (see below for why this is so). Part 2 lists numerous species-to-species transitions from the mammals."

The evolutionary sequences are evident from the cladistics of fossil forms and from the DNA record of existing forms.

This is getting pointless...

[Argonavis]

It's not a science.

[Argonavis]

But it is increasing my post count..all I need is another 8400 to go to catch ving....

[mickoking]

Thank you :)

[Gas Giant]

I'm perplexed that the Creationist debate always centers around evolution. Reading the start of the Bible, it obviously has no basis Astronomically. The note I attach below to all my IIS messaages (not that I've posted many), says it all.

Evolution is an area of science with a lot of complexeties that makes it an easy target to attack when talking to the unitiated. Everybody, however, understands that the reason we have night and day is due to the Earth's rotation and the Sun 'rising' and 'setting'. How, then, could day and night have been created before the Sun?:screwy:

[I haven't read every post on this thread; my apologies if this point has been made already].

[ariane]

To hell with this debate...

I want to know...

Who really killed Santa!!!!

[AstroJunk]

I'd give up on that thread of the argument - that's the Christian equivalent of the Apollo Moon hoax sites!

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm for a starter...

[Argonavis]

no one killed Santa, I mean who else could possibly be filling up my Christmas stocking???

[ariane]

Eureka - A Possible Solution and Compromise

MY OWN Creation Myth

I've just thought of a real good easy scientific theory that satisfies the Science lot and Intelligent Design lot both at the same time...

My reasoning goes like this....

If we postulate that there was really some instant when God created Adam in his own image, therefore wasn't God the first to set forth the precepts of the evolution of Man and also become a true creationist?

For when He took the rib from Adam, being the basic genetic fingerprint of his own make up, He modified the old version of the human body to produce a totally new (r)evolutionary track - one that has literally "spread forth and multiplied" - the creation of the first cloning and gene the human female of the species.

Think about it.

Now, as some males may already know, once the suffragette movement of the feminists and the liberated women rose in the 1970's, they began to espouse; "When God made Adam, She was only practising."

We might easily to prove from the empirical evidence - if it not as a literal fact, that;


Human females are generally both genetically, physically and emotionally superior.
They can endure far more pain than males
Women have an average life expectancy about five years longer than the male of the species?
They have all inherited the uncanny ability (when required) to wrap their "inferior" males around their little finger when required?


Another possible proof is the flood;

Didn't God allegedly cause the first major human "mass extinction" with the Noah Ark in the Great Flood to purge some of the bad behaviour traits and kept the best people for the next generation - for a better and more respectful "homo superior" perhaps?

Natural selection must have worked brilliantly then, because from this small but strong genetic pool of less than a dozen, then saved themselves by science and technological innovation - making a huge ship-worthy Ark. They used the Ark to save themselves, to then, after being for seven weeks continuously rained upon and set adrift on the waters from that flood - to go on and repopulate the world we see today.

If this postulate is indeed true, then ergo, God therefore must have been the first true evolutionist! (and probably not a bad gene therapist at that either!)


Furthermore, if we are actually in the image of God, then we must have also inherited this same evolutionary desire. As God wishes his creations to have free will and free choice, we have no choice by to learn, adapt and evolve - and to learn ones given vocation.

Volia! Creation and Evolution Myth Solved Together

NOTES :

1) Amazingly I didn't have to use much science, any old-world monkeys nor any undue need for Intelligent Design to "prove it" - yet I still keep everyone happy!

2) Isn't the scientific method, theory, deduction and reasoning just so wonderful!

: doh::lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:

[ariane]

Ah! That might explain why I didn't get any presents this year...

Probably been too much a bad person...

[Dennis]

I don’t know enough about either evolution or ID, but I would like to offer a perhaps slightly different approach to the eternal search for the “Truth”, which may be flawed or otherwise, as my own understanding is only ever partial and limited by my experiences.

If you were unfortunate to receive a bang to the head that caused permanent memory loss, and prior to the blow you were either an evolutionist or a creationist, who would you now be, without that memory?

Certainly you would continue to eat, sleep, breathe, etc; your organs would continue to function; you would likely still have feelings and emotional responses as well as the ability to think. Yet, you probably wouldn’t now “have” a name, hobbies, career, etc – yet you would still be alive.

It seems that this “pulse of life” can be said to “precede” our personality, nationality, beliefs, education, etc., none of which we have or own whilst, say in our mother’s womb. It’s not until we develop and “grow up” that we become identified with, or find ourselves “owned” by a name, career, religion, hobby, lifestyle, football team, country etc. So, how much of myself can I remove before I cease to be me, or even cease to be?

My name – John or Sue
My nationality – Australian, French, English
My religion – Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, none of the above.
My marital status – single, married, father, mother.
My educational qualifications – awards, memories, knowledge.
My career – scientist, engineer, welder, unemployed, shop assistant.
My hobbies – astronomy, swimming, football, reading.
My favourite fashion – gothic, grunge, smart casual, nudist.
My favourite music – rock’n roll, hip hop, R&B, classical.
My hair, teeth, legs, arms.


It seems that all these notions of:

who we are,
what we learn,
what we experience,
what we believe,
what we remember,
what we can repeat,
what our birth certificate says,
etc, etc, all came after we were born – not before.


So, if “life” permeates everything and it is through “life” we can think, reason, feel, move, eat, marry, have careers, etc. then it seems that even our highest thoughts and faculties are a sub-set of “life”.

Now, can a sub-set of a system ever “look outside of itself” and comprehend the larger system of which it is a part?

If our physical, emotional and mental existences do not cause themselves, but are just a sub-set of this wonderful universe in which we “live”, then I wonder – can we ever “know” or “describe” the “Truth” when by its very definition, this “Truth” would be outside our intellect.

That is, it appears that for there to be an absolute “Truth”, it ought to at least reflect the following attributes:

Have always been True, because if it changed even just once, by even just a teeny weeny fraction, then it wasn’t the Truth.
The Truth must be the same for you, me and everyone; otherwise it would only be a personal truth, a national truth, a period truth and not the absolute Truth.
The Truth cannot be spoken – this requires a larynx, again a sub-set.
The Truth cannot be thought – this requires a mind, again a sub-set.
The Truth cannot be written – this requires an alphabet, paper, eyes and comprehension, all sub-sets.
The Truth cannot be “remembered” – if we lose our memory then have we lost the Truth?
The Truth cannot evolve; otherwise it would not be Absolute if it had to change.
The Truth cannot be “personal” or “belong” to a religion; otherwise it would not be the Truth, just a sub-set that might be in fashion for a while – even millennia but not “for ever”.
Truth cannot have a beginning, nor can it end; otherwise what ever came before it and what would continue to exist after it, would be “bigger” that the Truth.


So, whilst the debate continues between evolution and ID, I truly wonder if either approach has the capacity to “know” the “Truth”, as the tools and methods of each approach seem to be the intellect, observation, beliefs, experiment, ancient texts, etc. which appear to be sub-sets of the “Truth”.

Whew, I’m exhausted, but I will not be surprised if I am corrected and trust that no one feels hurt for no hurt is intended; all I wrote was some words.

Cheers

Dennis

[Dennis]

Hello, Ariane

I don’t know you from a bar of soap so I cannot interpret your post in relationship to who you are, so I will just take it at face value, as written.

I struggle with my understanding of the biblical flood.

In terms of my experience, I have been to several zoos in my life and none of them claim to house every living bird, insect, animal, reptile, etc. Some zoos are very large and require separate pens to house all the creatures; otherwise they would kill each other, or the zoo keepers.

I understand that the feeding, care, maintenance and veterinary bills at these zoos are large. These creatures on the Ark would surely require husbandry, food, drink, etc, as well produce heaps of pooh and volumes of wee during their 7 week stay on board. Just imagine; 2 elephants, 2 rhinos, 2 hippo's, 2 giraffes, etc?

So, I find it somewhat difficult to reconcile the literal interpretation of the story of the flood and the ark with my common day knowledge. I even wonder if today, with all our science and engineering abilities, could we build a vessel large enough to house all these creatures, which would also hold enough food and water to sustain them for seven weeks? How long would it take to find these creatures, then transport and shepherd them into this ark?

Maybe these “events” were not literal happenings, but more akin to stories being told that help convey an important message?

Cheers

Dennis

[ving]

:rofl:
thanks for my first giggle for the day :D

[Glenn Dawes]

Dennis,

You have made a great observation here, which goes to the heart of this discussion. The literal interruption of the bible is filled with examples like that. The Noah’s arc story is small compared to creating the Universe and world in 7 days. The experts will tell you, over the few thousand years claimed by ID, the Earth’s human population could not have grown to where it is now, not to mention the level of diversity in the gene pool across all species, not just Man. I suppose the Creationists comeback would be God can do anything – he just waves his hands. Maybe, but it is impossible to have a rational discussion around this – you either believe it or not.

The bible perhaps was only ever intended to be a guide to how to live your life and not a natural history book.

I agree completely with Mike S’s post (#120), there is a tendency for people to start repeating themselves (I’m guilty, sometimes just re-worded). Also I see little benefit in getting to deeply into specifics. The dinosaur/man footprints are a classic. If you google this you come up with dozens of hits with them alternating between the ID and Science interruption. All of the authors boast impressive sounding titles and/or institutes – most of them unknown to me. Often we really don’t know their reliability.
If anyone is looking for a good Science/Evo site the Talk Origins one I believe can be taken seriously. It seems to be rigorously refereed by experts in each of the fields being discussed. I’m sure someone from the ID side can give their well-regarded site(s).

I have enjoyed all the posts and would like to thank everyone for opening up and I have the deepest respect for those who were willing to stick their necks out. However, I see little benefit in continuing the thread but would prefer to continue with a chat over a beer, under the stars (maybe at Kulnura?). It’s a subject I’m always happy to discuss.

Regards

Glenn

[Dennis]

Ahh, thanks Glenn, in my complete ignorance of ID I had not realised that the Bible was meant to be interpreted literally.

There was a very interesting documentary I once saw in the UK, which seemed to reveal, through archaeological digs and scripts, that several of the Biblical events had also occurred in other civilisations which flourished not only before the era during which the Biblical events were deemed to have occurred, but also on different continents where there were no trade routes or connections (according to history).

The presenter suggested that these “stories” were somehow universal to all of man kind, and were a means whereby wise men of their time could convey messages to those interested, by using analogies or stories, much like we might read a fairy tale to a young child to illustrate why it is “good” to be honest.

Cheers

Dennis

[Nevyn]

Thinking Glenn missed this the first time!

[astroron]

Nevyn, you may as well ask the question, why do we have two nostrils, two eyes or any other organ, just to say we can get by with only one makes no sense.:shrug:
Earlier in our evolutionary past we may have needed two, more so than today

[Nevyn]

Dennis, I hope you read the artical I have supplied on the Ark. It does a very good job of pointing out that the Bible says "two of every kind" and not two of every living species, the latter being the "Bible illiterate's" take on events. Here is the link titled "How did the animals fit on the ark?" I hope it helps you see from a different perspective
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/arksize13.asp Actually Glenn, Creation only took Six days! God rested on the seventh :thumbsup:
I might take you up on the beer one day :)

Cheers Brad

[Argonavis]

and you would know? Maybe the laws of quantum mechanics that suggest a few billion years are wrong?


and which came first, beasts or man?

was it:

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

or was it:

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


Sir I am confused by my Bible!!!!!

[Argonavis]

It actually says:

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.


but then goes on to say....


GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

does anyone really believe this stuff???

[Dennis]

The Memphis Zoo's Annual Grocery List. 3,000 hungry mouths each day

Fresh Foods:
15 tons carrots
15 tons apples
7 tons oranges
9,000 eggs
8,500 heads of lettuce
1,200 pounds onions
60 miles of bananas

Prepared and Frozen Foods:
100 tons calf feed
50 tons horse feed
12 tons feline diet
10 tons dog feed
20 tons herring
18 tons dry primate diet
5 tons bird of prey diet
8 tons smelts, sardines & other seafood
15 tons canine diet
2.5 tons bird seed
600 pounds shrimp

Grasses:
60 tons grass hay
55 tons alfalfa hay
1,200 bales wheat straw
30 tons alfalfa cubes

Other foods:
800,000 crickets
40,318,000 meal worms
200,000 minnows
97,680 rats and mice
30 pounds other worms

The Memphis Zoo's Annual Grocery Bill: US $300,000

[ving]

and in the other foods section you would have to make sure you saved 2 of every item so they didnt get eaten. :P

[Argonavis]

Numbers of species:

As a guide the numbers of identified species can be broken down as follows:

287,655 plants, including: 15,000 mosses, 13,025 ferns, 980 gymnosperms,
199,350 dicotyledons, 59,300 monocotyledons; 74,000-120,000 fungi;
10,000 lichens;

1,250,000 animals, including: 1,190,200 invertebrates: 950,000 insects,
70,000 molluscs, 40,000 crustaceans, 130,200 others; 58,808 vertebrates:
29,300 fish, 5,743 amphibians, 8,240 reptiles, 9,934 birds, 5,416 mammals.

However the total number of species is thought to be much higher.

These are all held in the big Ark we call Earth.

[ving]

is it posible that thru some sort of divine intervention (cause lets face it god gets what he wants as he is all powerful) the animals didnt need feeding during the period of the flood and for some time after while species of plant and animal restocked?

[xelasnave]

What a difference a day makes.. look at the erxciting things we are learning here... not as much as to the beliefs of each person but the fact that we can be absolutely opposed to the other persons point of view and still manage a civil responce. These conversations can be frustrating in so far as you can feel as if you are banging your head against a brick wall in respect of gaining a simple admission from the other side.. and I sense that frustration is on both sides.. I can see people wringing their hands, breath shortning as they pull their chair closer to the screen to deliver a lethal blow in a answer all responces.
But just to show I dont accept "accepted" science I reinterate my belief that the current most popular and suposedly most proved scientific theory ... the big bang is in error... well thats my view. Big bang turns on inflation and although the background radiation results support the big bang (because that finally supports inflation) I still question the proposition that all we see could grow at the rate of a trillion times in the space of a mere "split" second...
This to me is as fanciful as saying God created the Heavens and Earth etc in six days... Why a God would need to rest one day out of seven completly eludes my reason..I am not a God (I only believe I am as good as one) but when I am building something I dont rest when it is still incomplete...and if God walked away on day 6 I say he left a lot of "paper" undone..work that humans are trying to still sort out 6000 years later..
I still say can we not embrace the concerns of religious folk by letting them have a scripture class and teach intelligent design, ark building and decency.
I agree with Dough that the evolutionary approach lets man off the hook from an emotional and a moral point of view somewhat but the alternative to say he has dominion over the animals etc also leaves room for a belief that everything is here for mans use and consumption. I dont agree with Dough that the Bible of reason was written in a manner that was clear even to those of that time being left soley to interpret its meaning on a "clear" speaking basis. My references to the horsemen and the Book of Proverbs is a good place to start to provide evidence for my belief as to the merit of meaning within the Bible...all the Bible. But faith alows one to read and accept what sits well and disregard that which does not..science does not in fact support such a system it requires proven fact.. The reason why so much effort is placed on "proving" background radiation has to do with if its not there big bang is dead in the water..still big bang has this over ID ..it is going thru the motions to turn the idea to theory with observation and experiment.
All sides have their story.. (and to mind comes a nice writting contained in???? ..something that is famous enough all should know of itwell from where ever it came here it is...
"Listen to the dull and the ignorant for they to have their story"..that is not to say anyone fits that bill here but it is a reminer that even in the simplest of stories there is a message.
I will come forward and rightfully claim the title "dull and ignorant" and with such authority say to everyone... Whoever gave it to you, history or God, you have brain with the ability to assess the facts, simply make sure you work on the facts you can reasonably rely upon. Always be prepared for the disappointment that your Santa does not really exsist.. and then remember that even so one can still enjoy the event and the feasting:thumbsup: ..the show can really go on without Santa:D ..when you think about it... and the Pope did not help me with that one but maybe he thinks similar;) .. There are so many sites on the net one can find support for any thing you wish... So be careful, be reasonable but be responsive in a proper fashion.
alex

[Argonavis]

maybe divine intervention made them float on water and become breatharians, but this minor detail is overlooked in the good book

what other laws of nature would you like to suspend to hold on to your beliefs?

[Argonavis]

The Big Bang has stood the test of time, and is almost universally accepted since the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation that permeates the cosmos.

The inflationary epoch is also becoming accepted as evidence to support it mounts. True, it is not known what initiated this event, but given time this will be discovered.

There is just no other explanation for the observations, other than divine treachery in making it look like it is.

[Argonavis]

I don't suppose I can help myself, but for people who take literal truth for literal truth, here is my favourite quote from my favourite TV program (you need to look at it all till the end)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

[Argonavis]

or the short version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwHuwVy8OQ&mode=related&search=

[xelasnave]

We need a "Third Testament" I recon.. fixing the minor problems in the "old" parts of the book..which of course with a "Third Testament" means both the Old and New Testament will be the old parts of the book.
I have been told by those of faith that God guided the hands of the writers and the editors of the Bible so that one could rely upon the truths contained therein.. The fact that I thought to write the third testament must mean devine inspiration I guess.. me who would have thought.. mmm AND when God saw the way his words had been misconstruded he sent his angle to visit upon the mountain with alex to intruct him with words that he may take to the rest of the human race to enlighten them.. OK then..you had better listen, this is not just any fool speaking but an extra special fool.. er that didnot go over the way it should have...well my prophesy is that we all leave the planet for the heavens..not live in heaven that is one of the misconceptions I have to fix.. and judgemnet day is only a day when the Sun goes to being a full red giant..but in my version we will all be long gone by then our decendants who having evolved under Gods plan can stand back and what the show.
But if I admit to devine guidance and hearing the word of God (like so many before me and recorded in the bible as recieving Godly news in that fashion) who would come forward and say.. he has it! read his words! this it is true it came to him in a dream where an angle told him to write the next testament..Who would say he heard the words from God? as they did so many times when talking about various propositions in the Bible where some one literally "heard" the word.. I think I may be diagnosed with a mental disorder by both sides...
Still a third testament would be timely to fix up the little hickups various folk have pointed out with both of the "older" books.
My point is... faith is faith.. and faith answers any question so as to support the belief of the proponent..
Take my idea on gravity rain (dont worry if its news to you it is an example of a belief as oppossed to a scientific fact..a theory shall we say if it had experiment to back it up.. I say everything I read supports it.. people who know I am wrong simply shake their heads and say .."let the poor fool be..there is no point arguing with him he is lost in a Universe filled with gravity rain". AND they would be right.. if I am right or wrong has little to do with my faith in my idea..any thing that seeks to overthrow it I sortta leave out of my thinking for the time being until I can fit it in my Universe the way I want it to fit.. is there a message here for others who have more smarts than me?.. still explaining my condition and making you understanding of my morosophic condition again does not make gravity rain science.. faith can not be science.. that is what all here for the "faith" side seem to step around.. and I know you will correct me if that is an unfair call but is it an unfair call?.. thats the way it seems to me.
All please agree to disagree this fence sitting is a pain in the butt.
aklex

[xelasnave]

Argonavis said..........
"The Big Bang has stood the test of time, and is almost universally accepted since the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation that permeates the cosmos".
I know that and possibly a little more however my point is to demonstrate that at a personal level even though there is "possible" evidence for me I have not excepted the evidence for inflation simply as I think it is possible that the background radiation is misinterpreted..now it matters not if I am right or wrong but I would like to think that as I have misgivings I simply just dont say "they know better" "I have faith" or similar..I look at the evidence until it makes sence..to me..at this stage it does not sit well... I dont like those of "faith" simply let the world tell me they know it all... The reason I mention this is there seems to be a problem with many that past a certain recognition of the content they look no further..
It is not easy turning your back on the big bang and creationist at the same time..everyone thinks you are crazy in truth whereas all you have before you is someone who says I aint heard enoughto convince me.. I say its a pity (not only referring to the big bang but other matters mmmm well in the bible that dont convince me..a fair minded cynic.
Give me about two years and big bang will be a thing of the past..ha ha thing of the past..it is now I guess.
Thanks but my mind is made up..there was no big bang, there is no santa clause and there is no justice dealt out by fundamentalists of any group who seek to rule science with mere faith.
alex

[Argonavis]

Science will espouse the big bang and inflation until it is falsified - until the evidence proves it wrong. Then science will modify or junk the big bang.

Alex - what evidence would convice you that you are wrong?

How amenable are you to evidence - whether it is evidence based medicine or cosmology?

[Nevyn]

This fella does a way better job of unconfusing you than I could! http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp Argonavis, I see you have conveniently skipped;
‘And you shall bring into the ark two of every kind of every living thing of all flesh, to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Two of every kind shall come to you to keep them alive; of birds after their kind, and of beasts after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind.’ (Gen. 6:19–20)

Genesis 7:2 talks of clean.....not clean. Here the distinction is to do with sacrifice (Gen8:20); later, with eating.
Genesis 7:8-9 is a basic description of everything entering the Ark "as God had commanded Noah."

Yes! If you want to do a Bible study, I'm up for it;) But if you really want to believe by flapping your arms that either you or your offspring will grow wings, thats up to you :thumbsup: (thats a joke btw)

[ving]

I was poking fun a bit... like i have said, i am not a religious person at all. but why not? god could in theory do anything.

:rofl:

[Argonavis]

so it was only a few of every kind - so how many were there? and how did we end up with 1.8 million species on the Earth at present?

if you could fit even a fraction of 1.8 million in an Ark I would recommend you a career working at the docks.

and of course there is no evidence of a world wide flood or deluge, nor is there evidence of an Ark, despite the attempts of some to look for it and even fabricate it.




I don't believe that and I don't know of anyone who does. That is not how evolution works.

speaking of wings, i like this:

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1795700.htm

[Argonavis]

I clearly have yet to capture the essence of ving humour

[Argonavis]

It is sad that there are many out there whose faith is so shallow and fragile,
and whose religion is so ossified and rigid, that they cannot accomodate the finding of science over the last 400 years, where we have seen multiple cases of religion vs science.

It has been nearly four centuries since Galileo Galilei lost his legendary showdown with the Catholic Church’s Court of the Inquisition. Threatened with imprisonment, torture and certain death, Galileo backed down — officially, at least — from his outrageous claim that the Earth and the Planets orbited the Sun.

Since Galileo’s time science has marched messily forward and superstition has been forced to retreat; although lately superstition has engaged in some clever stalling tactics. The ancient Catholic Church could enforce its will through military force and terror; in 21st century America, the more loosely organized Protestants simply outmaneuver scientists by dominating school boards and forming political pressure groups.

While nobody argues about the structure of the solar system anymore, the current front in the Science-Superstition Wars is in the realm of biology; specifically, Darwin & Wallace's theory of organic evolution.

Nearly 150 years and several monkey trials later, fundamentalists in the United States (and this seems to be where this stuff comes from) still refuse to surrender. Creationism has not yet been defeated.

How many more years before Evolution will be finally accepted?

[ving]

never mind, not that many people get me ;)

[ving]

interesting... a dinosaur with wings...

now how about a dinosaur with 2 stumps where wing should be or with 2 very poorly formed wings? surely it isnt a case of:

dino: "hmm... wouldnt mind flying! i might give birth to winged babies"

surely theres steps inbetween, surely theres lots of steps inbetween. where are they?
Ok so i dont think creation is 100% correct, but then neither is evolution.

[mickoking]

That will be their downfall.
most people accept it, the people who don't just seem to be more vocal. If people choose not to accept Evolution, well it's their outlook; no skin off my nose ;)

[xelasnave]

Argonavis said.....
Alex - what evidence would convice you that you are wrong?
Probably evidence that may already be there..big bang is not simple for me. I should really say I neither accept or reject it ..which is more to the truth and the truth is I am looking at whatever I can to learn more.
alex

[xelasnave]

I do feel however in respect of inflation it is beyond reason (my reason at least) and given that the fluctuations sort are in a very small order I suspect there could be room for doubt..also being a cynic I feel that often people find what they seek... could happen to a scientist as easy as a person of faith... both are human and falible.
alex

[Argonavis]

maybe we need a guide:

the essence of ving

ving and the art of telescope maintenance

Ving in the Universe

[Argonavis]

the steps in between is called gliding, which is still with us with gliding possums etc, muscles and flight evolved from the survival advantages of being airborne.


and only a very small %age of fossils have been discovered

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-11-06-fossils-debate_x.htm

suggests that 71% of dino species remain to be discovered

same with hominids

http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/11/14/so_how_many_fossils_are_there/



with all the evidence, it would be very difficult to say evolution is not almost 100% correct, it is about as certain as anything in science.

[mickoking]

Quantum Physics is the most experimentally successful theory in Science, it is also one of it's weirdest.

[ving]

still not convinced... it like "its true, we just cant prove it!". sounds exactly like creation theorys argument to me... creation is 100% true, they just cant prove it either.
look---> its not 100% correct.
it was easy.

[Glenn Dawes]

Brad,
Yes, I did miss this the first time – the thread just exploded with posts.

Thanks for the link to the Catholic site. It basically confirmed what others (devoted Catholics) had told me. The church is somewhat enlightened (by Science standards) and has no problem with evolution or the Earth/Universe being billions of years old. This was providing God effectively set the wheels in motion in a Universe that had a defined beginning. Which the current concept of the Big Bang fits in well. I really liked the following quote from this page.

“Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).
The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).”

Although I no longer consider myself religious, I admire the skill of a God that can create the Big Bang and at that point put in motion all the laws of nature that eventually lead to us.

With regard to ‘irreducible complexity’, I’m no expert, but I believe Science has an answer to this concept. Don’t miss understand the scientific method – evolution, is continuing being questioned by science. That’s how we progress, and often answers will create new questions. The day we have no questions left will be a problem, because it means we think we know everything!

Do the IDers question themselves? Or are they too busy putting the boots into science. Who’s to say the ‘creator’ has to be God. Why not an alien race from Sirius (I know a little 2001ish, but a valid question).

This brings me to a question for the group as a whole. Does anyone know if the ID currently being proposed for schools pushes for God as the creator, or are they willing to admit, like science does, when they don’t know (remember God created the aliens so why not use them as his tool). If it is God does this extended to the 6-day creation, 6000 year old Universe. If it does it flies in the face of the Catholic Church’s beliefs.

Brad, to answer your original question about whether only Evolution should be taught in schools. By answer is yes, I think ID (and any similar creation myths) should stay with the churches (whichever religion) – oh btw would the ID churches like to teach evolution at Sunday School? Let’s allow equal time.

Glenn

[Kal]

Well I'm suprised this thread has lasted so long without being locked. However, most of this thread has turned to pointless drivel.

At the end of the day, no side will genuinely win by turning the other sides opinion. Why can't you all simply accept that some people believe creationist theory, some people believe evolution theory, and let it rest at that.

If anyone is undecided then there is a plethora of information available from both sides of the argument available for them to research at their own leisure. Otherwise, this thread is about as productive as a broken record.

[ving]

i disagree with you andrew... :lol:

yeah we generally do accept that some are believers and others arent. still its interesting to debate the point in a civilised maner. but yes this has tappered off considerably.

[Glenn Dawes]

You know Andrew,
You might be right and stuff like this always tends to go in circles and I'm not sure I feel like contributing much more, unless responding to specific questions.
- feel free to leave, no one's forcing you to even read it.

[xelasnave]

Andrew I agree with Ving but in addition I am sure most here are now coming round to my way of thinking:P besides its like complaining this thread is like complaining about "neighbours" or "Big Brother" on TV you can pretend that you are not really looking or even turn them off:lol: :lol: :lol: .
I think the humour contained through out this thread is hillarious.. when you read this thread four or five times only you miss the subleties but after 7 or 8 readings you can discover some very witty things;) :D :screwy: :whistle: . Still I will re read it a few more times because I am sure there is even more lurking below the lines:shrug: :P :D .
What this thread has done above all else is allow people to vent their thoughts which generally in these areas are confined to folk of like thought ..yet here we have a a chance to hear others and comment. I think the frustrations relieved are probably greater than the frustrations caused.
...I was going to ask a question about a practice I only just heard about.. where believers are for whatever reason, they say the hand of God is the reason, can speak in a language previously unknown to them???? but apparently they are able to speak different languages without even learning them and apparently without having been taught that language???:eyepop: :shrug: .
The person who told me is decent and truthful so it does make one wonder how someone could be instantly able to talk German for example if they had never been there:shrug: .. There seems no explanation how they can receive these skills instantly. I can not understand how any thing like that can happen but as I say this is a honest person who told me of such a thing, so I was going to ask.
Rather than mention it I will look on the net. I dont know where to start.. I mean what do you Goggle?
alex

[CoombellKid]

Rules for some and not for all, I think would be the case.

regards,CS sunny days

[xstream]

Rob, This forum is still evolving a bit like this thread in some ways. None of us Mods or Admin propose to be perfect, we do the best we can to try and make this place comfortable for all, but innuendo helps no-one.

[Dennis]

I think what was different in this thread, well for me at least, is that the post originator comprehensively "bound" the limits of potential discussion, with his lead-in comments and observations, whereas in the past, when possibly similar (genuine) posts appeared with just a http link to say "have a look at this", the more open, or less bounded nature of those threads tended to attract increasingly wilder responses as the intellectual and faith chasms opened up.

So yes, it can appear inconsistent (and quite personal, especially when it happens to us), but then again, I suspect in the hurly burly speed of on-line life, it is also quite a tough call to make; when to nip something in the bud before it potentially degenerates into an on-line brawl.

That is, if my memory is still reliable at recalling events accurately. If not, I'll just shut up and hope the clouds clear for some viewing tonight.

Cheers

Dennis

[CoombellKid]

innuendo? my statement was direct ;)

however I'm cetain if the first post in this thread had "CoombellKid" attached
to it, it would of been locked as fast as mine was :thumbsup: which took about 20
minites, gee that was enough time for genneral discussion... NOT!

Another excuse just offered to me was three people said "this'll get locked"
when has that been a precusor to locking a thread?

As far as I'm concerned they should of been treated as spam (especially
the first reply), but I didn't even get a chance to complain about that post
before it was locked. It would of been counted as SPAM on any other thread.
I didn't ask for them to reply in that way nor did my post invite such a reply
anymore than this one would, but just lock it any way and stiffle
any discussion that may of come from it.


anyways I'm not going to further this argument here, since there is no
chance of being heard and you will quickly delete this post. If the only
throw back from you is "innuendo" then "Elitism" and not "moderator" would
be the right word for you :) you can cry all you like about the hard work
you do moderating this forum, but hey here's an idea you were offered the
job so dont complain. And save your excuses for someone else

Gee you just cant win can you Dennis:lol:

regards,CS sunny days

[Dennis]

I dunno Rob - worse things have happened to me...I'm still trying to live down my embarrassing chat with Ponders G11 and scope cover at Astro fest (blush) - it sure looked like him in the dark. If you hadn't have noticed, I reckon I might have got away with it. :whistle:

Cheers

Dennis

[CoombellKid]

Dennis,

hehehe, yes well I think that now has become legend! What is the slogan...
"Clear one night supernova the next" should be appended with "If not you
can always chat to a G11" lol... well maybe Paul's one apparently and
according to you it talks back

regards,CS sunny days

[ving]

what I dont really get is why post something like this on an astronomy forum? generally speaking astronomers believe in the big bang, and most likely evolution because like the big bang its not a creationist POV. there are of course people here that do believe in creation but they are the vast minority...

this discussion would go down really well on a religious forum ;)
I am sure those of a evolutionist way of thinking would have great fun trying to explain thier way of thinking to a forum of christians and it would be much more of a challenge trying to convert those who arent already converted.

and i am sure that the religious forum would be able to give a much better argument for thier cause. :P

[AstroJunk]

It isn't - its in a General Chat forum on an Astronomy related site.

And from what I see, the General Chat area is almost 100% spam so it would be difficult to criticise the relevance of anything posted here!

[iceman]

If there's nothing else on topic to add to this thread, please just stop replying and let it age gracefully.

It seems like it's reached a logical conclusion.

[CoombellKid]

Thanks Mike,

Maybe that should of been brought in about msg#5 : )

regards,CS sunny days

"When the going gets hard the soft flee"

[Doug]

Yup.. should be more carefull. It is a great pity when people of any persuasion misrepresent things.

I didn't pay much attention to the hammer, usually finds like that are used merely to illustrate that it doesn't take zillions of years for things to be encased in rock etc. for example there was a drink bottle discovered under an old building here in Sydney that was encased in a stalegmite, but could only have been there 100 or so years.

I was interested in footprints but these too seem to be unverifiable, some from Russia, not proven hoaxes, but not confirmed either.

Thanks for pointing that out.
cheers,
Doug

[Doug]

Speaking oif wings, here is an interesting article. Note the belief system of the interviewed authority and the observation about 'Nature' magazines standards of authentification.
it seems there are shonks on both sides and these do nobody any good.

Doug

[Doug]

Quoted from Argonavis:

No so. The bone of contention as any well researched evolutionary apologist should know is not speciation, but links from one kind to another. Therefore my quote was not out of context but rather quite germane.
Species can progress, and yes it either takes a long time or exceptional circumstances to occur. Creationists do not deny speciation, however this progressive species change is not as straightforward as some might want to claim.
How any reputable fossil biologist can be certain of their clams is something of a mystery given the requirements for a viable species change occurring. See 'Haldane's rule', and note it is a rule not a law. A modern day illustration of the difficulties in getting new species off the launch pad as a viable new species might be the woes of the courtship of the Male Tiger and the Lioness. The offspring of such a mixed marriage results in infertile males yet fertile females. No new species here. On the otherhand The Male Lion and the Tigress will apparently produce fertile young of both genders.

As to species the Tigon might well qualify, but it is still a member to the 'Kind' Panthera; it is not a 'New Kind' And it is the links between 'Kinds that are missing.

Doug

[Doug]

Seriously, is this science?
How can it be known how many of anything remains to be discovered? Surely if there are more species of Dino to be discovered, and there might well be, how can the number be known or even guestimated?

[Argonavis]

There is nothing in that article about Nature magazine, unless you have forgotten to post a link

Scientific "shonks" are fairly promptly discovered (this is called scientific fraud) and driven from science. It is the highest crime.

Elsewhere, con artists can just go on and on, feeding on public gullibility.

[Argonavis]

If you had read the entire page:


http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/11/14/so_how_many_fossils_are_there/

there are some comments at the foot of the page about the statistical techniques involved.

Basically, you start with the diversity of life we observe around us and the number of species and genuses alive now and look at how closely their physiology is related (ie you are looking at a spectum of variation) and compare that with the known sample of extinct species and assume that they had just as many closely related species living along side them.

There are quite a few of these statistical techniques in biology which can be used to estimate population sizes of wild animals etc.

Astronomy uses the same techniques to estimate the number of stars, galaxies etc. without having to count each individual one.

[Doug]

Oops... try http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp

[Doug]

I also read on that page that the estimates were based on the rate of discovery thus far.

[Argonavis]

The only hominoid footprints I am aware of is:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetoli

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2844287.stm


I would not call these unverified.

[Argonavis]

I am all for skepticism, but this web site is run by Ham and has no scientific credibility whatsoever. It is pushing a political view.

[Doug]

ie. It is not saying what some evolutionists care to have made public.

Are you suggesting that either the interview that I linked to is false, or that Dr Alan Feduccia himself is also of no scientific credibility?
Quoting from his own web link,

[AstroJunk]

Argo, I don't know how you could possibly take umbridge at "they disagree over a minor point which means that the whole hypothesis of evolution is wrong, and therefore creation, for which I have presented not one reasonable argument must be true" :P

[WARNING, ON TOPIC]I would have thought that the ID would be a beter counterpoint to evolution than creation in religious schools[/ON TOPIC]