Say Anything Blog

Science and government has given us abortion, the greatest atrocity in the history of civilization. 

But a person who’s a creationist doesn’t understand science and technology at all,”

This putz doesn’t understand creationism, ID, or science to make such a blatantly false and ignorant claim.

“It’s unfortunate McCain would pick someone who shares those particular anti-science views, but it’s not a surprise,” said Barbara Forrest,

So anyone who doesn’t believe in molocules to man speciation, ie., evolution, is anti-science? 

Painting with a pretty broad brush aren’t we?

Pathetic

For you brilliant science-only believers:

Has the process of matter acting upon matter ever been observed to produce information and codify that information?

If that one isn’t obvious try this:

What is the name of the law or process that requires matter to organize itself?

I found it odd that the group (liberals, not necessarily just the democrat party), that fights so hard to strip Religion out of mainstream society & schools, started each day of the DemCon with a prayer session.
I’m not complaining by any means.
I also noticed thay said “under God” in the Pledge.
Maybe there’s hope, yet!
With that out of the way, I think that if they’re going to drive an “evolution” idea, they should at least touch on the ID thoughts, as well.

Without an honest exchange of ideas, how can a mind grow?

The lie here is that if you don’t drink the Darwinian KoolAid, you’re a “creationist”.  There is also Intelligent Design, which the guy nutbag plagiarized didn’t mention.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

The lie here is that if you don’t drink the Darwinian KoolAid, you’re a “creationist”.  There is also Intelligent Design, which the guy nutbag plagiarized didn’t mention.

Well, that’s because any other theory than Darwinism is biblical creationism. Even ALTERNATIVE theories of evolution that make more sense are biblical creationism. Even the FSM theory is creationism, even though it’s mocking creationists. Since it doesn’t praise Darwin as superior to Jesus, it is obviously biblical creationism.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

There is also Intelligent Design, which the guy nutbag plagiarized didn’t mention.

Intelligent Desing isn’t.  It is just creationism by a different name.

And once again Lestat preaches the line without any knowledge or facts to back it up.  You’re obviously ignorant of both creationism and ID or your just a bald-faced liar.

Is Intelligent Design the same thing as Creationism?

No. Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that “designer” could in theory be anything or anyone. In 1802, William Paley used the “divine watchmaker” analogy to popularize the design argument*: If we assume that a watch must have been fashioned by a watchmaker, then we should assume that an ordered universe must have been fashioned by a divine Creator. Many traditional Creationists have embraced this argument over the years, and most, if not all, modern advocates for Intelligent Design are Christians who believe that God is the designer.

Creationism comes in many varieties, from the strictest biblical literalism (according to which the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and flat) to the theistic evolutionism of the Catholic Church (which accepts evidence that the Earth is millions of years old, and that evolution can explain much of its history—but not the creation of the human soul). Between those extremes, there are “Young-Earth” and “Old-Earth” creationists, who differ over the age of the planet and the details of how God created life.

The limited scope of Intelligent Design theory makes it compatible with a wide range of views. Some prominent ID theorists believe in evolution—or at least that species can change over time—and many believe that the Earth was created more than 10,000 years ago. But there are also ID theorists who believe in a literal reading of Genesis.
Young-Earth creationists have criticized the Intelligent Design movement for encouraging a loose reading of the Bible. The design theorists respond that ID represents at least the “partial truth” and that it is, at the very least, the best available tool for dislodging what they see as evolutionist dogma.

From Slate

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ~Theodore Roosevelt

The term Intelligent Design came into being in the “Science text book” Of Pandas and Peoples.  This book is published be a creationist sect of Christians whose goal was to teach crationism in public school.  They continually edited the text of the book until they could get it approved in some Texas schools.

That is all Intelligent Design has ever been.  A marketing scheme.  It is not real science.

Well, that’s because any other theory than Darwinism is biblical creationism.

Wrong.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

It is not real science.

Denial.

Damn straight I am denying Intelligent Design is real science. 

Real science requires that you be able to test it.  Explain how you can test Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design can best be summed up by the statement, “I don’t understand, their must be God.”  Great for a religion class, but not science.

The term Intelligent Design came into being in the “Science text book” Of Pandas and Peoples.

Patterns, information, purpose, and a cause sufficient to effect them are evidence of the obvious, an intelligent cause.  That is 100% pure observational science. Many other observations exist if you take the time to educate yourself a little.

Real science requires that you be able to test it

Cool.  Maybe you could show me and the world speciation.  If it is real you ought to be able to demonstrate it.  Seen any transitional species lately?

“I don’t understand, their must be God.”

Not only is Intelligent Design not science, it is anti-science because it discourages curiosity.  It tells people not to look for answers because the answer is that it was created that way.

NOT SCIENCE.

Explain how you can test Intelligent Design.

You mean falsify it?  Simple.

You must observe matter acting upon matter which creates information where none existed and codifies it.

it is anti-science because it discourages curiosity

No, it discourages fiction like speciation.

Seen any transitional species lately?

Yes.

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

But the fact that every transitional species has not been found does not prove that their were none.

Evolutionary science is not perfect or 100% accurate, but it is science because it creates hypothesises (hypothesi?), tests them and than creates new hypothesi that can be tested.  It doesn’t remain static as Intelligent Design does by hypothesizing a creator.

NOT SCIENCE

“I don’t understand, their must be God.”

Nice straw man.  So far you offered hasty generalizations and a straw man.  Got anything other than fallacies to argue your point?

Please explain how you can test Intelligent Design.  If you can do that I will admit that it is science.

But the fact that every transitional species has not been found does not prove that their were none.

You can’t prove a negative, so that is meaningless.  The burden of proof is on those who hypothesize transitional species.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

A supposed transitional fossil is not speciation. 

Evolutionary science is not perfect or 100% accurate,

That is an understatement.

Not only is Intelligent Design not science, it is anti-science because it discourages curiosity.

So says the guy who wants to silence all other ideas.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Please explain how you can test Intelligent Design.  If you can do that I will admit that it is science.

I just did.

You mean falsify it?  Simple.

You must observe matter acting upon matter which creates information where none existed and codifies it.

So says the guy who wants to silence all other ideas.

Precisely!

Thought I would point out that evolutionary theory deals with mechanisms by which species evolve from other species.  Creationism, as the term suggests, deals with the question of where did the universe come from, and generally answers it in the form of a maker.  These are not mutually exclusive.

Intelligent design suggests that there is a purpose for the pattern of species, that is that there is a maker and that this maker purposefully created a specific design.  There is of course nothing to say the species could not have been created using the mechanism of evolution…

The problem we run into is with ID proponents who basically advocate a very restrictive version of ID that is shoehorned into their religious doctrine, which argues amongst other things that the Earth & Universe are only 10,000 years old, and that no actual evolution of species occurred. 

Of course this is all pure and utter unadulterated nonsense… there are over 30 different lines of reasoning for establishing the age of the Earth to over 4 billion years of age, and plenty of evidence that species evolution did occur.

I would be perfectly happy to discuss the intersections of science, philosophy and religion, and would even be happy to see such a discussion appear in a general science course: The issue of a creator is necessarily not a scientific one, no matter how much HG and the others want it to be.  Science deals with measurable quantities and testable hypotheses.

Unless you come up with a ID theory that can be tested using empirical methods, the that theory by definition does not belong in the realm of science.  That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be discussed (in some generic fashion), in fact it should be simply to allay some of the confusion over the distinctions between empirical science, philosophy and religion.

My biggest problem is that this put ID in the classroom thing is a farcical attempt to shove the beliefs of a very limited number of people onto the rest of us.  I’m not saying HG is doing that, but there certainly are those who are doing so quite blantantly.

Unless you come up with a ID theory that can be tested using empirical methods

Carrick,

Why wouldn’t the observation of matter acting upon matter, creating new information where none existed and codifying that information, falsify an intelligent cause?

You must observe matter acting upon matter which creates information where none existed and codifies it.

It’s not somebody elses job to disprove your hypothesis.  You must prove it.  All you have done is make an observation and posited a hypothesis for that observation.  Now YOU must prove it.

NOT SCIENCE

Carrick,

You see ID as a means to a religious end while other see evolution as a means to an atheist end.  Those like you who believe that God created via evolution, still place a value on human life which far exceeds the devalued humanity much of atheism boasts.

Now YOU must prove it.

I thought you were familiar with science?  You prove it by failing to disprove it in a scientific manner (observationally or by physical experiment). If matter acting upon matter cannot produce new information where it did not exist and codify that information, then the observation of patterns, information, purpose within nature may very well be physical evidence of an intelligent cause.

“If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?”

If you don’t park on it, why do they call it a parkway?  Do you really want to turn this into a discussion on semantics?

The issue of a creator is necessarily not a scientific one, no matter how much HG and the others want it to be.

Never said it was.  I have said on numerous occasions that science can point us to an all-powerful, intelligent cause, but only faith offers the means to know that cause.

You prove it by failing to disprove it in a scientific manner (observationally or by physical experiment).

That is not science.  You have to prove your hypothesis, not have somebody else disprove it.  Science does not give the answer to everything or even try.  You are making a metaphysical argument and calling it science.

Your statement that “matter acting upon matter creating new information where it did not exist and codifying that matter” is ridiculous.  DNA is created all the time.  Their is your example.  Nothing you say contradicts any known scientific principal.

Why wouldn’t the observation of matter acting upon matter, creating new information where none existed and codifying that information, falsify an intelligent cause?

We have something like that already:  genetic algorithms on computers optimize engineering and physics systems using random mutations. Basically by trial and error the most optimal solution gets selected out over time.

That’s not particularly far away from what you describe, and it is pretty much the concept between Darwinian, or continuous, evolution.

But even if we could do exactly what you mean (rather than just say), that still wouldn’t disprove the existence of a maker, it would only limit the mechanisms that He uses for creation.

To put another way:

You prove it by failing to disprove it in a scientific manner (observationally or by physical experiment).

This is basically the concept of falsifiability (and yes Lestat, it is the basis of empirical science, HG has that right).  Falsifiability is an integral requirement for a particular hypothesis to meet the standards of an “empirical/scientific hypothesis”.

And that seems to me is where iD as a hypothesis falls flat:  You can’t disprove the existence of a maker.  That is actually a provable statement, and what it does is actually promote the hypothesis of ID from merely an empirical question to a metaphysical one.

This is basically the concept of falsifiability (and yes Lestat, it is the basis of empirical science, HG has that right).  Falsifiability is an integral requirement for a particular hypothesis to meet the standards of an “empirical/scientific hypothesis”.

Only if I view it as a valid hypothesis.  It’s not up to others to disprove his hair brained hypothesis.

Lestat, scientifically a hypothesis is “valid” in the sense you use it, if it is testable, which generally means disprovable.

That doesn’t mean that it needs to be falsified.  If the idea is poorly enough defined, nobody may want to waste their time because the progenitor of the idea could always morph it to fit the latest set of facts.

I understand your other point which is it is up to the ID people to generate a battery of tests that their theory must conform to,  and make a credible first past at rigorously testing their theories….  It certainly isn’t my responsibility to chase after every idea that somebody floats.

I understand that for a hypothesis to be generally accepted in the scientific community that other scientist must be afforded the opportunity to review the data and try to disprove it. 

But the original hypothesis must be tested by the originators rigorously. 

In my opinion ID proponents have made observations and come to a conclusion.  They couch it in scientific terms to make it look scientific, but they have skipped a whole step that would make it science.  They have not tested it.  And the reason for this is because it can’t be tested.  They are trying to prove articles of faith.

I agree with you that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.  In fact I don’t believe science when practiced correctly even tries to answer the question about God.  Science simply tries to figure out how things work.  Maybe someday it will stumble upon God (I doubt it) but it will be entirely by accident.

Woohoo. She’s an idiot.

Why don’t the bible thumpers concentrate on bible school?

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

Lestat:

But the original hypothesis must be tested by the originators rigorously.

Here’s how I would put it:

One need not demonstrate the empirical validity of a hypothesis that one is putting forth.  Otherwise we wouldn’t have “theoretical physicists” for example.

Generally they need to be able to argue that there’s some chance that the hypothesis might be correct, or if correct, that it could have some profound implications.  They also need to elaborate on it well enough to be fully testable (in general that means falsifiable in total, not just parts of it falsifiable).

Theodoius Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionist admits that “the experimental method” is an “impossibility” when applied to evolution.

Professor L. Harrison Matthews, F.R.S., a leading evolutionary biologist, in the forward to the most recent edition of Darwins Origin of the Species recognizes that “Belief in evolution is thus exactly prallel to the belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers [in each] know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.”

The theory of evolution incorporates everything and explains nothing and is thus tautologous.

Thomas Huxley, probably more responsible than any other man for the acceptance of Darwinian philosophy, nevertheless recognized that: “...‘creation’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that at some former period, the universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . .in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being.”

If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measureable, and, therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science. There is no way to prove that the changes within present kinds eventually change the kinds into different, higher kinds. Neither evolution nor creation can be either confirmed or falsified scientifically.

Both Creation and Evolution are faith based religious systems, both use the exact same scientific data, so it is a lie to say creation is not science based; but, only their interpretation of what the data means are different, and both at the end of the science requires some degree of faith (religion) in the underlying life model as a way to explain the data.

If creationism is wrong and it uses science and not the Bible to support its claims, then why are evolutionists afraid to have it presented as an alternative explanation of the existing data? Because, evolution is a man-centered religion and evolutionists cannot risk their faith being opposed by these falsely called un-scientific infidels, because they fear man being dragged down from his throne and having to admit the Truth: The existence of astronomically massive evidence of incredibly complex design on a miraculous scale demands a pre-existing Designer and if that is not man, these frail scientists fear they will not be blindly worshipped any longer.

So, religion is in matter of fact taught in all our schools, it is A State Religion, in contravention of the First Amendment, being the Religion of Evolution. In matter of fact, it is not unlike militant Islam in that by force of law and arms it demands everyone bow dow to the altar of the Religion of Evolution; or like any infidel is treated under Islam, Creation thought must be crushed as a great wickedness and all creationists as the Great Satan. ‘All hail Darwin, god of evolutionary theory and may this god Darwin’s disciples condemn any and all contrary thought.’ Yes my friends, we have a State Religion in our schools, only it is not Christianity - it is Darwinian Theory.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

The evolutionists obviously know where they came from, Lestat’s ancestors were swinging in trees and flinging shit as recently as this morning. 

Lestat, like all liberals, is a transitional species. You just can’t argue that we ALL were created by a supreme being, a supreme being wouldn’t have produced liberals. Evolution, if it exists, will eventually wipe them out.

I think it’s a stretch to say that Palin’s rather non-committal comments about teaching intelligent design in schools is equivalent to her mandating such studies.

She’s saying “Let’s have a debate about this stuff in schools.”  Not “let’s make it a required bit of the curriculum.”

Personally, I find most ID proponents to be tiresome and their arguments shallow and not really based on fact.  But Palin hardly comes off as a nut here.  Only one who doesn’t necessarily want to anger the nuts.

Besides, as VP she’s not exactly going to be setting the curriculum in the schools.  After all, that’s a local issue.  Or is supposed to be, anyway.

Maybe if liberals hadn’t pushed so hard to make it a federal issue Palin’s thoughts on the subject wouldn’t matter.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

She’s saying “Let’s have a debate about this stuff in schools.” Not “let’s make it a required bit of the curriculum.”

Who’s doing the debating in schools? If its kids, that makes it part of the curriculum.

THey should teach evolution and explain that its a scientific theory. ID is not science. It was, before we had scientific theories to address those problems. Back when the earth was the unmoving center of the universe.

ID makes god look like and ass. Giving wings to unflying birds and stumpy tails they no longer need. Giving us unused organs. M’con, why the extra viscera, etc.

Also, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, one can view evolution in a lab in a matter of weeks. Its true. Sure, its not human evolution, but it secures evolution as fact. Whether it accounts for humans is more removed, but SCIENTIFICALLY, its the best theory going and accounts for lots and lots of phenomena in the “fragile sciences” of biology, psychology, and sociology.

Theology is not for public schools unless ALL creations myths are taught. They can teach how ‘Woot’ first forged mans feet.

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

I think it’s a stretch to say that Palin’s rather non-committal comments about teaching intelligent design in schools is equivalent to her mandating such studies.

TRUE!

She’s saying “Let’s have a debate about this stuff in schools.” Not “let’s make it a required bit of the curriculum.”

TRUE!

Personally, I find most ID proponents to be tiresome and their arguments shallow and not really based on fact [Gee, could that be because you are passionately biased against any religious faith and are tired of anyone that may oppose your narrow atheist, religious dogma?].  But Palin hardly comes off as a nut here.  Only one who doesn’t necessarily want to anger the nuts.

TRUE! Palin is not a nut, but she is also not a card carrying atheist!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Also, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, one can view evolution in a lab in a matter of weeks. Its true. Sure, its not human evolution, but it secures evolution as fact. Whether it accounts for humans is more removed, but SCIENTIFICALLY, its the best theory going and accounts for lots and lots of phenomena in the “fragile sciences” of biology, psychology, and sociology.

That is blind, intolerant, religious prejudice on your part! To say ID or Creationism is not science makes you look like an ass, because they are in matter of absolute fact, science based systems - the exact same scienctific data that evolutionists use, the only difference being in the interpretation of that data as regards explaining an underlying life model. Evolution is wholly unproven, cannot be proven, the chance of one tiny complex design resulting from random mutations over inlimited time is 10 with 40,000 zeros after it - in others words absolutely impossible.

Insisting evolution has been proven or duplicated in the laboratory make you an ignorant disciple of Darwin, not right!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

To say ID or Creationism is not science makes you look like an ass

No, it doesn’t. People often try to fit dogma and science together. See for example the old geocentric models that had the sun revolving around the earth and the planets revolving around the sun. When better explanations arrive, that explain more phenomena, science tends to go with those. “Saving the phenomena” as Plato described it.

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

Sparkie: The cartoon waas cute, if not vapid!

Try and pay attention, you are a nice enough fellow, but you do not pay attention well:

The main evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution. Taking the available scientific data the evolutionist force feeds it through the evolutiuonary life model theory, if it does not fit as most often is the case, the evolutionist simply invents a new theory. At the end of the day a great deal of faith in the theory of evolution is required to continue to believe in evolution, which means it is a religion. Darwin invented out of whole cloth a theory to explain the existence of life and all subsequent scientific data has been force fed through that Life Model.

Creationists too have a life model, which we believe is given to us by God and is the only possible explanation for the existence of life. We look at all the same scientific data as do the evolutionsists and rather than force that data into God’s Life Model, the Bible actually predicts the results. Yet, at the end of the day, just like evolutionists, we cannot absolutely prove our Life Model, some faith is required, faith is required by evolutionists and creationsists alike.

“Your religion is anti-scientific,” the judge said . . ., to which the accused girl – a student – answered: “Do you know more science than Einstein, than Newton?  They have been believers in Christ. Our universe [even] bears Einstein’s name, I have learned in high school that its name is the Einsteinian universe. Einstein writes: ‘If we cleanse the Judaism of the prophets and Christianity as Jesus taught it from what came afterwards, especially from priestcraft, we have a religion which can save the world from all social evils. It is the holy duty of every man to do his utmost to bring this religion to triumph.’ And remember physiologist Pavlov! Do not Communism’s own books say that he was a Christian? Even Marx, in his preface to the ‘Capital’ said that ‘Christianity, especially in the Protestant form, is the ideal religion for remaking characters destroyed by sin.’ I had a character destroyed by sin. Marx and scientific atheism has taught me to become a Christian in order to remake it.

“To the same accusation of having an anti-scientific religion, a Christian answered before [the] Court: “I am sure, Mr. Judge, that you are not such a great scientist as Simpson, the discoverer of chloroform and many other medicines. He, when he was asked which he considers to be his greatest discovery, answered” ‘It was not chloroform. My greatest discovery has been to know that I am a sinner and that I could be saved be the grace of God?’”

“Suppose that we could speak with an embryo in his mother’s womb and that you would tell him that the embryonic life is only a short one after which follows a real, a long life. What would the embryo answer? He would say just what you, atheists, answer to us, when we speak to you about paradise and hell. He would say that the life in the mother’s womb is the only one and that everything else is religious foolishness. But if the embryo could think, he would say to himself, “Here arms grow on me. 1 do not need them. I cannot even stretch them. Why do they grow? Probably for a future stage of my existence, in which I will have to work with them. Legs grow, but I have to keep them bent towards my breast. Why do they grow? Probably life in a large world follows, where I will have to walk. Eyes grow, although I am surrounded by perfect darkness and don’t need them. Why do I get eyes? Probably a world with light and colors will follow.”

“So, if the embryo could reflect about his own development, he would know about a life outside his mother’s womb, without having seen it or been able to prove its existence. The same it is with us. As long as we are young, we have vigor, but no mind to use it aright. When, with the years, we have grown in knowledge and wisdom, the hearse awaits us to take us to the grave. Why was it necessary to grow in a knowledge and wisdom, which we can no more use? Why do arms, legs and eyes grow to an embryo? It is for what follows. So it is with us here. We grow here in experience, knowledge, wisdom for what follows. We are prepared to serve on a higher level which follows death.”

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

The main evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution.

Patently false. I will not debate you on this Neiman. You are not open to evidence that contradicts anything you already believe. Also, you are either willingly lying or horribly undereducated about the issues you are trying to debate.

Also, Newton and Einstein were right about a lot of things, but also wrong about a lot of things. Newton turned out to be a hermetic sun worshipper. He was a universalist. Hardly your type of Christian. Einstein thought God didn’t play dice. He too was wrong. Developments in quantum physics need to place unknown or invisible variable to prevent god from playing dice (c.f. Bohm’s formulation of quantum physics for example). The favored theories are indeterminate, i.e. much like a dice roll. How does this indeterminacy bubble up into the macro realm?

Perhaps as random variations in genetic copying. Who knows?

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

Sparkie: The cartoon waas cute, if not vapid!

Give Neiman the old antibiotics.

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

Why turn out well educated, opened-minded young people. Expand Government intervention of public education and produce mindless drones to serve the collective. One might be critical of say….Obama’s view of abortion…if they had at least pondered creationism. There are people out there that fear the well educated self-assertive masses.

But even if we could do exactly what you mean (rather than just say), that still wouldn’t disprove the existence of a maker, it would only limit the mechanisms that He uses for creation.

It would mean that the combination of information, patterns, and purpose within nature are not necessarily evidence of an intelligent cause. Hence, design would not require an intelligent cause.  This would disprove ID which is premised upon observed evidence for design.

As it is now, the only natural cause ever observed that can account for the presence of design (patterns, purpose, and information) is an intelligent one.  This is observed by all and is proven (in the way Lestat would prefer) by observation.  It is falsifiable in the manner I mentioned above.

It’s not up to others to disprove his hair brained hypothesis.

Lestat,

Hardly fair, but fitting coming from you. 

Think for a minute about what characteristics or properties a present in anything intelligently designed.  Inevitably, any intelligent invention is recognized by the presence of design.  Information, patterns, and purpose are dead give-aways that something was designed.  This same recognition is at the heart of ID.  We all observe patterns, information, and purpose in nature and naturally many conclude design, and if design then a highly intelligent designer.  It really isn’t hair-brained at all, it’s obvious.  It is tested by observation and can be falsified by observing matter acting upon matter producing information that codifies itself.

They have not tested it.  And the reason for this is because it can’t be tested.  They are trying to prove articles of faith.

Open your eyes boy.  Faith is not scientifically provable, design is.

But Palin hardly comes off as a nut here.  Only one who doesn’t necessarily want to anger the nuts.

Maybe if liberals hadn’t pushed so hard to make it a federal issue Palin’s thoughts on the subject wouldn’t matter.

Very well said Rob.

That’s not particularly far away from what you describe, and it is pretty much the concept between Darwinian, or continuous, evolution.

Exactly.  It cuts both ways.  If codified information is created by matter acting upon matter, then evolution gets a big notch in its belt, if not it takes a giant step backwards.  Just the opposite would be true of ID.

Sparkless:
I will not debate you on this Sparkie. You are not open to evidence that contradicts anything you already believe, your religious faith in evolution has blinded you to all the massive scientific data that opposes it. Also, you are either willingly lying or horribly undereducated about the issues you are trying to debate, you are a Darwinian disciple and will not debate anyone else, because you know that you cannot prove evolution, it cannot be subjected to empirical science, it is a religion.

HG: You are a master at saying little and taking every side of every issue, are you sure you are not related to Clinton? No one has any idea what you believe about anything.

Best Government $$$ Can Buy: Well put!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

No one has any idea what you believe about anything.

You’ll have to be more specific Neiman.  Please post what you’re taking issue with and I will gladly explain myself to you.

Sparkie’s cartoon “reasoning”.  Survival of the fittest does not equal speciation.  That’s the problem with you Darwinists.
You take a common sense principle and try to explain everything with it.  God created evolution.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Proving a Negative (1999)

Richard Carrier

I know the myth of “you can’t prove a negative” circulates throughout the nontheist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can. As it happens, there really isn’t such a thing as a “purely” negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa. Thus, “there are no crows in this box” entails “this box contains something other than crows” (in the sense that even “no things” is something, e.g. a vacuum). “Something” is here a set restricted only by excluding crows, such that for every set S there is a set Not-S, and vice versa, so every negative entails a positive and vice versa. And to test the negative proposition one merely has to look in the box: since crows being in the box (p) entails that we would see crows when we look in the box (q), if we find q false, we know that p is false. Thus, we have proved a negative. Of course, we could be mistaken about what we saw, or about what a crow is, or things could have changed after we looked, but within the limits of our knowing anything at all, and given a full understanding of what a proposition means and thus entails, we can easily prove a negative in such a case. This is not “proof” in the same sense as a mathematical proof, which establishes that something is inherent in the meaning of something else (and that therefore the conclusion is necessarily true), but it is proof in the scientific sense and in the sense used in law courts and in everyday life. So the example holds because when p entails q, it means that q is included in the very meaning of p. Whenever you assert p, you are also asserting q (and perhaps also r and s and t). In other words, q is nothing more than an element of p. Thus, all else being as we expect, “there are big green Martians in my bathtub” means if you look in your bathtub you will see big green Martians, so not seeing them means the negative of “there are big green Martians in my bathtub.”

Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, “there are no big green Martians” means “there are no big green Martians in this or any universe,” and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition—we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question. More…

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ~Theodore Roosevelt

Proving a Negative (1999)

Richard Carrier

I know the myth of “you can’t prove a negative” circulates throughout the nontheist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can. As it happens, there really isn’t such a thing as a “purely” negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa. Thus, “there are no crows in this box” entails “this box contains something other than crows” (in the sense that even “no things” is something, e.g. a vacuum). “Something” is here a set restricted only by excluding crows, such that for every set S there is a set Not-S, and vice versa, so every negative entails a positive and vice versa. And to test the negative proposition one merely has to look in the box: since crows being in the box (p) entails that we would see crows when we look in the box (q), if we find q false, we know that p is false. Thus, we have proved a negative. Of course, we could be mistaken about what we saw, or about what a crow is, or things could have changed after we looked, but within the limits of our knowing anything at all, and given a full understanding of what a proposition means and thus entails, we can easily prove a negative in such a case. This is not “proof” in the same sense as a mathematical proof, which establishes that something is inherent in the meaning of something else (and that therefore the conclusion is necessarily true), but it is proof in the scientific sense and in the sense used in law courts and in everyday life. So the example holds because when p entails q, it means that q is included in the very meaning of p. Whenever you assert p, you are also asserting q (and perhaps also r and s and t). In other words, q is nothing more than an element of p. Thus, all else being as we expect, “there are big green Martians in my bathtub” means if you look in your bathtub you will see big green Martians, so not seeing them means the negative of “there are big green Martians in my bathtub.”

Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, “there are no big green Martians” means “there are no big green Martians in this or any universe,” and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition—we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question. More…

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ~Theodore Roosevelt

Neiman: Creationism is not science makes you look like an ass, because they are in matter of absolute fact, science based systems

That’s funny, since that makes YOU look like a complete moron.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ~Theodore Roosevelt

Neiman: Evolution is wholly unproven, cannot be proven, the chance of one tiny complex design resulting from random mutations

You an amazing ability to break down evolution to the simple concept of ‘random mutations.’ WRONG! You are the weakest link. Good bye!

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ~Theodore Roosevelt

nutbag: You should have no problem proving that God doesn’t exist, then.  I’m waiting…

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

HG:

You’ll have to be more specific Neiman.  Please post what you’re taking issue with and I will gladly explain myself to you.

After your many words, I still don’t know if you are an evolutionist, a devotee of a generic Intelligent Designer or a believer in Divine Creation or some bastardized amalgamation.

Robert108: “God created evolution.” If you mean He used evolution as the means of Creation over millions or billions of years, I will respectfully disagree with you. If you mean that He created evolution within kinds to advance or adapt those kinds, maybe.

Nunez: Please make a note that YOU introduced the discordant note here, not me. You went on the attack against me without just cause. There is no reason for us to be enemies, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Creationism is not science makes you look like an ass, because they are in matter of absolute fact, science based systems. That’s funny, since that makes YOU look like a complete moron.

I was only aiming Sparkies exact words against me back at him, not attacking him. The real problem we have here is that Evolution is a most dogmatic religion. The adherents like Sparkie and it appears maybe you, when opposed, even with solid data and rational arguments tend to act like a Darwinian Taliban, trying to beat down any opposing voices or information, in a mindless, angry defense of their faith. That is the result of fear, the Taliban fear opposition because they fear they are wrong, Evolutionists fear opposition because they too fear they are wrong and they must therefore, at all costs, even the worst of all, at the expense of the Truth, beat down all opposition and enforce silence against any and all non-believers (Infidels).

Everytime this subject comes up, I offer quotations from leading Evolutionary Scientists and scientfic evidence in support of my beliefs; but all the evolutionists ignore that authoritative information; and they debate arguments not at issue and they attack as unintelligent or uniformed anyone opposing them. Now who is tolerant and bigoted, the Christian debating the matter civily and with facts or the Evolutionist, by the written word screaming at the tops of their lungs (fingertips) - Shut Up or “Good Bye”? Quite clearly it is the latter.

If you make this personal Nunez and get all worked up into a rabid lather against me, that is your choice; but let us be clear that it is wholly unwarranted by anything I might say!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

After your many words, I still don’t know if you are an evolutionist, a devotee of a generic Intelligent Designer or a believer in Divine Creation or some bastardized amalgamation.

Really?  You must be confused.  Differences exist between and intelligent designer, a God, and a personal knowledge of God. ID only deals with evidence in nature that points to an intelligent designer, not who or what that intelligent designer is.  Creationism takes it a step further and seeks to connect observation with faith.  Faith provides the knowledge and belief in who God is.  In this thread I’m discussing ID, nothing more.

Robert108: “God created evolution.” If you mean He used evolution as the means of Creation over millions or billions of years, I will respectfully disagree with you. If you mean that He created evolution within kinds to advance or adapt those kinds, maybe.

I meant what I said, not what you are trying to make of it.  I’ll make a simple syllogism:

God created humans;
Humans created evolution;

therefore, God created evolution.

Not so complicated, is it?
You miss a lot when you get your back up, Neiman.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I meant what I said, not what you are trying to make of it.  I’ll make a simple syllogism: God created humans;
Humans created evolution; therefore, God created evolution. Not so complicated, is it? You miss a lot when you get your back up, Neiman.

I DID NOT have my back up at all! I WAS NOT trying to make anything out of it at all! I sought to better understand what you were saying and you decided to get snotty about a perfectly innocent inquiry! You are guilty of the every thing you accuse in others; that is, reading emotions into statements that do not exist in reality.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Theodoius Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionist admits that ”the experimental method” is an “impossibility” when applied to evolution.

Or applied to astronomy, yet that field evolves too.

Computer simulation works for evolutionary studies as well as for astrophysics…

Computer simulation works for evolutionary studies as well as for astrophysics…

Based on the presumption of evolution only, otherwise it is useless. It only proves what evolutionists design it to prove.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

With Sarah Palin, religion and religious views so much more in U.S. news these days than ever before, I’m wondering what you all think about this. I came across this interesting site, opposingviews.com the other day while doing some research on religion and its place in politics.

It’s a site where there are numerous interesting debates on all sorts of subjects that are on everyone’s mind. The debate that specifically captured my attention is the one asking whether Intelligent Design has merit. I do like the idea that their debaters are not simply average people giving their opinions, but all are experts in their chosen fields.

The point of view that really got to me though, is the one from the Ayn Rand Institute in which they call ID a supposedly non-religious theory, and a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science. They use words like it is metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural. I’d like to place my comment there, but I’d really like to get some input from you before doing so. Here’s the specific debate I’d like to comment on. http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/it-s-bait-and-switch  Thanks so much.

With Sarah Palin, religion and religious views so much more in U.S. news these days than ever before, I’m wondering what you all think about this. I came across this interesting site, opposingviews.com the other day while doing some research on religion and its place in politics.

It’s a site where there are numerous interesting debates on all sorts of subjects that are on everyone’s mind. The debate that specifically captured my attention is the one asking whether Intelligent Design has merit. I do like the idea that their debaters are not simply average people giving their opinions, but all are experts in their chosen fields.

The point of view that really got to me though, is the one from the Ayn Rand Institute in which they call ID a supposedly non-religious theory, and a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science. They use words like it is metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural. I’d like to place my comment there, but I’d really like to get some input from you before doing so. Here’s the specific debate I’d like to comment on. http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/it-s-bait-and-switch  Thanks so much.

The point of view that really got to me though, is the one from the Ayn Rand Institute in which they call ID a supposedly non-religious theory, and a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science. They use words like it is metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural. I’d like to place my comment there, but I’d really like to get some input from you before doing so. Here’s the specific debate I’d like to comment on. http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/it-s-bait-and-switch Thanks so much.

Probably the only thing I will agree with the ayn Rand Institute on.

Intelligent Design is not science because it does not propose a hypothesis that can be tested.  It takes evidence and makes a conclusion.