It means that dissent within the ID community is strongly suppressed in order to maintain the illusion that they all agree on the basics (i.e. goddidit). This leads to ridiculous situations where Young Earth Creationists defend Stephen Meyer's attack on the Cambrian explosion in Darwin's Doubt when they don't even believe that the Earth is 500 million years old!
There's no consistency in the arguments from ID proponents so it's almost impossible to have a serious discussion of the science behind their claims. I've criticized ID proponents for not applying critical thinking to their own movement. They almost never dispute each other's ideas for fear that it would weaken their movement.
That fear is justified, but what they fail to realize is that the movement doesn't deserve any respect at all if they don't apply the same standards to their own views that they demand of others.
To their credit, a few members of the movement have started to change this long-standing attempt to silence dissent within the movement. I think they realize that the respect they crave will only come from kicking a few people out of the tent.
One of those people is Vincent Torley. He has posted an excellent discussion of Denton's structuralist views on Uncommon Descent: Denton vs. Moran on structuralism. I don't agree with everything Torley says but I congratulate him for his courage in thinking critically about Michael Denton's position.
It will be interesting to see if the Intelligent Design Creationist movement can deal with critical thinking. I'm watching the comments on the blog post.
268 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 268 of 268I don't see any citations to support that phrase about "design by the Creator." Can you provide them? If not, then it's assuredly not a "double standard" to retract publication of a paper that has no evidentiary support for one of its major conclusions.
What double standard is that? The one that says claims in scientific papers should be supported by evidence, not mythology?
The Nature article quotes the paper's authors as explaining that they are not native English speakers and were not aware of the connotations of the word "Creator." FWIW.
txpiper-
If you said evolution is a story of a series of extremely unlikely events, then you would have no argument.
I would point out that whoever wins the NBA finals this year will have done so after a series of extremely unlikely events as well. And while there are some ex-players who will assure you it really is impossible to win an NBA championship, it is clear one is awarded each year.
Every historical story consists of a series of extremely unlikely events. Why would evolution be different?
I understand your question about the one cell. The premise is false-
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/archean3.html
“So what were the first living things and when did they appear? Studies of genetic material indicate that a living group of single-celled organisms called Archaea may share many features with early life on Earth.”
For evolution to work we need variations. This implies the story doesn’t really begin until there is more than one.
lutesuite-
If all you can find to make your point is a questionable paper, then maybe it would be best to leave the point alone.
If you can make your point referencing better papers, then do so.
You might want to consider-
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658
“We discuss three candidate scenarios which seem to allow the possibility that the universe could have existed forever with no initial singularity: eternal inflation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe. The first two of these scenarios are geodesically incomplete to the past, and thus cannot describe a universe without a beginning. The third, although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.”
Good luck.
Here is a review that might be of interest-
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/02/has-big-bang-theory-been-disproved.html
Jack Jackson - as long as you are taking lutesuite to task for what he cites, you should also know that Lubos Motl, whose review you cite, is quite famous among physicists as being a fairly horrible person, given to extremely critical language that is not necessarily deserved. So as you advised lutesuite, be careful who you cite.
So we've figured out how the universe began? No unanswered questions, then? Cool. I wonder how I managed to miss such a momentous announcement. I also wonder how Alan Guth missed it, as well:
(A)s is often the case when one attempts to discuss scientifically a deep question, the answer is inconclusive. It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning, but I would not want to place a large bet on the issue.
It should also be pointed out that, while religious apologists often claim that the models of the universe emerging from nothing proposed by e.g. Lawrence Krauss don't meet their definition of "nothing", the same could be said of the cosmic inflationary models that they say prove the universe had a "beginning."
For the record;
I'm not a creationist, just as many IDiest are not creationist, because the term creationist is often associated with religious people and groups whose bible interpretation often contradicts current verifiable scientific knowledge.
Other people, like Denton or Behe may choose not to be called creationists or be associated with this movement for other reasons. But that is their choice.
If evolution is a scientific fact, let's see what facts it is based on? Yeah,,,
1. The top promoters of this "fact" can't agree on anything, but especially the mechanism; how do you call evolution a fact if the mechanism of the fact is unknown?
This theory sound a little bit like dictatorship.
Let's see what it is.
You can criticize the governments that supports the Darwinian religious movement, but no one can criticize the Darwinian movement without any consequences. It is true.
Why? Why the people who claim to have ALL he facts are so afraid of criticism? Don't they have ALL the facts? Why would anybody use censorship, if they had ALL the facts???
I don't get it. Actually I do get it.
The Darwinian world is trying to look confident, but there are dead bodies they are afraid someone will dig out...
There are consequences when YOU choose to worship without evidence or more so, when you had already made up your mind before reviewing the evidence for the object of the worship.
I'm not a creationist, just as many IDiest are not creationist, because the term creationist is often associated with religious people and groups whose bible interpretation often contradicts current verifiable scientific knowledge.
Whereas IDiots make claims based on the Bible which they try to convince people are scientific, but which are also contradicted by verifiable scientific knowledge.
If there is a distinction between the two, it's a very subtle one.
However, thanks for admitting that the reason IDiots reject the term "creationism" is solely because of its religious and political connotations, Eric. Such honesty from a creationist is refreshing.
Eric, you've been told about evidence for evolution repeatedly, and you've repeatedly failed to understand it. There's probably no point in recommending you read Coyne's book Why Evolution is True, and certainly no point in my pointing out the evidence again.
1. The top promoters of this "fact" can't agree on anything, but especially the mechanism; how do you call evolution a fact if the mechanism of the fact is unknown?
Can you articulate what you mean by this?
William: The Bible STATES that when Herod heard of Jesus' birth, he ordered the killing of all infants younger than two. He must have done this posthumously because he died in 4 BC.
Archeology is not the friend of the bible skeptic.
Based on the date of Jesus’ birth provided by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200 AD), Jesus would have been born on May 14, 6 BC (Faulstich 1998:109-112). The wise men from the east do not arrive in Jerusalem to visit Herod and then go on to Bethlehem until at least 50 days after the birth of the Lord Jesus, but more than likely a year to a year and a half later. When Mary performed the ritual of purification for her firstborn in the Temple she offered two turtledoves, the offering of the poor (Luke 2:22-24; cf. Lev. 12:8).
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/08/The-Slaughter-of-the-Innocents-Historical-Fact-or-Legendary-Fiction.aspx#Article
Bill Cole, its a FACT that mutations and natural selection DO NOT explain evolutionary novelties. The assertions that micro leads to macro is BUNK.I wonder how long it takes until proponents of neo-darwinian claims learn the facts, and stop making false assertions.
"Bill Cole, its a FACT that mutations and natural selection DO NOT explain evolutionary novelties. The assertions that micro leads to macro is BUNK.I wonder how long it takes until proponents of neo-darwinian claims learn the facts, and stop making false assertions."
Can you define fact as you are using it? How would you support your argument that the neo darwinian mechanism and neutral mutation with genetic drift is insufficient to support large scale evolutionary change?
Bill Cole
look here:
Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from
The recent groundbreaking scientific research which explains the real mechanisms of biodiversity
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2293-the-recent-groundbreaking-scientific-research-which-explains-the-real-mechanisms-of-biodiversity
Elshamah 777,
"Bill Cole, its a FACT that mutations and natural selection DO NOT explain evolutionary novelties. The assertions that micro leads to macro is BUNK.I wonder how long it takes until proponents of neo-darwinian claims learn the facts, and stop making false assertions."
You are the one making false assertions. You cannot define 'evolutionary novelties'. You know mutations and natural selection are not all there is to evolutionary theory. You have no evidence whatsoever that macroevolution cannot occur. You cannot define "neo-darwinians" either.
What "facts" need to be learned, and what is your evidence for them? Do you have anything but your unsupported religious beliefs?
Just give me one thing.
Eric,
""You go first. Provide one piece of evidence for the origins of life and I will do my part next.""
You're up.
I've asked El the same question, provide 1 (one) single shred of evidence in favor of ID... and all El can come up with is 'evolution can't do this, evolution can't do that'.
It's also interesting to note El asserts ID isn't creationism, and in the next sentence/ post he's quoting bible texts to support his claims... Matthew 7:3 and 7:5 dear El?
Ed, there is plenty:
Confirmation of intelligent design predictions
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1659-confirmation-of-intelligent-design-predictions
Just one example from ElShamah777's link:
Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms – (already proven)
The argument of the highly similar DNA sequences:
1. If functionally unconstrained yet highly similar DNA sequences were found in different species, then evolution would be false.
2. In fact, the DNA sequences are extremely similar and even identical in different species.
3. There is currently “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.”
4. Since some of these sequences are found across a wide range of different species, the sequences, and whatever selective forces preserved them, must have been present very early in history.
5. On the other hand many of these sequences point to evolution’s nemesis, lineage-specific biology.
6. Highly similar DNA sequences in different species are a proof of the same intelligent designer using a similar genetic pattern to design different species. All men call him God.
7. God exists.
Honestly, you couldn't make this stuff up.
lutesuite:
if you would understand the argument, i am sure you would have searched another one easyer to attack.
Convergent genetic evolution, basically asserts that the same gene sequence evolved several times in different linages. If the evolution of one functional gene in sequence space is rare , how much rarer, the same feat happening not only once, but several times ?
In a article in Nature, the author admitted:
http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679
Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes
Bats and dolphins may have developed echolocation via similar mutations
A new analysis suggests that many genes evolved in parallel in bats and dolphins as each developed the remarkable ability to echolocate. The team found a 'convergence signature' in nearly 200 regions of the genome. Genes involved in hearing were more likely to have evolved similarly across species than those involved in other biological traits. Some genes involved in vision were also among those bearing the strongest signal of convergence — a surprising result.
In sciencedaily they write:
We had expected to find identical changes in maybe a dozen or so genes but to see nearly 200 is incredible. We know natural selection is a potent driver of gene sequence evolution, but identifying so many examples where it produces nearly identical results in the genetic sequences of totally unrelated animals is astonishing.
The outcome of this is, you can bury the fairytale story you believe in, that is common descent, its not necessary anymore. You had to say that the similarities evolved independently rather than by common descent, via convergent evolution.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1490
@El, and where do they mention in the above cited paper, that the underlying mechanism is not evolution but ID? Ah yes, nowhere.
Thanks!
Mikkel,
You can’t get away from termite status. It is actually a core dynamic of your liberation from ‘religion’, and you are definitely are involved in one now. You have deities, scriptures, clergy, saints, temples, icons, doctrines and even pilgrimages. You could probably use some decent hymns, though.
The Jacob and the rods deal is really a poor objection.
===
judmarc,
“You know that thing you wrote about Newton, how he was really smart? Much smarter Biblical scholars than you and I have found problems with the passages you breezed by above.”
I know. There are lots of people who find those verses confusing. They get fouled up on the “this generation shall not pass” in Matthew 24 as well. I am not a scholar, only an interested student. But I don’t really depend on ‘scholars’ very often. If you’re talking about people like the ones you see on “Mysteries of the Bible”, they are by and large clowns, who are to theology what Paul Krugman is to economics.
-
“The Messiah was supposed to bring God's kingdom on Earth, period.”
Where did you get this idea?
-
“But Jesus comes and goes and Rome's still here, so he doesn't fulfill the central requirement for the Messiah. Quick, let's look in the scriptures and find evidence for a Second Coming!”
Are you absolutely convinced that there are none?
-
“Jesus and the disciples are Jews, adhering to the First Commandment (there's a reason it's first, right?). When he is dying and cries out to God, to say he's complaining to himself is nonsense. (Hey me, hey me, why have I forsaken myself? - come on.) Early "Christians" consider themselves a Jewish sect, the "Nazarenes." Then Paul the great popularizer to the heathens comes along and says none of that Jewish stuff is necessary, it's all about Jesus being God. But that plainly violates the First Commandment, right? Why no, we've got this Trinity stuff, a single tripartite divinity, whatever that means. So thus Jesus goes from flaming out as the Messiah (until dying on the cross is turned into a triumph) all the way to being God.”
This is a mess. Every ‘problem’ you list is thoroughly addressed in the Bible. Can I ask what your source material is?
Elshamah777,
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I reply to your ridiculous posts in an effort to engage in a discussion with you. This is not the case. To borrow the words of Barney Frank, engaging in a discussion with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. My intention is merely to draw attention to the hilarious ineptitude of your arguments, for the amusement and entertainment of others. I mean, thinking that the existence of "functionally unconstrained yet highly similar DNA sequences" in different species is evidence against evolution? That's funny stuff.
Elshamah777
From the paper you attached:
"The ones that are better informed, imho, know that the mechanism that provokes change and evolutionary novelties above species level, that is, the change from bacteria do man, is UNKNOWN."
I agree with the above sentence but unknown does not falsify an evolutionary mechanism. If instead of saying it is a fact that current evolutionary mechanisms cannot work, you said, that you are skeptical of the ability of evolutionary mechanisms to explain diversity then I would agree.
Thanks for the paper. The discussion on bioelectrical codes is interesting.
"If we came from bacteria, why are there still bacteria?"
Do find that a persuasive argument, too, Bill?
No, not on its own. The biggest problem, with the origin of Eukaryotic cells and multicellular life is the large difference in cellular architecture including chromosomes, splicing, timing complexity, nucleus, nuclear pore complex. Then, cell adhesion, cell to cell communication, and cell differentiation. Eugene Koonen just wrote a book on this subject.
There was most probably no transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, nor from unicellular to multicellular organisms. The tree of life proposed by Darwin is a big fairy tale. Thats evident to anyone that has not a emotional commitment do darwinism and naturalism.
Unicellular and multicellular Organisms are best explained through design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2010-unicellular-and-multicellular-organisms-are-best-explained-through-design
I haven't read Koonin's book, Bill Cole. Does he say that multicellular life could only have been created thru magic by an invisible spook, and not thru evolution?
I guess you have never heard of him:-)
I like Koonin's papers and books a lot.
from the book: The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution
By Eugene V. Koonin
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2234-the-origin-of-replication-and-translation-and-the-rna-world
Bornagain77 has been reincarnated as Elshamah777. That, in itself, should convince everyone of the existence of God. And by God, I mean the one the Christians use to claim that all others are false gods.
Personally, I am more of an Odin follower. He liked his beer.
lutesuite-
Much better link.
judmark-
Your warning is noted.
When I quoted the one thing I didn’t mean it as a blanket endorsement.
Actually, I have a question for Elshama777 (aka Bornagain77). Why did Barry ban you from UD? Are you even too crazy for Barry, Gordon Mullings (dba Kairosfocus), Mapou and Joe/Virgil/Frankie/etc?
If you are too crazy for that shack of fruit bats, what chance do you have in normal society?
William
i am not Bornagain77, and i do not know this person.
Here you can inform yourself about who i am:
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2273-who-i-am-goal-of-this-library
Who would like to do some experimental work to prove evolution?
Since evolution is a fact, let us see how evolutionary power can do what evolutionists say it can do.
1. Let's preform and experiment besides Lenski's that will KILL ALL THE CREATIONISTS!
2. Larry Moran. I think this is what you have been waiting for it all your life.
YOU HAVE AN UNLIMITED CHECK. I have a sponsor who within reason, will pay for ALL YOUR EXPERIMENTS you have been dreaming about. This is your time Larry. This is your liberation. This is what you have been waiting for all your life. What do you think?
Oh, I see you're friends with that fatuous fuckwit and proponent of genocide, William Lane Craig. I see you also share his belief that the existence of God cannot actually be demonstrated thru reason alone, that the Holy Spirit has to actually reveal itself to you. That's a bit at odds with your claim that his existence can be demonstrated thru the evidence of "design" in biology, isn't it?
It causes me nausea and the sudden wish to vomit when i see a atheist swinging up his voice to be a of ardent moralist and avid defender of justice and morality, and so showing its hypocrisy and inconsequence of actually living and understanding its own worldview and the consequences of it.
As Francis Schaeffer once succintly said:
Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to, since he does not believe in God. Modern man is totally inconsistent when he makes this leap, because these values cannot exist without God, and man in his lower story does not have God.
Wose than than that:
The truth is, nobody has murdered more people than atheists.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2314-the-truth-is-nobody-has-murdered-more-people-than-atheists
In the 20th century, atheist governments butchered more than 120 million people.
All the religious wars in all of history have killed maybe 30 million people. Atheism has four times more blood on its hands than all religions combined.
“But atheism had nothing to do Lenin, Stalin, and Mao’s agenda,” the atheist retorts.
Oh really? That’s not what Lenin thought. Lenin said, “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.“
Can you name even one major atheist website, blog or discussion forum that isn’t thick with insults, epithets, bigotry, prejudice, hatred and gratuitous name-calling by mostly anonymous people hiding behind screen names?
I can’t. Even the “friendly” website FriendlyAtheist.com has the word “idiot” on 732 different pages. Imagine, more than 10% of the pages on this website refer to someone as an idiot. I don’t think they’re referring to themselves. Do you?
Is it just a coincidence that the three cruelest tyrants in history – Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and Mao Tse Tung – were all flaming atheists?
You decide.
21st century atheism simmers with contempt for people of faith and if it continues unimpeded it will destroy everything around it.
St. Paul makes it very clear that God gives people the freedom to pursue what they desire. If you want to live a life of debauchery, He will not stop you. If you want to murder 40 million people… He sure didn’t stop Chairman Mao. If you want a life without God, He will hide from you and you will never find Him.
Nor will God stop you from noticing that atheist countries have the worst human rights records of all.
Paul hit the nine inch nail squarely on the head. Everybody knows the score. I have given you the facts, just as they are.
The facts are plain. Only you can decide whether to accept or reject them.
Back on your meds, Eric.
"Mikkel, You can’t get away from termite status."
Meaningless statement. Termite is not a status, it is an organism. I'm human, not termite. So you're both wrong and confused.
"It is actually a core dynamic of your liberation from ‘religion’, and you are definitely are involved in one now."
No, I'm not. The absense of religion is not a religion. The absense of football is not a sport. The absense of collecting stamps is not a hobby. The logic here is unassailable.
"You have deities, scriptures, clergy, saints, temples, icons, doctrines and even pilgrimages."
I have exactly none of the above. I don't believe in deities. I have no scriptures. Nothing any man ever wrote is by me venerated or believed on faith, and I don't believe anything was ever written by anything more than mere men.
There are no temples where I go to worship. I take nobody anything says on faith, I follow no doctrines and I never make any pilgrimages. Everyting you say is wrong and demonstrably so.
But I'm glad to see we agree all of those things are something to desire liberation from.
"The Jacob and the rods deal is really a poor objection. "
No it isn't, that's why you have no answer for it but the brainless declaration that it is a "poor objection".
Come now, give me your rationalization now 2000 years after the fact. Why did Jacob believe his silly wooden sticks would cause is livestock to sprout stripes and spots? I'll tell you: He was an ignorant bronze-age goat herder and didn't know any better. Because the book was written by goat-herders from ancient history that knew almost nothing about the world.
@El: your knowledge of biology is clearly on the same level as your knowledge of history, totally warped. You change facts to suit your own needs and hide behind the 'superior moral motives' smoke screen.
Furthermore your 'superior morals', 'superior motives' and 'superior religion' really shine through in the post above. Matthew 7:3 and 7:5, El, you could really learn something from those two verses, but you're too morally superior obviously.
How utterly and totally sad Eric.
Nice dodge,Elshamah777. But it won't work.
I can only speak for myself, but I don't claim that atheism automatically makes a person more moral. There have been atheists who have committed horrible atrocities, and at times even as an expression of a philosophy that included atheism as one of its tenets. Just as has been done in the name of nearly any philosophical position you could care to list. Religion not being the least of these.
The difference is that I and every single atheist I know would unequivocally condemn those acts. Your good buddy William Lane Craig, OTOH, not only defends such acts, but actually views them as moral and just, going so far to say that it can be immoral to refuse to carry out a genocide. He says when a soldier slaughters a newborn infant for no reason other than that the infant belongs to the wrong ethnic group, it is the soldier who suffers more and is the more wronged. You want to talk about something that makes you want to vomit? That should be an example right there.
Lutesuite
it seems you have not given a reflection and thought about what i wrote above. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. But the fact that you write:
I and every single atheist I know would unequivocally condemn those acts.
You confirm through upon your own words that objective moral values do exist. There is however no place in your world view for objective, prescriptive moral values. There is no moral giver. There is nothing above you. Think for a moment about a moral absolute. Where did it come from? Well, I guess it could have popped out of nowhere. It just popped into existence, though if it did then one could ask how is it that an arbitrary thing like a moral rule could have any moral force? If it is an accident, if it just comes from nowhere, why would it have any moral force on me? Maybe it assembled itself by accident out of available immaterial stuff floating around in wherever that world is that morals float around. Of course, if it happened by accident then you'd still have to answer the question, how does an accidental thing have moral force? Or, third option, it could be that the moral law was made by Someone Who lives in that immaterial realm. Now, those are your options.
Thats the inconsistency i wrote about, above. You cannot be a atheist, and make moral judgements, since without a moral giver, there is no objective morality. Upon the darwinian framework, Hitler made a ethnical clensing. Upon what moral standard can you objectively say, he was wrong ?
Mikkel,
“Termite is not a status, it is an organism. I'm human, not termite.”
In your faith, the significance level of either is exactly the same.
-
“I have exactly none of the above.”
I left out shrines, and miracles and miraculous claims, the space particles deal being a good example. You might prefer the deep sea vents or some other thermal interface, but that would just put you in a different sect. You have those, too.
-
“No it isn't, that's why you have no answer for it but the brainless declaration that it is a "poor objection". “
What you’re doing with this is saying that the Bible says that cattle looking at sticks can influence how their offspring are marked. And it doesn’t.
Genesis, beginning in chapter 12, was not written to show off what Jacob believed or knew about raising livestock. It is about a covenant activated 4000 years ago, and still in effect. Israel’s descendants are in full view right now, more relevant than ever. There is no place to hide from that amazing reality.
Blah, blah, blah. Yeah, the "argument" from objective morality is as irrelevant as the cosmological, ontological, or all the other absurd arguments which attempt to define God into existence. It's the 21st century. Get over it.
If there were an atheist apologist who tried to justify the mass slaughters of Mao, Pol Pot, etc., he would be marginalized and repudiated by the entire atheist community. I certainly wouldn't be posting smiling pictures of myself with such a person on my blog, saying what a great guy he is. You have no right to lecture others on morality after doing such a thing.
Lutesuite
you can adhere to the cheap, Dawkins-like bashing as much as you want. The inconsistency of your world view that does not permit objective morals, and the wish to be moral, is unresolved. Feel free to ignore it, as all other issues. But do not expect us to take you serious. Your world view is bunk, and intellectually speaking, bankrupt. And you know it.
Simple question, Elshamah777:
Is it objectively immoral to exterminate and entire group of people, including newborn infants, simply because of the ethnic group to which they belong? Yes or No.
@EL: please spare us your moral 'superiority'. Before your religion ever existed people lived together in groups and as such had a set of morals to keep the group together. Don't steal from a group member or you will be punished etc.
Morals are all part of normal human behaviour, and not limited to religious fanatics only.
Matthew 7:3 / 7:5 again dear El, Matthew 7:3/ 7:5 every single time.
I would argue that our moral values are human. To some limited extent, they may be instinctive, evolved traits that help us live together in groups, extensions of our evolved concern for very close relatives. To a greater extent, they are cultural constructs. They are ideas we humans develop, think about, teach to our children. They are ideas that keep changing as we realize that some of our principles contradict one another.
As human constructs, our moral principles are more fragile than I wish. It's understandable that we prop them up with supernatural authority figures or appeals to patriotism or fear. This leads to problems, obviously. First, people seeking power align themselves with god or country and keep down challengers using morality as a club. Second, some people who free themselves from these props really do turn around as think "we don't have to do 'good' because there is no authority." These people miss the whole point.
So, parts of Genesis 12 should be interpreted symbolically because those parts are clearly nonsense, considering what we know about science (genetics).
Do you agree that we should interpret Genesis 1 and 2 symbolically, because they are clearly nonsense if interpreted literally, considering what we know about science (evolution, geology, physics, etc.)?
You believe that parts of Genesis 12 should be read symbolically, because those parts are clearly nonsense, considering what we know about science (genetics).
Do you agree that Genesis 1 and 2 should be read symbolically because they are clearly nonsense, considering what we know about science (evolution, geology, astronomy)?
Israel’s descendants are in full view right now, more relevant than ever. There is no place to hide from that amazing reality.
It's made even more amazing by the fact that for the vast majority of their history, Christians have done what they could to wipe out the Jews. In contrast to the situation in some parts of the world today, Muslims and Jews lived together peacefully for the most part for many centuries.
Well, testing the biblical myth of the goats next to sticks can easily be done. Next time you're visiting a petting zoo Tx, stick some sticks into the ground next to mating goats. Snap a few pics on your smart phone and wait a few months for the baby goats. Compare stick pattern to goat pattern...
Well, how does this testing compares to the origins of life testing? If you give me 3 experimentally verifiable testings, I will question mine. Are you ready?
I also have one, or more than one option to prove your faith, so I hope you do well in the first one.....
Elshamah777: "Here you can inform yourself about who i am:"
Don't take this personally, but I would rather not learn more about you. This little glimpse into your insanity is sufficient for me.
Nice try Eric, but you're the one who said the bible has it's science right, so this is your finest hour to give proof what you said is indeed right. You can't just dodge the question as you've done above. And the goat miracle should be one of the easiest bible miracles to recreate.
Or would you like to have a go at global flood, or turning a woman into a pillar of salt?
Good luck with your experiment!
Oh yeah Eric, this is what you wrote about science in the bible:
According to the most recent research, "'...when the bible makes statements, they are scientifically accurate."
Ah ha ha ha. Classic?
Why don't you all declare that you are not going to accept any evidence that contradicts with your views? Why don't you also tell everyone why?
I personally like Torley for taking on big challenges (sometimes unnecessarily?) to make A case for ID. They are often too long and too complicated for most readers of UD.
I personally find I could have summarized his long blogs in just few sentences.
Well my friends, if you don't have experimental evidence and you are not willing to preform experiments to prove your points, what is left? Your arrogance??? There is gotta be a better term than this! How about bias? Preset views? Just shit?
If evolution is a fact, it should be easily falsifiable.
The random steps leading to complex new structure should be easily replicated in the lab and even modified to lead to new, unknown species.
Unfortunately the reality is that evolutionist have to adjust their views pretty much daily and that is not a real success either because Darwinism died long time ago and the new MET is just as dead.
Neo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian in that it assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. This cannot be surprising, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis from which these ideas stem was a pre-molecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and adaptation natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2318-gene-regulatory-networks-controlling-body-plan-development#4804
You know Eric, I usually don't get angry in online discussions, but let me repeat what you wrote:
1. Let's preform and experiment besides Lenski's that will KILL ALL THE CREATIONISTS!
2. Larry Moran. I think this is what you have been waiting for it all your life.
YOU HAVE AN UNLIMITED CHECK. I have a sponsor who within reason, will pay for ALL YOUR EXPERIMENTS you have been dreaming about.
And you dare to follow up with:
Well my friends, if you don't have experimental evidence and you are not willing to preform experiments to prove your points, what is left? Your arrogance??? There is gotta be a better term than this! How about bias? Preset views? Just shit?
It's clear from your superior religious based morals Eric, why churches all over the world are losing followers. With poster boys like you they don't need priests raping little boys to give organized religion a bad impression.
What you're suggesting is mass murder, and you dare, actually dare speak of arrogance?
El you keep on producing more blah blah, but 0 evidence in favor of ID. What's the ETA on this evidence?
Neo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian...
Because, the universe is uniformitarian.
Within the scientific community there has been a wide divergence of opinion on a wide variety of topics, such as the order of the human fossil record for example. No one opinion is undermined by the lack of effort to vilify opposing opinions. Scientists make their arguments, and let the community sort them out. How could creationists be accused of logical weakness because they would take the same approach. I don't follow your argument.
SWJohnston writes: "Within the scientific community there has been a wide divergence of opinion on a wide variety of topics, such as the order of the human fossil record for example."
"the order of the human fossil record"!?
Oh, come on. Citations plz. Peer-reviewed paper either reviewing the lit, or *two* papers, where Smith's paper says Jones is wrong about the "the order of the human fossil record."
Admittedly, the dating on Homo naledi is very poor. Everybody agrees on that, so they're not disagreeing. But otherwise? Citation needed.
Post a Comment