ID - was 'censorship sux' - Page 4

bonox · #61 17-11-2005, 10:28 AM

i just love being touched by his noodly appendage

janoskiss (Steve H) · #62 17-11-2005, 10:29 AM

Amen Brother ... or Sister!

I can't stop laughing! I'm in tears. I'm glad I'm not at work right now because I'd be in a lot of trouble.

bonox · #63 17-11-2005, 01:02 PM

another one:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Evangelical

Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

avandonk · #64 17-11-2005, 01:05 PM

Some fifteen years ago I said to my boss at CSIRO (He is a world renowned scientist) that I thought that the human brain worked at a Quantum level.This means when retreiving information or thinking about a complex problem all possible states exist and in an instant the best answer or information appears in the concious mind.This was my only 'proof'.
His reply was collect all the evidence you can, test it repeatedly,and if it makes a testable prediction, test the prediction.Then come back to me and convince me with facts and results.I have still yet to do this by his criteria or satisfaction.This is the scientific method.

But some real consequences if this is correct,it would give a mechanism for telepathy over time and space,non corporeal existance,and more.

As I write this there are some major breakthroughs being made in Quantum computing.So only time will tell.

I thought I would throw this in as how science works.

Bert

bonox · #65 17-11-2005, 01:07 PM

thanks Bert - got a hypothesis on how you are going to test it?

avandonk · #66 17-11-2005, 01:21 PM

Out of body experiences if they can be proved beyond doubt to be real is one way to test.Telepathy is another.The only weak evidence so far is child prodigies Mozart for one.Idiot Savants,and there are many,as in the film Rainman is another weak indication or proof.

There could be some evidence in the highly disciplined practitioners of some meditative religions.This is just a start.
But the real test would be a working Quantum computer that would give us some insights into how the brain functions.
Modern digital computers are just machines that bear no relation to how our brains work.

There is one more thing.When two particles are 'created' out of the energy of an energetic photon.A positron and electron say they are still linked.Einstein called this action at a distance and refused to believe it.How it works that both particles have indeterminate states until you observe one.Once this is done the other particle of the pair immediately has its state fixed by this observation no matter how far apart they are.This actually exceeds the speed of light!
This is purely philosophical but did you ever consider that if the Universe started from a singularity, all particles are linked.The whole Universe is linked
at some level to itself!Where in the young child does happiness,joy and hope reside?

Bert

netwolf · #67 17-11-2005, 02:27 PM

Excellent post bonox, i think you nailed it. There are so many theories out there that it makes no sense to teach them as fact. I think its very important thought that kids be taught the difrence between fact and theory. Science labs as i recall used to be about experiments, observing, recording, postulating, formulating and repeating. This process allows us to use our limited senses to make sense of the workd by ensuring the theory we postulate and formulate fits the data, and is repeatable. We are limited to the data we can gather. Theories are such where we have an inability to gather data, or can only gather limited data as the event has already passed.

As such theories are almost fictional requiring imagination and faith. To convert these to facts may not be near impossible sometimes.

As such if we provide children with a sound understanding of the "Scientific Method", and help them understnad there limits then they can be safely exposed to any theory. Sheltering them will not increase there knowledge, weather that knowledge comes from RE class or Science class those are only containers. And one other thing that is required that will only come with age is Wisdom. The sample data that bonox provided shows how data alone can not be used to draw valid conclusions. The wisdom required to see beyond the data, can only come with age and experience. We can draw graphs of anything vs anything but the wise observer knows what not to bother with.

At the end of schooling, one must see the big picture infinite diversity in infinite combintations (Vulcans -Star Trek). To see that Science/Maths/English/Relgion (all of em not one) etc are not seperate but requrie each other to form wisdom enough to see the big picture. The key is to diversify learning post learning the basics.

I dont think teaching ID or any other theory anyone has is wrong, but first it is necessary to learn the fundamentals. Teaching ID or any theory as fact is fraud. To teach it as a common belif is more appropriate.

The whole thing boils down to the learning phillosophy which we as adults will base on our experince of what is good and bad, however will our children ever see furhter if we are not giants. If we do not diversify learning then will our children be the same as us and is the need of ours to make our children the same as us is it benificial or futile. Truely not a subject that can be resolved simply.

Huygen wave theory of light was not accepted beacuse Newton was more popular and so the particle theory of light persisted for 200 years, will we limit our children with what we currently percive as truth or allow the to explore the infinite diversity. Limited only by some smal set of rules. Do no harm to self or the others, etc some kind of prime directives perhaps..

Keep um comming this is an intresting and stimulating discussion.. Almost sufficent to pass the time while the clouds hang around.

Regards
Netwolf

avandonk · #68 17-11-2005, 02:49 PM

To Netwolf: I again fully agree with you.It is the blurring of boundaries that can lead to conflicts.It is also paramount that human knowledge should not be partitioned (pidgeonholed).Humanities combined knowledge should be self consistent (no paradoxes).

Bert

fringe_dweller · #69 17-11-2005, 02:53 PM

Bonox - while i personally find those very funny satirical looks at the subject entirely apt (I hope they are satirical!!

*gulp* - I think i remember the spaghetti monster one from a while ago

)- we still have be aware that some members might find them offensive? (I have avoided naming names so far - I would like to use to the vague euphenism/name they so often refer to themselves by - a christian group - none of the other big ones do that? wonder why they would hide there true identitiy so often?) and it could result in the pulling of the thread ;( and that would be unfortunate! so I implore caution in future posts from all if you want the thread to remain -
Bert would my vague feelings of deja vue qualify as evidence? hehe

I have another "any (non scientist) dummy can see at a glance ..." easy piece of observational evidence that the earth is quite likely much older than 6 - 10 000 years - just look at the moon - is it covered in huge craters? that are obviously not new? - and we dont have much in the way of even historical anecdotal observations of new ones being created - so where on Earth is the evidence that we have been recently bombarded with such ferocious activity? - the rate of erosion and renewal that it would take to cover the bleedin' obviousness of such evidence would have to be much more rapid than the rate we currently see it at to fit that time frame -maybe erosion and continental plate movement ect. has had periods of varying speeds through the last 6-10 000 years?

I hope that makes sense?

Iddon · #70 17-11-2005, 11:53 PM

I just can't figure the rationality of a person taking all the trapping of modern society, happily using and accepting all the products, devices, tools and outcomes of the SCIENTIFIC process, and at the same time consider that ID is an equal and competing system of thought. But this isn't about pure rationality is it

OK - who have I offended ?

bonox · #71 18-11-2005, 11:45 AM

fringe, from my point of view, if the religions et al keep challenging people about the strength and longevity of faith versus the farcical and often changing ideas of science, then why cannot science do the same in return? (from a scientific reasoned standpoint of course!) It is no different to challenging ones own faith in the light of all you have learned - if you can't justify it to yourself, it seems that you must require the support of a group behind you to force the notions upon all others in the hope that you can follow their lead.

The point of the argument in any case is the definition of 'what defines education', and any information, even unfactual, is useful provided it is given in the appropriate context. The problem here is that with restrictions on specific religious ideas being put forward in general education (ie state) schools, the ID approach appears to be nothing more than a foot in the back door for the old dogs playing new tricks - ie the context of ID teaching as proposed is not appropriate.

bonox · #72 18-11-2005, 11:50 AM

Oh, Iddon

what do you think of the idea that if we see ID around us in the form of toasters and TV's, why cannot we apply this same concept to ourselves? Some mythical being must have done the same, because I refuse to believe that I can be the product of mutation and evolution with a surrounding environment over many years - in the same way many cannot understand the concept of death and an end, and therefore choose to believe in a persisting 'soul' as a future hope.

I shall refrain from using such terms as spiritual and emotional crutches here! I enjoy poking the violent religions based on their past history of beating populations into submission on the notion that you have to pay your way into the afterlife through an institution. Besides, was it not only a year or two ago that the catholic pope finally conceeded that galileo was right!

We as a population often scorn the ideas of knowledge shortages in the past being filled by wild and wonderful concepts to explain them - indeed the human animal enjoys seeking reasons and meaning for things, even in the field of an otherwise arguably silly philosophical bent of 'why am I here'. The australian aboriginal dream-time for example has pretty well been steam-rollered by joe average at this point - in my opinion it is only a matter of time before the christian and muslin faiths succumb to the same. The buddhist ideas are different, in that they do not require anything other than a belief in yourself!

netwolf · #73 18-11-2005, 01:48 PM

Not all creation theories are equal, looking closer at my own belifs, i have found that the word for day is mistranslated. As the same word is used in many location to mean diffrent lenths of time, it infact means very long periods or ages and aeons. So its more like 6 very long periods rather than days... And given that time of 24 hours in a day was only established post creation of the earth and sun, it would not make sense to use these terms to describe creation. Some insights into another perspective on creation.

Nothing is fact when the observer has limited capacity to understand the nature of that which is beyond him. We are all alwasy lerning and facts do change as our understanding increases. Who knows when we will know everything about everything. Is that even possible?

Education should be about teaching us the basics of learning and exploring for ourselves. Fact/Fiction/Faith.. we each decide for ourselves, we can not impose restrictions even onto our own children. Or we might as well just clone ourselves, to extend our life and our belifs.

Regards
Netwolf

fringe_dweller · #74 18-11-2005, 04:25 PM

Grant, I dont think they want to tamper with hard sciences or subjects that make most of the money? things like pure maths ect. would be untouched I would imagine - they only want to discredit/water down/undermine/fiddle with subjects that dont agree with their literal interpretation of the bible, and challenges their beliefs. In the firing line number one of course is darwins theory - but I thought biology was a huge money spinner? and further along comes geology (another huge money spinner? mining ect.) and poor old cosmology - not a money spinner i guess? - as they conflict with their version of the age of the earth.
But even an casual observer from the public such as myself can see the danger with that surely? I thought science was a roughly? linked integrated whole -and you start pulling out bits out that you dont like based on emotions and you would undermining the whole edifice and its authority? and setting maybe a dangerous precedent for the future of science.
I have educated myself a little more on this topic since getting involved in the original thread - I didnt realise there were 6 squillion webblogs out there on the subject!!! and it appears from my web travels that there is a perception from ALL the religions that in science classes that they go out of their way to teach kiddies that there is no God - what a load of rubbish!!! thats outrageous!! I have no recollection of such an experience in science classes - have they changed that much?
What PQ'ed my interest initially and made me prick up my ears, was the reverent and glaring acquiescence of the bulk of the mainstream media when promoting and endorsing, sorry I mean reporting on this theory - it was just this unquestioning dewy eyed almost fawning over the theory like they had just found the holy grail of science, and they had just discovered the meaning of life, the theory of everything all rolled into one, and it was on par with the theory of relativity being just discovered or bigger!! - and the vague main supporting aurgument seemed to be that the human eye is so perfect.. blah blah (with no mention of the nitty gritty of the theory being based on the literal interpretation of the old testament - remember the devil is always in the detail as they say

), ..and that therefore science is flatly wrong and trying to hoodwink the public - sounds like human vanity to me - there was scant balanced reporting on it imo ..
(Note: I just looked at that webpage that I linked again with the education minister's comments on ID - now I swear when I first read that - that he said, when asked, that introducing ID in science classes for state schools wasnt yet ruled out, ie that is still being considered - it appears to have changed? That is also my recollection from the time of the first response to the 70 000 Australian scientists and science teachers releasing that 'open letter' condemning ID as unscientific in the media recently - a conspiracy? wheres my tin foil hat? )
Bonox, totally agreed - thats pretty good

they were feeling a little left out maybe? starved of attention? flexing their muscles?
but have they achieved their objective in as much as as to have joe public and the media talking about and debating God and religion in their everyday conversations - and just basically publicity, air time and today relevance for religion? basically keeping it in the headlines? if that is their goal than they have certainly done that - clever buggers -
Netwolf - I have to admit to complete ignorance on creation story in the Koran

please forgive me I didnt know it was a similiar theme!! I know the Bible and the Koran have some/a fair bit of common ground. whatever creation theory anyone subscribes too - wether it be the dreamtime or genesis or whatever - I dont think any were meant to be taken literally? they were guides and probably meant to deal with difficult questions by uneducated (by todays definition of the word) people seeking answers - but they are all united and purposeful in that they declared that God,/Gods/Great Spirit(s) created the earth long ago for us - and is/are our true father/s and thats all that really matters?

Iddon · #75 18-11-2005, 07:06 PM

Sorry - I went of on a tangent there. ID has its place I guess - but not in science class rooms. Brendan was wrong in saying that the broad community needs to decide what is taught in science classes - a sectarian educated "middle bureacracy" will make these type of decisions and I personally don't feel any threat from ID into this rational domain in Australia. Some US states may go a different way however.

fringe_dweller · #76 18-11-2005, 08:23 PM

No need to apologise at all Iddon - that was fair question..
the 70 000 Australian scientists and science teachers thought there was a threat enough to act - I have never heard, in my short life, of such a thing being necessary in this country? has anyone else got an example of something similiar happening in our recent history?? I guess maybe global warming?

Moonman (Michael) · #77 19-11-2005, 01:34 AM

It's such a pity that there is all this fuss about where we came from but nobody really seems to want to put the same amount of investment and time and resources into where we are going to end up.

Global Warming / Polution / Evrionmental degradation / Species becoming extinct everyday.

These are the truths that stare us in the face today. Unlike much that has gone on before we can touch them, see them and measure them. But do you think the powerful evangelical christian groups want to throw their weight behind them. No!

I think they would rather play on peoples nagging doubts and uncertainties and try to give them a place to hide and a false sense of meaning based on dogma and not reality.

There are numerous storys or parables that Jesus told during his life and one that rings true for me now is one concerning the parable of the talents. Three servants each given care over a portion of their masters property while he is temporarily absent. Two use it wisely and produce something from it and are rewarded the one who hides it and is afraid and only returns the same recieves his just punishment. (This is a figurative story not to taken literally in the everyday sense).

One of the main themes of Christianity is that of being called in the end to account for your life what you did what you achieved and how you stuffed up. What I believe is missing from the ID perspective is any real application as to how any of the 6 to 10000 year nonsense affects the real problems of today other than supplying some sense of artificial meaning.

I believe that if Christian's are really fair dinkum about pushing their theology onto the world they should at least be using it for the good of all trying to address the real problems and not the demons in their heads which tell them that they are right and everybody else has got it wrong and then try to dress the whole thing up trojan horse style in a psuedo scientific theory.

They should be using the inspiration that their faith gives them to push for the real science that actually improves peoples lives and solves real problems.

They should be talking about calling people to account for the divided between the rich and porr in the world the fact that 20% own 80% of the worlds wealth. Millions living in poverty. Many do do this and are not sidetracked into these creation vs evolution type debates.

Some of you may be remotley aware af the recent "MAke Poverty History" Campaigns and the worldwide campaign leading up to the G8 Summit trying to convince the world's richest's countries to cancel third world debt. There were of course many different groups involved in this campaign and (in my book) a big tick to those whose faith and beliefs inspired their participation.

Anyway I think my soapbox is starting to get a bit creaky and wobbly so I jump off for now.

Regards to all and to all a good night (viewing night that is)

avandonk · #78 19-11-2005, 02:36 PM

Please, Intelligent Design purports to be Science!So no matter how much we denigrate ID in the confines of Religion,we do not have to apologize!And if we suggest they are wrong on scientific grounds it is up to them to put up or shut up!I am sick and tired of right wing ignorant morons pushing their limited view of the Universe.

END OF STORY!

Bert

xelasnave · #79 19-11-2005, 06:46 PM

I have been away in the bush since my last post. My post is gone because it was of a religious nature.. my comment was on inteligent design and the danger of regarding it as a new science and moreover that the general public are being marketed to so as to deliver such a concept...the post is gone (deleted) because of its religious reference or content? Now I see this thread going over the matter. I presume this thread may have been started as a result of the deletion of my post and its deletion. My thread starter I hope was not too hot but I had been discussing it on astronomydaily.com researching the push behind the idea and found that it is being put forward by people in the highest places. My point simply lets keep our proved science and not be swayed by clever marketers to introduce this "new" science into our schools. So I would like to think that when discussing ID we are in fact not talking about religion.. I have be sucessfully marketed to.. we are talking "new" science and wheter it should be taught. Does the "new" science stand the tests you would like to gaurd our accumulated knowledge or not.
alex

avandonk · #80 19-11-2005, 07:06 PM

xelasnave you have to be as duplicitious as they are,say one thing and do another.Have you noticed how careful I was in not denigrating anybody.All we can do is be absolutely honest in every thing we say and do and yet these crazy people will not dissapear!
How many right wing preachers HAVE sinned(that is busted publicly)?Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
I was not going to add to this thread as I find any sort of fundamental theocracy to be absolutely wrong by being so limited, and to react to these small minded twits only encourages them.I am not sorry for saying this!And I will not apologize!

Bert