Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

[oracle25]

Yes so where is the reviewed article I asked for?

I gave you one.

Nope, I will as I say immediately accept what you say as fact as long as you provide me with any single reviewed article proving creationism.

You give an unacceptable burden of "magic-bullet" proof, that if you applied to your own theory would not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

You're site does not succesfully test anything. It's purly theoretical nor is methodology provided at all.

I don't know if you caught it, I hope you did because it was right there in big bold letters. HE was right. He pinned the magnetic field of the outer planets perfectly, you evolutionists did not get anywhere close.

No, this is not a cheap ploy to knock you off balance. You believe in the literary truth of creationism as it was written in the OT of the bible so I'm going strictly by that exactly.

*sigh* It appears I have given you too much credit. You should be able to figure out why this is impossible to prove.

Now that is a total lie. You have not shown any evidence at all, you've presented ideas and baseless rebuttles of the evidence we have provided. I can back up everything I've stated with peer reviewed journals, can you?

You have provided no evidence. Just baseless arguments of your own.

Uninformed? No, I've asked you for your reviewed publication, I have yet to see it. Thus again I say, if you can not provide a single reviewed article, you're just spealing religious dogma.

The article I gave you was reviewed by many other scientists. his predictions have since been confirmed, how is this not what you wanted?

 

[oracle25]

You have GOT to be kidding here

This is so contrived as to be hilarious....I mean....come on, you dont actually accept this, do you?

Yes I do, seeing as how he was correct, while you so beloved "scientists" were wrong. That in and of itself should give me reason to believe it. Of course it should not surprise me that you like to cling too your incorrect "scientists"...

You have here...a man trying to place the hand of some god into observation....and making up a rediculous story to refute hundreds of thousands of observed phenomenon.

He was writing at the time too a group of creationists. It was not meant to impress you, even though, I state again, he was right.

Just by lookin through a telescope....I can see the age of this universe as far morte than 6,000 yrs,

I would like to know exactly how you can tell this by merely looking through a telescope. If you referring to the time treavel problem of light in a young universe than you should know that this same man has come up with a cosmology that solves this problem. A theory which has stood up to all criticism.

all you do in this example is show how totally pointless a debate with you can be, and allow yourself to be rediculed by your own understanding of science.

I would venture to ask on what bases you state you have a better understanding of science than a Ph.D. physicist? And a Ph.D. microbiologist I might add...

 

[oracle25]

I could never have figured out how to tie my shoes if I was aware that it was impossible.

If you knew you didn't have shoe laces it would be pointless to try to tie your shoes.

 

[nkgupta80]

oracle:



i did some background information on this dr. russell humphrey guy. This guy attempted to explain the young-earth hypothesis by using general relativity and cosmology. His book is called "starlight and time" His theory is so flawed that christian physicists including your creationist ICC have rejected his theory. nonetheless, this guy still supports it...

so im thinkin. He has a PHD in physics and he can't get his fkn general relativity straight. wow... a lotta credibility this guys got...what a fkn quack.

i can't take any of your arguments seriosuly anymore.. you think that these quacks have more credibility than the true mathematical prodigies and physics geniuses of our world. Wow...

BTW, I read this guys magentic theory very objectively. It is sooo flawed, And he has a PHD in physics..

 

[nkgupta80]

oracle, read this, its by creationist phycists.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unraveling.shtml

its pretty funny how these christian physicists stumble over thier own theories agian and again. Some of these guys seem to know their general relativity quite well. Sadly, everytime they come up with a theory to support the young-earth hypothesis, another colleague quickly finds a flaw. what a waste of potentially good scientists. only If they could just get their mind out of all that dogmatic crap. in essence they should just give up. (since there is so much data going against the young-earth theory itself).

 

[jfuh]

I gave you one.

No, you did not.

You give an unacceptable burden of "magic-bullet" proof, that if you applied to your own theory would not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny

Neither here nor there, having nothing to do with what I've said.

I don't know if you caught it, I hope you did because it was right there in big bold letters. HE was right. He pinned the magnetic field of the outer planets perfectly, you evolutionists did not get anywhere close.

What the f$ck do planetary moments have anything to do with evolution? One is astronomy the other is biology. Again neither here nor there.

*sigh* It appears I have given you too much credit. You should be able to figure out why this is impossible to prove.

Any factual occurance can be prooven. SO how about I make it easy for you. Does the cell come first or does the human come first?

You have provided no evidence. Just baseless arguments of your own.

Now again you're lieing. I've presented along with all the other evolutionists in here plenty of evidence to support our claim. All of which is peer reviewed literature. Only thing is that you've rejected all the facts yet have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your claim.

The article I gave you was reviewed by many other scientists. his predictions have since been confirmed, how is this not what you wanted?

It is not a published article to begin with, and next it has nothing to do with evolution at all.

 

[black wolf]

Here's what a German physicist wrote about this discussion (my translation from http://forum.spiegel.de/showpost.php?p=229842&postcount=1392):

Scientists have been involved in solving the world for only a short moment. Science is an osseous work; casually just going out into nature and to experience the work of a God qua induction, unfortunately, is not granted to us. We puzzle over figures columns and over the cryptic article of a colleague; we argue in seminars and go back infuriated to the lab because we must repeat a test for the umpteenth time. In this manner we serve to understand the world; we open the way for the fight against illnesses, to the understanding of complicated ecological systems or species of invasive organisms - and thus for the future of a planet which must soon nourish 10 billion people. Besides, we move in that knowledge system from which ToE is only one partial area - what some forget with pleasure. Evolution biologists have amassed thousands of examples, special cases included, which show how Micro-and Macroevolution can be understood. It does not lie with them if there are people who cannot understand this or don't want to.
With the knowledge refuseniks there are by my experience two groups. For one a world without God would fall into a deep sense crisis; above all, the question whether this life shows the only possibility to exist leads to fears and excessive challenge. I can respect this part, because I as a scientist have to offer nothing comparable with God. I can explain the world, however, the possibility remains that sense is merely a human category and none of the universe. Maybe there arises for us the demand for the development of an ethic which determines from our existence - without any God - enough beauty and sense. Nevertheless, I can understand that people do not want to expose themselves to these matters or cannot; then they should not only try to question the reality by rethoric trickery like bringing up discussion-irrelevant aspects, word-turning, semantic shifts and argumentative equivocations - because reality exists independent of our desirable images, and failing to perceive it will, this we have experienced, bring fatal consequences.
The other group are such people who feel themselves always in contradiction, which are possessed by the fatal urge to present themselves compulsively antiauthoritarian. Hitler is for this a prime example; the recently published biography of his teens documents a person who already appeared during his school years unable of any constructive achievement and fantasized as a 14-year-old "to blow everything up" - because it did not fit him that his grades documented the gap between his excessive claims and his actual nature. His later victims, the Jews, were represented often in those élites from which the young man felt rejected; they had to pay frightfully for his narcissistic offense. Now every representative of this type must not become the mass murderer; however, the principle is the same. Also the Holocaust denier could "know better"; they could themselves, if only they wanted to, even as laymen, go researching, but this will be omitted, because their impulse is not a constructive one - the attempt to win knowledge - but devastation, the negation.

 

[tryreading]

If you knew you didn't have shoe laces it would be pointless to try to tie your shoes.

But the point is man needed a way to secure his shoes, and instead of assuming it impossible to invent a device to keep his feet securely shod, he found a way. Just as he found a way to land a spacecraft on a far asteroid and formulated string theory, he will explain the flagella detail.

What Minnich should say about the flagella factor is that it is irreducibly complex to him at this time. But when somebody else, who conducts his research not thinking his goal impossible, discovers the answer, Minnich will have to find another animal with a trait he can't understand to 'prove' there is a God.

Wasn't there a beetle the ID people used in the past as an example of something evolution couldn't explain? And then somebody explained it?

 

[justone]

More or less, yes. It is DNA based, and based on the compatibility of the DNA of the gametes..

Now I am totally lost - somebody said over here - the theory of evolution was 150 years old? DNA was discovered 50 or so years ago? And you are saying evolution process is DNA based?

Generally, those who deny scientific data are theocratically motivated...

I fully understand they are bad guys. I myself was tricked by them a few posts ago. But I asked - what were their credentials, Were they biologists? Do they at least have PhD? Look at my questions.

But evolution is much more than formation of new species. There is no hierarchal ranking of species in Evolution; only species more or less adapted to their environment....

It is very interesting to learn something new, specially about myslef. I have to think about it.

I am not sure why you are pushing this narrow and unique point?

I had posted first, then I started thinking. It was not a rounded point.

I doubt that children can do any of the high-tech science experiments in school. QUOTE]
What bothers me is our high school. It is ranked very high. Some graduates got grants from major Universities. I know about 4 of them - 1 goes to asynagogue, 3 to different Churches, while God is a big tabby in the school. If at least these, advanced kids with developed minds could have a chance to conduct some tests., and spread the word to others - that scientists have proved positively: there is no God!

 

[black wolf]

Now I am totally lost - somebody said over here - the theory of evolution was 150 years old? DNA was discovered 50 or so years ago? And you are saying evolution process is DNA based?

Don't be, no problem. The original ToE was developed by Darwin, that is correct. The difference to religious dogma is that science develops. So, when a scientist finds something new, he or a different scientist will ask, how does this fit into the ToE we have so far? If the scientists can't find an immediate explanation, they will revise the part of the theory that needs change. This happens all the time with every scientific theory. The Theory of Evolution is one of the least disputed theories, with only small detail questions in need of answers yet to be found. Since every living being contains genetic code, genetics are the primary field of study for Evolution scientists, but since influences outside of the living beings also work on them (climate changes, geological changes, pressure from other species etc.), science needs to incorporate very many fields of study like paleontology, physics, chemistry into the theory.

I fully understand they are bad guys. I myself was tricked by them a few posts ago. But I asked - what were their credentials, Were they biologists? Do they at least have PhD? Look at my questions.

There are scientists who are friendly towards the idea of ID, notwithstanding the constant rebuttals they receive. There are also creationists claiming to be scientists, although often their degrees come from Bible colleges or "overseas universities", which has been proven. Many of the scientists popular with ID/Creationists come from fields of study that have only very marginal relevance to Evolution, like a professor of math, ignoring relevant bilogical data, commenting on statistical improbability of population development, although mathematical extrapolations have nothing to do with actual biological developments.

There is no way for a scientist of proving or disproving God under the scientific method, since God is not a concept inside of natural laws. If any scientist comments on his beliefs, that is strictly his private opinion and not based on scientifically tested facts. When the scientists supporting the teaching if ID in science classrooms were voluntarily examined about their religious beliefs, they unanimously announced their belief in the Christian God. Why didn't any atheists or agnostics speak out in favor of ID? Because it's not a case about freedom of speech but about religion. The dishonesty of many of the ID supporters speaks for itself why ID has no place in science classrooms.

 

[MrFungus420]

I can show you hypothesis based on the young universe model that have been successfully tested. Such as Dr. Russell Humphrey's model of the magnetic field of the outer planets based on the assumption of a young universe, see the following site:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

Lets' look at one important factor of the equations used, k:

"In the previous article I put an arbitrary factor, k, into the equations. This alignment factor represents what fraction' of the maximum field God chose.

The maximum value of k is one; the minimum is zero. Ordering by whole subgroups would give possible values of ¼, ½, ¾, or 1. In the previous paper I assumed that k for the earth was ¼. I supported this choice by pointing out that it increases the molecular order with a minimum of perturbation from the normal alignment. But it is a subjective choice."

So, by introducing an arbitrary factor, that he can change whenever he wants, he is able to juggle his equations to get the results that he wants. If he would have used the largest value of 1 instead of the value of 1/4, then his results would have been 4 times larger than that which has been observed.

In order to get the correct value for Jupiter, he did, in fact, use the maximum value.

So, the claim that his predictions for Neptune and Uranus being "right on" just means that his arbitrary factor is large enough to let him juggle the mathematics to get the result that he wants.

 

[steen]

Now I am totally lost - somebody said over here - the theory of evolution was 150 years old? DNA was discovered 50 or so years ago? And you are saying evolution process is DNA based?

When Darwin proposed his hypothesis, he really only had comprehended natural Selection. Research since then established DNA and genes etc. As science develops with new findings, the Scientific Theory get more fine tuned and specialized As is true with all science.

Darwin only knew that traits were inherited, but he didn't know how or through what means. That's what the discovery of DNA helped sort out.

I fully understand they are bad guys. I myself was tricked by them a few posts ago. But I asked - what were their credentials, Were they biologists? Do they at least have PhD? Look at my questions.

There are one or two biologists in the crowd, but they stopped being members of the scientific community when they went for creationism, ignoring the Scientific Method. But it certainly is appealing; easier to say "well, the Bible hints at this, so we can reason that it is true" rather than having to provide evidence that is scrutinized y others for accuracy. the world of scientific research is brutal. Any research you present will be ripped apart, and if it contains a fault, it will be exposed and magnified to the point where you would rather end up selling fish in some Paris backstreet than face your critics.

What bothers me is our high school. It is ranked very high. Some graduates got grants from major Universities. I know about 4 of them - 1 goes to asynagogue, 3 to different Churches, while God is a big tabby in the school. If at least these, advanced kids with developed minds could have a chance to conduct some tests., and spread the word to others - that scientists have proved positively: there is no God!

There won't be any such "positive proof" ever. Science is unable to make determinations about the supernatural. If somebody says that science disproved the existence of god, they are making false claims.

 

[Alastor]

There won't be any such "positive proof" ever. Science is unable to make determinations about the supernatural. If somebody says that science disproved the existence of god, they are making false claims..

Not entirely true. Absence of evidence is evidence to the contrary. Fundamental debunking of the underlying premiss of an argument destroys the entire argument. Circumstantial evidence, when ample enough, can be used as proof.

So... no. Not entirely true.

Just a triviality. Go back to your argument.

 

[steen]

Not entirely true. Absence of evidence is evidence to the contrary.

Hmm, not as I have learned the Scientific method.

Fundamental debunking of the underlying premiss of an argument destroys the entire argument. Circumstantial evidence, when ample enough, can be used as proof.

So... no. Not entirely true.

Well, wouldn't that just destroy the arguments? it wouldn't really say anything about what the arguments were promoting. It might still be true, even if the ones who argue for it are wrong.

 

[Alastor]

Steen,

I'm not certain what you mean in terms of your "scientific method" and not being able to disprove things. If I claim that two plus two is five, and we do the math and it doesn't add up to five... then that's proof that I'm an idiot.

Likewise if I say I have a cow in my pocket, but fail to produce a cow, that would indicate I don't have a cow in my pocket.

Similarly, if the arguments surrounding the traditional "religions" of our cultures are found to be fundamentally flawed, we can easily disregard everything else about them too.

Does that mean there isn't an omnipotent being in the universe? Beats the crap out of me. But I don't know that now either, and the two arguments aren't inter-twined. They're mutually exclusive. The "Christian concept" of God and morality rely on certain arguments and ways of doing things. Show that the faith is baseless, and you can show that the perceived morality is baseless as well. The morality and ethics that most religions would promote rely on the idea that you actually believe in their religion.

If we say... find semi-sentient life (and by that I mean anything as smart as an insesct or better) on another planet, that pretty much trashes the entire ideology and credibility of almost every major religion on Earth.

Why? Because it shows that their beliefs were wrong, and that all that comes from the same source is also wrong. "Fruit of the poisonous tree."

No, it doesn't mean there's not an omnipotent force out there somewhere, but it destroys any notions we have that we understand it, or that any of the faiths that claim to know how such a being thinks, feels, or is motivated go straight into the trash.

This might be one reason that religious groups tend to lash out at science. While science can't disprove an omnipotent being... it sure as Hell can prove that their belief system is fiction.

 

[nkgupta80]

doesn't seem to trash buddhism, hinduism, most eastern religions. all it seems to trash are the judeo-christian religions that literally believe in genesis.

 

[Alastor]

doesn't seem to trash buddhism, hinduism, most eastern religions. all it seems to trash are the judeo-christian religions that literally believe in genesis.

Most people consider those to be philosophies, don't they? Probably for that very reason.

 

[steen]

Steen,

I'm not certain what you mean in terms of your "scientific method" and not being able to disprove things. If I claim that two plus two is five, and we do the math and it doesn't add up to five... then that's proof that I'm an idiot.

Ah, but that's mathematics, a bit different. If I let go of a rock and it falls, I can say that the Scientific Theory indicates that it will fall next time as well. But I can't PROVE that it will fall next time. It could slip into outer space instead. it is not likely, and for all extends and purposes, it is a fact that the rock will fall to the ground. Per science, per the scientific method, we have not PROVED that the rock will fall, as there is the possibility that we may be wrong.

Welcome to the peculiar world of scientific reasoning.

Likewise if I say I have a cow in my pocket, but fail to produce a cow, that would indicate I don't have a cow in my pocket.

True.

Similarly, if the arguments surrounding the traditional "religions" of our cultures are found to be fundamentally flawed, we can easily disregard everything else about them too.

False. We can only discard what we can disprove.

Does that mean there isn't an omnipotent being in the universe? Beats the crap out of me. But I don't know that now either,

Exactly, there is no evidence either way. So Science is not able to determine whether there is a God or not.

and the two arguments aren't inter-twined. They're mutually exclusive. The "Christian concept" of God and morality rely on certain arguments and ways of doing things. Show that the faith is baseless, and you can show that the perceived morality is baseless as well.

Why? Even if I say that the sun shines for our benefit, and I was wrong about why the sun shines, the sun will still continue to shine.

The morality and ethics that most religions would promote rely on the idea that you actually believe in their religion.

Absolutely. That doesn't mean that the existence of the religious deity in question is proved wrong.

If we say... find semi-sentient life (and by that I mean anything as smart as an insesct or better) on another planet, that pretty much trashes the entire ideology and credibility of almost every major religion on Earth.

But religion is merely our subjective representation of a Deity. That proves the religion wrong, not "God" or other supernatural beings.

Why? Because it shows that their beliefs were wrong, and that all that comes from the same source is also wrong. "Fruit of the poisonous tree."

Yes, it shows that what we knew about "God" was wrong, if we were fundamentalists and literalists.

No, it doesn't mean there's not an omnipotent force out there somewhere, but it destroys any notions we have that we understand it, or that any of the faiths that claim to know how such a being thinks, feels, or is motivated go straight into the trash.

Agreed.

This might be one reason that religious groups tend to lash out at science. While science can't disprove an omnipotent being... it sure as Hell can prove that their belief system is fiction.

Agreed. And I think you are right in your view of why some religious people are so afraid of science. When creationists deliberately and repeatedly must affirm their beliefs by outright lying and making false claims, then it clearly is not anymore about logic and facts.

 

[justone]

There is no way for a scientist of proving or disproving God under the scientific method, since God is not a concept inside of natural laws. If any scientist comments on his beliefs, that is strictly his private opinion and not based on scientifically tested facts.

This is exactly what I want to think. I’m not in a hurry to put God outside, but it does not matter. Inside our outside natural laws, I do want to think God can’t be proved or disproved.
I would start arguing on your side, but I still think I may be missing a point.
What I see is:
1. If ToE says life evolved out of no-life material by an accident (whether this can be demonstrated now or later on), it says – there is no God, Creator, ID-r. Since it goes against your (and main) statement that God cannot be disapproved as well as be proved, I wish to get PhDs in biology, math and thermodynamics and prove that life could not be evolved out of no life material.
2. If ToE says that humans evolved from monkeys, it says there is no God, Creator for us, He is just a product of undeveloped minds. I wish to develop my mind, so I can disprove the statement, that we involved from monkeys; no meaning to argue for God. How comes the humans developed properties, which have no need for adaptation; how comes humans got the property which 180 opposite to all previous evolution – we do not need to adapt to environment, but we are rather transforming environment to fit our needs; how comes we found so many old bones, but did not find our relative yet; how comes in the previous construction we came out of the Neanderthal man, but now DNA showed he was a totally different specie, existing with us at the same time, and there is still no apology or new construction about us, and so forth,…. I would feel the urge to fight, just because I feel what you feel – there is no way… But statements #1 and #2 ARE proving there is no God, and they HAVE already proved just that to a whole number of developed minds, and ARE used for such purpose.

I am afraid, the ID-rs (and may be even some Cr-sts) feel similar kind of urge and are falling in 180 opposite to ToE heresy.

I do not see how statements #1 and #2 could be removed or changed in ToE. I do not see any reason=possibility=reality to ban these directions of research.
But in order to feel fair, on the same grounds I can’t deny the urge of ID-rs (whether they accepted Christianity and whether they did it before or after).
What if: by some intuition they smell some kind of dead end, and they are offering to forget these 2 statements, because those 2 are more like an unnecessary burden at this moment; - and to start from assuming a total heresy and go from there. I am not sure it is not coming from scientific experience. I may think such things happened in science a number of times and they led to real discoveries, - taking a short cut, using a heresy as a point of refreshing view without a need to prove or disprove it. (Definition of intuition may vary, but here it is not a property to adapt to environment, it is different from reflexes).

Where am I missing a point?

 

[Alastor]

Steen,

While I see your point on "scientific reasoning" - that's futile and just rhetoric. We can't prove that the sky is blue either.

I don't have to drown to know I can't breathe under water. We live in a real world. let's use real reason, instead of abstract and circular logic to permit for everything conceivable.

Of course, not everyone exists within the bounds of reason. They're not required to. I imagine they might even be happy (but I doubt it). But they aren't shaping or improving the world either.

Nihilism is neat to talk about, but reason keeps us from drowning.

 

[tryreading]

This is exactly what I want to think. I’m not in a hurry to put God outside, but it does not matter. Inside our outside natural laws, I do want to think God can’t be proved or disproved.
I would start arguing on your side, but I still think I may be missing a point.
What I see is:
1. If ToE says life evolved out of no-life material by an accident (whether this can be demonstrated now or later on), it says – there is no God, Creator, ID-r. Since it goes against your (and main) statement that God cannot be disapproved as well as be proved, I wish to get PhDs in biology, math and thermodynamics and prove that life could not be evolved out of no life material.
2. If ToE says that humans evolved from monkeys, it says there is no God, Creator for us, He is just a product of undeveloped minds. I wish to develop my mind, so I can disprove the statement, that we involved from monkeys; no meaning to argue for God. How comes the humans developed properties, which have no need for adaptation; how comes humans got the property which 180 opposite to all previous evolution – we do not need to adapt to environment, but we are rather transforming environment to fit our needs; how comes we found so many old bones, but did not find our relative yet; how comes in the previous construction we came out of the Neanderthal man, but now DNA showed he was a totally different specie, existing with us at the same time, and there is still no apology or new construction about us, and so forth,…. I would feel the urge to fight, just because I feel what you feel – there is no way… But statements #1 and #2 ARE proving there is no God, and they HAVE already proved just that to a whole number of developed minds, and ARE used for such purpose.

I am afraid, the ID-rs (and may be even some Cr-sts) feel similar kind of urge and are falling in 180 opposite to ToE heresy.

I do not see how statements #1 and #2 could be removed or changed in ToE. I do not see any reason=possibility=reality to ban these directions of research.
But in order to feel fair, on the same grounds I can’t deny the urge of ID-rs (whether they accepted Christianity and whether they did it before or after).
What if: by some intuition they smell some kind of dead end, and they are offering to forget these 2 statements, because those 2 are more like an unnecessary burden at this moment; - and to start from assuming a total heresy and go from there. I am not sure it is not coming from scientific experience. I may think such things happened in science a number of times and they led to real discoveries, - taking a short cut, using a heresy as a point of refreshing view without a need to prove or disprove it. (Definition of intuition may vary, but here it is not a property to adapt to environment, it is different from reflexes).

Where am I missing a point?

Neither of your points, if true, would prove there is no God. They would only disprove some religious dogma. (Your evolution of life from no life is not evolution, by the way).

If there is a God, he could have started life from no life, and he could have 'created' evolution. And if there is a God, he could have let or caused the authors of the Bible (or whatever religion book) or the translators of it to make mistakes or lie. I don't know why he might have done these things, but he could have.

 

[nkgupta80]

Neither of your points, if true, would prove there is no God. They would only disprove some religious dogma. (Your evolution of life from no life is not evolution, by the way).

If there is a God, he could have started life from no life, and he could have 'created' evolution. And if there is a God, he could have let or caused the authors of the Bible (or whatever religion book) or the translators of it to make mistakes or lie. I don't know why he might have done these things, but he could have.

if there is a god, its not necessarily true that he/she/it conceived the bible, or any other religious text/teaching. If you want to stick god into this discussion, you have to understand that we can only treat this god like entity in very vague terms. You can't jump from god to christianity. This is another reason why introducing the idea of an intelligent designer into scientific enquiry and research is retarded. We don't know, can't observe, or can't quantify what god is. h

 

[steen]

This is exactly what I want to think. I’m not in a hurry to put God outside, but it does not matter. Inside our outside natural laws, I do want to think God can’t be proved or disproved.

And that would be correct. God is not a subject of Science at all.

I would start arguing on your side, but I still think I may be missing a point.
What I see is:
1. If ToE says life evolved out of no-life material by an accident (whether this can be demonstrated now or later on), it says – there is no God,

But then, the Scientific theory of Evolution also does not say any such thing. What you are talking about now is not evolution, but rather is Abiogenesis.

Now, this HAS been clarified several times before here, including in treads where you have posted.

So I am beginning to be upset with you. Because it either means that you are not reading the posts, or that you are deliberately misrepresenting evolution. Whichever one it is, it is incredibly disrespectful.

If you want to discuss Evolution, at least have the decency to know what you are discussing and avoid misrepresentations.

:spank: :blastem: :hammer::soap

Creator, ID-r. Since it goes against your (and main) statement that God cannot be disapproved as well as be proved, I wish to get PhDs in biology, math and thermodynamics and prove that life could not be evolved out of no life material.

Again, if you want to discuss something other than Evolution, at least keep it out of the Evolution treads @%@$#@%$@#%$

2. If ToE says that humans evolved from monkeys,

It doesn't. Can you BLOODY WELL get what Evolution actually is before criticizing it? Your post is incredibly dishonest.

it says there is no God, Creator for us, He is just a product of undeveloped minds.

It says no such thing. Please cease your false claims about Science. You are flat-out bearing false witness here. It is over and over again, ongoing falsehoods that you post.

I wish to develop my mind, so I can disprove the statement, that we involved from monkeys; no meaning to argue for God. How comes the humans developed properties, which have no need for adaptation; how comes humans got the property which 180 opposite to all previous evolution – we do not need to adapt to environment, but we are rather transforming environment to fit our needs;

Perhaps if you could actually not be so incredibly insulting by showing us the respect of trying to figure out what you are arguing against before posting about it, you wouldn't be seen as so %^#%$@# dishonest.

how comes we found so many old bones, but did not find our relative yet;

What do you mean? Who have we not found yet? Do you even KNOW what you are talking about?

how comes in the previous construction we came out of the Neanderthal man, but now DNA showed he was a totally different specie, existing with us at the same time, and there is still no apology or new construction about us, and so forth,….

And how come that you seem to have NO clue what you are talking about, so flat-out misrepresenting the science?

I would feel the urge to fight, just because I feel what you feel – there is no way… But statements #1 and #2 ARE proving there is no God, and they HAVE already proved just that to a whole number of developed minds, and ARE used for such purpose.

Any other lies you want to spew about science and scientists?

I am afraid, the ID-rs (and may be even some Cr-sts) feel similar kind of urge and are falling in 180 opposite to ToE heresy.

And are they all spewing ignorant falsehoods?

And what's that claptrap about "heresy"? If you don't even know what it is, how how do you know it is heresy?

I do not see how statements #1 and #2 could be removed or changed in ToE. I do not see any reason=possibility=reality to ban these directions of research.

It is not even IN the TOE. get a clue.

Where am I missing a point?

All over the place. What you are arguing is NOT the TOE. Please cease your misrepresentations.

 

[tryreading]

if there is a god, its not necessarily true that he/she/it conceived the bible, or any other religious text/teaching. If you want to stick god into this discussion, you have to understand that we can only treat this god like entity in very vague terms. You can't jump from god to christianity. This is another reason why introducing the idea of an intelligent designer into scientific enquiry and research is retarded. We don't know, can't observe, or can't quantify what god is. h

Right, but we know there is a Bible, so if there is a God, he either caused or allowed it to read as it currently does. And he either caused or allowed evolution to occur. If there is a God.

 

[justone]

So I am beginning to be upset with you.
:spank: :blastem: :hammer::soap
@%@$#@%$@#%

%^#%$@# dishonest.
And how come that you seem to have NO clue what you are talking about,It is not even IN the TOE. get a clue.
All over the place. What you are arguing is NOT the TOE. [/ QUOTE]

You don’t have to yell, when you yell I hardly can hear. And normally I do not trust to people who try to over shout. It may look just very suspicious. If I am so ignorant why don’t you just laugh?

This is exactly what I am trying to do - to get a clue.

So if you would be so kind, to cool down and get back to me with answers –whether I understood your yelling correctly:

1. I am totally wrong that ToE makes statement #1? It is just ridiculous from the point of view of a ToE scientist? In reality ToE has never made such statement? It is like… - I would say the main claim of Einstein was that trees produce oxygen? (Not for you to answer -where the heck could I get such idea?)

2. The same questions are repeated about statement #2 (forget my “scientific” urge about bones – it was just a first approximation I had at hand).

3. My impression that ToE is widely used (or should I say misused) as a prove that there is no God generally comes from just my imagination? I am a kind of fighting with wind mills?

4. A real ToE scientist would say : if one uses or refers to ToE as a prove that there no God or Creator, one is totally uninformed about ToE or is making totally unsubstantiated and wrong conclusions. Once and forever for idiots: ToE as a science has nothing to do proving or disproving God, Creator or whatever you name choose.

Generally if you answer “yes” you do not have to prove why – I will take it.
If you say “no” I would appreciate a few sentences, because I have an impression that I made out “yes” in all your yelling”