ID - was 'censorship sux'

[TidaLpHasE]

Originally Posted by avandonk

ID is no more a theory than the existance of the tooth fairy.Niether is testable.

Science on the other hand cannot prove or disprove any superstitious belief that is untestable.
Evolution is testable and is now incontrivertible.
All people are allowed to believe anything they like no matter how preposterous.
So keep beliefs based on faith where they belong, in religous classes.

Bert

Here Here, totally agree.

And i definately have no problem being a decendant of a monkey

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

The smartest thing I heard said on this topic was along these lines:

When you invoke a creator or "designer" in your ideas about the origin of the world, then you are just shifting the problem onto the origin of the Creator. Most believers will simply say that: Ahh, but that's the creator, He's always been there and always will be. So why not just say that the stars have always been or life has always been?

The truth is that we don't have a clue what is going on! Some of us pretend that we do, but if anyone takes an honest look at themselves, they would have to admit they have no idea. I believe that this lack of ability to understand the true nature of the world is an integral part of our semi-conscious human existence. Some people will attach divine significance to things they don't understand. I am happy to simply acknowledge the severe limitations of my cerebral cortex and just work with what I've got.

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by janoskiss

The smartest thing I heard said on this topic was along these lines:

When you invoke a creator or "designer" in your ideas about the origin of the world, then you are just shifting the problem onto the origin of the Creator. Most believers will simply say that: Ahh, but that's the creator, He's always been there and always will be. So why not just say that the stars have always been or life has always been?

The truth is that we don't have a clue what is going on! Some of us pretend that we do, but if anyone takes an honest look at themselves, they would have to admit they have no idea. I believe that this lack of ability to understand the true nature of the world is an integral part of our semi-conscious human existence. Some people will attach divine significance to things they don't understand. I am happy to simply acknowledge the severe limitations of my cerebral cortex and just work with what I've got.

There is nothing wrong with that approach but don't call it science!

We still cannot even start to figure out what or where conciousness is.But that does not mean we retreat and invoke the aluminium hat god.
This is as good a belief as all the others.

Bert

[netwolf]

Why mix Science and RE. Both have there seperate places.

BTW did someone prove Macro-evolution (one specis to another) while i was sleeping or is that still in contention.
Micro-Evolution (evolution within one specis) is not proof of Macro, and I do not belive there has been any evidence found of Macro. Unless some has and I dont know about it..

Regards

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

There is nothing wrong with that approach but don't call it science!

I didn't mean to.

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by netwolf

Why mix Science and RE. Both have there seperate places.



BTW did someone prove Macro-evolution (one specis to another) while i was sleeping or is that still in contention.
Micro-Evolution (evolution within one specis) is not proof of Macro, and I do not belive there has been any evidence found of Macro. Unless some has and I dont know about it..

Regards

Thats what I have been saying.

The typical tactic of the ID/creation mob is to find an area of contention and then claim science doesn't know.And then say the whole edifice is invalid.
They don't apply this criteria to their superstitions.

Macro(your definition) evolution is real ,just have a look at the evidence!It is all around you.
If you want a futher explanation read Darwins original book.We have moved a long way since then as we now know the molecular basis for his original hypothesis.

Bert

[fringe_dweller]

ok in my understanding of ID - the basic unquestionable bedrock fundamental core of the Theory is that the Earth is no older than 6000 years - I'm sorry but i cant get past this first little part of it - let alone and of the other bits

I have to say that the original thread that was deleted wasnt started by me, but i got upset that twice now my posts had been deleted on this topic - and I didnt think there was anything offensive in them and the subject was relevant to today and astronomy - that it actually made me worse -
also it makes me sad to have to seemlingly denigrate someones beliefs - i beleive the vast majority of christians do amazing good works everyday - lots of thankless tasks in volunteer organisations, hospitals you name it ect. and society wouldnt be where it is today without its organised religon in history
but if we are placed in a position were you have to defend your beliefs (make no mistake this theory doesnt accomandate anywhere for science - it is anti science by its very nature - and is basically calling science a pile of rubbish) than what can you do?
Lots of intelligent and great responses to the thread Guys hehe
- flatworms hehe

[netwolf]

You are right Bert, that is a narrow definition i suppose but you must admit there are still things we have to find like fosil records etc. The abscence of this is still alarming.

Everything has a place and it does not need to be the same place. But what i really dislike are the zelots on either side of the debate. Faith requires not proof as that is unfaithfull, it need only be taught as faith. As to Scienctific method, that is how we explore our world and understanf it with what limited senses we have. Science is not a cetaintiy as it changes and grows with us.

Regards

[netwolf]

Come on 6000 years old, thats just a cheap shot.. a day does not have to mean 24 hours. Diffrent planets have diffrent day lentgs and when was time a fixed quantity or is that theory indisputable..

[avandonk]

An area in the history of science that was even more scary was Newtons Clockwork Universe.It implied predetermination.Classical Physics said that if you knew the position of all particles in the Universe and their velocities you could predict the past and the future.This implied fate and no matter what you did you would meet your destiny!We now know this is not true.Quantum mechanics and chaos theory both predict an indeterminate future.We still have free will!
It is up to us to make our future.

Bert

[fringe_dweller]

Netwolf, are you saying that fact I mentioned isnt fundamental to the theory - thats the way I heard it loud and clear through the media?? The highly paid PHD in marketing gurus for ID should of done a better job in explaining it to the world, How is a theory that flexible?

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by netwolf

Come on 6000 years old, thats just a cheap shot.. a day does not have to mean 24 hours. Diffrent planets have diffrent day lentgs and when was time a fixed quantity or is that theory indisputable..

No it is not a cheap shot!Either there is an internally self consistent theory that is testable.Or it is a superstitious belief called any religion.ID is just that a superstitious belief without any foundation in any rigorous science.

Bert

[avandonk]

By the way the word superstitious is derived from two words super=above

the stit bit is stand both Latin origin.Just going on a failing memory of latin ca.1962

Bert

[fringe_dweller]

just as a reference - i was raised in a hardline Catholic bible thumpin enviroment - we learnt the bible by rote in school - as all good christians did then. So i am not unfamiliar with organised religon exactly
What i dont understand is religon and science were getting along just fine - a sort of mutual respect if you want
even the usually ultra conservative hardline Roman Catholic Church had no problem with being descended from monkeys and flatworms whatsoever (the Pope just recently flatly rejected ID on wholesale level just out of interest) - because to them God is so great as to transcend mere mortals understanding - who knows why he did it the way he did it? He created the whole universe supposedly? why would he do that? just to accomondate one little planet? so we have something to look at through our telescopes? why couldnt he of intended the outcome the way science thinks it happened - I am not so un-openminded as to not think that is a possibilty of all the possibilties

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by fringe_dweller

just as a reference - i was raised in a hardline Catholic bible thumpin enviroment - we learnt the bible by rote in school - as all good christians did then. So i am not unfamiliar with organised religon exactly
What i dont understand is religon and science were getting along just fine - a sort of mutual respect if you want
even the usually ultra conservative hardline Roman Catholic Church had no problem with being descended from monkeys and flatworms whatsoever (the Pope just recently flatly rejected ID on wholesale level just out of interest) - because to them God is so great as to transcend mere mortals understanding - who knows why he did it the way he did it? He created the whole universe supposedly? why would he do that? just to accomondate one little planet? so we have something to look at through our telescopes? why couldnt he of intended the outcome the way science thinks it happened - I am not so un-openminded as to not think that is a possibilty of all the possibilties

All that works is science.Science cant yet explain love lust greed and all the other good things let alone the sins.
How I handle GOD is by thinking of two ants crossing the carpet in the lounge room and one ant says to the other I know how that television works and from now on you should listen to me. They do not have the wherewithall and niether do we.So I'll stick to something simple like science.
One thing the Christian Brothers taught me was a healthy disrespect for any authority.

Bert

[iceman (Mike)]

Ok this is a valid discussion, please keep to the topic and don't post anything which is intended to cause a reaction.

Don't forget, we have a lot of members with varying ideals and beliefs and you never know who might get offended by what you post. Please, err on the side of caution.

If you see anything offensive, use the "report post" button and the mods or I will take a look.

[slice of heaven]

Cool, Kearn This is in response to your temporary sig of yesterday, but I couldn't reply because of the sites problem.
I was happy with the reasons given for pulling the original thread, there is a fine line.
Seems the site IS mature and grown up enough to discuss a topic like this

[netwolf]

I do not subscribe to any theories that have a basis in Religion, as religion requires no theories its based on faith. At present I accept the Science that we know thus far, and I dont worry about the gap between it and faith. I was brought up a muslim and according to our scriptures, in many places it is idicated that those who wish to understand will understand. And one of the major areas were this is mentioned is in the sighting of the crsecent moon and the lunar callender, it clearly indicates that this is what we declare but those who want to understand it will. And Astronomy clearly today presents a theory that explains lunar movements well and there is no gap. The stars above and there movements has been well understood for many thousands of years. The pyramid builders the Mayans the ancient indians and others all understood the motions of the stars as is seen in there construction works. Part of living is to except that our understanding is limited to what we can observer repetedly and this is Science. This does not mean that faith is incorect or that Science is. It just is, and those who insist on finding proof for faith are driven to make others understand.

Creating theories to explain that fit your faith is being unfaithfull. I accept that there is something beyond my understanding that i can not observer nor explain. That is faith..

Though my parents are religious both are very scientific in there attidudes and that they have passed on to us. Education teaches us how to communicate,observer and learn. And I belive our kids our smarter thans us in understanding the gap between science and faith. Why certain folk belive its neccessary to prove faith is beyond my understanding.

Why I like astronomy and why i am a forum member is because i wish to expand my knwoledge of the universe arround me in a scientific way. And my upbringing is such that it demands this in conjunction with my faith.

Appoligies if i have caused offense to anyone.


Regards
Netwolf.

[avandonk]

I am in total agreement with you Netwolf.That was the point I was trying to make all along.Science and religion are not in conflict.It only becomes a problem when we attempt to use either to denigrate the other.
The problems that have occurred through history have been due to some humans hanging on to their power and priveledge,rather than their firmly held beliefs.
I am sorry if I have caused any offence to anyone.But I think it is fair to say something when this line is crossed.

Bert

[acropolite (Phil)]

Well said Bert...