Fighting the fight

[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 (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Doug

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.

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 (Ken)]

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?"

[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/Bi...ence/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

[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:

The premise that evolution requires a single generation to produce something completely different (your frog example) does not fit in with the evolution model.

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]

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

[ving (David)]

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 (Ken)]

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]

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.

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

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Doug

..., 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............

(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 .
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:

Since I have no faith, I can only take small peices of evidence and make my own decisions and conclusions from them.

And you have faith in this process
cheers,
Doug