Science and faith.

[Neodavid]

Ha ha ha... Griz man, gotta love your faith in your own brain. Polytheism doesn't predate monotheism guy. Please feel free to prove it.

No, polytheism predates monotheism. For one, I'm pretty sure Greco-Roman society is also older than 3k years, but that's not my point. There were the Sumerians, Babylonians, indigineous American people, etc. Older'n' da hebe jebes.

The reason Webster's word has more "pull" in this instance is because it is Man's words being used to define Man's word. In the case of Matthew's words, they are Man's words being used to define God's words.

One is more authoritative on the subject than the other.

 

[Gavin Laird]

Look look look....

Poly Vs Mono ANYTHING.

Can you envisage 2 of anything without first invisaging 1 of it ?

So, monotheism came first.

Ta Da !

wow, it rules to be me today.

G.

 

[Neodavid]

got your 'facts' mixed up there. A population shift is not evolution. A little thought would demonstrate the invalidity of your premise.

Circular reasoning abounds in evolution, and very little honest thought.

Let me 'splain' it to you.

IF bacteria were killed off by penicillin, what is left over to 'evolve'?

Fact is, penecillin only killed off the population of bacteria not resistant to it, and the only thing left over is the resistant guys. Next time you get sick, that nice left over resistant population has to have a different spectrum of anti-biotic shot at it.

If evolution were demonstratable as easily as you imagine, I would be happy to accept it. I care not which way anything goes, only want to know the truth.

Problem is evolution is a faith, not science. It's not observable, nor testable.

All of the facts fit better in the creationist model, and that's the reason I believe in creation. There isn't a single case of a positive mutation in existence, but plenty of negative cases. Entropy always wins. Case one for creationism. Zero evidence of evolution, and certainly no science or honest non-prejudicial thought.

Men don't want to be responsible before God, so they have to get rid of him. Evolution is a nice try, but not honest in any way.

Recombinant DNA, genes found in bacteria to resist penicillin? Man you people, Education shall set you free! You can find evolution in bacteria the easiest of all things. It is so small and produces in the billions over night, and that you will see it evolve fairly quickly. Man, and many other animals and plants, usually take millions of years to evolve significantly, because it takes millions of years to produce in the billions. Thus we create technology in order to defeat our own physical limitations. Example: Cars, Jets, and spaceships. Come on people, if you live in the dark you will be blinded by the light.... All in all, I can't blame you for not wanting to believe in the truth when you have been taught to believe in a lie all your life. Who would want anyone to tell them that they have been living a lie all there life? There is no heaven when you die? No salvation, but the one you make for yourself? I could see why anyone would resist. Shoot, instead of God, you would have to rely on yourself? But man is too weak for that! Man needs to feel good about him self. Look at where Christianity started? Do you ever wonder why it never caught on where is started? Israel? More Jews live there than Christians, not to mention Muslims. Why didnt the masses all fall to there knees in the presence of Jesus? Oh wait; they killed him for being a heretic didnt they? And God being the all knowing all-powerful being that he is, couldnt find a better place to be on the day he was to be executed? Sorry, I love the stories, but Im not buying the whole man in the sky deal. Then why use a book? I take it you were all born knowing the word of good, why even use a bible you already know it all anyway, right? How come there are so many different spin offs of Christianity? Cant any of you agree on what is written? Let see the bible was inspired by God, but written by man. And it was a collection of works from many different authors that the Catholic Church decided what went into the bible and what was left out. And knowing man has free will, and churches made the first colleges in the world. You still believe in the man in the sky. Hey, maybe Im the only one seeing the flaws in this organization.

 

[Neodavid]

Truth is interesting

The fact that a negative mutation bringing disease and death, is hardly evolution. It far better fits the creationistic model, and all known science, including especially the first law, ie., entropy.

Show me a positive mutation.

You can't because an example doesn't exist.

Entropy wins.

Please let's stick to the argument, friend, no Ad Hominems necessary. Please do demonstrate the redundancy. But straw man attacks are lame and get us nowhere in real reasoning. Show me facts or reasoning, truth is always interesting.

The redundancy is appalling in here, but if I must. Look at what I said above. If they only had 1 allele then is would be a positive mutation!

abnormal hemoglobin Hemoglobin molecule with a different shape due to an altered amino acid sequence (ultimately caused by an altered DNA base sequence), such as in the inherited disease sickle-cell anemia.

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookglossA.html

 

[Neodavid]

Why care?

That's not an argument or evidence for evolution. Once again, it better fits the creationistic model.

Why?

Because there is no inbetween species, none currently seen as evolving. The worst evidence against evolution is the utter lack of useless organs or organs changing. A duck billed platy is always a duck billed platy. That is evidence of design, not evolution.

Resemblence to other species characteristics, borrowing designs, reminds me more of automobiles and machines that men 'create' by design. We get ideas from other things and stick them together. That is creation, not accident.

You keep trying to force things into the evolutionary mold, rather than simply observing the evidence and seeing which model it fits into better.

I hate to say this, but your thinking is prejudiced as demonstrated by your attitude, and attempts to demonstrate a superior intellect, rather than sticking to the facts and having a decent reasoned conversation.

Why do you care whether there is a god or not. Why not simply always be learning? Always interested, always ready to listen?

This can be fun rather than a mental pissing contest.

If you like, we can go like that... sick TO bacteria, I understand it quite well and would be happy to demolish any of your evidence and reasoning.

But I'd rather just have fun and a decent conversation with you.

Bob Bob Bob... I can tell you don't know much about biology... Let me walk away from the bacteria since I'm not getting through to you with that! You won't be satisfied till you see bacterium grown into an elephant. ROTFLMAO! Let me point out some of your Gods creatures that might turn on a light. How about The duck billed platypus? Gods idea of a joke, not evolution right? And what do you all think about the dinosaurs?

The platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus is one of the most unusual of living creatures. It is a mammal which has fur and suckles its young, but it also lays eggs, has webbed feet, a bill that looks like that of a duck, and a tail resembling that of a beaver. Males have a poisonous spur on their hind legs which can cause excruciating pain to humans and kill dogs. The platypus and three species of echidna (also known as spiny anteaters) are the only living members of a group of animals called monotremes.

 

[Neodavid]

you win

As far as pure thinking is concerned, you win. That is fuckiung brilliant.

And FUNNY!

Look look look....

Poly Vs Mono ANYTHING.

Can you envisage 2 of anything without first invisaging 1 of it ?

So, monotheism came first.

Ta Da !

wow, it rules to be me today.

G.

 

[Bob Smith]

Bob Bob Bob... I can tell you don't know much about biology...

First, dont "Bob Bob Bob" me.

Whether I am an absolute expert on biology isnt the point. The point is I know a little about biology and asked a simple question asking for more support of your claims that bacteria evolve. Apparently I dont know anything at all about biology because you simply dodged my question and went on some rant about nothing at all related to the topic at hand. How about we revisit your bacteria claims and show me the evidence, an article, anything at all.

Face it, your bacteria claims are completely baseless and because you already know that and I easily called you on it, you tried to change the subject. Show me the evidence. Show me some studies on this bacteria and how they became something other than bacteria. That is what evolution is. That is what you are claiming "easily" occurs with bacteria. That is what I am asking you to support. The problem is that you question my knowledge of biology when in fact you have zero support for your claims and know that bacteria doesnt evolve, that it only becomes a bacteria that is resistant to certain drugs. Big freaking whoop. Thats not evolution and you know it. I know it and everyone else reading this thread knows it.

Let me ask you a very simple request in as simple language as I can manage. You ready?

Please name one organism that has changed into a different organism. (And post links to whatever supporting documents you want).

 

[Grizzly]

Ha ha ha... Griz man, gotta love your faith in your own brain. Polytheism doesn't predate monotheism guy. Please feel free to prove it.

The fuck it doesn't! Of course, maybe in the unrecorded recesses of time monotheism actually existed first, but we can do nothing but speculate on that. So, we'll have to use recorded history. The oldest written document is the Epic of Gilgamesh. Polytheistic pantheon. And that's that.

And, of course, I have the utmost faith in my own brain. It is that which keeps me alive. I can have faith in any number of gods and pray to them over and over and over, but it is only the power of my own brain which keeps me fed. It trumps any pie in the sky deity.

 

[Grizzly]

Bet you can't guess where I got this, Cyniq.

The Bait and Switch of "Intelligent Design"
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
By: Keith Lockitch

"Intelligent Design" is religion masquerading as science.

Legal and political battle lines have been drawn across the country over the teaching of "intelligent design"--the view that life is so complex it must be the product of a "higher intelligence." The central issue under debate is whether "intelligent design" is, in fact, a genuine scientific theory or merely a disguised form of religious advocacy--creationism in camouflage.

Proponents of "intelligent design" aggressively market their viewpoint as real science, insisting it is not religiously based. Writes one leading advocate, Michael Behe: "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs."

Proponents of "intelligent design" claim that Darwinian evolution is a fundamentally flawed theory--that there are certain complex features of living organisms evolution simply cannot explain, but which can be explained as the handiwork of an "intelligent designer."

Their viewpoint is not religiously based, they insist, because it does not require that the "intelligent designer" be God. "Design," writes another leading proponent, William Dembski, "requires neither magic nor miracles nor a creator."

Indeed, "design" apparently requires surprisingly little of the "designer's" identity: "Inferences to design," contends Behe, "do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer." According to its advocates, the "designer" responsible for "intelligent design" in biology could be any sort of "creative intelligence" capable of engineering the basic elements of life. Some have even seriously nominated advanced space aliens for the role.

Their premise seems to be that as long as they don't explicitly name the "designer"--as long as they allow that the "designer" could be a naturally existing being, a being accessible to scientific study--that this somehow saves their viewpoint from the charge of being inherently religious in character.

But does it?

Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an "intelligent designer"?

It could not. Such a being would not actually account for the complexity that "design" proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of "designing" the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own "designer." If "design" can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported Martian "designer" would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another "designer." One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause.

By the very nature of its approach, "intelligent design" cannot be satisfied with a "designer" who is part of the natural world. Such a "designer" would not answer the basic question its advocates raise: it would not explain biological complexity as such. The only "designer" that would stop their quest for a "design" explanation of complexity is a "designer" about whom one cannot ask any questions or who cannot be subjected to any kind of scientific study--a "designer" that "transcends" nature and its laws--a "designer" not susceptible of rational explanation--in short: a supernatural "designer."

Its advertising to the contrary notwithstanding, "intelligent design" is inherently a quest for the supernatural. Only one "candidate for the role of designer" need apply. Dembski himself--even while trying to deny this implication--concedes that "if there is design in biology and cosmology, then that design could not be the work of an evolved intelligence." It must, he admits, be that of a "transcendent intelligence" to whom he euphemistically refers as "the big G."

The supposedly nonreligious theory of "intelligent design" is nothing more than a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science--to pretend, as one commentator put it, that "faith in God is something that holds up under the microscope."

The insistence of "intelligent design" advocates that they are "agnostic regarding the source of design" is a bait-and-switch. They dangle out the groundless possibility of a "designer" who is susceptible of scientific study--in order to hide their real agenda of promoting faith in the supernatural. Their scientifically accessible "designer" is nothing more than a gateway god--metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural.

No matter how fervently its salesmen wish "intelligent design" to be viewed as cutting-edge science, there is no disguising its true character. It is nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on science, and should be rejected as such.


Ok, the part about the "gateway god" is friggin' hilarious!

 

[Neodavid]

Hey, let's chill Griz, it's all good

The earliest guess of 2100 BC still antedates the Hebrew historical account and archological evidence. Clay tablets do tend to last longer than papyrus, no doubt. The similarities to the biblical account of the flood, etc., could even be construed as a polytheist attempting to re-write history.

Written records don't last as long as archeological evidence, I'm sure you would agree. Check up on archeological digs predating the 'story' (as in, someone making something up) of Gil. Specifically Israel and the Hebrews (who were the oldest known monotheists).

However, a single surviving document hardly proves polytheism. It is merely one point on a graph, nothing from which someone may prove anything. It is a piece of evidence one must place into the larger landscape of ALL forms of evidence.

For instance, the history of the hebrews who were always monotheistic, predates the Gilgamesh story.

Technically neither does that fact 'prove' monotheism was first, however if one accepts the biblical evidence, it does support the idea.

Therefore it is not speculation, there is indeed historical evidence that monotheism was first.

And according to pure thought, another brother demonstrated humorously that one has to imagine 'one' of a thing, before he can think of two or more of that same thing.

On the power of your brain, that's nice, if not narcissistic. Everyone has one, and some if not most, disagree with you. The error of self-centerdness and anti-social communication demonstrates an unreliable prejudice in thought (on example, in another thread you said you hate people, prefering animals, and here you start of with an emotional epithet, "the fuck it doesn't").

The fuck it doesn't! Of course, maybe in the unrecorded recesses of time monotheism actually existed first, but we can do nothing but speculate on that. So, we'll have to use recorded history. The oldest written document is the Epic of Gilgamesh. Polytheistic pantheon. And that's that.

And, of course, I have the utmost faith in my own brain. It is that which keeps me alive. I can have faith in any number of gods and pray to them over and over and over, but it is only the power of my own brain which keeps me fed. It trumps any pie in the sky deity.

 

[Neodavid]

Nice specious argument

I'm leaving your entire quoted quote in for reference.

This is pure opinion, straw man attack, and towards the end when he pretends to think, circular reasoning.

I know of no one who imagines creation was performed by a natural being. The concept of a creator necessitates the humility to accept the possibility that something is out there far beyond our comprehension, capable of creating a designed universe of billions of galaxies, all within days (please recall the requirement of understanding the concept of apparent age in ex-nihilo creation [creation from nothing]).

Hence the straw man, hence his lack of understanding of the true argument.
Anyone can set up a straw man and knock him down. But you personally can't demonstrate the superiority of the evolutionary model compared to how well the evidence better fits the creationistic model.

THAT is the only fact I'm interested in. Misdirecting argument is the ploy of a dishonest or poor thinking individual. I find it incredibly common in evolutionary discussion.

By all means get out facts and let us reason together. From now on I'll only reply to such posts as 'specious', and wait for a real discussion.

The Bait and Switch of "Intelligent Design"
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
By: Keith Lockitch

"Intelligent Design" is religion masquerading as science.

Legal and political battle lines have been drawn across the country over the teaching of "intelligent design"--the view that life is so complex it must be the product of a "higher intelligence." The central issue under debate is whether "intelligent design" is, in fact, a genuine scientific theory or merely a disguised form of religious advocacy--creationism in camouflage.

Proponents of "intelligent design" aggressively market their viewpoint as real science, insisting it is not religiously based. Writes one leading advocate, Michael Behe: "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs."

Proponents of "intelligent design" claim that Darwinian evolution is a fundamentally flawed theory--that there are certain complex features of living organisms evolution simply cannot explain, but which can be explained as the handiwork of an "intelligent designer."

Their viewpoint is not religiously based, they insist, because it does not require that the "intelligent designer" be God. "Design," writes another leading proponent, William Dembski, "requires neither magic nor miracles nor a creator."

Indeed, "design" apparently requires surprisingly little of the "designer's" identity: "Inferences to design," contends Behe, "do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer." According to its advocates, the "designer" responsible for "intelligent design" in biology could be any sort of "creative intelligence" capable of engineering the basic elements of life. Some have even seriously nominated advanced space aliens for the role.

Their premise seems to be that as long as they don't explicitly name the "designer"--as long as they allow that the "designer" could be a naturally existing being, a being accessible to scientific study--that this somehow saves their viewpoint from the charge of being inherently religious in character.

But does it?

Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an "intelligent designer"?

It could not. Such a being would not actually account for the complexity that "design" proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of "designing" the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own "designer." If "design" can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported Martian "designer" would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another "designer." One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause.

By the very nature of its approach, "intelligent design" cannot be satisfied with a "designer" who is part of the natural world. Such a "designer" would not answer the basic question its advocates raise: it would not explain biological complexity as such. The only "designer" that would stop their quest for a "design" explanation of complexity is a "designer" about whom one cannot ask any questions or who cannot be subjected to any kind of scientific study--a "designer" that "transcends" nature and its laws--a "designer" not susceptible of rational explanation--in short: a supernatural "designer."

Its advertising to the contrary notwithstanding, "intelligent design" is inherently a quest for the supernatural. Only one "candidate for the role of designer" need apply. Dembski himself--even while trying to deny this implication--concedes that "if there is design in biology and cosmology, then that design could not be the work of an evolved intelligence." It must, he admits, be that of a "transcendent intelligence" to whom he euphemistically refers as "the big G."

The supposedly nonreligious theory of "intelligent design" is nothing more than a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science--to pretend, as one commentator put it, that "faith in God is something that holds up under the microscope."

The insistence of "intelligent design" advocates that they are "agnostic regarding the source of design" is a bait-and-switch. They dangle out the groundless possibility of a "designer" who is susceptible of scientific study--in order to hide their real agenda of promoting faith in the supernatural. Their scientifically accessible "designer" is nothing more than a gateway god--metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural.

No matter how fervently its salesmen wish "intelligent design" to be viewed as cutting-edge science, there is no disguising its true character. It is nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on science, and should be rejected as such.


Ok, the part about the "gateway god" is friggin' hilarious!

 

[Neodavid]

Nice one

Good post Bob.

First, dont "Bob Bob Bob" me.

Whether I am an absolute expert on biology isnt the point. The point is I know a little about biology and asked a simple question asking for more support of your claims that bacteria evolve. Apparently I dont know anything at all about biology because you simply dodged my question and went on some rant about nothing at all related to the topic at hand. How about we revisit your bacteria claims and show me the evidence, an article, anything at all.

Face it, your bacteria claims are completely baseless. (snip)

Let me ask you a very simple request in as simple language as I can manage. You ready?

Please name one organism that has changed into a different organism. (And post links to whatever supporting documents you want).

 

[Grizzly]

For one, that post had nothing to do with arguing with anyone. I was not using it as support for anything. Clearly denoted in the title was the fact that I threw it up there for my amigo, cyniq.

 

[Neodavid]

cool

Alrighty, so you don't defend it's premise or contents?

Why toss it out there?

For one, that post had nothing to do with arguing with anyone. I was not using it as support for anything. Clearly denoted in the title was the fact that I threw it up there for my amigo, cyniq.

 

[CyniQ]

For one, that post had nothing to do with arguing with anyone. I was not using it as support for anything. Clearly denoted in the title was the fact that I threw it up there for my amigo, cyniq.

I think I have a pretty good idea. As usual those ARI bastards couldn't find their asses with both hands and a flashlight.

We've discussed the Epic of Gilgamesh before. I think that it is obvious that Gil's story was heavily influenced by Hebrew history. Consider Gil's ripoff of the account of Noah's ark for example. Gil got it all wrong though. The Bible account of Noah allows for 60 years of construction of a vessel with a length to width ratio of 6 to 1, a length to height ratio of 10 to 1, and a total length of 440'. This has been proven to be a sea-worthy design. Gil's vessel was built in 7 days, possibly from a demolished house, and was a cube 200' on each side. NOT sea-worthy. Or possible to contruct in seven days from the remains of a house.

So, as alluded to by NeoDave. Even if the earliest know copy of Gil's Epic predates the earliest known copy of the Bible. It's obvious that it was influenced by the history that was eventually copied down into scripture. And it actually lends credence to the idea that the Bible is a historically accurate document.

 

[Grizzly]

On the power of your brain, that's nice, if not narcissistic. Everyone has one, and some if not most, disagree with you. The error of self-centerdness and anti-social communication demonstrates an unreliable prejudice in thought (on example, in another thread you said you hate people, prefering animals, and here you start of with an emotional epithet, "the fuck it doesn't").

While I'm thinking about it, what in the fuck does this ^^^ have to do with:

"And, of course, I have the utmost faith in my own brain. It is that which keeps me alive. I can have faith in any number of gods and pray to them over and over and over, but it is only the power of my own brain which keeps me fed. It trumps any pie in the sky deity."

 

[Neodavid]

Narcissitic explained

Thought it was rather obvious, Griz. Many intelligent people believe in God and creation. Your prejudice against the idea, your disdain for any honest discussion apart from emotional outbursts, is evidence to me that you put too much emphasis on your own intelligence. You demean idea's other men believe in as though you are the sole owner of truth.

Narcissistic, as I said. Means a prejudiced and difficult to communicate with person, because they are self-centered and put others down to lift themselves up.

 

[Grizzly]

Record time! Congratulations! It only took two days for you to be right back like you never left accusing people of the things which you yourself do. I put no one down in this thread, so go fuck yourself, son. The only person putting anyone down and making anything even remotely personal is you with your undisguised personal attacks against me.

That's alright, though, we must show young Cyniq the truth lest he think I'm off my rocker. The faster, the better. If only the missing Occam and Mark Kerr were here to bear witness. Damn, I think I may begin to cry at their MIAness.

 

[Grizzly]

The earliest guess of 2100 BC still antedates the Hebrew historical account and archological evidence. Clay tablets do tend to last longer than papyrus, no doubt. The similarities to the biblical account of the flood, etc., could even be construed as a polytheist attempting to re-write history.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the oldest written story on Earth. It comes to us from Ancient Sumeria, and was originally written on 12 clay tablets in cunieform script. It is about the adventures of the historical King of Uruk (somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE).

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

Que?

I did look it up, though, and the hebe jebes are older than I had thought.

 

[Neodavid]

I apologize if that came across with any emotional content, it was an observation that you are emotionally attached to your views is all. There was no insult meant, but re-reading it, I can see where you could get that from if you don't know me personally.

Most people are emotionally attached to what they believe. People tend to be prejudiced because the idea becomes associated with the ego, with them.

The truth is, no truth is associated with a person's pride, but we should all be able to discuss things freely and in good humor.

I'm happy to do that, and as you believe I've attacked you personally rather than made an observation, I truly do apologize for my insensitivity and lack of ability to communicate properly.

Record time! Congratulations! It only took two days for you to be right back like you never left accusing people of the things which you yourself do. I put no one down in this thread, so go fuck yourself, son. The only person putting anyone down and making anything even remotely personal is you with your undisguised personal attacks against me.

That's alright, though, we must show young Cyniq the truth lest he think I'm off my rocker. The faster, the better. If only the missing Occam and Mark Kerr were here to bear witness. Damn, I think I may begin to cry at their MIAness.