Well stated - succinct & salient.

The current and previous Popes (Benedict XVI and John-Paul II) have also made positive pronouncements about evolution " though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins."

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

I agree, a very well articulated article on a topic that has engulfed fundamentalist Christians the world over.

Now, where is OLO's irreducible complex entity?

You mean runner?

>>Now, where is OLO's irreducible complex entity?<<

He'll be along shortly.

Great, should be fun to watch ;)

Of course the purpose of the ID movement is fundamentally about politics and not at all about Truth and Reality.

It is part of a comprehensive project by right-wing religionists to re-"christianise" the USA.

The principal driving force for this project in the USA is the (sic) "Discovery" Institute.

Check out the Wiki entry on this charming outfit.

The article is quite right in that ID is nonsense but it was known to be nonsense from the beginning. Additional evidence that it is nonsense will make no impression on the believers. They even have their own journals with impressive sounding titles which they can refer to full of gibberish that has been "refereed" by other IM believers. In any case IM was never about proof but about giving fundamentalists a cover story (in this respect it has eerie similarities with much global warming "research"). While I wish the author well, I don't think his findings are going to alter much.

The Guardian (UK) Comment-is-Free section ran a recent series of blogs on this, starting here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/03/religion-atheism

with the subsequent posts below. The below-the-line psoters were pretty scathing, especially of Steve Fuller's article - he was a witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover-Area-School-District trial where he "essentially attempted a qualified defense of the scientific status of intelligent design"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

.

Intelligent design creationism was always scientifically bankrupt - it was addled in the egg. It has always been obvious that its only supporters are scientifically illiterate and willfully ignorant religionists. The actual science community - in the US, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, and essentially every other legitimate science organization - has posted numerous position papers stating that intelligent design creationism is a pseudoscience - not science. This is not news.

Although I greatly appreciate a well formed bottom it cannot be the product of intelligent design. Felling trees to make toilet paper destroys habitat.

Nice article
I particularly like the fact it points out that ID is BOTH scientifically and theologically untenable. In Australia, at least, most mainstream churches accept evolution. ID is very much a fringe preoccupation.

Maybe the intelligent designer intelligently designed us to be flawed?

Otherwise if we were perfect then we'd be the equivilent of the designer. After all if there were such a designer then its intelligence would far surpass ours and therefore us assuming we know how such a being would think is the equivient of an ant assuming it knows how we think.

ID is an issue of faith. It can neither be proven nor disproven. The fact that some try simply shows their hubris and their flaws.

Equally Darwinism is an isue of faith that can be neither proven nor disproven - well at least not proven scientifically. To my knowledge no one has managed to observe the creation of a new species so the view that they are created naturally is mere assumption, not science.

mhaze,

<<Maybe the intelligent designer intelligently designed us to be flawed?>>

Considering some of the flaws in found in different species, the alleged intelligent designer would have to be a pretty malevolent designer.

<<Otherwise if we were perfect then we'd be the equivilent of the designer. After all if there were such a designer then its intelligence would far surpass ours and therefore us assuming we know how such a being would think is the equivient of an ant assuming it knows how we think.>>

But we still have big enough brains (well, some of us anyway) to see malevolence and just plain carelessness when we see it. Not to mention blatant deceit when everything about the various life forms on Earth adhere perfectly to evolution.

<<Equally Darwinism is an isue of faith that can be neither proven nor disproven - well at least not proven scientifically.>>

Wrong.

The overwhelming body of evidence in support of evolution, and the total absence of any contradicting evidence puts evolution well beyond any reasonable doubt.

<<To my knowledge no one has managed to observe the creation of a new species so the view that they are created naturally is mere assumption, not science.>>

And if they did, it would disprove evolution.

If I were to say that every sheep on a large farm was white, I could only prove this by checking every single sheep, and then show that there were no sheep hiding.

To disprove this I need only find one black sheep.

This would be similar to evolution, here millions of "sheep" have all turned up white, but there in the absence of having absolutely all possible evidence, there will never be absolute proof.

The creationists in spite of many "academics" have yet to find a single "non white sheep"

However, to equate belief in evolution to a belief in creation, is as absurd as buying a lotto ticket and believing that the chance of winning the jackpot is the same as not winning.

And so the author is either very ignorant or believes in unintelligent design. Then again both these positions can only happen when you twist your observances and are blinded by dogma as evolutionist tend to do. Keep trying guys it won't change the fact that we are all answerable to our Creator. The anti intellectual view is no better demonstrated by those foolish or ignorant enough to believe we got her by chance. To call this science is laughable.

Wondering when you'd turn up runner ... but is that all you can come up with?

There are many things that science is not certain about, runner. One thing is certain though, you haven't a clue what science is, or what it is not.

Science is certainly not a faith based religion premised on dogma, despite your assertions to the contrary.

Btw, I couldn't help but chuckle over your Freudian slip.

Over to you :)

As a progressive, I can’t believe in the Big Bang Theory.
It relies on three major assumptions:
The universe is homogeneous,
The universe is isotropic
Physical laws are universal

Demolishing these assumptions –

The universe is homogeneous
BUT
Diversity is good and homogeneity is bad.
Therefore, no progressive intelligent designer would have designed a homogeneous universe.

The universe is isotropic
BUT
Isotropy is just multi-directional homogeneity. Refer above.

Physical laws are universal
BUT
In a progressive universe you would expect a diversity of laws.
Therefore, no progressive intelligent designer would have applied the same physical laws throughout the universe, which, as we’ve already proven above, is diverse.

runner,

you might like to consider the proposition that ID is bad theology -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/03/religion-atheism
.

McReal,

You might like to consider that evolution is extremely poor science.

Dear Runner,
Please concider Mat 7-6 and 2 Tim 2-14 to 19 in that order.
Regards Richie 10

its a typical piece of redirective pap...talking to its followers

no science evidence of evolution is presented...in other words rebut a concept...
..while not proving..the THEORY..of evolution of species..is NOT/explaining..evolution of genus..

irreducable complex..is not subject to evolution..cant be..because it is of nill affect on its own...in the steps needed to be evolved..before...the complex/compounded parts..does its evolutionary fruit

take a case mentioned..in other opinion piece rebuttals...of a creature...that dies..to repoduce...where was its first one...that needed to live to die...to make the 'first'..

even a simple bacteria mentioned in other pieces...its tail...needs a moter...to move its tail..even before a tail..can evolve..[consisting of 10 sepperate parts..]...random change...hardly...no natural for NATURE..to select from

while we are at it....what is science about/nature..as in natural selection...thats not science..only gods/nature....the intel/designer doing it naturally

to say imperfection is evidence of no perfect..is insane..and science deception..preaching to the decieved..by science..as is usual...or rather the ignorant needing to believe their beliefs..in no god

its clever how you idiots jump on these things...lacking critical thinking abilities..you hang your opinion/belief..on selective pap

where is your evidence of no designer..

present your proof...or name the first life that evolved...

reveal the root..of your tree of evolution...it dont have one..why dont it have one...irreducable complexity...ie..nothing to evolve..even the ameaba...has many complex parts..as proved in yet other debaits...all of you lost

you claim science...well present it..just because you can have faith in science..dosnt exclude god

many years ago..the masses..thought the earth was flat...
and the unthinking..[you lot]..went along with the lie..then..because they had faith in the...'science'..opinion..

but you flat earthers..who know nothing but..faith in science...
you have your beliefs...and your high priests..thier holy text's..own marters/and own saints..

just like any other..faith system..only yours is con-cieved by science/godheads..pretending..they have the only..'true belief'..and sold by fluff and huff

present your science

Dear Runner,
Read Ps 14 then ask your self where are all the bones. Once I was one of the vast crowd then Mat 7-13,14 happened to me Richie 10. I met the man who said the above words and I chose to follow him and the longer you travel down thr road the understanding comes for he calles us out of the crowd to walk with him. What a privilege!

""consider that evolution is extremely poor science."
runner .. Saturday, 15 May 2010 10:32:33 PM

under one god

Austrian monk Gregor Mendel provided the first and most significant evidence and proof after Darwin - his work with over 20,000 pea plants makes him the father of genetics.

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

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

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

Subsequent development of molecular cell biology, palaeontology, etc has made evolution fact.

Moreover, Michael Zimmerman's article was not an essay on evolution that you claim it should be.

runner: << You might like to consider that evolution is extremely poor science. >>

How would you know, runner? As far as I can recall, in all of the idiotic twaddle you've posted at OLO over the years, you've never demonstrated any scientific understanding beyond that of a third grade primary school student.

Where's Dan the Meringue? At least his ID sophistry is mildly entertaining.

runner: << You might like to consider that evolution is extremely poor science. >>

He has lost all credibility with this sort of rubbish, another troll like Cheryl.
In future as both have nothing that makes sense will ignore.

Phew - glad I'm an atheist, now that Proxy has demonstrated that God is a Conservative.

If I had to belong to a religion it would be the Church of Glorious Happenstance and Everlasting Existence - brought to you by the Theory of Evolution and the Laws of Physics.

ID was always piffle: what's intelligent about the common cold?

mcreal..thankyou for raising gregor mendle/,..

mendalism is a true science..but your confusing peas..lets get away from gregor..and move a bit into the present..[god does live..in real time]...now

so lets update darwins finches...[current research..reveals the short beak finches/seed eating.,..predominate in good season..and long beaked in poor seasons...balancing between its genomic mean[within its genus]

and while on darwin..lets clarify...darwins/pigeons..
and the wildtype[+]..darwin validated..that a mixed population/would RETURN to the wildtyype/rockdove..in a mixed population..[ie devolve back to the genus mean]

im sorry many will have no clue..of what we are talking..yet still espouse..evolution[of species...as valid for validating evolution of genus..WHEN IT CANNOT..and does not

please..do your research..and do not be taken in by godless/decievers..[please see..the bleeding obvious..eucalypts are all eucalypts...and no intermediates have been found...nor will

and the so-called missing-links/..number less than ten..[when..if missing links were valid..should number millions[ok thousands...and science/frauds..point at ten..lol

we get redirection..presented as proof..via ring-species...ie species..WITHIN THE SAME GENUS>>>..LOL<<<..thats how despirite the athiests are..to give us a god-free/belief system

[btw...be-lief..comes from..be love..#
god is love..lief=love]

please inform your belief..with the simple facts..[i love darwin and mendle..[and hollander and levie]...and the many other science teachers..i have extensivly studied...

and am/thus..extreemly pained..that their true scientific efforts..have become so twisted/by the godless...seeking only to create..the next goldless/un-belief/system..masked under evolution/THEORY

god is the nature/nurture..natural selection is of god..[un-natural selection..is science..god yet sustaines..even the decievers their lives...logic...love..via the light

god sustains all life...life is a sign of god...

no science can create life..from non-life..[it can study dna..but cannot/..even make a cell membrane...lol]

.as the koran reveals...first..make one life..
..science..simply speaking..never has...and never will

This is great, I've only just recently being the least bit interested in Politics, wanting to understand the fundamentals I've done some reading about upper and lower house, how proposals are passed through and how Religion relates to Politics and the law.
So at the core of it it's basically Honourable.

A note about the God of the gaps argument (at the end of the article). This was a very popular idea in the 1960s, when I did my theology degree. However, if God is not responsible for anything at all, if he has no causal interactions with anything, he, or rather it, is not a being which it makes sense to worship. If there are no gaps to be explained, the god of Christians, Muslims and Jews does not exist.

Richie

Thanks for the advice. It is very hard to keep quite when supposedly intelligent men and woman are so quick to deny their Creator and yet swallow the fantasy of evolution. When they are able to twist simple observations its no wonder they reach such laughable conclusions. They have certainly been given over to their delusions. How they teach this stuff as science with a straight face amazes me.

under one god,

First,
"no science can create life..from non-life..[it can study dna..but cannot/..even make a cell membrane...lol]"

perhaps you should read this
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja710746d

Not the creation of life as many define it, how do you define life? Does a virus count? bacterial spores? DNA?

Second,
Last time we debated this topic you stated "i'm still neutral on how god did it" when questioned about your alternative theory of evolution. Have you made any progress? I'm sure if you have ANY evidence we would all be interested to review your data.

Posted by one under god, Monday, 16 November 2009 6:43:34 AM
"jesus wasnt a jew
live with..it"

Gold.

Question to all protagonists on this thread:

I should care what religiously inspired fruitcakes think about evolution because...?

No really, why should I waste headspace on taurine fertiliser like creationism or intelligent design?

stevenlmeyer<<Question,..I should care what religiously inspired fruitcakes think about evolution because...?>>because even the pope has been decieved via science fraud

evil is so clever..in removing god from your minds..

if mankind is..all there is...at least..dont make ANY HUH_man/hero god..without fully comprehending..fully..what their true adgenda is..or asking them..what their evidence..really is..SCIENCE/fact or theory

if its so simple..a child can get it...
at least get them to actually do it...FIRST...

then get them to actually do it again...ie science..is presumed to have replicatability..not just push a theory..via buzzwords/spin..and weight of numbers/..yet only having trust/faith/be;lief../in a theory

stezza..<<perhaps you should read this
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja710746d

Not the creation of life as many define it>>lol..funny girl

<<how do you define life?>>able to self replicate..in its own way/time...acreoos a liniage of time..with its own freewill..

<<Does a virus count?>>if your saying science has made one from scratch..[not using gods dust or method...sure....present it please

<<bacterial spores?>>.spores are like seeds...did science create a seed...no it hasnt...please present fact..not opinionate theory

[putting dna..into an ovem,..isnt creating life...its using gods egg/cellular process...that sciennce cannot replicate

<<DNA?>>no dna is not life..it needs other living process's..to replicte..[its like saying windows is a computer...its simply an instruction...it cant self replicate..[outside of its conmputer....thus isnt life..

really you are chosing to remain ignorant...sxience cannot replicte life...in its fullness...it has achieved part's...but a small part..is not life...monkeies can ape humans..but they copy...not concieve their minic's

<<Second,..Have you made any progress?>>>i have..SCIENCE HAS NOT

<<we would all be interested to review your data.>>.ok sure...i have 30 different species of fish..[all different breeds..go figure..no offspring...yet...[ditto..5 species of snails....and 50 trees/sgrubs/flower types

till something mates/making a missing link..common decent remains refuted

<<"jesus wasnt a jew>>>because he wasnt born in judea
live with..it"

Good article.

Sad then that we still have the Qld Education Minister refusing to stop the teaching of ID and Creationism in Science classes in public schools up here.

It would be good if some of you OLO authors wrote to Geoff Wilson and asked him to try to steer Queensland into the 21st Century within Science.

Being a bit of a fundie himself (check his electorate web page to see how he promotes his membership of the church), with a director general who promotes her Catholicism as a mark of coming from a 'good' family on her EQ web site, Wilson will probably be more inclined to listen to Runner than anyone else.

The teacher unions also fail to halt this dangerous undermining of science, but then, it's their members who support ID and Creationism being taught, isn't it?

We certainly never hear the AEU or the QTU denouncing it, so they must be supporting it.

The Blue Cross,

If intelligent design is to be taught in Queensland schools, it should not be taught as religion. Yet, perhaps, it could be still taught, making comparisons with other creation myths. Or, students could be asked to read Genesis, to ascertain how heavy elements were formed, contrasting the OT with astrophysics.

Yes, teach that Biblical fundamentalist believe that Jessica Watson sailed around a flat world; yet, apply inquiry based learning, to test these propositions. If the world was created in 4,004 BCE, ask why are there 10, 000 year old trees and 80,000 year inter-generation root systems? Why would the Intelligent Creator “trick” scientists into being able to show the early universe was very hot and cooled over billions of years by creating background radiation of 2.7 degrees Kelvin? If creating the insect world is intelligent, why is intelligent designer so cruel?

I see nothing wrong with interrogating religions, as one might the
Theory of Relativity.

So, yes, do have a show and tell. But… And it is a big but, the religion must be treated as a scholastic subject.

OUG and runner,

Was it one of you who answered me once saying no level of evidence would convince you Genesis wrong?

Herein, I ask again;

What would convince that a god did not create the Universe 6,000 years ago; with the two first humans, animals, stars, light beams from stars starting millions of parsecs away commencing in mid-space with their spectra adjusted, as if the stars were billions of years old, just to fool our instruments?

When did the Cambrian exinction occur? Please don't say the Flood. The strata are wrong.

Ozbib,

The catch is to religionists,with the "God of the gaps", gaps are held infinitely divisible. A bit like a Zeno parason.

If a science once denied religionits, is empirically proven, the religionist will jump horses and claim, "well, it is God that allows the science to work". Just wait and watch the findings from the CERN partical accelerator over the next five years. If it is shown that quantum fluctations exists supporting the spontaneous creation of matter, the religionists (except runner) will forget their old disagreements, say, "we have always known God created physics, even in a closed self sustaining universe"

Oliver...ID/Creationism should be taught in (absolutely) no schools at all, and least of all in public schools.

Maybe a minor distraction in a SOSE class could claim 5 minutes of time for this rubbish, but not in science at all at all.

Please avoid pandering to lunatics posing as teachers.

Oliver

When you or any other person can come up with a plausible explanation for origins (don't give me the big bang fantasy)you might have some scientific basis for your wild assumptions. The track record of evolution is one of twisted observations, deceit and fraud. Only the gullible or deceitful can truely call this science. With the billions spent on trying to disprove a Creator it has proven again to be a total failure and waste of money. One really does have to be very blind not to see design as the god deniers do. Thankfully there are plenty of scientist at the highest levels that know evolution is crap. Unfortunately they will always be critized just as those who opposed the science of the day (spontaneous generation ) were. Most of the scientific 'experts' still held to this dogma many years after being disproved. Nothing has changed as god deniers continue their desperate and yet pathetic attempts to deny the obvious.

one under god,

Given your scientific illiteracy, I wonder why you even bother posting on these subjects.

Just an overview so far:

Posted by one under god, Sunday, 16 May 2010 4:33:46 PM
"no science can create life..from non-life..[it can study dna..but cannot/..even make a cell membrane...lol]"

Posted by Stezza, Sunday, 16 May 2010 8:55:00 PM
"perhaps you should read this
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja710746d" = link to peer reviewed scientific paper describing the creation of a cell membrane.

1-0

"we would all be interested to review your data."
Posted by one under god, Monday, 17 May 2010 9:11:06 AM
"ok sure...i have 30 different species of fish..[all different breeds..go figure..no offspring...yet...[ditto..5 species of snails....and 50 trees/sgrubs/flower types...till something mates/making a missing link..common decent remains refuted?"

Please explain how having some fish and trees refutes common decent? How long have you observed your fish? oh only a few years...

2-0

Also, you state that you define life as "able to self replicate..in its own way/time...acreoos a liniage of time..with its own freewill.."
Please read this link : http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/Lee.pdf = link to peer reviewed paper describing a self replicating peptide
If you disagree then you will need to state evidence to support your argument.

By the way, are you able to self replicate without "putting dna..into an ovem,..isnt creating life...its using gods egg/cellular process."? You see, using your own definition of life, you yourself are not alive. May want to think that one over.

3-0 (own goal)

Can you see how scientific debate works? you make a claim, then back it up with peer reviewed data. If this is too much trouble perhaps you should stick to discussing scripture with Runner and Richie10.

The Blue Cross,

My recent post was a little tongue-in-cheek suggesting that if the Bible is meant to be a definitive explanation, why not treat its suppositions along aside scientfic explanations? The process would allow for some interesting comparisons. One would test religonist claims, rather as science tests hypotheses. Explore questions like, if the Earth is flat, how do geo-stationary satellites stay in the same spot, while travelling at 29,000 kilometres per hour? It might give fundamentalists reason to think. ...I know the satellite and the flat Eath are revolving around heaven (not the sun) at the same constant speed. Or should that be an elephant standing on a stack of giant turtles going down to infinity? Sorri, wrong religion, but, surely it has an equal right to be taught.

You are right, of course, I shouldn't encourage the fundamentalists.

If the Bible is taught in a secular school, it should be never be taught as divine text.

runner,

Over the years, heaps of examples relating to the BB and evolution have been provided by OLO posters. Foe example, the COBE photograph.

What would you say if the CERN particle proves that matter can be created from quantum fluctuations.

OUG,

Should Zeus have punished the Titans? Whose intelligent design was better the Titans or the Olympians?

Oliver
'Over the years, heaps of examples relating to the BB and evolution have been provided by OLO posters. Foe example, the COBE photograph. '
Interesting that many astronomers believe strongly in creation.

Apologies Oliver... one never knows what angles OLO posters take at times.

I just get a little hot under the collar at times when people either pretend our schools are well run and 'education focused' rather than the cesspits of mediocrity saved only by a few decent staff in each school or they pretend that because the QSA (Qld Studies Authority, who write the curriculum) do not require ID-Creationism to be taught it is not taught.

It is, all over Qld, but certainly not in every school.

So any vague hint that otherwise intelligent people are somehow allowing this stuff some credibility is a little worrying.

Irony doesn't always work in the e-sphere, as I have found out myself from time to time.

Thanks

- only four per cent of Queensland Year 4 students reach an "advanced" standard in science compared with 36 per cent in Singapore;

- the interest in science in Australian 15-year-old students was "among the lowest in the world";

- Year 4 teachers reported spending around five per cent of their time teaching science, WITH 78 PER CENT SAYING THEY DID NOT USE A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/damning-education-review-and-the-governments-response-20090701-d541.html

The death of intelligent design is rather amusing, because science is now almost dead, at least in the QLD education system.

Who knows what teachers are teaching the students, when so many do not even use a textbook.

QLD education: - A hopeless, archaic, pathetic, feminist mess.

runner

Can you provide some rational discussion about evolution, or data to support your bald statements such as astronomers support creation?

Vanna... a mess, yes, but a 'feminist' mess?

I have yet to meet many feminists within EQ...especially so many fundie women working there.

There aren't too many feminist inclined men either, more 'old style' blue collar types, decent enough though most seem to be.

EQ is a backwater, a lost snapshot of a frozen-in-aspic era, a peek into a Donald Horne world, still thriving after the inventor of it all has died.

Quaint, if it wasn't dangerous.... and pathetic.

My remaining child, trapped within, learns mostly from reading on the web around the topic that was faintly whiffed at in class, and going on line to exchange views, plus from his after-school workplace where he learns how adults treat each other decently, and how, if he spoke to a customer as he and others get spoken to at school, he'd be out on his ear.

But, in defence of at least some maths and science teachers, they abandon text books because all too frequently the books are inaccurate, wrong, and misleading....but the QSA care not, nor do EQ, and the subject associations seem to tolerate it all without saying boo!

English is a totally lost cause, unless your child gets the very rare good teacher, but even then the material is woeful...and it seems that no one within our community is prepared to regard SOSE as a serious subject, so it gets treated accordingly, by staff and students, not to mention parents, who seem to have no idea what it is.

The root cause, apart from poorly funded schools, is the almost total failure in management to 'manage', and the abandonment of schools by the better off middle class, who would not tolerate the mess, and be far more inclined to speak up about it than most of the parents who attend the meek gatherings of P&C meetings.

The Ministers solution to students who recognise the scam, is to make it easier to expel them, rather than reflect on just what it is that EQ contributes, daily, to the rundown of our school system.

Blue cross,
I would say "feminist mess" because maths and science are considered to be "too male".

It is also routine for a teacher to say that “boys do all right later on”, which means that the teacher has no interest in the education of boys when they are at school, and the education system is a highly feminist system.

As well as primary school students, I also know of grade 10 science students who do not have a text book, and instead are given hand written notes by their teacher. The teacher has not even bothered to type out their notes with a word processor.

I also know of some students in a class who could not understand the teacher because the teacher had a thick Scottish accent, and they couldn't understand the teacher's hand writing either, so the students had no idea of what they had to learn.

Most of science is based on a hypothesis that can become a theory if many tests and experiments prove the hypothesis valid.

I don't think hand written notes instead of a text book have ever been proven to be an effective method of teaching.

Good article. Nice to see most folks here support and appear to understand science.
We will never convince the runners of the world as their world-view is based on child indoctrinated faith. This approach is rather fragile as their personal God of the Gaps dies a slow death as more knowledge and understanding is gained. Those that would hold onto the simple "lies to children" must be constantly confused and grieving for their god so I guess this is why runner constantly accuses all scientists, secularists, etc of being corrupt or deliberately misleading him.
Evolution is more solid than Gravity as a theory, and so many branches of knowledge rest on it's back that it is patently insane to suggest it does not exist. It is similar to trying to tell a sailor that waves don't exist! Creationism, however does not even stack up as theology.

Ozyandy,
"Evolution is more solid than Gravity as a theory"

Says who?

Do a search on "punctuated equilibruim" as a theory that has much more basis than Darwin's origional theory of evolution.

The idea that everyone should embrace science is becoming rather thin when science itself is hardly being taught anymore in education systems.

vanna

"Punctuated equilibrium" is a theory about the way Darwinian evolution through natural selection occurred. It does not negate evolution through natural selection.

The discoveries of the past decade have revolutionised our understanding of the mechanism underlying evolution at the molecular and, yes, this does lend support to punctuated equilibrium as the main driver of speciation. See for example:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527511.400-accidental-origins-where-species-come-from.html

Always remember that evolution is science, not religious dogma. Our understanding has moved on from Darwin's time. Most scientists working in the field have probably never even read "On the Origin of the Species."

runner,

"Only the gullible or deceitful can truely call this science. With the billions spent on trying to disprove a Creator it has proven again to be a total failure and waste of money." - runner

CERN is not conducting a theological experiment, albeit might have theistic consequences. It will take time before the accelerator will reach its maximum capacity. There are issues of aligning magnetics and managing -ultimately- power at fourteen trillion electron votes. No one said simulating the Creation of Matter is easy.

Of course, it science. The physcists have made predictions about how nature's most fundamental particles will interact and they are testing it. The hypotheses are falsifiable.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6770/full/403581a0.htm

Stevenlmeyer,
Puncutated equilibrium shows that the theories of evolution are not set in concrete.

Ironically, theories regards evolution are themselves evolving.

Most scientific laws can be proven mathematically, and I have not heard of anyone that has been able to mathematically prove evolution, so evolution remains as a theory only, and is not a scientific law as some would suggest.

There is the necessity to keep an open mind regards such theories as evolution.

In fact, not keeping an open mind is actually not part of the scientific method.

Science and religion can live quite happily together, if both sides keep an open mind.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0429/Did-asteroids-bring-water-to-Earth

However I do see certain sections of the education system now tying to eliminate both religion and science out of education.

Vanna wrote:

"Ironically, theories regards evolution are themselves evolving."

It would be ironic if scientific theories did not evolve. That is what science is all about. The evolution of scientific theories is what distinguishes science from religious dogma

The Scientific American even has a podcast on the topic titled "The Evolution of Evolution"

See:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=the-evolution-of-evolution-09-01-07

Can science and religion co-exist?

It depends on the religion. Not with this kind of religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcSXwPsgLhE

Here is what the revered Muslim scholar, Al Ghazali has to say about astronomy

"Consider Imaam Ghazaali’s position on astronomy and related science. In his view, it is not permissible for all and sundry to learn astronomy. He labels astronomy as futile and trivial. He regards only limited astronomy for a select few to be permissible – such astronomy which is necessary for navigation and finding direction in the land and sea. He argues that astronomy is guesswork and blameworthy. He propagates the truth of the Hadith that it is better to remain ignorant of some branches of learning. This is a position which is unpalatable to the modernist palate soured by mental corruption. He therefore advocates: “Do not indulge in such sciences which the Shariah brands as useless.”

http://books.themajlis.net/book/print/691

Science and religion definitely cannot co-exist as long as al-Ghazali / Sarah Palin style thinking holds sway.

The article in the Christian Science Monitor contained the following:

"Why the connection to water on Earth? The collision that resulted in the formation of the moon 4.5 billion years ago would have heated Earth and vaporized any water the young planet had gathered. Comets had been a leading candidate as sources of replacement water. But the forms of hydrogen in water molecules bound in asteroids are a closer match to those found in seawater than are those found in water comets carry."

Water that is vapourised does not leave the earth. It remains in the atmosphere. When the earth cools sufficiently the vapour will again become a liquid. Neither comets nor asteroids need to be a source for replacement water as the water is still around.

Is that the level of science writing in a Christian Science publication?

davidf

what are you smoking?

'the collision that resulted in the formation of the moon 4.5 billion years ago would have heated Earth and vaporized any water the young planet had gathered.'

You have been watching to much science fiction.

Vanna,

Scientists don’t use the term ‘theory’ the same way we do, and I think you need to learn the difference between a ‘law’ and a ‘theory’... http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A law is not a ‘proven’, or a ‘more proven’ theory as you appear to think. You seem to confuse ‘hypothesis’ with ‘theory’ and think that because evolution is referred to as a “theory” that it’s still only a hypothesis.

There are some smaller details about evolution that are uncertain and others that are continually being refined as we learn more, but the core fundamentals of evolution are established facts.

Evolution is both fact and theory.

OH=liver<<What would convince..that a god did not create the Universe 6,000 years ago;..with the two first humans>>im convinced,the science is clear...

..the bible dosnt say 6000 years old..WHY DO YOU?..typical redirection...lol

just like THIS LINK THAT DONT WORK...<<perhaps you should read this
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja710746d" it may link to peer reviewed scientific paper...BUT IT DONT WORK

please explain..OR GIVE A LINK THAT DOES WORK..you claim..it's describing the creation of a cell membrane...well explain it HERE

here is the message i got
<<ERROR:..The requested article..is not currently available on this site.>>>no doo-doo..its typical of your selectivism

1-0..to me

<<Please explain how having some fish..and trees refutes common decent?>>>please prove your case



2-0

<<Please read this link : http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/Lee.pdf = link to peer reviewed paper describing a self replicating peptide>>>wow...please give me details where IT SITS..ON THE TREE OF LIFE!

If you disagree..then you will need to state evidence..
to support your argument...cause your facts are selective

3-0 (own goal)

Can you see how scientific debate works?

yes i can...you need FACTS..
then link them together..BUT YOU DONT GOT NONE..
if you make a claim,..then back it up..with peer reviewed data!

your a deciever as well as decieved...cheers eh...squeers
you got ego..ergo you got nuthin..

Dear runner,

It would be good if you could bring yourself to actually read and understand a post before you commented on it. I quoted an article from a Christian publication. Those were not my words that you took issue with. They were the words from that article I quoted. It is generated accepted that the moon was created 4.6 billion years ago, but those were the words of the Christian Science monitor, not mine.

one under god,

Sorry the complete reference is:
Positioning Lipid Membrane Domains in Giant Vesicles by Micro-organization of Aqueous Cytoplasm Mimic. Ann-Sofie Cans, Meghan Andes-Koback and Christine D. Keating. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2008, 130 (23), pp 7400–7406
DOI: 10.1021/ja710746d http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18479139

You can also read the lay version of this here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515171023.htm
This completely disproves your statement that we cannot create a cell membrane in vitro, but I'm sure you won't bother reading it. Its easier to stay ignorant.

I've provided ample evidence supporting my case and destroying all of your theories, including using your own logic to prove that you do not count yourself as alive.

Therefore I will not waste any more time on someone who believes a scientific debate can be won by stating "you need FACTS...BUT YOU DONT GOT NONE.."
Pathetic.

my apologies Davidf. I am glad that you agree it is science fiction.

AJ Philips
A theory is not a fact.

A fact will withstand any test. A theory is based on current experimental data only, and is put into place until something better comes along.

The belief that a cell (with the enormous complexity of its organelle) can somehow accidentally form is still a theory, and it would be best to keep an open mind. Who knows what new experimental data will show.

David f,
So you don’t believe a planet can lose its atmosphere. What happened to the atmosphere of Mars, and would it be worthwhile trying to get an atmosphere back again, so as to put some life onto the planet and teraform the place.

Or perhaps that wouldn’t be evolution, so we shouldn’t do it, or even think about it.

Dear Vanna,

A planet can lose its atmosphere. I pointed out that water vapourising is not lost but merely becomes a gas. When it cools down it becomes liquid again.

Dear runner,

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth give the scientific evidence for the age of the earth. These references also refer to the moon.

Unfortunately you confuse science fact with science fiction. Most primitive peoples have some form of creation story. The Aborigines have the Rainbow serpent. The ancient Hebrews had the story of the creation in Genesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth tells some of the many creation myths.

One example is that of the Bakuba in Africa. For the Bakuba account the Earth was originally nothing but water and darkness, ruled by the giant Mbombo. This giant, after feeling an intense pain in his stomach one day, vomited up the sun, moon, and stars. The heat and light from the sun evaporated the water covering Earth, creating clouds, and after time, the dry hills emerged from the water. Mbombo vomited once more. Many things were contained in this second vomiting—people (the first man and the first woman), animals (the leopard, the eagle, and the monkey Fumu), trees, the falling star, the anvil, the firmament, the razor, medicine, and lighting. The woman of the waters, Nchienge, lived in the East, and her son, Woto, became the first king of the Bakuba.

The Sumerian creation myth is the oldest known. It was found on a fragmentary clay tablet known as the "Eridu Genesis", datable to ca. the 18th century BC. It also includes a flood myth.

The creation narrative of Islam is split among many verses in the Qur'an. This narrative is similar to the Judeo-Christian accounts of creation. According to the Qur'an, the skies and the earth were joined together as one "unit of creation", after which they were "cloved asunder". After the parting of both, they simultaneously came into their present shape after going through a phase when they were smoke-like.

One need not believe in any of the above. However, they should be recognised as human attempts to explain how we got here.

Vanna,

<<A theory is not a fact.>>

A scientific theory can most certainly be a fact. The two are not mutually exclusive.

<<A fact will withstand any test.>>

Precisely.

Try naming one test evolution has failed.

<<A theory is based on current experimental data only...>>

...and empirical observation as well.

<<...and is put into place until something better comes along.>>

Yes, but a theory can also pass the point where we can know that nothing better will come along and that’s what you seem to be having difficulty grasping here.

<<The belief that a cell (with the enormous complexity of its organelle) can somehow accidentally form is still a theory...>>

Yes, it’s call “abiogenesis”, and no one believes that a complex single-celled organism like the ones we see today “accidentally formed” as you creationists like to claim.

And besides, what does this have to do with evolution?

<<...and it would be best to keep an open mind. Who knows what new experimental data will show.>>

Sorry, but the core fundamentals of evolution surpassed the possibility of new experimental data discrediting them long ago, and arguing otherwise is the equivalent of arguing that gravity may one day be debunked as evolution right up there with gravity as one of the most well-established scientific theories we have.

Again, evolution is both fact and theory.

OUG,

I assumed you would be aware of Bishop James Ussher's calculations based on Biblical genelogies, which was certainly very impressive work, even if it is wrong.

I could not open the link. Does it refute something I said? If so, please let me know the journal's citation and I will open the article on my University's database.

I have covered cell membranes before on otther threads. And with runner (I think) provided details on HIV mutations.

I find it both amusing and sad that these conversations take place so regularly over the internet with such furious rhetoric and passion, yet few of the combatants ever display any level of knowledge in the subject matter at all.

I'm actually willing and able to admit that, scientifically, I'm not capable of assessing the evidence for evolution and intelligent design beyond a very basic level, and I wouldn't be unless I did much more reading and study in the area. I suspect that many of you are in the same boat...except for the admission part ;-).

On a theological level, my amatuer understanding is that it is definitely possible to fit evolution into a theological framework. I tentatively agree with the idea that A harmonious relationship between theology and evolution can be achieved. One good article I found in this area is by Tim Keller (who is actually fairly conservative theologically, if you put him in the overall spectrum and can be read here:
http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

Dear Trav,

One may take the Bible in several ways. One may take it as literal truth. This is incompatible with science, but there are other ways to regard the Bible. One may take it as a narrative containing various spiritual lessons. One may take it as containg allegorical meanings. One may take as containing hidden meanings found by decoding the actual words. Of course like poetry this type of analysis would seem to disappear in translation.

However, there is no reason to take the Bible as more authoritative than the Tripitaka, Book of Mormon, the Koran or any other scripture. It depends on the cultural influences we are exposed to.

However, science does not have that limitation. It is irrelevant whether a competent scientist has a particular religious belief or lacks one. She or he will follow the evidence wherever it goes. If the evidence contradicts a scientific hypothesis the hypothesis will be abandoned.

Any scientific hypothesis can be abandoned if the evidence does not support it. Science is not culture bound.

Religious belief is not based on evidence, and its truth or falsity cannot be tested. Religion is culture bound.

The distinction between facts and theories is spurious. Factual claims are theory-laden, for the terms in which they are expressed depend for their meaning on theories. Experience is organised and interpreted using theories. There are no theory-free facts.

That does not mean that beliefs are arbitrary, for there can be good reasons for preferring one theory to another.

Mathematical proofs of scientific claims are only possible if an accepted theory is taken for granted. Like the proofs within Newtonian physics, they can be found at fault--disproven if you like, when the underlying theory is replaced by a better.

That's a rough, partial account. I'm afraid the philosophy of science is a good deal more complex than is being supposed.

And a side issue. One of my students began a thesis on Ghazali. I believe that is his name in Persian. Al Ghazal (no 'i') is the Arabic form, used by Europeans too. He is notable and influential for his view that God created morality according to his arbitrary will--a position later adopted by William of Occam. The reference above is not a good account of his views, but a piece of ideology.

Trav,

<<I'm actually willing and able to admit that, scientifically, I'm not capable of assessing the evidence for evolution and intelligent design beyond a very basic level...>>

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, because the evidence for evolution is so over-whelming and abundant; and the evidence for creationism so completely absent, that a basic level of understanding is all that is required to make an informed decision. Anyone not capable of doing so would have to have a thinking disorder that was bordering on mental retardation.

So most of us here are not in that boat...

<<I suspect that many of you are in the same boat...except for the admission part ;-).>>

...and neither are you.

I’ll give you a little hint: Everything in nature supports evolution and nothing contradicts it, while there is not the slightest shred of evidence for creationism.

Not one little bit.

<<I tentatively agree with the idea that A harmonious relationship between theology and evolution can be achieved.>>

Personally, I disagree and that’s one of the main reasons I could no longer remain a Christian.

I simply couldn’t continue to believe in a god that would create everything in a way that made it look as though he didn’t need to exist (and on this level, I can sympathise with creationists) and then punish people for not believing, just as I couldn’t continue to believe in a god that documented his ‘word’ in a way that didn’t appear to need him to exist either.

Notice too that god only helps those that help themselves?

Funny that.

Nope, in a world were god apparently doesn’t need to exist for anything, I just couldn’t keep believing.

Of course, you get those who claim that science and religion answer two different questions - one is the ‘how’ and the other is the ‘why’ - but what these people don’t realise is that religion doesn’t answer, or even help to answer the ‘why’ - it only asserts it.

david f, I think some religious beliefs can be tested--that is why there is a problem of evil for theistic religions. As I noted above, if God makes no difference to the world, he does not exist. If he does make a difference, as well as asking where he does, we can reasonably ask why he does not do it more often--when any decent person with his power and knowledge would do so.

The problems with intelligent design are problems for any view that God is the creator of all things visible and invisible--why did he make so many stuff-ups?

The discussion of evil in theology is extensive, because the problem is real--it threatens to disprove the existence of any god worthy of worship. I don't believe that there are any good answers. That is, the facts are incompatible with the existence of God.

AJ Phillips
“Try naming one test evolution has failed.”

I previously have. Punctuated equilibrium.

Evolution infers that there must be continuous genetic change in a species. Unfortunately, some species have genetically stayed the same for many millions of years (or for many millions of generations), which exposes a major flaw in evolution theory.

Abiogenesis has never proven that organisms can accidentally or spontaneously develop, and has mostly been disbanded as a theory.

Evolution theory also has a little difficulty in explaining why an organism seeks to survive and reproduce anyway (particularly an organism with no CNS or neuron cells).

I’m no creationist or any “ist”, but there is room for intelligent design in the various theories regards the formation of life on this planet. If you had a bag of seeds, and found an area that was suitable for life, but had no plants in it, what would you do?

1/ According to the theory of “evolution”, you would walk away and not plant anything.

2/ According to the theory of “intelligent design”, you would plant the seeds and purposely introduce some life into that area.

So which theory would you follow? The question is not that hypothetical, as it happens all the time with reforestation.

TRAV
“I tentatively agree with the idea that A harmonious relationship between theology and evolution can be achieved.”

I think it is more than tentative. We are now regularly sending up probes and spacecraft, and with a few more technological discoveries, it is quite possible to put some forms of life onto another planet or moon.

If we did teraform another planet or moon, we would now be their God, although we probably wouldn’t interfere too much with what those life forms did.

Some food for thought.

STEZZA/the stoner?...lol..your de-eaming..delusional

i quote the full/extract..but edited for simpleton..comprehention
<<Am Chem Soc. 2008 Jun 11;130(23):7400-6. Epub 2008 May 15.

Positioning lipid membrane domains...in giant vesicles...>>ie god made natural cells..lol<<by micro-organization of aqueous cytoplasm mimic.>>..the minic.turns out to be a blended/strained extract..of liquified lipotens[also god made...lol]
Cans AS,..Andes-Koback M,Keating CD.

<<Department of Chemistry,..The Pennsylvania State University,..University Park,..Pennsylvania 16802,/USA.

Abstract
We report localization>>>not manufacture from scratch...

<<of lipid membrane microdomains>>>not cellular..membranes...lol....

<<to specific.."poles"..of asymmetric giant vesicles..(GVs)..>>ie bits..not a complete membrane...lol

<<in response to local..internal composition.>>.achieved by natural/god process...lol


<<Interior/aqueous microdomains..were generated..in a simple model cytoplasm..composed of a poly(ethyleneglycol)..(PEG)/dextran aqueous..two-phase system(ATPS)..>>>blended lipoproteens..sieved...lol..

<<encapsulated in the vesicles...>>made by god..not man...lol

<<The GV membrane composition used here>>>lol<<..was a modification of a DOPC/DPPC/cholesterol mixture..>>.possably blended pulverised skin/fat cells..[ie ty cells]..<<known to form micrometer-scale liquid..ordered and liquid disordered domains;

we added lipids with PEG 2000 Da-modified headgroups...Osmotically induced budding of the ATPS-containing GVs..led to structures where the PEG-rich and dextran-rich interior aqueous phases..were in contact with different regions of the vesicle membrane.

Liquid ordered..(L o)..membrane domains/..rich in PEG-terminated lipids preferentially coated the PEG-rich aqueous phase vesicle "body",>> .....LOL

while coexisting>>>[ie ALLREADY EGSISTING....lol<<liquid disordered..>>>lol...liquified..<<(L d)..membrane domains...coated the dextran-rich aqueous phase.."bud".

Membrane domain positioning resulted..from interactions between>>>THE GOD SUSTAINED?LIVING CELLULAR CONMSTITUANTS..<<lipid headgroups..and

IE WITHIN<<the PRE+EGSISTANT..interior aqueous polymer solutions,

e.g..PEGylated headgroups with PEG and dextran polymers.>>MADE NATURALLY:BY GOD..<<Heating resulted first in patchy membranes...>>LOL...

<<where L o..and L d domains..no longer showed any preference..for coating the PEG-rich vs dextran-rich interior aqueous volumes,>>>LOL

<<and eventually complete lipid mixing.>>>mixing...not creation

<<Upon cooling..lipid domains..again coated their preferred interior aqueous microvolume.>>>IE GODS CELLS>>LOL>>

<<This work..shows that nonspecific interactions>>LOL,<<between interior aqueous contents>>>LIQUFIED GOD MADE LIPOPROTEENS..lol..<< and the membrane that encapsulates them>>>BIG POINT>>>PLEASE READ THAT BIT AGAIN..

<<can drive local chemical hetero-geneity,>>>lol

please noter con-clusion..<<and offers a primitive experimental model..for membrane and cytoplasmic polarity..in biological cells.>>PLEASE READ LAST LINE AGAIN

dont make up conclusions..that decieve...lol

OZBID...morbid..<<..God makes/no difference..he does not exist.>>>a great statement..but faulse...

[recall;..jesus...[you shall call him...emmanu-EL......god/within...
get it..GOD..WITHIN/life..sustaining...to live..every cell/its life...sustaining/naturally...every living..their being

<<If..he does/make a difference,.asking where he does,>>>think/dear-boy...a cell takes orders/..instructions..via dna...feeding though...many of/the celular=parts...[at least 20/are needed to sustain/one living-cell..its life..

[yet..your body has quadrillions...of individual-cells..each/..doing their thing/naturally..[naturally..god sustains..every/of each..cells actions...

[god is logic..sustaining life...via light/to love/..to life]...serving..even the most vile/their living...from emmanu-el/god-within..

<<we can/reasonably ask..why he does not/do it..more often>>>the actions..in a single-cell..number billions...

the actions..of the whole...ie all living...thats god...
dosnt he do enough/..just/sustaining us..to live?....and live unconditionally!...sustaining/even the...most vile..their lives...too?

<<--when any decent person>>lol<<..with his power/and knowledge..would do so.>>as jesus said...that/ye see me do..you shall do greater...then...who shall lead you..will serve you/..be your servant...just like god/serves each of us..our lives..

<<The problems..with/intelligentdesign..>>>a man made/lable...spin

<<are problems..for/any view..that God/is the creator/and/SUSTAINER..of all things..visible/invisible--why did he..make/so many stuff-ups?>>>judge/not...there is logic...[what/you call..stuff/up...science calls/natural-selection/mutation...S.0.F..

that random/chance..lol..that sees life/survive...thus things..like sickle-cell..provides protection/from maleria etc..and cockroaches..will survive/even the end of time...and species evolve...within their genus...

that im-perfect..ion...underpins life/surviving

did you/ever appriciate..all your parents..did for you..?

thank god/for all he does do/for us all...
if god stopped..all living..would end

<<The discussion/of evil..in theology..is extensive,..because..the problem..LOL<<is real->>please validate...is vile/evil..or just..more life...its the same letters..live/vile/evil/veil...

to get grace...is as simple as giving grace...[as jesus said more shall be given]

<<diss-cuss-ion..threatens/to disprove>>LOL<<..the existence of any god..worthy of worship.>..please validate...lets diss=cuss/some more?

<<I don't believe...>>this much is clear...what you afraid of/love for?...

religions lied...god/is love..live with it...[look at/the most vile/living..god sustains..them/..from within..emmanuel...god within us all..[that ye do/did..to the least...you do/..did/to god...YET..[give/grace..to get..grace]

<<,hard/2/believ..that there are/any good answers...>>LOL<<That is,..the facts/are incompatible with/..the existence of God.>>jesus revealed so many clues...he loved..even the most/vile...

[but key being...even a beast..KNOWS.its masters voice..

KNOW/GOD IS LOVE...all good..comes from god..[love the lover..be-love]
[god/lives..every single moment..live time..all the time...

now..be the love..now/..know

vanna et al: << Evolution infers that there must be continuous genetic change in a species. >>

Absolute rubbish. Our most vociferous critic of all things educational obviously understands neither evolution by natural selection, nor 'punctuated equilibrium' - which is a refinement of the general theory. He also doesn't understand science, if he asserts that experimentation is its only valid method.

And this is the goose who presumes to continually deride the quality of science education in Australia. How would he know good science from bad? He's in a similar position to idiots like runner who rant and rave about science and evolution without displaying any evidence of understanding either.

Trav,

"On a theological level, my amatuer understanding is that it is definitely possible to fit evolution into a theological framework. On a theological level, my amatuer understanding is that it is definitely possible to fit evolution into a theological framework."

You assume a prioi that the theological framework is Judeo-Christian. That is does not take the guise of an objective observer.

If one were to spend a few hours putting together a serious paper on some OLO topics (if time did permit), then there is a fair chance that the fundamentalist Christians would respond with lols, lampoons or jump topic.

vanna,

Abiogenesis is an extremely rare event which have happened only a few times, perhaps, only once. Mutation on the other hand has been observed, for example, with regards the HIV virus

C J Morgan
I have recommended your post for deletion. It appears that you cannot make a post to any forum without name-calling or abuse of another poster, which is outside of forum rules.

Oliver,
“Abiogenesis is an extremely rare event which have happened only a few times, perhaps, only once”

Exactly.

So what other great evidence is there for evolution, or the theory that life evolved out of basic raw materials.

The concept that the right chemicals have suddenly appeared. Then the correct conditions and enzymes have also occurred for these chemicals to chemically combine, then the correct amino acids have resulted from these chemical reactions, then the correct proteins have been produced from the amino acids, then the correct tissue has formed from the proteins, then a fully functioning organism has finally been produced from the tissue, then the organism also has to have the knowledge that it has a limited life expectancy and must reproduce, and then the organism also has the means to reproduce and can also produce viable offspring that can also reproduce.

The chances of all that occurring without something extra are about zero.

There is considerable evidence for speciation, there is limited evidence for the accidental formation of life that is the basis of the theory of evolution.

There is also a possibility that life on planet Earth was seeded, but if someone only considers evolution, then every other possibility has to be discounted.

Precisely, CJ.

Vanna,

I’m starting to wonder what on Earth you think punctuated equilibrium is.

<<I previously have. Punctuated equilibrium.>>

You haven’t.

Evolution is fundamentally the fact and theory that species evolve over time, or more specifically, evolve over time via natural selection.

Punctuated equilibrium is one way describing how this has taken place - in big bursts here and there, due to sudden geographical or environmental changes, rather than a relatively smooth transition.

Both ideas fit evolution just fine, so you are still yet to name a test that evolution has failed.

<<Evolution infers that there must be continuous genetic change in a species.>>

Wrong.

There is nothing about evolution that says that species must continue to evolve at all times.

<<Unfortunately, some species have genetically stayed the same for many millions of years (or for many millions of generations), which exposes a major flaw in evolution theory.>>

Wrong again.

All this means is that the habitats of those species have remained relatively unchanged, or that change was not required for survival.

So on the contrary, they help to confirm natural selection.

<<Abiogenesis has never proven that organisms can accidentally or spontaneously develop, and has mostly been disbanded as a theory.>>

Wrong yet again.

Firstly, who is it that claims that “organisms can accidentally or spontaneously develop”? I certainly don’t know of any scientists who claim this.

Secondly, abiogenesis has not been disbanded at all. In fact progress is continuously being made in this field of research (that is still in its infancy, mind you) and various stages of abiogenesis have been repeated in labs.

And thirdly, what does this have to do with evolution?

Continued...

vana,

The light elements which constitute human bodies formed in the Big Bang. The heavy elements were formed in post-first generation stars, hence, the late Carl Sagan's dictum, "we are made of star suff".

Life did appear on Earth after a relatively short time on astronomical scales, it was 3 billion years ago, 1.6 billion years after the formation of the Earth. The processes were not really sudden on geological or atmospheric time frames.

Please consider the chemical composition of the human body:

http://www.random-science-tools.com/chemistry/chemical_comp_of_body.htm

To my eyes there is plenty of evidence an inorganic substratum to life. Although, life basically runs counter the second law of thermodynamics, it does not follow that locally, life cannot occur, because balance is found outside the encaptulated local system. This has been know for decades.

I have read that there is research into the old protein and amino acid chicken and egg puzzles. But these are merely problems to be solved. Perhaps, a primitive form RNA being captured in a bubble. Maybe, "two" unlikely events fused:Proto-cell A was invaded by proto-cell B (having the characteristics of a virus), herein, a dormant engine is supplied fuel.

HIV mutation is not aboigenesis. Yet, one can trace the handedness of the DNA modecule back billions of years, suggesting a common ancestor for life. Herein,there may have been only one ancestor. Albeit, before the Cambrian expansion 600 million years ogo, there was a mass extinction, which might have destroyed other life forms, but the evidence is not to hand.

The window of opportunity for abiogenesis might have been very small, yet nature has subequently provided billions of years for natural selection and mutation to work, afterwards.

Vanna,
I’m guessing that CJ Morgan’s post is going to stay. Yes, he does engage in name calling. And yes, it is an indicator that he doesn’t have much to say.

But the people who run this website seem to believe that it is worth letting a fair amount of those kinds of comments through if it is going to encourage vigorous debate. You have to grow a fairly thick skin to be involved in OLO. I’ve been called worse.

Note what Keating said, when he was calling people all sorts of names in Parliament. He said, ‘It’s the Australian way; at least in Australia we fight with words and not guns or grenades.’

Name calling nearly always reflects on the caller rather than the recipient. Let it stay as testimony to their vacuity.

Dear Michael Zimmerman,

The design argument is not dead. That you keep writing articles about it is testimony to that.

You even start off discussing the ‘latest attack’ against ID. Why would anyone raise another attack against something that was dead?

The debate certainly is alive and well here at OLO. It attracts quite a bubbly flow of attention.

As you say, the design/naturalist debate has bubbled along from the ancient Greeks through Paley and then Darwin and into modern times. It’s not going to disappear soon.

The more technology develops to understand the intricacies of biology, the more we marvel at its structure. Even the hardest of all atheists (Dawkins) has noted the appearance of design (describing it as an illusion to be explained away.) Scientific literature today is abounding in comments from researchers who, letting the ball slip, use language describing biological structures as being ‘designed’ in certain ways.

If it wasn’t for the philosophical implications, we might just follow the evidence to where it leads.

You claim that certain people (without naming any) are calling for scientific investigation to be halted. Who is doing this apart from you? You talk about Darwin claiming that certain organs in the body “bear the plain stamp on inutility”. If the organs are already declared to be useless, then why bother investigating them? It’s this kind of thinking that can discourage scientific investigation. Wouldn’t it be better to say that we suspect that the organs were put there for a reason; so though we don’t currently understand their function, we’ll investigate them further?

Those such as Michael Behe, knowledgeable and highly qualified to assess the evidence, able to scrutinise the weaknesses in Darwinian thought, brave enough to stand up to the current establishment, and willing to refine design theory, are likely to be increasing in number in future.

By the way, something imperfectly designed is still designed.

The design argument is not dead, even if certain people in intellectual circles wish it and declare it to be so. But keep it on your Christmas wish list.

Dan

The design issue is not dead because its supporters will never accept any reason or evidence, however persuasive, that it is not science.

Even if Darwinian evolutionary theory were to be disproved, this would not mean that ID would be vindicated. ID and evolution are not rival scientific theories. One is a scientific theory; the other a faith-based rationalisation of no theological merit.

Here’s what’s wrong with ID as (Christian) theology -
• It has no serious biblical warrant – here at least the seven-day creationists deserve credit for consistency
• It is “god of the gaps” theology that whose raison d’être is not even to explain gaps, but to insist that they exist
• It confuses physics and metaphysics
• It confuses the natural and the supernatural, hence both trivialising the divine and undermining the foundations of good science as necessarily naturalistic
• It proposed a God neither fully immersed in the processes of nature nor completely detached from them – a halfway-house god responsible for eyes but not eyelids
• It denies revelation by proposing the natural world as proof of God

Dear ozbib,

The problem of evil is not a problem in that the sense that finding out whether light can be treated as a particle or wave is a problem. Evil is an artificial category. It is what a particular society disapproves of. For the Nazis protecting a Jew would be evil. It is a problem in theology as an omnipotent, omniscient God is postulated, and evil according to the definition of a particular society exists. What is evil or good to me is what I define as evil or good. It is essentially what I prefer. I don't regard the existence of evil as a problem in the sense of something inexplicable or contradictory.

Theodicy is a Christian concern dependent on the Christian definition of God although Jews have asked the question of "Where was God in Auschwitz." The God of the Jewish Bible is not an omniscient being. Abraham can argue with him as he does in Genesis 18:20-18:32. God as a result changes his mind. Evil is incompatible with the Christian definition of God and a particular definition of evil.

I don't believe in any supernatural entity of any kind. However, I believe the mind of humans can imagine a God worthy of worship.

I gather Ghazaali regarded non-theological study as trivial and considered ijtihad, the spirit of inquiry, only relevant to religious questions. In the fourteenth century this attitude caused the Islamic world to enter their Dark Ages. The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century caused the Roman world and the rest of western Europe to enter its Dark Ages.

Charles Freeman in "The Closing of the Western Mind" describes the latter process.

...Continued

<<Evolution theory also has a little difficulty in explaining why an organism seeks to survive and reproduce anyway...>>

Firstly, because the desire to survive is advantageous and so any species that didn’t care either way would die out pretty quickly.

Secondly, a conscious desire isn’t needed for survival. Either the genetic mutations are right for the conditions, or they are not. If they’re right, they’ll survive, if they’re not, they’ll die out.

And thirdly, unanswered questions are not proof of the negative.

<<I’m no creationist...>>

Yet you use precisely the same arguments and don’t have the slightest clue about what evolution, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium or abiogenesis are.

Hmmm?

<<...there is room for intelligent design in the various theories regards the formation of life on this planet.>>

Forgetting that creationism isn’t even a theory to begin with, why then have you gone out of your way to misunderstand certain sciences?

As for the hypothetical you posed to me, that would have to be one of the most asinine arguments against evolution I have every read. It’s right up there with Dan’s argument that the food packaging industry relies on abiogenesis being false.

That was a doozy!

<<According to the theory of “evolution”, you would walk away and not plant anything.>>

Why?

Dan,

<<The more technology develops to understand the intricacies of biology, the more we marvel at its structure.>>

...and the more we learn about how such intricacies formed from the most basic of beginnings while creationists deliberately and misleadingly perpetuate the myth that scientists believe they just popped into existence from nothing.

<<Scientific literature today is abounding in comments from researchers who, letting the ball slip, use language describing biological structures as being ‘designed’ in certain ways.>>

Creationist literature today is abounding in comments from creationists who, twisting what scientists say, use misquotes to give the impression that they believe biological structures were designed.

<<If it wasn’t for the philosophical implications, we might just follow the evidence to where it leads.>>

Name one observation that bypassed the scientific method and is now widely accepted based on philosophical grounds.

Thanks Dan for exposing the dogmas of 'the science is settled' brigade' even know history tells us they will have a different story in 10 years time (at least among those who hold to the same story).

Oliver,
“life basically runs counter the second law of thermodynamics”

I would agree with the part regards thermodynamics.

According to the laws of entropy, life should reduce in time as disorder increases.

However, according to the theory of evolution, life increases and advances in time.

So the laws of entropy and the theory of evolution do not match, and there must be a special force that is driving life forward against entropy.

If science stays with the theory of evolution, science may never find what that force is. If anything, the theory of evolution is holding science and the pursuit of knowledge back.

Dan S de Merengue
I would agree that CJ Morgan provides nothing to most forums except name calling and abuse of other posters. This has been occurring for a long time, and so much for his evolution.

Perhaps C J Morgan’s continuous and repeated abuse and name calling of other people should be left in, as an example of how evolution does not work.

I think you're on to something, vannakins. Unlike me, you're a truly "evolved" specimen.

When I first joined OLO some years back, you were Timithy. Then you 'evolved' into Timkins, who 'evolved' into HRS, who in turn 'evolved' into vanna. However, while there have been aspects of 'punctuated equilibrium' and 'design', there hasn't been much apparent intelligence, I'm afraid.

I must say that your favourable disposition towards Creationism doesn't add much credibility to your regular pronouncements about science and education.

CJ Morgan,
Like the majority of the posts you make, you have added absolutely nothing to the topic except name calling and abuse of other people.

The majority of your posts make no mention of the topic at all, and you have learnt absolutely nothing from your education.

It is almost beyond belief how you were once a teacher, but considering the current state of the education system, it is understandable how you accepted into it.

Vanna,

Can I take your lack of response to me as an admission that evolution has failed no tests so far?

<<According to the laws of entropy, life should reduce in time as disorder increases.>>

Wrong.

This is the old debunked second law of thermodynamics argument you’re getting at. But evolution doesn’t contradict the second law of thermodynamics because the second law refers to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system.

On a clear day, you may notice a big bright ball in the sky that emanates heat and energy...

Need I go on?

<<However, according to the theory of evolution, life increases and advances in time.>>

You’d have to clarify exactly what you mean here by “increases” and “advances”, but if you’re making the classic mistake of thinking that evolution is like a ladder to be climbed, then no, according to the theory of evolution, life does not increase or advance “in time”.

<<So the laws of entropy and the theory of evolution do not match, and there must be a special force that is driving life forward against entropy.>>

That special force is called the “sun” (just in case you did actually need me to go on earlier), and scientists do in fact know that it's there - thank you.

So no, there is no contradiction between the laws of entropy and the theory of evolution.

<<If science stays with the theory of evolution, science may never find what that force is.>>

With this type of astonishing ignorance...

<<If anything, the theory of evolution is holding science and the pursuit of knowledge back.>>

...the only think holding science and the pursuit of knowledge back is the fact that real scientists have to waste time on speaking over, and dispelling the myths perpetuated by a very noisy and very radical and wilfully ignorant minority, rather than getting on with their jobs.

Well I rather appreciate CJ Morgan's contributions to OLO.

I do learn something from his writings, as I do from everyone else's, however 'good' or 'bad' they may be.

CJ is more than capable of speaking for himself, but I glean a lot from his scribblings, and without having a clue who he is, I rather appreciate his humour, his writings and the general cut of his jib.

Some writings have to be seen as an 'aside', a swift resposte to a fatuous comment, or an oft repeated line, such as we are all wont to do from time to time.

The high dudgeon line is one for flimsy politicians, not OLO posters, surely?

Getting too high handed and offended on this site is a bit rich, one feels.

I am reminded of a quote that might deal with times when we disagree with each other, but cannot recall who it is attributed to:

"I do wish you would learn some poetry, your ignorance cramps my conversation".

Rhian,
The reason the design issue is not dead is that a lot of people see that design makes more sense in light of the evidence than undirected mutation and selection.

You say that ID has problems with Christian theology. Possibly so, but that is largely because the ID movement is not aiming for a Christian theological position. They do not seek to ground their investigations in any particular doctrine. Their brief is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence.

For example, if we compare it with forensic science, if an investigator found a knife buried in the ground, they could examine the evidence to ascertain what actions, deliberate or otherwise, lead to it being there. They may ascribe the finding to an intelligent agent even without knowing the identity of the person. Similarly, ID proponents are not necessarily ascribing design to a particular God. They’re more aiming for a natural theology.

So while I would agree with you that a good theology should acknowledge revelation, I don’t think that revelation stands in opposition to what we can deduce from the natural world. One can complement the other. I’m sure you are familiar with Romans 1:20, which touches on both.

Regarding your 4th dot point, good science does not depend on naturalism. In the context of this discussion, such an assertion is question begging.

With regard to evolution and ID, you say that if one theory were to be disproved then this would not vindicate the other. If so, could you mention this to Michael Zimmerman? For that is what he argues in the 2nd paragraph of his article.

“a relatively neglected category of argument against ID and in favor of evolution: the argument from imperfection, as applied to the human genome,” says Michael Zimmerman.

He seems to be playing one off against the other, which is what you say we shouldn’t do. Do you still say he’s written a nice article?

As a christian, I see the concept of evolution, as just a tool like a hammer and chisel of a sculpture used to create a master piece. In this case good old planet Earth. And the sculpture is God him self! I feel sorry for the individuals in the science community, cleaver as they are. They are border line learned idiots who can't see the forest through the trees! Blinded by their own arrogance. Time I think for them to definitely get out of the square they masturbate in! and start learning the science of God. the greatest scientist and creator of all time and space, thank you very much!

vanna et al: << ...you have learnt absolutely nothing from your education. >>

That's pretty droll, coming from someone who has in this thread demonstrated his misunderstanding of evolution, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium and the second law of thermodynamics. Is there anything you got right when you studied science at high school?

TBC - thanks for the kind words. Back atcha :)

vana,

1."According to the laws of entropy, life should reduce in time as disorder increases."

2 "However, according to the theory of evolution, life increases and advances in time."

These two conditions can co-exist. Life is a sub-sysytem. Living (organised) things release heat energy into a larger system (the universe). It is okay, to have pockets of organisation like living organisms and solar systems. Life is a "closed" system as aptly noted by AJ.

It is the total system, where net disorder takes place. Even so, ultimately, we die and so do stars. In the end physics wins, yet, beforehand life can be organised by Nature and sustained for a prolonged time: viz., billions of years.

Understanding the sub-systems helps rather than prevents scientists to study evolution.

What did you think about the human body's list of inorganic elements? There is nothing listed that was not, as known by physics, to have come from the Big Bang or created in stars.

Essentally, you and I are animated Carbon.

Peterson,

Good sceince is not arrogant, rather it is independent and objective.

Maybe, we, humans are not smart enough to crack all the riddles of nature. If so, that is for the same reason dogs can't do calculus. Herein, assigning the gaps in human knowledge to the gods would seem to be the polyfiller of the psyche.

AJ Phillips,
A cell is a closed system surrounded by a membrane. According to entropy, the contents of a cell should be heading towards the maximum amount of disorder and the minimum amount of energy. The cell should be decaying and decomposing, and sunlight can aid that process. To prove this, just leave your salad sandwich in the sunlight.

But instead, the cell is growing, it is building proteins or substances it can secrete, and eventually the cell is trying to subdivide and reproduce.

Q How does a cell know to do that.
Standard evolution theory answer: - Through DNA.

Q How did DNA form?
Standard evolution theory answer: - By accident.

Q How did genes and codons form in a DNA molecule?
Standard evolution theory answer: - By accident.

Q How did transcription first occur?
Standard evolution theory answer: - By accident.

Q How did translation first occur?
Standard evolution theory answer: - By accident.

Q How did 2 DNA chromatids first coil up, join at a centromere and form a chromosome.
Standard evolution theory answer: - By accident.

Etc, etc.

It must be very convenient to have “accidents” as part of a theory.

I have also never heard that abuse (such as your calling people “ignorant” if they disagree with you) is actually a part of the scientific method, but maybe this is done to hide the flaws and gaps in the superficial theory.

Vanna,
Unfortunately, some people think that the purpose of OLO is to deride others who disagree with them. They don’t realise that thinking people might actually want to come here to engage with ideas in a stimulating and civil environment.

In my time here at OLO, I’ve met a few people who lean towards name calling when challenged with a view that’s different to theirs. Forgetting that the whole point of OLO is the interaction of different opinion, they take offense that someone may disagree with them and resort to some rather ‘choice’ adjectives.

I think it was my grade 3 teacher that told me that ‘empty cans make the loudest noise.’ Experience tells me it’s true.

Take courage. The good argument inevitably will shine through in the end.

Peterson, Thursday, 20 May 2010 12:56:54 AM

You're point about evolution being "a tool like a hammer and chisel of a sculptor" is a very valid one, yet you then negate that with a rant that is, well, one of the things you allude to.
........................................................

vanna, entropy is a nutty idea.

Evolutionary and abiogenesis things didn't happen by accident: they were a function of the covalent bonds that carbon is able to form - varied bonds to varied other atoms to form complicated molecules that can iinteract with other complicated molecules. Theologically, one could say God designed a lot of flexible molecules from malleable atoms (malleable atoms that came out of the nuclear fusion and fission of and in the stars).

McReal
A mountain can be formed, and after many years, it will weather away and become rubble, and eventually become dust that blows away in the wind. The mountain has now reached the maximum amount of disorder and the mountain no longer contains any energy (as potential energy).

That is entropy.

There are many covalent bonds in a protein within a cell, and many of those bonds require the right amount of activation energy and also the correct enzymes to form. If too many atoms in the macromolecule of a protein are not correctly aligned, the protein will not function properly and the protein can do more harm than good to the organism.

The underlying theme in the theory of evolution is that everything fits neatly into place through accident or by chance.

This negates having to look deeper.

But to prove that abiogenesis works, buy a TV set that is in 1000 pieces. Put all the pieces in a box and shake well. After many years of shaking, all the pieces should align and fit together, and you will now have a fully functional TV set.

According to the theory of abiogenesis.

Vanna,

Please excuse my earlier typo (vana).

You should think in terms of probability and quantum indetreminacy, rather than accident, in a huge universe and a plenty of time.

Look at the table (above). Are we composed of inorganic material? Yes/No? Life is inorganic material, that has been orgainised, improbable perhaos, but not impossible. After-all, we are here!

McReal,

Erwin Schrodinger was able to establish relationships between temperature changes and genes in the 1950s, and, in laboratory situations, using x-rays able to produce mutations; wherein, he developed several reliable formulae on the relationship between temperature and mutation.

On the other hand:

Instantly changing water into wine. Well, now, that would raise a few issues at the level of atomic chemistry. I'm sure many a Dan Brown character would have been suitable impressed by the energy released.I think we would have a cremation rather than a wedding.

runner,

Scientists adjusting their theories is good. Darwin's theories have been must refined. Dawins didn't have knowledge of DNA and would not have appreciated we carrying inheritances that go back three billion years, when we were related to bacteria. Tree shrews were epochs in the future, then.

Energy created in "closed" systems (AJ) of the oragism allows organisms to evade thermodynmical equlibrium. Of course, it cannot be sustained for ever. Though genes are pretty good au using various species (e.g., us) as transient hosts. We are merely roads and bridges, genes are the travellers.

Jesus, if he was made Man, therefore, was a Great Ape, with a biological heritage going back long before bedroom of David or Adam and his garden, to the early bio-sphere of the planet.

AJ,

I have read the Bible and suspect you have too. I wish some of OLO creationist friends would read some real science references. I assume they receive prepacked rebuttals from their Church magazines or similar.

vanna

it is nutty to apply entropy overwhelmingly to geological or biological events or situations, especially big events or long-time ones.

The underlying theme in the theory of evolution is NOT that everything fits neatly into place through accident or by chance.

To say "this negates having to look deeper" is mind-numbing.

The 747 1,000-plus pieces junkbox/junkyard analogy is pathetic

I hear you, Oliver.

I think it’s a testament to the fact that creationists simply don’t want to know.

Dan,

<<The reason the design issue is not dead is that a lot of people see that design makes more sense in light of the evidence than undirected mutation and selection.>>

Undirected mutation directed by natural select.

Seriously, Dan, I’ve told you that close to ten times now.

<<...largely because the ID movement is not aiming for a Christian theological position. They do not seek to ground their investigations in any particular doctrine.>>

That’s exactly right.

And the reason for this was to sneak religion through the backdoor and into science classes when the US constitution forbade it.

<<[Detectives] may ascribe the [buried knife] to an intelligent agent even without knowing the identity of the person.>>

That’s because knives don’t bury themselves.

But chemicals can arrange themselves, genes can mutate by themselves and nature can direct the mutations by itself.

<<Regarding your 4th dot point, good science does not depend on naturalism.>>

Yes, it does.

Science only deals with the natural world because we have no way of distinguishing between something that transcends the natural world and something that doesn’t exist.

<<With regard to evolution and ID, you say that if one theory were to be disproved then this would not vindicate the other. If so, could you mention this to Michael Zimmerman? For that is what he argues in the 2nd paragraph of his article.>>

Zimmerman does no such thing.

There’s a difference between an argument being for something while against another, and claiming that something is true because the other is false.

Vanna,

<<A cell is a closed system surrounded by a membrane.>>

Wrong.

A cell accepts energy and nutrients from external sources, so it is not a closed system.

<<The cell should be decaying and decomposing...>>

No, because it’s receiving energy and nutrients from the sun and food.

<<...and sunlight can aid that process.>>

Only if it’s dead.

<<To prove this, just leave your salad sandwich in the sunlight.>>

Continued...

...Continued

The salad in a sandwich no longer has the root systems and earth required to continue living.

Your analogy is totally invalid as well as completely asinine.

As for your questions, you again show your ignorance. McReal has saved me some effort in responding here, but if you could provide some references to where the evolutionary answer to your questions is “by accident”, then I’d be most grateful. Especially after this whopper in your post to McReal: “The underlying theme in the theory of evolution is that everything fits neatly into place through accident or by chance.”

<<I have also never heard that abuse (such as your calling people “ignorant” if they disagree with you) is actually a part of the scientific method...>>

Neither have I.

Pointing out that someone is ignorant is not abuse, ironically this amounts to slander due to the false nature of your accusation.

You can choose not to be ignorant about these things but you choose otherwise - and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

<<...but maybe this is done to hide the flaws and gaps in the superficial theory.>>

Bold words for someone who has so far failed to point out a single flaw or gap.

<< But to prove that abiogenesis works, buy a TV set that is in 1000 pieces. Put all the pieces in a box and shake well. After many years of shaking, all the pieces should align and fit together, and you will now have a fully functional TV set. >>

The parts of a TV are inanimate objects that don’t have the same bonds as the building blocks for life.

Your analogy is, again, totally invalid as well as completely asinine.

You’re not having much luck here, are you Vanna. No Matter. The longer we press on the closer the probability of you getting something right must surely be approaching 1.

In the meantime though, I’d like to thank both you and Dan for helping myself and others to demonstrate that creationists not only don't understand science, but don't want to understand it either.

Oliver<<Are we composed of inorganic material? Yes/No?>>that is the point...just because there is in-organics..CANNOT MEAN minerals=life

the absurdity of<<Life is inorganic material,>>>IS nuts..[take a courps...ALL THE SAME//organics/plus inorganics...yet NOT..NO LIFE

sure iorganics..<<that has been orgainised,>>>but iorganised by what...what is this natural...doing the natural selecting

<<improbable perhaos,..but not impossible.>>ok mate make life from all your minerals...lol..[look at a LIVING sperm..entering a LIVING ovum...[both are living entity...not minerals]

After-all,..we are here!..LIVING...because..life gave their living to us..[life comes from life...this is a thing science cannot refute[if you claim it do...well present your..EVi-dense

<<relationships between temperature changes..and genes..able to produce mutations;exrays...>>gout medicine as well..[but the point being many mutations...BUT ALL RANDOM...

its not a predictive/science...this dose..does not do this/repeatedly.....[sure it creates sports/mutation..usually via crossover...because the exray...broke the dna strand..ditto using micro-waves

<<changing water into wine.>>i have repeatedly explained..how this has been miss-represented..[but only a servant can/get it..[the servants served/their masters..BEST WINE...[saving the masters face]

see that you..would not drink/or allowed to be served...even the best wine,,,that came/from a toilet...ditto the handwash jars..

[as jesus said...it is nought to do..with me/its not my time/turn..[he said so what...i dont care..if you give them that/dirty/scummy/handwash water...get it?

<<Scientists adjusting their theories is good.>>great...science does...but those...HAVING FAITH..in them dont realise that...thus have been decieved...into thinking its science fact...yet its only THEORY...unable to be scientificly faulsified..or replicated in science conditions...thus fraud

<<we carrying inheritances..that go back/three billion years,>>3 billion years..of life/comming from life...lol..get it?

<<we were related to bacteria.>>please give your proof....reveal the trans genus LINKS...that are all missing...[what EVIDENCE YOU GOT OF NEW GENUS...[6 theories...missing links...and thousands missing...and science HAS NEVER WITNESSED ONE FIRST-HAND...NEVER EVER RECORDED AN OBSERVED/change of genus

<<Energy created in.."closed" systems>>yet another science DECEPTION...

define energy...E=MC2...means energy...IS..[equals]..lol..
mass/times the speed of light/..times the speed of light...LOL...
only fools..can believe that is science...lol..yet more theory

Dan

I didn’t say that ID and evolution are not rivalrous, only that they are not competing scientific theories. Evidence of evolution is evidence against ID, because ID makes particular claims against evolution; but evidence against evolution would not be scientific evidence for ID, because evolutionary theory makes no claims about god.

You say defining science as entirely naturalistic begs the question , and I think this is the core of our differences. I believe scientific method must by its nature preclude supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. If it were the case that some phenomena are a product of supernatural divine intervention, then the question of their provenance would cease to be a scientific question and become a theological one. I appreciate how that seems to you begging the question, as my understanding of science precludes yours by definition. But I do not think my understanding of science is unreasonable or unusual.

I do not preclude theological reflection on nature or even a theology of the divine in nature, merely one that sees God’s role as supernatural mechanic. Equally, I don’t see naturalistic/scientific investigation or understanding of our origins as precluding a theological one.

The different between the two is explored most interestingly by scientist-theologians such as Peacocke and Polkinhorne. Their views are in some ways similar to ID in that they perceive evidence of a divine mind behind creation, not in the sense of denying evolution or arguing for “irreducible complexity”, but in the beauty and symmetry of the underlying organisation of the universe, and humanity’s connection to it. We, and the world in which we live, are the products of certain characteristics of the universe that interact in multiple ways to make our existence possible. They see God’s creativity in nature, not supernatural interventions in biological processes. Scientific and theological understandings of human origins are hence not mutually exclusive. I'm not 100% convinced by these arguments, but they seem to me more nuanced and rational than ID as usually presented.

Oliver,
I fully understand that we are here, the question is how.

Processes such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration are not mutations. They are a sophisticated series of chemical reactions that require the right enzymes and energy transfer mechanisms throughout the reactions.

These processes are fundamental to life, but such processes are not covered by the theory of evolution that only considers traits and mutations, and the theory of evolution is simply too lacking.

McReal,
I have a question for you. Is it a part of the theory of evolution to carry out abuse and insults of others, (eg use of words such as “nutty”, “pathetic” etc)?

A J Phillips,
Roots and leaves are formed from cells. They don’t just happen.

But here is an experiment to test the theory of evolution. Form a cell membrane, and place inside various elements. Now supply energy and agitate, and wait for a required protein to form by chance.

Without proteins there will be no cell or organism to carry out your evolution, and if the protein does not have the correct physical structure, then it is useless to an organism and may actually harm the organism.

But there is a problem. If the cell membrane ruptures while waiting for a required protein to correctly form (and this could take many years without the right enzymes), then the contents of the cell will drift away and you no longer have a cell.

So you have to make sure the cell membrane lasts until a required protein with the correct physical structure forms by chance.

You should be able to do all that because you are not ignorant. I also have a question for you.

Is it a part of the theory of evolution to carry out abuse and insults of others?

Vanna,

<<Roots and leaves are formed from cells. They don’t just happen.>>

Who said they did?

It’s time you started providing some peer-reviewed references here, my friend.

<<But here is an experiment to test the theory of evolution.>>

Oh dear. Here we go. I’m willing to bet this is simply going to be another display of ignorance towards science...

<<Form a cell membrane, and place inside various elements. Now supply energy and agitate, and wait for a required protein to form by chance.>>

Yep, I was right.

That has nothing to do with evolution.

Again, it’s time you started providing references rather than uneducated assertions of what you think evolution is.

<<Without proteins there will be no cell or organism to carry out your evolution...>>

Oh, it’s my evolution now?

Well..!

<<...and if the protein does not have the correct physical structure, then it is useless to an organism and may actually harm the organism.>>

You’ve got that right.

It’s just as well this has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

<<But there is a problem.>>

Uh oh!

<<If the cell membrane ruptures while waiting for a required protein to correctly form (and this could take many years without the right enzymes), then the contents of the cell will drift away and you no longer have a cell.>>

Wow!

It’s just as well cells weren’t so complicated in the early stages. Otherwise none of us would be around, and you’d actually have a point.

<<Is it a part of the theory of evolution to carry out abuse and insults of others?>>

Rather than trying to smear someone’s name (as creationists spend so much of their time doing to Darwin), how about you provide some peer-reviewed references for your assertions?

Thanks.

OH how desperate men have always been to avoid being accountable to their Creator. The apostle was right when he spoke of God handing men over to their own vain imaginations. The failure of evolutionist to come up with an ounce of logic demonstrates this beautifully. AS one professor of genetics says

'Biologist are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across the facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoveries will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.'

vanna,

To have some rational information for some ration debate, Go back and open the link on the first post on this blog(1), or the links provided on these dates, at these times

Friday, 14 May 2010 12:25:47 PM (2)
Sunday, 16 May 2010 10:30:51 AM (3)

and then provide some comment about the contents therein.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/03/religion-atheism

... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

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

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

runner, Thursday, 20 May 2010 6:11:58 PM

runner - it is reasonable to expect the reference or link to the quote, to see in what context it was made, and by whom.

A J Phillips,
“It’s just as well cells weren’t so complicated in the early stages”

So cells in the past didn’t form proteins? So how did cells grow, and more importantly, why did they grow?

Oh never mind.

If you want references, look in any of the main biology books (EG Biology by Campbell)

HOWEVER, they tend to leave out a lot, and tend to state that evolution occurs over time and through chance.

That’s the big excuse to not delve any further. No one would want too many getting worried or all upset about something they can’t actually see or measure.

You have not answered the last question I asked. I think this is because you actually get a warm and fuzzy feeling carrying out insults and abuse of others. But you should be very careful giving insults and abuse directly to someone. I have seen what can happen in such circumstances. Not pretty.

McReal,
I have no connection with organised religion. No one has to have religious connections to wonder about the theory of evolution.

I’ve noticed on OLO that people who give a lot of insults generally don’t answer too many questions. You too have not answered the last question I asked. You too should be very careful about giving insults or abuse directly to someone.

Regard that as good advice for your own self-preservation.

Oh come on, vannakins. You're writing scientific gibberish, and it's not abuse for anybody to point that out - particularly since you have a record (under various aliases) of posting endless asinine comments that purport to criticise education, and science education in particular.

However, you may be inadvertently proving your own point. If your scientific understanding is the product of an Australian education system, then there is clearly a problem.

Assuming you passed high school science, that is.

Rhian,
You’ve said (more than once) that the ID and evolution positions are somewhat different in nature. Therefore to disprove evolution would not prove ID.

This is in contradiction with Zimmerman who wants to compare them, and play them off against each other, “a relatively neglected category of argument against ID and in favor of evolution: the argument from imperfection, as applied to the human genome.” (Zimmerman)

Therefore I ask you, do you agree with his reasoning? Are you willing to critique his article?

You say evidence for evolution is evidence against ID. Is not therefore evidence for ID evidence against evolution? Or do you want to play with a two headed coin?

-

First you describe the arguments for ID as ‘untenable’ (14/5). Then you say the argument for ID is inferior to those of Polkinghorne and Peacocke, which ‘seem to me more nuanced and rational than ID as usually presented’ (20/5).

I’ll take that as a bit of a concession. A comparison with Polkinghorne is not nearly as bad as being ‘untenable’.

However, I’d like suggest that it would be better not to look at any argument ‘as usually presented’ (or often misrepresented) but to analyse the strongest version of that argument. Then if you reject it, at least you will know what you have rejected.

While Peacocke and Polkinghorne are entitled to their opinion, and I can respect their scholarly view, I think you would agree that there is room to explore other views.

For these reasons, I think it is wise to be a little bit tempered, and not support rash statements from someone who’s gone off a bit half-cocked. When Zimmerman talks of the ‘damage’ ID is doing (despite being ‘dead and buried’), accusing them of ‘heights of arrogance’ and claiming they want ‘scientific investigation to be halted’, you wonder whether someone must have done something nasty to him in another life. He’s being shrill. And when he calls on the ‘God of the gaps’ you should know he hasn’t attempted to understand the ID argument.

Wow! So now McReal hurling abuse?! This just keeps getting better.

Vanna,

<<So cells in the past didn’t form proteins?>>

I didn’t say that at all. I simply responded to your assumption that primitive cells were like the more complex cells we see today.

<<So how did cells grow, and more importantly, why did they grow?>>

Because they’re made of materials that can replicate themselves.

<<If you want references, look in any of the main biology books (EG Biology by Campbell)>>

Telling someone to read an entire book is not a reference. Considering none of the “main biology books” agree with you, you’re going to have to give me some quotes with page numbers. Heck, even a web link would do.

<<HOWEVER, they tend to leave out a lot, and tend to state that evolution occurs over time and through chance.>>

Through chance?

There’s a very small element of chance in evolution, but evolution is not a theory of chance. What about that are you finding so difficult to grasp?

Again, references.

Oh and what’s an example of something they leave out too?

<<No one would want too many getting worried or all upset about something they can’t actually see or measure.>>

Evolution is observed all the time and yes, even measured... http://tinyurl.com/2g8su7d

<<You have not answered the last question I asked.>>

That’s because your question was nothing more than an insinuation that I’m being abusive.

You haven’t answered several of my questions. Would you kindly inform me of why a person who accepts evolution “would would walk away and not plant anything” despite the discovery of suitable land, or whether or not your lack of response earlier was an admission that evolution hasn’t failed any tests?

<<But you should be very careful giving insults and abuse directly to someone. I have seen what can happen in such circumstances. Not pretty.>>

Whoa! My first OLO threat! You’re really helping to give me a newfound appreciation for Dan, Vanna. Dan may have made some false accusations before but he’s never threatened anyone.

Phew! It’s just as well I’m not being abusive.

ajpillips..<<Telling someone/to read an entire book..is not a reference.>>lol..

so he gives a gimmic...
http://tinyurl.com/2g8su7d
..a link that..EVENTUALLY..SENDS ONE TO A LIBARY...of redirctive/gibberish/spin

<<you’re going to/have to..give me some quotes..with page numbers.>>

YES INDEED..YOU MUST..AS-WELL

a web link wont do...but here is a quote...from/the first link..of ya link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

<<Evolution experiments..throughout human-history

[picture]..show's..the wide range of dog-breed sizes..created using artificial selection.>>..NOT EVOLUTION..micro evolution..WITHIN THE CANUS GENUS

<<Unwittingly,>>>LOL<<..humans have carried out evolution experiments>>WITHIN THE GENUS..<<for as long as they have been domesticating plants and animals.>>

NOT EVOLUTION...selection..within the species

VIA..<<Selective breeding>>..ie../NOT EVOLUTION..<<of plants/and animals..has led to varieties>>WITHIN THEIR GENUS>>

<<that differ dramatically from their original wild-type ancestors.>>..YET ALL REMAIN IN THEIR GENUS/...yet/evolution CLAIMS..species..evolve into/..new genus...thats a lie/unsupported by their own evidence

<<Examples are the cabbage varieties,>>ie all in the genus/of cabbage

<<maize,..or the large number/of different dog-breeds.>>
..dogs are all in cannus/genus...ditto maize..in its genus

>>The power..of human breeding..to create varieties>>WITHIN THEIR GENUS<<with extreme differences...>PLEASE NOTE<<from a single species>>../

IE THEIR ALL..IN THEIR OWN SPECIES...
evolution..means change of../FROM/..their GENUS..into new genus

<<The Origin of Species..with a chapter on variation..in domestic animals./..Darwin discussed in particular the pigeon.>>

specificlly...the wild type rock/dove...columbia...A
LL PIGIONS ARE IN COLUMBIA/genus/species/liva

<<He wrote:..Altogether..at least a score of pigeons might be chosen,..which if shown to an ornithologist,..and he were told that they were/..wild birds,..would certainly,..I think,..be ranked by him as well-defined species.>>..ie not even then..as a new genus

<<Moreover,..I do not believe..that any ornithologist/..would place the English-carrier,..the short-faced/tumbler,..the runt,..the barb, pouter,..and fantail..in the same genus;>>>..YET THEY ARE!

<<more especially..as in each/of these breeds..several truly-inherited sub-breeds,..or species/..>>LOL

<<I am fully convinced..that the common opinion..of naturalists is correct,..namely,..that...#.all have descended..from the rock-pigeon*..(Columba livia),[genus columbia.species liva]

<<including..under this term..several geographical races--or sub-species*,..which differ from each other..in the most trifling respects.–Charles Darwin,..The Origin of Species

Early/..experimental evolution

<<William Dallinger...cultivated..small/unicellular organisms..the organisms had adapted>>>..NOT EVOLVED out of genus...let alone species...LOL

IE NOT EVOLVED out of their genus/..genious...

clever link...lol..
but trickery/gimmic..doth not evidence create/....

lol..your..only decieving..the decieved...bro

Vanna,

Photosynthesis is a localised highly phenomenon. The sun is very hot and the earth would be cold, if were not for the sun. Plants are highly organised seemingly defying the second law of thermodynamics. Yet, this not the case: The solar system as whole increases its entropy as the sun fuels down. Plants interact with that system. To explain the same verity, Paul Davies, notes when a refrigerator cools it increases the entropy of the kitchen.

To see evolution at work study HIV, because viruses mutate very quickly. Relatedly, HIV genomes have been studied. When some catches a serious virus the immune system cranks up. There is a battle. What actually might actually the host is not the original virus, rather a different genetically different virus, to the original caught.
Fundamentalist Christians think otherwise, but mutation is a fact.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_04

Regarding, the above, the same principles apply on a longer time scale.

Gene sequencing demonstrates that there are currently three forms of life, designated, bacteria, archaea and eucarya (multi-celled). The cross-differences in the RNA suggest that these lines evolved away from each other and that there may have been an earlier more primitive form of an RNA-like replicator. Primitive short sequence replicators are unstable individually, but may have enjoined, as a colony, to make it over the first hump towards continuous replication.

runner,

What was the first correctly semantic sequenced sentence spoken by Jesus? Do you believe Jesus orated the Sermon the Mount?

TYPICAL..redirections from/ohliver quote..<<..What was the first..correctly semantic/sequenced sentence..spoken by Jesus?>>

sequenced by whom/ohliver...god?
what was darwins?

interesting you/mention hiv...introduced by science...in their polio/vacine...grown on monkey-liver serum...CHIMP-pansy..serum..then tested..in africa/ussr...who still have the..higher prevalance of it

fromk your link<<The diagram shows some of the evolutionary history of HIV..as we know it today...An ancestral virus..(bottom)..evolved into strains..that infected chimpanzees..(SIV).

Over time,..new strains began to infect humans(HIV)...>>when their livers..were blended to extract/the serum..to grow polio virus...etc..the science godheads..playing god

much like the latest claim to grow life...lol..some nutter/a god wannabe...created a string of dna...inserted IT..into a living cell...and lo..the god-head..claimes he invented life...what a deception

its like emtying a train..putting in a new driver..then claiming you invented trains..its insane..but there you go...food for those loving to be decieved..yet again

OHliver<<..there may>>LOL<<have been an earlier..more primitive form of an RNA-like replicator>>..lest you be ignorant...please name the mechanmism..by which it replicated..[or name this rna..dont grasp at straws]

by the way please answer me this...did this first/unnanmed first/life...live in fresh water..or salt water?..

its a trick question..
but give-up your fact,..not your fiction

<<..Photosynthesis;is a localised highly phenomenon.>>..please say again?

thats gibberish ohliver..sure you got big words..but no sentance structure

then..<<The sun is very hot/and the earth would be cold,>>WOW>>the insight..its out of site..lol..but where are we going with this trickery

<<if were not for the sun...Plants are highly organised..seemingly defying the second law of thermodynamics.>>>thermo-dynamics...[its not the heat..bro,,,its the light...photo-syn-thesis,,,get it?

<<Yet,this not the case:>>the suns heat heats the system...now,,mainly because the sun has entrophied...[ie is cooling down...now

but earlier it was too hot..but its not heat/sun alone..its clouds//water...rotating earth..distance from the sun...a whole lot of vairiables...then a seed...to grow the tree/plant...etc...you claim ..via evolution..yet what evolved..name it...

<<The solar system as whole..increases its entropy>>>following the big bang...suns formed...and entrophied...

..but that natural progress..made other things..also needed for life...its perfect,,just like god planned it

<<as the sun fuels down>>>huh?...is that english?

<<Plants interact with that system>>>,,with the fuel/down system...lol
with..or within..?,...i wish you had a clue..about/what..your trying to say

A J Phillips.
I’m not threatening you. You seem to get scared very easily.

I’m just giving you some kindly advice. If you directly call someone “ignorant” outside of an online forum, you may find yourself abruptly learning about reality. So it is best not to get into the habit of doing that.

But you have convinced me.

The theory of evolution requires genetic mutations, and cells must have learnt how to use chlorophyll, through genetic mutations.

And cells must have learnt how to use the Krebs cycle, through genetic mutations.

And cells must have learnt how to carry out endocytosis and exocytosis, through genetic mutations.

Etc,etc.

Its all got to do with genetic mutations, although they do have to be very good genetic mutations.

I promise I’ll never doubt the theory of evolution every again.

No, that not quite right. I still have some nagging question at the back of my mind. You say that cells are “ made of materials that can replicate themselves.”. I guess your thinking of DNA, although you seem reluctant to mention it.

So how did cells discover DNA? And what did cells do before they discover DNA.? And how could cells carry out a genetic mutations before they discovered DNA?

And Would Cells Have To Have A Genetic Mutation, To Be Able To Discover DNA, So That Cells Could Then Carry Out A Genetic Mutation?

I guess I’ll have to wait for someone who doesn’t mindlessly follow the theory of evolution to answer such questions.

Under one god,
It is interesting that Darwin actually carried out ID, as well as countless other people throughout history.

You cannot argue with faith-based reasoning.

In essence the difference is the evidence for evolution is greater. The evidence for ID is non-existent other than in a faith scenario.

In addition, while the premise may not change much, evolutionary theory is open to re-evaluation, change, tweaking in accordance with new findings.

Evidence for evolution is all around us including the body's adaptation to changing environments shown even by changes in the relevance of some organs and other body parts eg. wisdom teeth and the appendix.

Gene sequencing does not demonstrate that there are currently three forms of life, designated, bacteria, archaea and eucarya (multi-celled).

That is one classification scheme derived from gene sequencing. It was derived by the team led by Carl Woese of the University of Illinois. Lynn Margulis rejects that scheme as it doesn't recognise cell symbiosis (fusion of former bacteria). "Five Kingdoms" pages 3-16 contains a discussion of classification systems.

Multiticelled is not the same as eucarya. Eucarya have a defined nucleus and other morphological features that distinguish them from procarya. Eucarya may be multicelled or single celled as exemplified by amoebae and paramecia.

Too funny. I should thank vannakins for posting that last piece of ignorant twaddle.

I'll remind him of it next time he starts babbling about science education.

Vanna wrote: "It is interesting that Darwin actually carried out ID, as well as countless other people throughout history."

How does one carry out ID?

Please cite a reference for anyone carrying out ID.

Really davidf... what more evidence do you need?

God carried out ID, 6000 years ago.

Don't you read runner's posts?

David f,
To see ID in operation, look around you next time you go down to a pet shop.

Manipulating the traits of a species for a purpose is ID.

Gene splicing is also ID.

GE is ID.

Etc,etc

Perhaps the above is rather primative compared to what it could become in future years.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming

More twaddle from vannakins - except he's now being obtuse rather than ignorant. Selective breeding and genetic modification are not included in what is generally referred to as "intelligent design" or "ID".

<< Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations, arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science. The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. >>

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

Vannakins should read the Wikipedia article, and the many references to which it links, before posting his next asinine contribution to this debate. Alternatively, he could enrol in an adult secondary science course at TAFE.

as is usual...cj says one thing...
then quotes another..totally not supporting...his/her..previous statement

great one son

cjmoregain..quote..<<Selective breeding and genetic modification are not included..in what is generally referred to as "intelligent design" or "ID>>...

where in the quote..does it say this?

further..he quotes lables...infuring delusion..<<Intelligent design's leading proponents..all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,>>...

LET ME STATE...here...I HAVE NO ASSOSIATION..with the discovery institute...yet another gross egsadjuration...distraction...to not present facts..but we got a dia=tribe/link

a link..from the link
<<Short discussion on Natural Knowledge>>..[natural knowledge?...that sounds interesting..<<and Natural Design..as a contrast to Intelligent Design by Richard Dawkins>>..

so i thought..lets judge this one

http://richarddawkins.net/article,129,Natural-Knowledge-and-Natural-Design,Richard-Dawkins

it dont work..but i would love to rebut his twaddle
thats so typical...

rebutting/intel design...dont go as far as to include any evidence..of the alternative..evolution of genus...un-supported by any science fact..re genus evolving into new genus

but lots re species...vairiations within the species
[evolution/micro-eviolution/of species..IS NOT EVOLUTION OF genus]

lets get some evidence of genus evolving...but there aint none
thus we get the twaddle

so many words..
so few..real fact's
indeed bnot a single faulsifyable fact..whatsover

to quote..one of your own
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267227/?tool=pmcentrez

<<there are still numerous areas of controversy in evolutionary theory.>>..

thats why they attack creationism...
it sure beats proving a THEORY..

more from the quote..<<..Coyne agreed..“For example, we don't understand how species form.”>>>yet..thiose who also dont know...pretend they do know...lol

<<..His main area of research aims to ascertain whether speciation involves many or only a few genes..whether genetic drift plays a significant role...and whether the movement of transposable elements causes hybrid sterility or whether it undermines viability>>>because thats what the SCIENCE says

by far most mutations are injurous..[thus die]..thus not evolved..but dead..you see their bones...but bones dont tell much...despite movies saying they do..get some facts...evolve just one new genus....FIRST..

FYI:

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/05/first_replicating_life_from_artific.html

Also, recall that we humans are made of elements that would have existed for 1.6 billion years before life, as posted to the attention primarily to vanna. Wherein, we are made of existing materials and the religionist's hypothetical divinity used pre-existing elements.

davidf,

Agree. It would have been tigher to have said Eucarya (included multicelled), but my main focus was on early RNA-like replica.

I am aware there are several classification schemes.

OUG and runner,

My point about the semantic sequencing of Jesus' first sentence was an analogy, perhaps, lost on a Christian. The point was, that even if we assume JC gave the Sermon of the Mount speech, we would also likely conclude that that he learned to speak as a child, and there was a first speech pattern, whose general characteristics could be sensibly postulated by a linguist; yet, no one knows the actual "first sentence"; i.e., the first sequence of words.

Where in the archeological or historical record is difinive proof of Jesus' first sentence? Can't produce it? Hmm.

Vanna, OUG and runner,

Do you believe viruses mutate? Just a simple yes/no or short answer, please.

Vanna,

Is what AJ and I have been saying about the second law of thermodynmics now better understood by you?

You have read the chemical composition of the human body... What do we have, that is not a constituent of inorganic chemstry?

Yes, the "selective" breeding dogs can be intelligent. Ants are intelligent in their own way. But that is not where the ID debate sits. Extreme Christisn creationists believe that life was created by divine miracle on a flat earth in 4,004 BCE. Science suggests; (a) that the earth is not flat, (b) geophysics age the earth at 4.6 billion years and (b) very complex replicating molecules can form in nature.

Also, please be reminded that some Christians would hold that each breed of dog wa created separately by different miracles.

CJ Morgan,
That you accept what you read on Wikipedia as gospel (or even as an authoritative source) says a lot about you.

Please don’t be so condescending as to not call Vanna by his/her preferred name. Once for fun. Twice, and you might be able to laugh at your own joke. To continue after that and it starts to reflect on your own level of maturity. (It shows he/she’s got under your skin.)

I’m not sure where you got that quote which defines Intelligent Design. It is more or less Wikipedia standard, that is, roughly in the right ball park, with some accuracies, some obvious errors, but overall opinionative and lacking perspective; a bit like most encyclopedias.

If I could just point out one error therein, which is easily verifiable, that is not all fellows associated with the Discovery Institute are Christians. There are also Jews and agnostics and people of other faiths. I was just reading a book by one of them, David Berlinski, who describes himself as something of an unbelieving Jew.

Berlinski says that one of his motivations for writing the book was to counter the boasting by some that science somehow supports atheism, or has somehow showed God to be not there or irrelevant. Science has done a lot of things but it hasn’t done that.

As for ‘unequivocal consensus’, CJ, that’s more wishful thinking on your part. Scientists have unequivocal consensus about barely anything, except perhaps the most mundane. That the Discovery Institute exists, let alone may be growing, without mentioning the growing number of Darwin Doubters in other scientific circles, shows that there is no exceptional consensus here.

Pelican,
You say that you cannot argue with faith based reasoning. So why start now?

I am seriously in awe of your sophisticated debating techniques, Dan S de Merengue.

One of the neatest is the way that, whenever you wish to avoid an obvious problem for your position, you focus on some piece of irrelevant minutiae from the opposing side, and wave it around like a triumphant matador.

But sometimes, in your suerte de muleta, you can trip yourself up.

>>If I could just point out one error therein, which is easily verifiable, that is not all fellows associated with the Discovery Institute are Christians. There are also Jews and agnostics and people of other faiths.<<

Is it an error? Really?

The statement was that they "believe the designer to be the God of Christianity". Would not this include the God envisaged by the Jews? Or even the Muslims, come to that. And frankly, I am unconvinced - as you must be - that an agnostic can simultaneously reserve judgment on whether a God exists, yet still manage to attribute the existence of the universe to one, and remain at all credible.

And for some reason, this observation struck me as a classic "straw man".

>>Berlinski says that one of his motivations for writing the book was to counter the boasting by some that science somehow supports atheism, or has somehow showed God to be not there or irrelevant.<<

First of all, define your target as broadly as possible, leaving the weakest argument - "God is somehow irrelevant" to the end. Then say - entirely correctly - that science has been unable to prove that God is irrelevant.

Given the amount of religious strife in the world, I'd agree that "irrelevant" is not an attribute of a God, whether there is one (or many), or not.

Truly masterful performance.

Keep 'em coming.

Oliver wrote: "Agree. It would have been tigher to have said Eucarya (included multicelled), but my main focus was on early RNA-like replica."

I don't know whether it would have been 'tigher' to have said Eucarya (included multicelled) and I don't see how focusing on early RNA-like replica(tion) justifies misinformation. Procarya and eucarya are morphologically different cells.

You also wrote: "Extreme Christisn creationists believe that life was created by divine miracle on a flat earth in 4,004 BCE. Science suggests; (a) that the earth is not flat, (b) geophysics age the earth at 4.6 billion years and (b) very complex replicating molecules can form in nature. "

All the Creationists on this string have suggested is that God has guided the creation and development of life. I don't agree with that. However, I have seen no suggestions from them that the earth is flat or only about 6,000 years old. Argue with what they say rather than with what they don't say.

You also wrote: "Also, please be reminded that some Christians would hold that each breed of dog wa created separately by different miracles."

I know of no Christians who hold that. Please cite your references.

On their part the creationists keep bringing in chance. No scientist maintains that our existence is the result of sheer chance. There are some instances where things could have gone one way or the other. If a meteor had not hit the earth about 65 million years ago the dinosaurs would not have become extinct. However, most scientists maintain that the creation of life and its development into various forms is the consequence of the behaviour of matter according to the physics and chemistry of matter.

Denying science by calling it pseudoscience as done by runner does not make it pseudoscience.

The division between creationists and those who accept the scientific evidence for evolution is probably too great to be resolved, but each side can remember that others are human and entitled to courtesy and kindness.

Please forgive me for preaching. When I am discourteous and unkind please call me to account.

We can always rely on Dan for sophistry.

Firstly, he criticises me for providing a quotation and link from Wikipedia to support my contention that when "Intelligent Design" is being discussed, the term does not refer to such human activities as selective breeding of pets or genetic modification of other organisms. He seems to have missed the fact that I was returning vanna et al's favour of a Wikipedia link in his post to which I was responding, not to mention my suggestion that vanna et al read the many references linked to by the Wikipedia article.

I certainly don't regard Wikipedia as "gospel" or "authoritative", but it's a good place for the ignorant to begin to explore a topic, which in this case seems entirely appropriate.

Dan claims not to know the provenance of the quotation I provided. I thought it was pretty clear that it's straight from Wikipedia, since I provided the URL immediately after it.

Pericles may be in awe of Dan's sophisticated debating techniques, but I regard them as quite typical of the disingenuous sophistry deployed by godbotherers.

Dan,

I’m not playing with a two headed coin, the issue comes back to the definition of science again. Supposing there were three theories of why the dinosaurs died out

1) a giant meteor hit the earth,
2) there was abrupt climate change caused by volcanic activity, and
3) God must have done it because he protects the earth from giant meteors.

The first two are candidates for scientific theories, the third is not. It is not testable. If it turns out that a giant meteor actually hit the earth, theory 3 is disproven. If it turns out there was no meteor impact, theory 1 is disproven and theory 2 might hold a bit more credibility, but theory 3 is still not science. Hence, if it was certain that there had been no meteor, I believe the overwhelming majority of scientists would choose option 2 over option 3 as the next best explanation. That’s why I said that, even if Darwinian evolutionary theory were to be disproved, this would not mean that ID is vindicated.

However, like the meteor, evidence for evolution does discredit ID, which is why I said that ID is scientifically untenable. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and ID arguments such as irreducible complexity have been shown to be wrong.

I see important distinctions between the theologies of e.g. Polkinghorne and ID, the most important being that
1) Poklkinghorne doesn’t deny evolution or any other accepted scientific explanations of the natural world;
2) his understanding of god’s activity in creation is not physical/supernatural but metaphysical/natural, and
3) his account of god's engagement in creation is theology not a scientific theory.

Evolution and the anthropic principle are not mutually incompatible. Evolution and ID are.

Still dodging my questions, Vanna? No matter, we’ll press on. I wouldn’t dream of holding you to providing me with any answers. The last time I held Dan to something, he stomped his feet like a child and said he was never going to play with me again.

<<I’m not threatening you. You seem to get scared very easily.>>

Whether or not you were actually threatening me was a side issue. The words you used and the way in which you used them were specifically threatening.

<<I’m just giving you some kindly advice. If you directly call someone “ignorant” outside of an online forum...>>

The important thing to remember here is that your ignorance is demonstrable. I wouldn’t dream is throwing around unfounded accusations. In fact, I don’t even have to do anything, you do it for me.

Observe...

<<Its all got to do with genetic mutations, although they do have to be very good genetic mutations.>>

It’s nice to know you been absorbing what I’m, saying*

<<I promise I’ll never doubt the theory of evolution every again.>>

Why? That’s the best way to learn. That’s how I learned when I was a creationist. Unfortunately what you’re doing though doesn’t constitute “doubt”. It’s blind, willful ignorance probably due to childhood indoctrination.

<<You say that cells are “ made of materials that can replicate themselves.”. I guess your thinking of DNA, although you seem reluctant to mention it.>>

Yes, DNA formed from RNA, formed from polynucleotides, formed from nucleotides, formed from the bonding effect that ribose and phosphate groups have on the four nucleobases adenine, cytosine, thymine, guanine. Lipids eventually formed a protective shell around the DNA to create the first primitive cell.

That’s a very abbreviated version. If you want to point out ‘gaps’ or ‘problems’ with this, then go ahead, it won’t mean much considering the theory is still in it’s infancy, and it’s certainly better than doing what appear to prefer - throwing our hands in the air, giving up and simply declaring that a god musta’ dun it.

Continued...

...Continued

Are you starting to see now what I mean by “ignorance”? Here are some more examples...

<<So how did cells discover DNA?>>

Cells discover DNA? DNA would have existed long before complete cells did.

<<And what did cells do before they discover DNA.?>>

They sat around playing poker.*

But wait. It gets worse...

<<And how could cells carry out a genetic mutations before they discovered DNA?>>

Oh dear.

I think we’d better stop there. But if you want to know these things, then why don’t you do what I did and look them up?

<<I guess I’ll have to wait for someone who doesn’t mindlessly follow the theory of evolution to answer such questions.>>

I’m answering your questions. You’re not listening.

Actually, one question... Since you’ve mentioned the scientific method several times now, what are your thoughts on the fact that creation “scientists” never adhere to the scientific method as opposed to evolutionary biologists, who adhere to it perfectly?

*Denotes sarcasm.

runner and OUG,

Please tell davidf that you believe the earth is over 65 million years old and prove me wrong.

Were bears an dogs separate creations? Were whales and hippopotami separate creations? Or did thes creatues evolve from a common ancestor?

Davidf,

I correctly specified that multicelluar organisms sit on the Eucarya path cited. It was an aside, because the path leads to us. I was clearly discussing RNA diversity between the three paths and earlier hypothesised primitive RNA-like replicators. Equally, a journalist could describe the 200 passangers and 30 crew on an aircraft and not mention the four dogs and two cats in the Hold.

De Novo creation of life: Feinberg and Shapiro (1980).

There are several references in the Bible that point to a flat earth. Some Christians take the Bible literally.

Do you believe you are a Great Ape or something special that a God conjured up? Or, both? I will tick the first box eek, eek.

Vanna and davidf,

What physical constituent of the human body cannot be broken down to known elements. Where is the error in the link-model. I provided and Vanna has not responded to?

oliver..<<..difinive proof of Jesus' first sentence?>>lol...what was dorkins..or darwins first words,..or yours...lol..great redirection/as allways

Can't produce it? Hmm..you cant recall even your own first sequence...lol..how droll

from your link<<We report the design,synthesis,and assembly of the 1.08-Mbp..Mycoplasma mycoides/JCVI-syn1.0..genome>>yet at two oclock this morning bbc..claimed...it was new life..when all that..preceeding goggildy/doo...was about making dna/sequencing...

that was inserted..into a living..god created cell..
[that lived..before inserting/their/new dna...and lived after]..
thus not life from 4 chemicals...as was reported..on bbc

continue quote..<<starting from digitized genome sequence...>>get it/dna...
PLUS A LIVING CELL..<<..information..>>ie/..dna

<<and its transplantation...lol...into a Mycoplasma capricolum recipient cell>>>

get it..<<to create new Mycoplasma mycoides cells...that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome.>>>

only its..an egsajuration...as the cells/working bits..still made the cell/myco-plasma;capri-colum..[a bacteria...]..live

that replicated/..lived..pre inserting the new program...and post...how great is god

<<The only DNA..in the cells
is the designed synthetic DNA sequence,>>.lol...there must be rna/..bits..plus the inherant mitrachondia..present..that they didnt scroop out...

so this too..is distortion

<<including "watermark" sequences/and other designed gene..deletions>>[so deleting bits...and the cell still works...how great god is

<<..and poly-morphisms,..and mutations/..acquired during the building process>>[how many other attempts..the usual is to do thousands...then one works...because..mutations/poly-morpisms..are deliterious..to the bateria surviving.

<<The original cell..was not completely/"synthetic,"..but its DNA was.>>note..the trickey wording..ALL THEY DID..WAS PUT THEIR DNA IN...

not completly synthetic indeed...only their dna was...lol

<<So this..is not quite the ultimate realization..of the project of organic chemistry,..i.e. to create living matter..from completely lifeless matter,..>>>

in fact not even close...first make your/own..cell mem=brain..
till you/can do thus...all else is deception..regardless of how the media spins it

of course virus mutates..[as i previously said/in the other evolution/posted topics...one in 100 cell divisions mutate..[our body contains millions of mutations]

thats why god made dna...in pairs...
half of the chomosopnal pair/often still does the job...

both halves of a dna strand/can/do..supply rna..
[thats what dna does..MAKES..the rna..

rna/that/makes them other bits...that make/life
sustain a cell to life/..to live...minerals and dna..do not life make

Dear Oliver,

You correctly asserted the eucarya organisms can be multicellular. However, that is not what differentiates eucarya from procarya. In asserting that the difference is trivial you ignore the main differences between eucarya and procarya. Procarya have both a cell wall and a cell membrane.Eucarya have only a membrane. Eucarya cells have a nucleus in which DNA are enclosed. Procarya do not have a nucleus.The flagellum driving procarya differs in several features from the undulipodium driving the eucarya.

The five kingdom scheme divides life into bacteria, Protoctista (nucleated microorganisms), plants, animals and fungi. Whatever scheme one chooses (3 or 5) is a matter of preference. My particular interest at this time is fungi. See http://www.qms.asn.au/index.html for the Queensland Mycological Society website. Our next meeting is Tuesday, 8 June, 2010 from 7:00 - 9:00 pm. at the FM Bailey room, Queensland Herbarium,Mt Coot-tha, Brisbane. Anybody on the thread will be welcome to hear John Wrench talk about "Taxonomic Etymology".

David f,

There is no doubt that genetic mutations do occur, although the vast majority of genetic mutations disadvantage an organism, rather than improve its chances of survival.

As more discoveries are made about the cell, it does appear that most cells have not developed their complete functionality because of genetic mutations.

It is interesting that organizations such as NASA currently sterilise probes and spacecraft before they land on moons, asteroids and other planets. This is done to ensure that microbes from Earth do not somehow affect those other celestial bodies. The opposite may be possible in the future, where life forms are created on Earth and then seeded onto celestial bodies, so as to spread life. Those life forms would have to be specially designed to enable them to survive in their environment.

The spreading of life in this way does seem ethical, as it would be rather selfish to keep it on our planet if there is the possibility to spread life elsewhere.

Maybe there will be a debate in future years as to whether or not to seed some other celestial body.

Dan
"Pelican,
You say that you cannot argue with faith based reasoning. So why start now?"

I don't really know.

Everytime a religious thread comes up I can't help myself even after deciding at some point (based on past experience) there is no point in the same old circular arguments, that I won't involve myself.

Perhaps I have some faith myself that reason will one day prevail. :)

Pelican

'Perhaps I have some faith myself that reason will one day prevail. :)'

If you believe in evolution then you certainly have plenty of faith.

Peli

>> Perhaps I have some faith myself that reason will one day prevail. <<

Pigs are already lining up on the tarmac :)

Here's one reason that's going to set the pigs flying:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719

Here's another cat for the pidgeons ... or, a question for OLO's irreducible complex entity: What if your 'Designer' designed evolution?

Quanda,
Is it ID to create a new bacterium, or evolution by genetic mutation?

I would think ID.

However, I wonder if this type of thing has actually been done before, (but we are not aware of when, or where it occurred).

CJ Morgan,
I’m sorry for saying that you hold Wiki as authoritative. But looking again at your post, that’s the way it reads. So thanks for clarifying. I’m kind of relieved that you don’t hold Wikipedia up as an authority.

Oliver,
No Christian anywhere takes all of the Bible literally.

Christians by and large are fully appreciative that the Bible is rich with literary genre (including history, poetry, prohecy, law, letters, etc.) and contains grammatical devices such as, parables, metaphors, similes, hyperbole, etc.

If you know of any Christian that takes all of the Bible literally, then please introduce them to me, as I’ve never met one.

Pericles,
Thanks for your kind words. I’m glad someone appreciates my writing.

Rhian,
The issue is right here, ‘evidence for evolution does discredit ID’. If the one discredits the other, then they both must be interacting on the same philosophical and logical plane. You say evidence for one is supportive of one theory in preference to the other. Therefore we must be able to measure and evaluate the scientific evidence agaisnt them both.

But I feel I’m banging my head agaisnt a wall here. You and I see things very differently. It is difficult finding common ground for communication between we two. As you say, our definitions (or perhaps worldviews) are rather different.

You say evidence for your favoured position is overwhelming. I’m rather underwhelmed by it. And there are large sections of the community that remain likewise unconvinced.

-

I like you’re your explanation regarding the extinction of the dinosaurs. However I think it could have been constructed better. If it was me putting it together, I might have said something like this:

Why did the dinosaurs become extinct? A) A giant meteor hit the earth wiping them out. B) A giant meteor didn’t hit the earth, so it must have been something else.

What evidence would we look for to confirm or deny the position?

There’s another suggestion often been floated, that all human life was wiped out a few thousand years ago by an enormous flood. And that all human life that we now know has descended from the few that survived that flood.

I’ll suggest some alternatives. A) A huge flood once covered the earth. B) There was never a huge flood that covered the earth.

What evidence would we look for to confirm or deny the position?

Now, in your opinion, are these two positions (the meteor dinosaur theory & the people near-extinction flood theory), and the nature of investigation surrounding them, different in any manner? And if so how?

I know we could argue for eons about the details of the findings, but my question is whether or not it is theoretically possible to conduct scientific investigation on either, neither, or both of these?

davidf, "there's no reason to take the Bible as more authoritative than the Tripitaka, Book of Mormon, the Koran or any other scripture."

Apparently, "It depends on the cultural influences we are exposed to."

So, cultural influence counts for everything but historical evidences, archaelogical evidences, personal experience, hermeneutical study count for nothing? Apparently it would seem that you believe this, as it's the only belief under which your comment would make any sense. And of course, it's a belief which is patently absurd. Correct me if I've misread your epistemological stance and beliefs.

aj phillips, "the evidence for evolution is so over-whelming and abundant; and the evidence for creationism so completely absent, that a basic level of understanding is all that is required to make an informed decision."

Who said anything about "creationism"? I only referred to Intelligent design. Two different things.

"Anyone not capable of doing so would have to have a thinking disorder that was bordering on mental retardation".

I guess all those phds who agree that a case can be made for intelligent design must be retarded then?

The arrogance of internet know it alls is astounding! haha.

Chuckle chuckle. If it wasn't so sad it'd be hilariously funny. Actually, It kind of is anyway....

"I simply couldn’t continue to believe in a god that would create everything in a way that made it look as though he didn’t need to exist (and on this level, I can sympathise with creationists) and then punish people for not believing, just as I couldn’t continue to believe in a god that documented his ‘word’ in a way that didn’t appear to need him to exist either".

So what you're effectively saying here is, that if God existed, you'd expect direct scientific evidence that he exists? Is that your view?

(I'm trying to cut to the chase of your view here. I strongly disagree with your overplaying the significance of evolution, but I suspect my first response cuts to the core of all of your comments.

"Of course, you get those who claim that science and religion answer two different questions - one is the ‘how’ and the other is the ‘why’ - but what these people don’t realise is that religion doesn’t answer, or even help to answer the ‘why’ - it only asserts it."

Has it occurred to you that it isn't possible for something to be an "answer" to anything without asserting something?

Oliver, "You assume a prioi that the theological framework is Judeo-Christian. That is does not take the guise of an objective observer."

I'm referring to a Judeo-Christian framework, definitely. This isn't an "a priori assumption" it is simply creating a discussion from the perspective I come from. I have less knowledge and interest in the interplay between science and "other theological frameworks", so why would I write about them? And, does this make me less objective? No. Why? Because no one looks at theology objectively. It is impossible.

"If one were to spend a few hours putting together a serious paper on some OLO topics (if time did permit), then there is a fair chance that the fundamentalist Christians would respond with lols, lampoons or jump topic"

I think if I wrote a serious paper, I'd have a whole lot of atheists responding with a lot of the same......I think I've demonstrated that a couple of times in this very post (and the one above it) :-). But of course, that is beside the point

ps: Just re reading my replies: An apology is in order. I shouldn't have implied arrogance on AJ Phillips part- I misrepresented him in my reply. Apologies, it's 4am in the morning!

qanaA...quote<<Pigs are already lining up on the tarmac :)

Here's one reason that's going to set the pigs flying:>>

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719

bbc reported last night,..the first modification of dna/removed from a cell..was done 50 years ago...[so pigs have been having wings/spin for many years..

BUT lets egsamine your pig

say you have a computer/running on windows...all the link did was remove the software/ie the dna/program...and insert their own dna/program..then calling the faults/error..mess-ages...mutations

<<Here's another cat..for the pidgeons ...>>>not sure if yopur dislectic..so will not reply to this inversion

<<or,..a question for OLO's..irreducible complex entity:..What if your/'Designer'..designed evolution?>>>as said many times previously...he did

further..please note evolution..WITHIN ITS SPECIES/micro-evolution..is a faulsifyable[verifiable]..FACT

BUT..evolution of a new genus..is impossable...
evolution out of genus...as in EVOLUTION..[as per the tree of life]..HAS NOT EVER BEEN RECORDED...not one single evolution OUT OF ITS GENUS...ever...read darwin..he talks of evolution OF SPECIES...

pigions breed pigions/..dogs breed dogs...goats breed gopats...sheep/sheep..fruit-flies breed fruit-flies...humans breed hunmans..apes breed apes..and bacteria bred bacteria...

LIFE BREEDS LIFE...[or as the bible says..like breeds like]
...GET IT?

as the koran says ..first make just one like it...and science hasnt..

putting a new program...INTO A WORKING computer...
..isnt making a new computer...get it?

Dear Davidf,

Thank you for the further explanation and meeting link. I think we are at crossing purposes. I am happy to acknowledge there are several classification schemes, each with its on merits. I was primarily interested in the trunk and roots of the tree. before divergence to consider primitive replicators.

I'm not a Queenslander and have a few seminars on my own to deliver - Not on biology :).

Dan,

Like you, I know heaps of Christians I would assume do not believe the Bible literally. On the other hand, several times, I have read comments from OLO posters, who are not so open. If I had more time, I would have searched the archive for "Genesis" and "Noah", to illustrate.

I even knew (lost contact) and ex-minister you became an athiest when he studied comparative religions for his Masters and assessed Christianity in context with the thousands of others. Some folk do response to evidence. Obviously, others will take a smaller step and say stories are allegories.

Yes, people will change their views. Even faithful Christians will recognise the age of the earth and know that OT and NT were written by several authors detatched from alleged events by generations or even centuries. On the other hand, few neo-Christians would recognize how Paul and Constantine morphed Christianity from vartious Jesus missions.

There are Christians, who have not adopted scientific explanations. In the US, I understand, one group even has a Theme Park.

Lets try again:

runner and OUG,

Is the Earth over 65 million years old? Just a quick, focused reply, will do. Thanks

Just for fun, I thought I might play devil's advocate and weigh in on the ID side (although not ID as strictly defined, or quoted by CJ).
Simply because my interest in religion is, Why?
It was suggested very early on in this discussion that perhaps the putative Creator deliberately designed us (or Life) to be imperfect. This actually makes sense to me.
The Mandlebrot set (and other fractal constructions) is based on a (relatively) simple formula which inevitably builds -through sheer volume and complexity- results almost impossible to fully predict. In the same manner, an intelligent creator may have started with a similar, very simple formula: “Go Forth and Multiply” -and let the cards fall as they will.
This seems a far more intelligent thing to do, in that, what would be the point in creating a perfect experiment, with a perfect assurance of a perfectly predictable result?
In other words, the important question is if there is a Creator, why did It bother? If the outcome was assured and predictable, what would be the point?
I would suggest that such a Creator does not appear to understand the value of morality, judging by our living world; which is typically amoral.
We see instances where competition is supremely important to 'success', but also instances where cooperation is equally vital.
Which is more important, or more 'moral', or offers a greater guarantee of
success?
And how would we (or God) define success?
This appears to me to be the vital question facing us today (and everyday).
Do nice guys inevitably finish last, is competition more important than cooperation, and is “the fish that JW rejects” a deeply profound question, if they number more than 42?
Perhaps we were created to answer these questions for a deeply perplexed God.

Trav,

"This isn't an 'a priori assumption' it is simply creating a discussion from the perspective I come from."

I would have thought that the above plenty much represents a definition of an a priori assumption. You assume Christian theological perspectives before making a case. The fact you might know plenty about Moses and Jesus, but little about Apollo or Zeus, is irrelevant.

Had you said, "according to a Christian perspective", there would have been less overarching and presumption.

Our friend "Sells" also enters into discussions with the Christian ducks lined-up and super glued to the wall. The constant becomes, "the measure of all things". Both of you don't see the forrest for the "tree," singular. It had to view a panarama with one's noise pressing bark.

Vanna,

The elements in the human body question? (See link several posts back and requests for a reply.) Also, how old are the atoms in your body? Would it be wrong to say all the atoms in your body were once part of inorganic entities on Earth and before that a star?

Dear Vanna,
I'm not sure what complete functionality means. An organism completely adapted to its environment generally cannot survive if the environment changes. A parasite completely adapted to live off a particular species will become extinct if the host species does.

You brought up an interesting idea. You wrote it would be rather selfish to keep life on our planet if there is the possibility to spread life elsewhere. I neither agree nor disagree with you as I have never considered whether it is ethical or unethical to spread life. I may agree with you, but I am not sure. It is hard to be objective since we are examples of life on this planet, and we might want to spread ourselves. That tendency seems to be built into life. A philosopher said it is good to die young. Another said it is better not to be born at all, but not everyone is that lucky.

Dear Pelican,
I also would like reason to prevail. I am an atheist who is fascinated by religion, its history, its origins, its functions and its psychology. However, I believe with David Hume that reason is the slave of the passions.

Dear Dan,
I repeat. There's no reason to take the Bible as more authoritative than the Tripitaka, Book of Mormon, the Koran or any other scripture.

Have you investigated the truth claims of other religions? Christianity centres around the belief in a humanoid god figure born of a virgin who was capable of miracles and came back from the dead. Belief in the foregoing is superstition.

Some Christians such as Bishop Spong do not accept the superstitions but emphasise the ethical teachings of Jesus. Those are not too different from the ethics found in the Jewish religion which Jesus was trained in and never left or the ethics of many other religions. "Love thy neighbour as thyself" is from Leviticus. The archaeological evidence concerns the Jewish Bible which Christians have adopted. However, the miracles and other Christian superstitions remain mumbojumbo. Christianity is basically Judaism plus superstition added to the superstition already in Judaism.

Oliver,
Atoms are matter, and of course matter and energy are interchangeable (E=MC^2)

However, for a chemical bond to form, there has to be suitable conditions, suitable activation energy, and suitable catalysts should they be required. Just having the right atoms in an enclosed space doesn’t automatically create a chemical compound.

David f,
I think the theory of evolution does not take into account the metabolic reactions required for an organism to function. While there can be genetic variations of DNA formed by crossing over etc, DNA itself cannot function without specific enzymes (EG highly specific enzymes are required during both transcription and translation).

For a cell to reproduce, there are probably a myriad of enzymes involved (not all discovered as yet), and most of these enzymes are actually manufactured by the cell. It becomes incomprehensible that these enzymes are developed by genetic mutation.

What are your thoughts regards the new synthetic bacteria.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18942-immaculate-creation-birth-of-the-first-synthetic-cell.html

Do you think it should be released into the environment on Earth, or perhaps released somewhere else if suitably modified (& would that be ID)

Oliver<<Is the Earth over 65 million years old?>>as previously declared..the earth is not 6000 years old...

as to being over 65 million..that seems a bit on the light-side..[big bang/let there be light...is said to be 6 billion..or so years ago...so who knows...

is carbon teqnique/dating a constant..indeed is time a constant..there are too many vairi-ables/theo-ries...to be definitive about anything..

im told that in certain lab conditions..mearly observing an affect/affects the result...and that minute things can be in two/place's at the same time..

science cannot even agree that light is a photon particle...capable of being a particle..or in a wave...

im told pressure isnt..simply the orbital planes..
being forced into lower orbitalplanes..

but somehow the THEORY..of particles..somehow shooting off at all angles..banging into the side..thats not science its delusion...

i go with orbits//interacting..even if no..'science'..says so..because i dis-believe..the random particle/presure..THEORY



GRIM>><<the putative Creator/deliberately designed us..(or Life)..to be imperfect...This actually makes sense to me.>>>me too...

but only..so we can chose..[of our own freewill]..to love..even the im-perfect]..chose/..love over hate..chose/..cooperation over war..chose faith [id]..over..the THEORY...lol..of evo-lution..of genus

<<“Go Forth and Multiply” -and let the cards fall as they will.>>jesus didnt judge/..god dont judge...why judge we?...

freewill only has any meaning..if we have a free choice

<<why did It bother?>>..think of an eternal/immortal...
simply passing time...knowing mortality..
by knowing loving its..[her]..mortal/creation...'sss

the all loving...all/..[good]..god
knowing of hate...without hating anything...

[god is all loving..witness;..even the most vile...
yet god sustains them/TOO..their living...their lives..

knowing in time they TOO..will turn to love/..

life=[light/logic/love/live]=god...
even a beast in the field..can know his creator's voice/..
by these signs...

as jesus says..that ye se me do..YE WILL DO GREATER

[greater than god?..of course not..
he was man/..got life ..from a mother

just like us

<<Creator does not appear to understand the value of morality,>>>you werre so close..a judgemental god might..but god dont judge no-one...god alone loves ALL...

best we chose love..CHOOSE TO REJECT HATE

GOD DONT JUDGE..<<..our living world;which is typically amoral.>>judge not..lest ye be judged by the same measure/..by others..not god...

note the fathers house has many rooms...[heaven/hell...and everything in between...as judged by our acts.and the others of like mind...not god

<<Which is more important,..or more 'moral',..or offers a greater guarantee of success?>>by what measure judge/you success...[mans measure..or goods/gods]

<<And how would we..(or God)..define success?>>>see those who love evil...yet love something...

even if the only love they have..is hate..[recall god/..good is the love]

<<Do nice guys/inevitably finish last,..>>depends/on..where you think the finish-line is

<<is competition/more important than cooperation,>>they arnt opposing..
[it depends on their fruit..if the tree is good etc..]

<<and is..“the fish that JW rejects”..>>jehova/witness?...
those who judge others yet ask..to be judged..by the same measure..
self judgment..it's..a bbbb-itch..

judge not/../lest...by the same measure..we too be judged

<<Perhaps/we were created..to answer these questions..for a deeply perplexed God.>>if the big bang..is a series of big bangs...[from a dot..to the uni-verse]..

then god stands outside this grain of sand..[eternal/immortal]..
infinite/beyond this finite world..

to put our confusion/our confusion..
our measure/our emoting..on god...is an absurdity..

he has seen it all..again and again..[the friend says destroy mine enemy..
the enemy asks god destroy mine/brrr-other...
the christian asks destroy the muslim..the jew asks destroy..the messengers peoples

we are all...a child of good/god..
each can know him one to one...a personal/
ever living...ever loving good..

thats the true god

jesus came to restore to...all.../..gods children..of good../god...
back to the one..who loves each of us equ-ally

se the one who/loves all
watching the same scenes..same unwindings..same/big bang.to big bang conculusions/..debaites/questions/persons...time...scroll...bye..

its all in the book of life...each question noted and replied.../
each life event recorded..

it..like god is beyond..mere big bangs..
and other such temporal things

Dear Vanna,

Any chemical reaction that uses an enzyme can occur without an enzyme. The enzyme does not make the reaction possible. The enzyme speeds up the reaction and makes it much more efficient. For example the process of photosynthesis is different in the five types of photosynthetic bacteria (purple sulfur, green nonsulfur, green sulfur, and oxygenic). These five types use different metabolic pathways and different enzymes. The theory of evolution takes into account the metabolic reactions required for an organism to function. Organisms evolve mechanisms to meet various conditions. Enzymes are proteins which are produced by transcription from DNA as other proteins are. Mutations of the DNA produce different proteins.

The synthetic bacterium is not the creation of life. It was the placement of a synthetic chromosome in an existing cell. It may lead to the creation of man made life, but that is a long way away.

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Anything produced by humans is not included in that definition. I am cautious about releasing life forms whether synthetic or natural into new environments.

Dear OUG,

In postulating a god born of a mother Christianity differs from true monotheistic religions like Islam, Judaism and Bahai'i. The ancient Greek, Roman and Norse Gods were human in form. Christianity with its humanoid god is a modification made to Judaism so it would be acceptable to the pagan world by introducing a God like the pagan gods.

Oliver- No one believes in Apollo or Zeus. I've never seen anyone discuss theology of evolution from the perspective of Apollo, therefore that's completely irrelevant to the whole ID- Evolution- theology discussion.

Lastly, and most importantly, you seem to have forgotten the fact that I'm replying to this thread which is a discussion on an article. In that article, the author only refers to the Christian faith. Therefore your complaint lacks foundations from the beginning. However, this is all a moot point anyway, so I'll allow you to have the last word with your silly, baseless whinging.

quanda
Pigs lining up on the tarmac...where? :)

Davidf
"reason is the slave of the passions"

Gosh we could go off on all sorts of tangents here david, including asking the question is there really such a thing as free will? Or go down the Hobbsien path of determinism.

Is morality contrived or natural? Even when contrived (through religion, law etal) it does depend on a certain sense of natural altruism otherwise the man-made creation could not possibly hope to survive even despite the manipulation of emotions like guilt. The fact guilt can be manipulated suggests a 'natural' tendency.

The theists among us may see that natural tendency as needing enhancement via a structured supernatural moral framework.

runner
The difference is that there is more evidence for evolution than creationism. So the faith based argument is not applicable, given that faith is 'belief without reason'. The evidence for natural selection or 'favoured genes' is all around us.

I tend to prefer the idea that that religion continues to be just one aspect of an evolutionary process (more social than biological).

I have no difficulty in accepting the multitude of religions and spriritual beliefs, but creationism is based purely on faith; there is no room for movement, question or review for many fundamentalists in the face of evidence no matter how compelling. Some may argue that spirituality itself is a natural phenomenon of the human psyche.

Atheists tend to knock the religious cherry pickers but I am grateful for them over the fundamentalist anyday. Lest we should turn back the clock and stifle free thought, abstract thinking and with it innovation and resourcefulness.

David f,
Without a biological catalyst, a metabolic reaction may never occur.

(EG Without a specific enzyme, a metabolic reaction may require excess heat to initiate it, and either that heat energy is not available, or the heat energy could harm the organism.)

Indeed it takes enzymes to actually join the base pairs and create DNA initially, and it takes enzymes to also split the base pairs and enable transcription to occur. Without enzymes, most metabolic reactions inside a cell cannot occur, and without those metabolic reactions, the cell dies.

For every metabolic activity, there are normally a series of specific enzymes required, and the production of those enzymes is rarely covered by the theory of evolution.

So far as the synthetic cell is concerned -> baby steps.

It was only 60 years ago that DNA was discovered. Add another 60 years on, and it may be possible to artificially manufacture DNA that will create a new species, although I don't believe it should be released on Earth, due to the possibility that it could adversely affect existing life forms.

So to reduce risk to current species, synthetic life forms developed in the future would have to be released elsewhere.

Dear Vanna,

“Atoms are matter, and of course matter and energy are interchangeable (E=MC^2).However, for a chemical bond to form, there has to be suitable conditions, suitable activation energy, and suitable catalysts should they be required. Just having the right atoms in an enclosed space doesn’t automatically create a chemical compound.”

Thanks. But that is not what I was asking: Rather, do you agree that “before” life we have inorganic matter and that after organic life is created, said organic living things are reducible to inorganic matter?

I didn’t claim having “the right atoms in an enclosed space doesn’t automatically create a chemical compound”. (Though, compounds can be induced.)

Instead, I have made several references to a replicator: Perhaps a primitive form of an RNA-like substance (and there are other theories).

Regarding valency, normally, we do not have electron exchanges penetrating any deeper than one shell and, in the case of inert gases, none (that is why inert gases are used in some lights). If, even a amount tiny matter became pure energy released in terms of the Theory of Relativity, there would be a huge explosion:

http://www.anl.gov/Science_and_Technology/History/Anniversary_Frontiers/aetofdr.html

And even here Einstein is discussing an inefficient device compared to real E=mc2.

OUG,

Thanks for that clarification. Herein, you see the Bible as an allegory and not to be taken literally with regards many of its stories. You hold that Bishop Ussher was wrong. That surprises me in a nice way.

Runner ... Do you agree with OUG? How old is the Earth?

Trav… How old is the Earth?

Hello Davidf,

Agree the creation of synthetic life is different to duplicating the historical creation of life. We are just at Kitty Hawke in that regards. It would be good to be alive to see the biologicial Space Shuttle. I guess it depends on grants and the state of other sciences (e.g. quantum mechanics).

Trav,

Don’t worry about it. I’m quite comfortable with being labelled “arrogant” on the topic of religion.

The reason you’ll often see me say “creationism” rather than “ID”, is because ID is simply a devious and sneaky way of trying to get religion around the constitution and through the backdoor into science classrooms. For all intents and purposes, ID is creationism, so I refuse to legitimise ID due to its deceitful origins.

If you want the full story on the birth of ID, simply Google “Of Pandas and People”. Some of it’s actually quite funny, like the word-processing ‘find-and-replace’ bungle when trying to remove the word “god” from the original print of the book, Of Pandas and People.

<<I guess all those phds who agree that a case can be made for intelligent design must be retarded then?>>

I said “bordering on mental retardation”. But yes, they do certainly have a thinking disorder of some sort, because anyone with a PHD who believes in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and goes against all the evidence - like creationism - is tot ally delusional.

What disappoints me about this remark though is that it suggests that you think creation “scientists” might actually be onto something, when I had always picked you to be one of the more rational Christians who accept evolution.

<<So what you're effectively saying here is, that if God existed, you'd expect direct scientific evidence that he exists? Is that your view?>>

Yes, that’s my view. Because anything that exists manifests in reality, and anything that manifests in reality is measureable, demonstrable and verifiable. If you want to claim that god transcends all that, then fine, but in that case you have no way of differentiating between your god and something that doesn’t exist. That might be acceptable to you, but it’s not acceptable to me because I care about my beliefs being true.

Another point is that you can’t claim that god transcends the known world and then, at the same time, claim to know who this god is.

Continued...

...Continued

“God is beyond our understanding” is usually just another way of saying, “I don’t have a rational answer for that so I’m just going to make something up because facing the reality that my beliefs don’t make sense is too uncomfortable”.

<<Has it occurred to you that it isn't possible for something to be an "answer" to anything without asserting something?>>

By “assert”, I mean, without any good reason to believe that the assertion is true.

Vanna,

I would have thought a thank you was in order considering I answered a question that you seem to have wanted to know for a long time. Perhaps even a retraction of your claim that I “mindlessly follow the theory of evolution”.

Instead, you simply continue in your search for a gap in our knowledge that your god can hide in - a search that has so far proven fruitless - as if nothing ever happened.

You creationists are very rude people.

<<There is no doubt that genetic mutations do occur, although the vast majority of genetic mutations disadvantage an organism, rather than improve its chances of survival.>>

Incorrect.

The vast majority of genetic mutations are neutral. Only a very small percentage are bad. A very small percentage are good too.

Pelican you are dreaming when you write

'The difference is that there is more evidence for evolution than creationism.'

You obviously have to twist observance to fit your theory or you are blind to the obvious. At least you are admitting that their is some evidence for creation unlike other deniers of science.

Pelican

Where? See above :)

Runner

Meet your Islamic counterparts.

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58281

Go on, join up. It's a "marriage made in heaven". You may even qualify for 72 virgins.

LOL

Trav,

Millions of people are known to have believed in Apollo and Zeus. Below are some creation myths. No more fantastic the OT. As you may know, the Titans were thrown the Olympians. There is no direct comparison in the OT, however, Jehovah (Elohim?), does overthrow other gods in the OT.

http://zeus.heavengames.com/misc/myth/myth2.shtml

http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Apollo.html

On what basis can the OT claim that its creation myths superior to those of the Greeks or Romans?

Popper was in an argument with Jung and noted the latter was claiming validity based on his thousandfold experience of (shaky) premise. Popper, replied, would to the effect, “with this discourse we have one thousandfold, plus one”. My point is that if you, the author and one thousandfold others, make the same error, it does correct it.

Why should we believe that Genesis before other myths?

To the contrary, it all shows from before the Axial Age to the “Alexandrian God Factories” (Wells) and into the Current Era, too many people create myths.

Vanna,

I don’t recall Davidf ever claiming there is no such thing as a biological catalyst.

Vanna will you please answer the question I posed, as I posed it? Thanks.

Runner and Trav,

How old is the Earth?

Dan,

Is Jesus walking on water into wine allegorical? Not fully off topic, as the alleged event involves transmutation

Oliver

'Runner and Trav,

' How old is the Earth?' Don't be lazy and do the maths. Oh that's right you believe in chaos and chance rather than design and order. You will be flat out getting geologist to agree on the age of the earth. As far as evolutionist are concerned the age will fit with their dogma.

Oliver,
I’m not sure of what question you asked, but I am quite aware of shell configuration, and quite aware that carbon forms the basis of organic compounds due primarily to its shell configuration.

However, to be able to grow and survive before it reproduces, a cell requires a myriad of chemical compounds and enzymes, many of which the cell knows how to synthesis, because these chemical compounds and enzymes do not come directly from a Big Bang.

mRNA mostly serves as a messenger molecule for DNA, and it is interesting that eukaryotic cells enclose their DNA molecules in a cell nucleus to protect them from damage. The cell closely guards its DNA, and uses mRNA to pass genetic code messages through the membrane of the cell nucleus.

Why?

Any damage to DNA will cause unwanted mutations, and mitosis and meiosis also take place under controlled conditions to avoid damage to chromosomes and chromatids. The cell actually devotes a lot of its resources to control and reduce genetic mutations.

However, according to the theory of evolution, mutations create a better species, so the more the better.

A major anomaly for the theory of evolution.

As more is discovered about the cell, the more outdated the theory of evolution becomes. (Because you seem interested in quantum physics, it would be similar to the Bohr model being found lacking, and eventually becoming superseded by the quantum mechanical model).

I’m also aware of people (and there appear to be quite a few on OLO) who automatically think that ID is religion, and they seem to religiously attack ID, because they religiously attack religion.

Their religion is to attack religion.

Ironic isn't it.

david quote..<<Intelligent design/is the assertion..>>>so you assert...

<<..that"certain features/of the universe/and of living things..are best explained..by an intelligent cause,not an undirected process..such as natural selection.">>..

natural selection is hardly..'undirected'...

lest we forget...females..can get pretty chosey..[pea=cocks tails..for egsample]..or those magnificent/..birds of paridise..or bower birds..

then there is the practical/..factors of utility/..alowing the fittest to survive...hardly undirected...lol

pell-i-can...quote..<<..creationism is based purely on faith;..>>pleeeease...i regard my trust/faith..in creationism...because..the alternative isnt provable..one way or the other..

im simply open..to how god did it

<<..there is no room for movement,>>>pleeease..im as flexable as the next dude..show me evidence for genus evolving..supply the right proofs...

simply speaking...its lacking...thus evolution/..out of genus..remains a theory...based on deception...abusing..miss-re-presenting..the natural vairiation..within a species..[within its genomic compliment]..

within all species...as being evidence..for evolving out of them...lol..when the science proves..the genus barrier,..holds firm..

there is not one documented case/recorded/witnessed/reported..where ANY/species..evolved..out of..their inherant/parental genus..ever

..<<question or review..for many fundamentalists..>>>im into the fun-di-mentals...as much as anyone...but fundimentalists..i got no time for..

please dont lable us/..all the same

..<<in the face of evidence..no matter how compelling>>>just because you think you have evidence..dosnt mean your facts match your belief in them..

to be saying..what you claim they say...

THERE IS NOT ONE REPORTED/scientificlly complete..change of genus...[evolution out of inherant paternal genus..EVER]...how insane is a warm/bolld..comming from a cold blood...its an intermediate...not able to be realised..if so present one

oliver..no-where does the bible state..6000 years...
i didnt state a length of time..neither does the bible

oliver quote..<<..“Atoms are matter,..>>..thats bull/shhh-it...atoms/need nuclie...needing protons/neutrons..etc

and atoms are of different weights etc..

i suggest..you clarify your under/standing..some more..
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=atoms+nuclie&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

http://trshare.triumf.ca/~safety/EHS/rpt/rpt_1/node2.html

<<and of course..lol..matter..and energy are interchangeable..(E=MC^2).>>.they are..not the same..at all

please dont think/..third grade/school..broad-brush..scamming..can subjicate the facts..simply to make some obsure point...

i do not..<<..agree that..“before”..life..we have inorganic matter>>..because everything needs a cause/reason/logic/means
...without them...causes..there is nothing...no man/..no thing..is an island...minerals cannot..make..life

<<and that after organic-life is created>>..by inferance living?..<<,..said organic living things..are reducible to inorganic matter>>.,..not all mater is inorganic..and mineral/inorganic is not living..not life

I agree, intelligent design is a desperate attempt by religion to stay relevant in an increasingly hostile environment (intellectually). There is simply no credible evidence that we are anything but an evolved species on planet Earth. By 'evolved' I don't mean advanced, as 'advanced' buys into the progressive model of human development, and it's more fashionable to put that down as arrogance, rather than subscribe to grand narratives.
However, it's a little purblind of us not to consider the possibility of a trajectory, rather than humbly subscribing to the doctrine of haphazard mutation. Humanity has been so routed and demeaned since the Enlightenment that it (the thinkers, not the religios) now quite literally embraces (on faith, rather than continuing to test the notion) it's indifferent station in the 'scheme of things' (sorry, 'random universe'; Freudian slip). And yet, we are far from knowing where it all ends! Surely the most abiding prejudice we possess is our blind acceptance of the linearity of time; that is that we are on the crest of the wave and the future unfurls as pure affect--predictably. I subscribe, naively, to this doctrine of cause and effect, but that doesn't mean that the here and now is where human history is both consummated and immanent (the present). And if this is not the 'present', then the future may bound off almost endlessly. We base our 'convictions' on what we know now, inductively; and yet we have every reason to suppose that those convictions will be overturned, as they have been, dialectically, hitherto.
In other words, there could be meaning or progress in the universe (indeed this is not without precedent) and hence, 'purpose'?

Dear Squeers,

Which mutations are viable and passed on are not haphazard. I don't agree that Enlightenment demeaned humanity. I see humanity liberated and free to question. The biblical narrative placed humans above other species. Questioning that narrative placed us with the other species and made us realise we are part of nature.

Linearity of time is a western gestalt. In eastern philosophy there is the theme of cyclic time. This passed into western philosophy with Schopenhauer. Nietzsche's theme of eternal recurrence expresses this idea.

I don't believe in progress. I think the only meaning we can give to life is in our living of it. I think the concept of an ultimate heat death of our universe is valid and makes the idea of progress ultimately meaningless.

The twentieth century saw the barbaric Nazis and the murder of possibly 100,000,000 by various communist entities. Even literacy can disappear. Scripts of the Harrapan civilisation cannot be deciphered because no counterpart of a Rosetta Stone has been found. It is estimated that the area lost literacy for about 1,000 years.

From http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/harappa-mohenjodaro.html:

Although , Harappa was undoubtedly occupied previously, it was between 2600-1900 B.C. that it reached its height of economic expansion and urban growth. ... Between 2800-2600 B.C. called the Kot Diji period, Harappa grew into a thriving economic center. It expanded into a substantial sized town, covering the area of several large shopping malls. Harappa, along with the other Indus Valley cities, had a level of architectural planning unparalleled in the ancient world. The city was laid out in a grid-like pattern with the orientation of streets and buildings according to the cardinal directions. ... The city had many drinking water wells, and a highly sophisticated system of waste removal. All Harappan houses were equipped with latrines, bathing houses, and sewage drains which emptied into larger mains and eventually deposited the fertile sludge on surrounding agricultural fields.

They say the Lion and the Lizard keep
The Courts where Jamshyd gloried and drank deep:
And Bahram, that great Hunter--the Wild Ass
Stamps o'er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.

Davidf: <Which mutations are viable and passed on are not haphazard. I don't agree that Enlightenment demeaned humanity>.

Dear Davidf, on the first point I plead economy of expression; evolution is arguably both haphazard and derivative, probably mainly the latter. On the second point; I meant that enlightenment humanism has been repeatedly demeaned in its original anthropocentrism. Of course if you consider enlightenment an ongoing 'narrative', then the process has been enlightening, as you describe it, or at least naturalistically productive and humbling, though the philosophes were much less objective.
<I don't believe in progress. I think the only meaning we can give to life is in our living of it.I think the concept of an ultimate heat death of our universe is valid and makes the idea of progress ultimately meaningless.>
This is more the (potential) prejudice I was alluding to; the first sentence is expressive of positivism--faith in the validity of life (the universe and everything) as 'our living of it'. Why must we discount the possibility (probability?) that our senses (Hume's bundles), confabulated by the (hopelessly cultured) brain, are in error or inadequate? Indeed we know the brain is easily fooled, and the mind persuaded. Crude notions of progress are of course rightfully disredited. The second sentence, forgive me, is syllogistic; 'valid' in the context of the present big bang?
There has been human progress in techne hitherto, though nothing we can ascribe to 'natural causes', whatever that loaded phrase means; and yet human evolution is now synthetic--who knows where it will end, albeit its origins remain organic (natural).
The next sentence is (I think) existential, and we must all partake of the disgrace, though can the criminal never be reformed? Must the past damn us forever?
My point is admittedly metaphysical (in a post-metaphysical age); I doubt we as yet have the full benefit of hindsight, or perception, and so we must postpone judgement.
I can only assert that my scepticism is not born of wishful thinking, quite the opposite. Indeed, I'd be far happier if the world would conform with my intellectualism of it

David f,
“I don't believe in progress.”

Well.

Seems that you don’t believe in “evolution” then.

I wonder why cells don’t give up. I wonder why they have been programmed to keep on chooglin.

Also “Which mutations are viable and passed on are not haphazard.”

Correct.

So why does a cell attempt to control or direct genetic variation?

Seems like some type of plan has been previously programmed into each cell.

vanna et al: << David f,
“I don't believe in progress.”

Well.

Seems that you don’t believe in “evolution” then. >>

Wrong again. Evolution means change over time. It doesn't mean progress. Admittedly, a common misconception.

Have you looked up that TAFE course yet?

From a book that was never written.

God says to Adam, "I have some good news and some bad news. What do you want to hear first?"

Adam says, "Tell me the good news first."

God says, "I'm going to give you a penis and a brain. You'll derive from these great pleasure and great intellect."

Adam replies, "Wonderful! But what's the bad news?"

God says, "I'm only going to give you enough blood supply to work one at a time."

People! This maybe the problem. smile.

Evolution 1 and creation 0. It doesn't matter how many times you watch this football game, the score is always the same.

TTM.

CJ is quite correct to point out that evolution does not necessarily equate with progress; indeed it could be argued quite the opposite.
As Spencer pointed out, evolution shows close parallels to free market economics. Species, like workers, tend to become more and more specialised. This can be quite lucrative for the worker, but at the same time restrictive of employment possibilities, compared to one with more general skills.
A Humming bird is more 'highly evolved' than a magpie, but also more vulnerable to extinction.
This could be an argument for natural punctuated equilibrium, without requiring external catastrophes. Mass extinctions occur at intervals when species become too evolved; or perhaps just one keystone species becomes too successful, changing the environment to the detriment of those most highly evolved species.
Is an inevitable cycle of boom and bust evidence for ID? An economist probably wouldn't think so.

oh-dear/liver<<matter..and energy/interchangeable..(E=MC^2).>>.
they are not the same...energy?..[are you talking/about jules...ie heat-energy..or some/other..form of energy..be precice

we/talk about mass...[presuming atomic-mass..so how many protons/neutrons...wizzing/around..the atom...so wtf is this e=mc2/equation..but spin

MASS=jules=protons/neutrons../moving..real fast...plus..atomic weight/times the speed of light/times the speed of light...and..you get nuthin..but a mantra/spin

why can you..so ignorantly...make claim/..to atoms..in generic terms?

...and so mindlessly/repeat a non-sense/mantra's..[like evolution/and e=mc2]..is there any/ORIGONAL=thinking..between your blood/supply?

squeers..i resent/being called a relig-ion..ie<<intelligent/design..is a desperate attempt..by religion..>>please be specific...these generalities..are getting wearysome

just because your afraid to credit..any id relivant..yet/cant/dont rebut their specific-facts..if you are claiming...CREDIT-able ev=i-dense..for e-volution/of genus..present it

i agree..evolved..isnt advanced/..evolutionTHEORY..hasnt evolved beyond darwins/species..trying to avoid..the genus conundrum..!

human progres/is yet another buzzword..human stasis..seems more likely...your redirective use..of trajectory...appears subject/and suspect...

noting..it starts/with a bang..then at its end..falls rapidly/
back to earth..with a thud/..not equal to..the big/noise...which begun it...but spin..lengthens the trad-jury...opps..tra-jectury

we agree/mutation..is hap-hazard..but we have been demeaned..by science/god-heads..not enlightenment/..

i hold dear]..those/who do/did..real-science,..not just follow the leader/faith-fully..like some science/god-head

yet again/we find agreement..[we are far from knowing..how it ends...
but most surely/..for all..it ends sooner/or/later

but pure-pose...seems blatently patent..on pur-pose..
as their own..redirective use/..of buzzwords reveales

davids/claim..of being..'with nature'/..appears quite absurd...
when was the last time..you slept..in nature..a la natural...huh...?...

the last time/you ate/your food uncooked...are you using your heater/yet?...do you dig/..in the soil..or dig/..into the keys..of your computer...more...

we are far from/nature..in all its meanings...
and even when/..in nature..are the..odd/one out

cyclic-time...lol..there you go..time moves on..just because you think..your still 18...dont mean/..your not older/..or..that/you got any/more wiser

[these redirection's..links to the topic...how?]

how are we any-less''barbaric''than the huns,..,see israel starving the palistinians..or the yanks...dropping naplam..on the nips..[killing 20 million/of them..in the true hellfires...using napalm..[just before nuking them..into submission...]

or the slaughter of 1/million iraqies?..polpot/bosnia..the list is continues..endlessy/continuesly..[and i never mentioned the 25 milion/xtians..murderd by the georgia/bolchovics..let alone those murded..in the womb..[or by adverse reaction to perscribed drugs]

death thy name..is..in the name of humanity..
evolving/on a revolving planet...not via evil-lution it aint

the think..then move's..score keeping/..gets so stale
seems/he/she...has started from scratch....again...lol

Vanna

What I trying to do is look at the fundamentals of the archetype. We know pure water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. If apply electrolysis, we don’t find some mysterious x factor. Hence, I keep coming back to the same question in the various forms I have asked it:
Is organic chemistry ultimately reducible to inorganic chemistry?

The abve question is not asking about compounds or catalysts.

The primary elements found in all life came from either the Big Bang or stars. If you disagree, please name the exception(s).

I was puzzled by the context you used The Theory of Relativity in relation to valency. Elections can skip outer atomic orbits and energy is released but this is not the matter turning into energy. To follow on from above, it would be harmless, to use electrolysis to convert a 200 ml water into hydrogen and oxygen. On the other hand, if you were to apply E-mc2, a glass of water, one could wipe a major city off the map.

“Progress” is an awkward term. Mutation and adaptation are better. Ecology doesn’t if you are human or a nat.

runner,

Could please have a more direct reply. I will reframe:x
Is the Earth over one million years old?

Trav,

My typo. Sorry. Above should read:

“Popper was in an argument with Jung and noted the latter was claiming validity based on his thousandfold experience of (shaky) premise. Popper, replied, would to the effect, “with this discourse we have one thousandfold, plus one”. My point is that if you, the author and one thousandfold others, make the same error, it does NOT correct it.”

Also,

Is the Earth over one million years old?

Grim,

“As Spencer pointed out, evolution shows close parallels to free market economics. Species, like workers, tend to become more and more specialised. This can be quite lucrative for the worker, but at the same time restrictive of employment possibilities, compared to one with more general skills.”

Yes. A good tenet… There are more mechanics than blacksmiths these days.x

OLiver I will answer your question when you tell me how old you think the earth is and how you came to your conclusion.

Vanna,

Now CJ’s pointing out the ways in which you do not understand evolution. I had even pointed that out to you earlier when I said, “if you’re making the classic mistake of thinking that evolution is like a ladder to be climbed, then no, according to the theory of evolution, life does not increase or advance “in time””.

This leads me to what I was going to address in this post...

<<I’m also aware of people (and there appear to be quite a few on OLO) who automatically think that ID is religion, and they seem to religiously attack ID, because they religiously attack religion.>>

ID is certainly a part of a kind of religious belief. Like I suggested to Trav, you should look-up the deceitful origins of ID.

That you are not just the sceptic that you’re painting yourself to be is obvious to all here except yourself. Here’s just some of the reasons why:

-You don’t understand evolution or abiogenesis;

-When someone explains them you resist their explanation with all your might and simply continue to display your lack of knowledge from a new angle;

-You have difficulty differentiating between abiogenesis and evolution;

-You think the act of attacking religion can be classified as a religion itself;

-You’re ‘just sceptical’ of the only two branches of science that conflict with a particular brand of religious belief.

Why aren’t you sceptical of plate tectonics, black hole theory, the theory of gravity, germ theory or atomic theory?

Your alleged scepticism of evolution is either the result of a current religious belief or of childhood indoctrination. I suspect you’re in the same boat as Proxy - you don’t really believe in a god or any specific god anymore, but you’ve retained some inane beliefs from your indoctrination that you’re unable to let go of. This would also explain your rabid anti-feminism.

<<Their religion is to attack religion.>>

Attacking religion is not a religion in itself. I suggest you look up the definition of ‘religion’... http://tinyurl.com/cfuk3t

It is, however, commonsense considering what a destructive force religion has shown itself to be.

OUG,

Still pleased to learn you don't believe that the Creation can be accurately dated from the Bible.

Energy in E=MC2 is usually desinated in "ergs". I was responding to Vann seems to think matter to enrgy transmutation occues when atoms change valency.

david f,

"I don't believe in progress. I think the only meaning we can give to life is in our living of it. I think the concept of an ultimate heat death of our universe is valid and makes the idea of progress ultimately meaningless."

Yes, But playing devil's advocate to my real agreement with you, at the level of biological systems; we do have the Unmoved Mover (Aristotle) which fits in with the universe running down :).

The goal of being motionless, being, perhaps, divine (to the Ancient Greeks). In which case, biological systems are irrelevant to astrophysica progress.

If the universe (one model) cools to abolute zero over trillions upon trillions of years. Earth's little trek into life would be a flash in the pan.

ONE UNDER GOD

I would like to introduce you to your Islamic counterpart.

Meet:

kaanansay

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58304

If you became a Muslim you could be one of the leaders in the Jihad against evolution. It could earn you 72 virgins.

LOL ;-)

Dear Squeers,

There is progress in some areas. There is regress in other areas. I have the impression that the sum total equates to neither progress nor regress, but I could be wrong. There is definitely progress in science. Theories that prove inadequate are eventually discarded to be replaced by theories that better fit the phenomena described. By its nature science progresses.

In religion there is regress. The fairly tolerant pagan religions of antiquity have been replaced in our world by Christianity with its intolerance and narrowness as exhibited on this thread and other places. With its Dark Ages, Inquisitions, Crusades, hate-inspired Holocaust and other horrors Christianity is a definite retreat from paganism. Paganism had its horrors also, but they did not compare in scope with Christianity. Fortunately, secular democratic states can mitigate to some extent the horror of Christianity. There are also Christians such as Bishop Spong who have confronted their bloody history. However, rigid doctrinaires in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism are still perpetuating horrors.

I am considering the ongoing narrative of the Enlightenment. I have read recently or am going to read several books related to Enlightenment - Roy Porter's "Flesh in the Age of Reason" (the British Enlightenment), "The Chinese Enlightenment" and "The Anthropology of the Enlightenment". A Chinese academic is producing a book on the Chinese confrontation with modernity. My part of the study is to evaluate how similar what is called the Chinese Enlightenment is to the Enlightenment in the west.

your a funny-boy..steven...[on a lighter-note....if you ever/seen them virgins..you would know..why they are still virgin..

but..thanks/for the redirection..BUT..[it dosnt bring..back to life/..a single of the 50 million/american babies/..murderd since nixon...nor the 25 million xtians/..murded by the bolchovics[northern/semites]..

but then again/where is the sting of death..
if we can joke..about it..eh

oliver..
In one second,
..a 100 watt light bulb/emits 1000 million ergs of energy.

One watt..is equal to 10 million ergs/..per second.

One watt..is also equal to 1 Joule
per second of power,..

or 1 Joule/per second of energy consumption..or dissipation.

Einstein's/equation..states that/..the amount of energy..you have..
is equal to the mass involved..times..the square of/the speed of light.

as we can see/
it gives nice big numbers...lol

they of course..neednt be that huge..
[we could use jules...or watts..[or even horse/power...

but then/..we wouldnt look as clever..now
would we


<<Energy in ergs = 1 gram x( 30,000,000,000.0 cm/sec) x (30,000,000,000.0 cm/sec).

This equals 900,000,000,000,000,000,000.0 ergs of energy.

to convert this..into other physical units is a bit awkward>>>lol

but it fools/the fools quite nicely
and is a handy re=direction/mechanism

<<this means that a 100 watt bulb..running for 30,000 years produces as much energy..as 1 gram of matter/converted into energy.>>>something science hasnt managed yet

Or you can think of it/as 30,000 hundred-watt bulbs..burning for one year/the output from a small town lighting system.

There are other physical units..you could use as well.

If you don't like watts,you could use horse power....1 HP = 745 watts,/so 1 gram of matter converted into energy equals 1 HP expended for about 30,000/7.45 = 3500 years.

If you don't like grams,/you could use pounds...
1 pound = 453 grams..so 1 pound converted to energy gives you 453 x ( 900,000,000,000,000,000,000.0 )ergs.

If you like BTUs,..however,..1 BTU = 1055 Joules or 10.55 billion ergs per second over one second of time.

1 BTU = 100 watts( 100 joules/sec) x 10.55 seconds.

1 gram converted to energy..would then equal an expenditure of 1 BTU for:

900,000,000,000.0 / 10.55 = 9,000,000,000.0 seconds or about 300 years.>>

SO THIS/..RELATES TO rebutting..ID...HOW EGSACTLY

Grim,
Symbiotic relationships should also be taken into consideration, but don’t seem to be covered by the theory of evolution.

Evolution is normally defined as a genetic change (and a genetic change only) that enables a species to better survive and reproduce in its environment.

Change for the sake of it can lead to a waste of resources and energy for an organism, which is why a cell attempts to control genetic variation and limits mutations.

Much of what a cell actually does is in direct conflict with the theory of evolution.

Oliver,
If you are referring to electron valence shells, then carbon contans 4 valence electrons, it seeks 4 more, which means it can readily form covalent bonds, creating straight line, branched and benzene ring type arrangements etc.

Some have also proposed that other elements or compounds (eg even ammonia) could theoretically form the basis for living things, but various systems have been used to define a living thing, (eg ability to reproduce, has a metabolism, carries out homeostasis, can sense and respond to stimuli etc). So a piece of graphite is not defined as a living thing.

Certainly a mass spectrometer analysis of an organism such as a cell would show its basic atomic structure, but the analysis does not show why the cell wants to grow, survive and finally reproduce.

Even an organism with no neurons seems to know that it has a limited life span and must reproduce to continue its species, something the theory of evolution does not delve into much.

The theory of evolution tends to avoid such issues (too many deep and meaningfulls I suppose).

Davif f,
It is interesting that so many are in denial of ID.
Breeding hybrid plants and animals is ID.
Genetically modified food is ID
Genetic engineering is ID

There are even people currently employed by their governments to research possible ways of carrying out terraformation.

I can imagine if terraformation is actually carried out in the future. No one back on earth can be told, because so many have been made to believe that ID doesn’t exist.

Dear OUG,

"Energy in ergs = 1 gram x( 30,000,000,000.0 cm/sec) x (30,000,000,000.0 cm/sec). This equals 900,000,000,000,000,000,000.0 ergs of energy." -OUG

Yes, enormous energy from just one gram of matter. Herein, Vanna doesn't seem realise this fact and introduced E=MC2, where it was not relevant.

True, it is possible to convert between units of measurement. However, the "erg" is measurement physicists use with E=MC2.

Do you think runner believes the Earth is younger than you think?

Thanks for the data.

Vanna,

The levels of energy OUG and I are citing are many, many times greater than atoms switching electrons.

runner,

I believe that the Earth is at least as old as the oldest tree.

Now your turn' Is the Earth older than one milion years?

Hello David f,

I think we will find is some OLO posters do take the Bible literally. But, I do not wish, on this thread at least, to have a drawn-out debate on Genesis with these folk.

Dear Vanna,

There has been extensive work done on the role of symbiosis in evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory tells of the work Lynn Margulis has done in this area.

Two notable examples of symbiosis in evolution are the eucariote call and the lichen.

The organelles in the eucariote cell are similar to various procariote cells. It is supposed that the eucariote cell started as a symbiotic relationship of procariote cells that developed into a permanent union.

The same process took place with lichen where a symbiotic realtionship between algae and fungi became a permanent union.

ONE UNDER GOD wrote:

"your a funny-boy..steven..."

I'm not being funny at all. I think you will find many soul mates in Muslim Village.

Your new name could be:

&#1584;&#1575;&#1578; &#1587;&#1601;&#1604;&#1610; &#1575;&#1604;&#1582;&#1575;&#1604;&#1602;

Dear David,
sounds like a fascinating project and hopefully you'll put the odd article up on OLO about it (btw, I thought you were to be hosting a thread on Ethics?)

I'm also researching (Western) Enlightenment, it's effects on culture, and enjoying, among others, Raymond Williams's important book "Culture and Society: 1780-1950". While there can be no dispute over humanity's technological progress, it's social, psychological and cultural progress that seems so problematic, and which science fails to address, practically or existentially. A great many early Enlightenment thinkers believed in the perfectibility of the human spirit/mind through the spread of reason and culture, though such thinking was naively universalist. Detractors like Hume and Mendelssohn and Rousseau certainly did not believe in a technological march to human perfection--which, in any case, seems little different from the Christian doctrine of providence purging profane spaces.
And this is the problem, for me, with positivism; it's progress for its own sake, and/or its practical applications are prosthetically adapted to mundane utility, without provision (apart from diversion) for the individual or his/her irrational needs and existential horrors. Thus Freud despaired of ever exorcising humanity's demons. Even supposing technology could turn us all into Vulcans (castration would be a step in the right direction, I hear), what then would be the point in continuing?
It does seem that Enlightenment would ultimately consist then in a way to order humanity in a benevolent and sustainable manner that provides the optimal conditions for individual transcendence and social growth. That is why, for me, the current system has to be radically altered; because rather than cultivating security and positive attributes, it harnesses and exacerbates negative drives such as self-interest.
Religion at least gives a name to human 'evil' and chastises it (however ineffectually).
The ongoing age of reason does not cater for our Jekyll and Hyde personalities. Enlightenment elides Hyde, and religion represses him; it's a moot point which system is more dangerous or ineffectual.
Religion needs reason, or positivism needs ethics!
The problem is such that one does contemplate ID--"Iniquitous Design".

David f,
Symbiosis occurs between man and the bacteria in his large intestine, but an important question is why does symbiosis occur, or why do organisms want to live anyway?

An interesting question, if mankind is about to start creating synthetic lifeforms (but of course creating synthetic lifeforms is not ID)

Vanna,

What is Man or "human" is not straight forward. Only ten percent of cells in our bodies are distinctly human (Jones). We are colony. Viruses will adjust the likelihood of killing their hosts based on the probability of spreading to other colonies (other humans). Viruses are just a means to an end for a gene. Humans are just organic islands. Bacteria live on the island. Organisms don't choose to be born neither bacteria nor you nor me. Organisms living or dying is inconsequential to the universe. Living is a means to create the potential to pass on genes, a specific bacterium, bacteria or an animal (organic colony).

Yes, I am aware of all that Oliver. As I mentioned in a previous post, it may be theoretically possible for life forms to be based on something other than carbon, and the inorganic or organic structure of the organism is simply a means to carry life (or a life force).

Regards energy, matter and energy are inter-convertible (if not, then how does power actually come out of a nuclear reactor), but there can also be antimatter.

Combining together all, there was once nothing.

So why did nothing eventually create life, or why did life eventually come from nothing?

Not quite answered by the theory of evolution, (despite all the rhetoric).

vannakins: << Evolution is normally defined as a genetic change (and a genetic change only) that enables a species to better survive and reproduce in its environment. >>

Wrong yet again. You're talking about genetic adaptation and natural selection, not evolution.

<< ...why does symbiosis occur, or why do organisms want to live anyway? >>

Symbiosis occurs because organisms have evolved to be co-dependent on others for survival and/or reproduction. Most organisms don't "want" anything, they either survive or die.

<< So why did nothing eventually create life, or why did life eventually come from nothing? >>

The theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't purport to answer why, but it explains how very well indeed - far more so than the idiotic drivel propounded by Creationists, including the ID ignoramuses.

You clearly don't understand evolution or what is referred to by the disingenuous term "intelligent design". [Deleted for flaming.]

oliver..<<The levels of energy..OUG and I are citing are many,..many times greater than atoms switching electrons.>>...

this is deceptive...were stil talking about a theory

1 gram/..THEORETICLY contains..plenty of energy...
BUT IN THEORY ONLY

science cant recover it..one gram of toenail clippings..would barely light a light bulb..but such is the REAL PROBLEM..with theory...some think its fact..

in keeping it simple...i feel your thinking..i validate it...
i dont...weight depends on the atoms covelance bonds with protons/neutrons...etc...

[but science cant even explain..what an atom is clearly...
let alone recover the POTENTIAL energy..of the protons/neutrons..captured by it

in theory its simple..add in one extra/pair...and you got gold..
but that cant happen..let alone the reverse...lol..lead is lead/gold is gold..learn to live within the limits god set

yet the faulse/god-heads...of science..con the conned/decieved/awe=struck
..just give us a bigger cyclotron...lol..
maybe then we can get out more ..'energy'..than we put in...

its a joke

so too..is you asking me...what runner thinks...
i wouldnt presume..[nor be expected to know...
just like/..i can only go/..by what you say..not what you think..

we all have thought out reasons..for saying into word...anything..we chose to reveal

but any/..honest person...will confess to changing their belief..
according to the facts..that best suit our own personal ex-peer-iences

it shouldnt matter...what others think...no-one has any right to force reply..to what after-all..is not relivant to anything...only..yet more/destraction..in lue of fact

the bible stands alone...[science says big/bang...bible says..let there be light
science says..two bodies..brushed briefly together/then bang
bible says there is a heaven...there is a hell

science says lucy..the first human
bible says adam/first man...far as i can see nothing much different

bible says god created
science says..chance/random-selection/survival..of fittest

the bible dont say the first creation..nor does science

its the same elites...selling the same spin..to control the masses
to give science/or religion...instead of god...

go figure./.man-kind..has many liers
but as jesus said...this realm belongs to satan..to expect truth/here
is to be ignorant..of just who/is running things..down here

i will give you a clue..it isnt god
he did the nature/natural
..sustains/life..logic..the natural/creation..etc

man/kind..water/fire/wind..the elements/..chance..did the rest

Notice Vanna insists on saying, “the theory of evolution” rather than simply saying “evolution”. This is done as a subtle way of re-enforcing the naive argument that evolution is “just a theory”.

As well read as Vanna is on creationist propaganda, unfortunately he seems to have missed these two pages...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

Both pages state that, “evolution is just a theory” is an argument that should not be used since a theory in scientific terms implies “well established”.

Or perhaps he has read those parts that is why he’s doing it subtly by continuing to unnecessarily add ”the theory” rather than simply saying “evolution”.

OUG is very rehearsed in his spewing of creationist propaganda, so I’m surprised he’s made this very mistake in the beginning of his last post.

Vanna,

Has it ever occurred to you that even if you did have a point about the alleged unanswered questions you’re raising, that it would mean nothing other than the fact that we need to search for the answer?

The ‘God of the Gaps’ argument is a fallacy because it assumes that we will never be able to find the answers to the unknowns, or that we somehow should have found the answers by now.

You can’t prove creationism by pointing to gaps (let’s forget that those gaps aren’t actually there for a second) in our knowledge. You would need to find positive proof for the intervening of an intelligent being.

If we applied your mentality to every gap in our knowledge then we would still be burning heretics.

CJ Morgan,
Have you reverted to believing that Wikipedia is authoritative?

Oliver,
You said some Christians take the Bible literally (in the context of a flat earth).

I explained that the Bible has many literary genres (poetry, prophecy, love letter, etc). One is history (mostly Jewish history). Genesis is part of that history; it explains the origins of the Jewish people, including the origins of the world and all its peoples.

The Jews have traditionally dated their calendars from the first man and woman, Adam and Eve. This is an example of how Genesis was generally always plainly interpreted as a Jewish history book. The current Jewish year, I understand, is 5770, as counted from the from the creation week.

Nowhere in Genesis does it hint of a flat earth.

-

You ask me about the miracles of Jesus. The greatest miracle in the Bible, or the central focus of the New Testament, is the resurrection of Jesus. This is a miracle of unsurpassed magnitude. It’s about as tricky as creating the first man in the first place. Creating a star is not nearly as complex. A star is just a big ball of gas. A man is, arguably I guess, more complex than a galaxy. So we might conclude that man is the pinnacle of creation.

So, you asked me about the miracles of Jesus. Christians believe in the resurrection of Christ (the focus of the New Testament). Once you believe in that one, the other miracles are small by comparison.

David f,
The last time we spoke on this topic, you accused me of not understanding science, and you said that you regretted ever speaking to me. I’ll take your questioning of me as a change of heart.

To answer your question: have I investigated other religions? I like to think of myself as having a fairly broad education. I have travelled fairly extensively. And I have done some reading and study of various faiths. But my main interest and study is in the Christian faith.

Do you agree with Zimmerman that ID is ‘dead’ considering the hundreds of posts that the subject seems to generate?

Oliver you write

'runner,

I believe that the Earth is at least as old as the oldest tree.

Well finally we agree on something. Congratulations you do appear to believe in logic despite your evolutionary dogma.

Dear Vanna,

I don't try to answer 'why' questions. I think the ultimate 'why'
question is, "Why does anything exist?"

I am satisfied to try to answer the 'how' questions. How do things work and fit together? I know of no reason to assume that a supernatural exists. If something is beyond nature it is merely a human invention to talk about it. If something can be shown to exist it exists in the natural world and is not supernatural. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10065
contains my article "God is a Human Invention" which is an online opinion article.

You asked why do organisms want to live. They don't always want to live. When organisms lose too many faculties or are in terrible pain that cannot be relieved they usually do not want to live. I belong to Exit International which seeks to restore The Rights of the Terminally Ill (ROTI ) law which allows physician assisted suicide.
It was legal for several months in the Northern Territory until the
Commonwealth Parliament negated the NT law.
http://www.exitinternational.net/page/Home is the website of Exit
International.

I study fungi with the mycological society. We know certain fungi have
symbiotic relationships with other organism. eg. If we see an ash tree we look for an ash tree bolete which has a symbiotic relationship with ash trees. The mycelia of the fungi extend the root system of the tree providing more nourishment for both organisms. The how is fascinating. The why I leave for theologians.

Asking ‘why’ may be a cry of despair. “Why did this happen to me?” “Why am I distant from my family?”

From Gilbert and Sullivan:

Never mind the why and wherefore,
Love can level ranks, and therefore,
Though his lordship's station's mighty,
Though stupendous be his brain,
Though her tastes are mean and flighty
And her fortune poor and plain.

Dear Squeers,
I frequently consult “Keywords “ by Raymond Williams. In telling of the history and development of certain words used in “Culture and Society” it carries a wealth of useful and fascinating information.

I wasn’t aware I was hosting a thread on ethics. Tell me more.

Rousseau did not believe in a technological march to human perfection. However, he did believe that human beings were almost infinitely malleable. He also believed in the will of the people which some individuals in society might not share because of a lack of awareness. I believe these two ideas were basic to the oppressiveness of both Marxist and Fascist societies. The concentration camp and the psychiatric ward housed those who rejected the people’s will or needed further conditioning.

You are probably familiar with the relationship between Rousseau and Hume. If not http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/apr/29/philosophy carries a review of a book about their relationship and quarrel. The book is “Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers At War In The Age of Enlightenment” by David Edmonds and John Eidinow.

Where would the artistic heirs of Hieronymus Bosch be if we got rid of humanity’s demons?

Dear Dan,

I did not accuse you of misunderstanding science. I accused you of not knowing what it was. I wrote that after reading your definitions of science.

You may take my questioning as a change of heart. What right do I have to reject another human being?

ID is alive. That does not mean that there is anything worthwhile about it.

The resurrection is a common theme in pagan mythology. Mithra was buried in a tomb, from which however he rose again; and his resurrection was celebrated yearly with great rejoicings.

Osiris’ body was placed in a box but came again to life, and, as in the cults of Mithra, Dionysus, Adonis and others, so in the cult of Osiris, an image placed in a coffin was brought out before the worshipers and saluted with glad cries of "Osiris is risen."

“Pagan & Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning” by Carpenter has further details. The Jesus story incorporates pagan myth.

david/says..the bible is a myth
i say..evolution...out of genus..is a myth

so we have two opinions..
.
but lets see that people/swear on the bible
i have yet to see any-one swear on darwins evolution of species

i was raised an evolutionist...knew there was no god..for many years..but via activism..soon concluded i needed to read/what the courts/pasrliment/etc..regarded as the law/or rather the basis of law/govt

at this time/i was fully versed in evolution...found gregor mendel/and corrosponding with many experts in genetics..mendelic inheritance..for egsample..refutes evolution...

[no where in the mendelic/ratio's..is there made provision..for a change of genus..let alone species..inheritors..distribute.according to mendelic ratio's...live with it

those with less understanding..of the rules of genetics..think in species...even the media/..talks in species..

[like today/on abc...they talk of many species..going extinct..on the great/barier-reef

WHEN what they are really meaning..is extiction of families..or rather.families...of species..[genus falls between those two hard science classifications

darwin knew of genus...families/species..but chose to use evolution of species...[ie micro evolution..within the genus species..thus he talked of doves/pigions..in the genus liva..

thus he talked of dogs..in the genus canna..but those getting their spin friom media..simply dont get the science..think that applicable to species/ALONE..applies thus to genus./families etc...but it cant..due to the genus barrier

we have people speak of species...as if thats it...but there are species..that NEED symbiotic relationships...[no gall wasp...no figtree/no fig...

no fungi..no lillypilly...there are literally hundreds of codependant relationships such as these..

but those ignorant of this will yet be decieved..not fully knowing the rules/laws..of science..but content to play word play with why/who..in lue of explaining the clear how..;

let alone explain..that they claim to believe.
.or rather the science..they claim..
underpins their FAITH..in science.....ie faith..not fact
if its not fact..its not science

i should let them decieve themselves

they endlessly demand evidence of others..yet in their hearts know they are too dumb..to grasp the basics of the science..they trust so blindly...decievers/..claiming the science

they think they are so smart...backing the guys in labcoats..
but they simply speaking have bought ignorantly..into a deception

if the truth be known...none but god..really knows
and god is content..for us to believe/as we chose..

thats freewill

Dear David,
So, it is not that I misunderstand science; I just don’t know what it is. Thanks for that assurance. It makes me feel a lot better.

I’m glad you agree that ID is alive. Zimmerman rails about the damage that a dead thing is doing. His article is large on emotion, but misses the target. Many of the posts just follow suit.

Zimmerman’s article is not up to standard, coming from someone who I’ve heard has a PhD in science.

The proponents of Intelligent Design don’t think of themselves beyond criticism. But if someone could write an informed critique of ID, then maybe we all might learn something.

Dear Dan,

I have gained the impression that there are there are OLO posters who believe the Bible, literally. Perhaps, owing to the nature of the Forum, if my assumption is true, our biased population does not represent Christians as large. Rather, some selection process (ahem) has them more common here.

I would agree that there is little direct claim for a “flat earth” in Genesis. But the order of creation which suggests a vault is created over the earth is interesting. Fully logical, as Babylonians and earliest Egyptians used the model: e.g., the god, Nut. This idea is reinforced in Job 22.14 and 37:18.

The Jews had several ways of counting from Adam and Eve (Theiring), with competing versions of solar and lunar calendars, having calendars of 354 days and 364 days. This is why Judeo theists had different dates for their End Times.

Are you saying that “walking on water” and “turning water into wine” might not have happened, literally? That there could be some sales pitch in the NT: A mnemonic device, perhaps. Substitutionary random aside.

Dear Runner,

I have answered you. Herein, you know from earlier threads, I was referring to tree rings.

Now do what you promised: Answer my question, please.

Dear Vanna,

Matter and antimatter eliminate each other. They can co-exist, but separately. It is theorised there is some asymmetry to the expansion of the universe. E=mc2 and matter/antimatter are at substrata underlying atoms (and other particles), when atoms exchange electrons to make elements, energy is released by not of the same high order.

So you agree that what ever biological transmutation took place, known elements go into the black box (state machine) and known elements come out. Any change is “not” to fundamental elements?

Dawkins hints at symbiotic relationships developing to a point where the organisms essentially act as one; “Perhaps, even we ourselves”.

Dear OUG,

The early Jesus movements had to be harmonised with Roman beliefs. Moreover, the template for the Christian trinity was almost certainly copied from the Egyptians (Wells). Ancient religions applied “syncretion”: i.e., meld beliefs.

Dear DavidF,
thanks for the link to the Hume-Rousseau spat, which I wasn't aware of. I read Rousseau's "Confessions" years ago but don't recall reading about Hume in there. I also have "Keywords".
I thought you said something on another thread about co-writing some article on Ethics? But no matter.

I don't know that getting rid of Humanity's demons is possible or desirable; both Hume and Rousseau demonstrate how much of our lives is sheer performance, and the reality of what lies beneath. I met someone recently who argued that Schelling's late thought, rather than building on German idealism, argued not only that, a la Hume, we had no access to 'reality', but that we are to a man quite 'mad'.
I regretted after posting my last that I didn't cite "paranoid self-interest" as the fuel of capitalism, as competition among us at every level is downright vicious beneath surface complaisance.
However, humanity's monadological eccentricity is perhaps also the driving force behind our aspirationalism. Possibly the healthiest way to sublimate our demons is to "obsess rationally", which leads in turn to sporadic 'progress'. However, rationalism is an affectation and I don't think we will ever become that race of Vulcans Dawkins dreams about--not even one of us. A vast number might even need supernaturalism to counter and make sense of their demons.

"Rest not in an ovation, but a triumph over thy passions.Let anger walk hanging down the head; let malice go manicled, and envy fetter'd after thee. Behold within thee the long train of thy trophies not without thee. Make the quarreling Lapithytes sleep, and the Centaurs within lye quiet. Chain up the unruly legion of thy breast. Lead thine own captivity captive, and be Caesar within thyself" (Thomas Browne).

Rationalism will never prevail as an ideology; its only one shallow persona among a far more colourful host in the average breast, and easily imposed upon. The human psyche seems intrinsically irrational and perhaps needs extrinsic complementarity. Moreover, this internal strife is probably productive of creativity, 'meaning' and sometimes even sanity.
Establishing first causes is typically monomaniacal.

Oliver,
If you admit that there’s not much direct claim for a flat earth in Genesis, why do you keep banging on about it? Does it have anything to do with Zimmerman’s article on ID?

Certainly, many OLO posters, such as myself, and many in the community take a straight forward historical approach to Genesis, which has been the standard Christian view for the greater part of two thousand years. That does not mean they read the poetry in other parts of the Bible as something other than poetry.

If I wasn’t clear earlier, I’ll try to be so now. I accept the miracles of Jesus as described in the gospels. A God who could create everything should be able to change water into wine or walk on water.

Oliver,

Obviously something is keeping matter and antimatter apart, as it would be rather unfortunate if the drifted together.

However back to ID.

Much points towards eventual terraformation, and the spreading of life onto other environments other than Earth. That may be just science, or it may be a highly technoligical form of evolution.

If it happens, it would be best to define the reasons for seeding life elsewhere, so that suitable organisms can be designed and synthesised.

Perhaps answering the question of "Why does life exist" is beyond mankind at present. Although we may develope the means to create synthethic life, we have not developed the answers to basic questions.

The theory of evolution does not help much in answering those questions.

OLiver you are not telling the truth. You have not told me how old the earth is in your opinion and how you reached that conclusion. Now how old is it and how did you reach that conclusion?

Dear Dan,

1. There is some history going back to earlier related OLO threads on "fundamentalist" belief regarding a literal Bible.

2. My side-bar was extended when you said "no" Christian takes the Bible literally. Some do. That is why I am prompting runner, as a candidate, to poll our regulars.

3. While Genesis is not where the flat earth emphasis is (other parts of the OT and NT make better citatios), there is a "hint" (your word).

4. Assuming some of out OLO friends do believe divine creation c. 4004 BCE, it is valid to recognise this situation.

5. I was "not" clear to me clear that you take OT miracles as allegory, yet NT miracles, as fact. Actually,I was leaning towards a your belief that Jesus' death on the Cross made other miracles rather obsolete/unnecesaary.

6. If one takes an "historical" view, scriptures were being re-written all the time. The OT and Dead Scrolls show this. Moreover, some pre-Nicaean gospels (e.g. Thomas)are not as definite on the divinity of Christ.

7. The notion of how gods create life and messiahs defy physics is intertwinned with ID, I suggest. A god who could create everything would be acting out of the character/synch. of the divine creation, suspending physics. Would be a man? It is something a mendicant might appear to do, though.

8. Looking at ID requires dissecting religions.

Hello Vanna,

1. If there is natural antimatter in our universe, it is probably typically kept apart by the expansion of the 4-D universe itself.

2. I would be cautious about seeding planets. If we introduce cells, exo-planetary viruses on a host plane if these exist could invade Johnny's apple seeds.

In classical times there were tales of gods romping around on Mt. Olympus. No doubt some people believed the stories of the gods were true. As far as I know nobody around today regards them as truth in any way.

Other tales from that time and earlier of miracles have been preserved in the Bible. From the postings on this list it is evident that some people believe that those miracles actually happened.

People believe in one set of ancient legends but not the other.

Makes no sense to me.

runner,

Very quickly because Dan and I tring to ascertain if there are Biblical literalists, not debate the age of the earth. So, assuming you will respond in as agreed:

What is known about the BB and visible universe horizon, places the universe at around 12-15 billion years. The sun as a third generation star that has been around for say 5 billion years. The previous star would have produced heavy metals that formed the earth. The half-life of uranium is known and the residue would suggest that earth is around 4-5 billion years old. We can regress to DNA back at least 3 billion years and before that time, the plane would not have a pleasant place.

The background radiation of from the BB was predicted and later confirmed, so our starting point for the universe seems okay.

Some atoms would be older than the earth.

I recall reading somewhere that the cooling of the earth was a problem of the Christian, Isaac Newton, who realised that earth must have taken epochs to cool.

I have done as you asked. We can discuss the detail another day.

-How old do you believe the earth is? One one million years?

oh..oliver...if science replictes research..thats good science..[yet cold-fusion hasnt been able to be replicted..lol]..

why if one res-erection..preceeds..the better known one..is this 2de/a copy...some bias..perhaps?

i have explained/the wine/thing..being an egsample of perception...
further..the walking on water thing..[people needing miracles]..[just like evolutionists...need their missing/link..or to be decieved/re dna=creating life...

human nature..covers both sides..[pride goeth/before the fall]

appoligies/to those believing in miracles...[i saw the vile-ffects of booze]..read how jesus/would only drink-new/wine..

[that makes sense..as grape/juice..cant ferment in heaven]...walking on water..was a translation for dock...anyhow it is a minour point..jesus specificly rebuked/those needing miracles[oh ye unbelieving nations]

science witnesses matter./
but anti-matter is yet a theory.

..same with dark-matter..[that is simply/a mechanism..to explain/away..the flaws in scienctheories/modeling...when their science dont confirm their theory/..human-nature/creates explanations..where we should be lusting after truth

as to why life egsist's...shouldnt be complicated..it does..
yet science confirms..only life can come from living/
let the dead tend the dead..

any theory/unable to prove itself..cannot be anything more than a hoper/belief...life egsiasting..is a fact...thus must have an inteli=gent...cause...if only that life teaches...every affect/had a cause...action/re-action

eliminate..all the possabilities...and you get left with some/intelligence/cause..hence the sustain-ability of ID..evolution hass validity/at the species/level...there has never been any observed/proven..mutation..exta genus

a warm-blood..from a cold-blood..is an insane possability...that some cow type/creature...that evolved into some carnivore..before 'returning'..to the sea...to become a whale...lol

thats just so nuts/insane..see how the truth needs to be stretched beyond logic...?

no i guess many of you decieved/by the science spin...cant see that

god..has been missrepresented...he sustains our every heartbeat/sustains every action of the autonimous bio=logical function..in every life...isnt that enough

my theory..being in time..we all harmonise...as one..living loving being...being one under/god.../as this occurs..the big bang reverses...

till in time...with a big bang..the next satan...falls to earth..[with half the angels]..

yet again..and we begin the next/big expansion/bang

the back/presure..of the fall/
big bang..affects all time[my theory being ..time is relitive..,as to where/we are...in the bigbang/expansion...

in its earlier stages..darkness must abound...

at the at/one-ness state..all is light..
its a theory..
lets get to the oneness/state...and test my hypo=thesus

Dan,

At my Anglican church yesterday our regional bishop preached a sermon that touched on the replication of artificial DNA announced this week and the billions of years it has taken for stars to grow and collapse and hence create the heavier elements necessary to human life and the solar system itself. Part of his message was that science and religion need not be enemies, and we should not look to science to verify literal interpretations of the bible.

Anyway, back to the dinosaurs.

The problem with your first argument is this – it may be possible to prove that a meteor did not cause the extinction of the dinosaurs, but I think it extremely unlikely that we’ll ever get hard, verifiable, scientific evidence that God was the “something else” that did it instead. Hence this is not, properly speaking, a scientific theory.

Your flood example is more promising, because it holds propositions that can be tested by scientific inquiry. If humans and other animals had all but died out a few thousand years ago, and we are all descendents of a handful of survivors, then this would be evident in our DNA. It isn’t. If a flood had covered the highest mountains on earth to a height of 15 cubits, it would be evident in geological and archaeological records. It isn’t. All that water would have to have come from, and gone to, somewhere. There is no evidence that the earth has ever had so much water, and no conceivable way that such a volume of water could subside in time for survivors to re-establish on land. Hence the flood example qualifies as a scientific theory to the extent that it can be disproved – which it has.

Oliver

I believe the earth is much younger than a million years. More than likely less than 10000 years. And yes I have no reason to doubt the 7 day literal creation. In my view this is the most rational account for one to place their faith in. Faith in evolution is not only unscientific but also illogical.

oLiver: Seeing as you’ve asked the same question at least three or four times in my absence, I’ll answer it for you!

I believe the earth is billions of years old as this seems the most reasonable belief given the strong scientific evidence for it. However, I must add that I’m still very skeptical of the certainty with which scientists claim to know the exact ages of both the universe and the earth.

Why should we take Genesis above others? Its philosophical statements make more sense and/or are corroborated by evidence: The human condition, one God, and beginning to the Universe being three of the main statements.

AJ: Why bother with the semantical games? Most modern day ID proponents more or less believe in the evolutionary story of history. Yet, by confusing it with a term associated with young earth belief (creationism) you don’t help discussions at all.
The rest of your post seems to lean on the foundations of these confused definitions, so unfortunately I can’t really reply as I’m not 100% sure what you’re actually arguing. If you’re arguing that young earth creationism is bankrupt, I completely agree.
In terms of my own beliefs, I don’t believe things are as clear cut as you claim. There is most certainly strong evidence for evolution, but there is definitely some things which can be taken as evidence for ID. I’d suggest you consult John Lennox, Steven Meyer, etc. Personally I lean towards full scale acceptance of evolution, but it isn’t that much of a big question to me- I actually wish it was discussed less as my opinion is that people on both side of the God arguments make far too much of it sometimes. Some Christians put too much emphasis on God’s direct intervention and primary causation, and some Atheist types seem to think evolution is the answer to almost every question anyone ever asked, and they can take it to the point of absurdity sometimes. Any explanation will do- so long as it includes evolution!

[Part 2}
And no one on either side ever makes convincing arguments (to me, anyway) about why the truth of evolution would cancel out God or make him extremely unlikely.

Regarding scientific evidence, I can’t share your philosophies here as they make little sense to me. To see how little sense they make, do a little thought experiment. For the sake of argument, imagine there is a being who brought the universe into existence and is responsible for the natural laws we observe through science. That is, you’re imagining deism. Now, could such a God be detected by scientific research? Clearly not. In fact it was scientists and rationalists in the 18th and 19th century who actually came up with the concept.

Now, is such view of a God all that different from the God of theism? Yes and no. Yes if you swallow arguments against miracles. I find them weak. There’s no reason why, if God created the universe, he couldn’t step in and act within the world he created. And again, would such a God be detectable by Science? No, clearly not.

You claim that “anything that manifests in reality is measureable, demonstrable and verifiable” and is thus explainable and measurable by Science (implied by your positive response to my previous question). But this view is absurd. Why? Well there’s one thing that everyone agrees exists. Some claim that they are the only beings that exist (solipsism), others create thought experiments to help us ponder whether an evil demon is responsible for our world (Descartes). Most claim that we live in a universe, some claim we live in a multiverse. But there is something we ALL agree on: SOMETHING EXISTS. But this something cannot be measured or explained by science. Science does a fantastic job at explaining how the elements of the natural world work together, but it cannot explain why there is a world to begin with, much less why this world should have observable natural laws and appear so ordered and so finely tuned for life like us.

(part 3)

To argue that science must be able to measure ANYTHING, as you have, is clearly allocating a privilege and status to science which extends far beyond it’s actual scope.

Science doesn’t tell us that there is or isn’t a reason for existence and the universe- it can’t, it simply remains silent. However, in the interests of intellectual honesty, we all must admit that science itself is based on presuppositions that it itself cannot justify, and that there are certain questions which science simply cannot answer because they are outside it’s scope.

As Edward Feser says here (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174) “For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.”
In fact, science itself must be taken on faith, as the legendary atheist physicist Paul Davies explains in this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html).

The Existence of God is fundamentally a philosophical and theological question to be pondered. It is shallow to suggest that God, if he did exist, would reveal himself from within a test tube. After all, would Hamlet be able to detect Shakespeare if he went looking in his attic? No, for Shakespeare was the reason for the story and the creator of the story, but not a physical part of the story itself. This is what I, and many philosophers and theologians, hold God to be: The ultimate playwright. The Grand storyteller. The Divine Mind behind the universe. In that context, I hope you can see why I believe that objections about God not being detected by science simply miss the point, and are extremely impotent.

Actually Dan, while some of those looking on don't believe that ID is dead, it is for the scientific community. The broader social community however, believe otherwise, which is why you occasionally see it twitch when they try and run a few volts through it when it suits their purposes. It's these attempts to convince the kids that it's alive and well that upsets most scientists and scientifically minded indivuals, because they really do believe in quality education and relegating obsolete hypotheses to the dustbin of history. We don't see caloric theory being resurrected do we? This is probably because it doesn't threaten a religious view of the world. But I'm sure that many would get very upset if it was to be presented as valid alongside modern theories.

ID has serious flaws that won't allow it to be resurrected, Zimmerman deals with the "argument from perfection" angle, but this isn't the most serious, as evidenced by the comeback "but the Designer could have designed us imperfect". You may not fully understand this, but the most serious flaw is actually the argument from chance. Dembski's work on "specified complexity" is predicated on events or phenomena that have less than 1 in 10 to the power of 150 chance of occuring randomly. Unfortunately he uses Gaussian probability to calculate the probability of a specific thing (eg. protein sequence) occurring by chance. This type of probability calculation relies on all the events in a string of events being fully independent of each other. Unfortunately that is not the way biochemistry works, biochemical reactions are not independent of each other.

For an example of how this sort of probability works, if I were to toss a coin 100 times in a row, and each toss is truly independent, the chances of all of them coming up heads are 0.5^100 or less than 1 in 10^30. If I were to try it, it would take a loooooong time (perhaps millions of years), if it were ever to happen at all.

cont'd

If however, a 'heads' result was to slightly improve the chances of the next toss coming up heads, say a 0.1% or so increased chance, then it would be much more likely to occur. In fact, an additional 0.1% chance over 100 coin tosses makes it better than 1000 times more likely, a 0.2% better chance makes it several million times more likely.

Evolution works just like this through natural selection, winners are more likely to produce winners. Selection happens at a lot of places, not just at the level of the external environment, deleterious mutations are often don't survive the gamete stage.

Also, Dembski ignores the fact that just about every species has a different enzyme sequence for nearly all enzymes, that do the same job in each organism, which means that there is very likely millions of combinations of amino acids that can do a specific job.

Which brings us to another problem with ID: Behe's "irreducible complexity". Every example of "irreducible complexity" that Behe has come up with has been shown to be reducible, and that homologs of the genes/ proteins involved are readily identifiable in other species, even though they don't have exactly the same sequences, they do the same jobs or related jobs, sometimes even different jobs while retaining the same or similar structure. This is entirely consistent with and supportive of evolutionary theory. That someone can mutate a part of a gene and have the system it forms a part of not work within a specific context actually doesn't tell us much about either evolution or ID, except perhaps which mutations are unlikely to be retained under specific conditions.

Anyway, that's my problem with ID, the probabilities are wrong. Without recognising the problem they have calculating the probabilities of particular strings of biochemical reactions, the Discovery Institute will be struggling to get ID's heart started, let alone have it stand up in court. I don't think I'll get into much discussion on this one, unless it's to clarify a point perhaps, because the theory of evolution is under no threat from these guys.

Rhian,
Thanks for your summation on the flood.

And I hope you can see my simple point. It is possible to investigate and evaluate evidence concerning a proposition, despite it relating to a Biblical event. The conclusion we might come to after viewing the evidence might be different (we’ll leave that for another day), but the point is that it is possible to investigate and evaluate the evidence.

Certain atheist leaning people want to have it both ways. They want to say that any proposition involving God can’t be scientifically evaluated, and then they say it has been evaluated and shown to be false. Well, it has to be one or the other.

In your post of last Wednesday (19/5) you’ve dismissed ID as unscientific, but I don’t see why. Scientists already employ tests to examine intelligence. For example, archeologists dig up a pot and find scratches or markings on the side, and then examine the markings to decide if they were deliberate markings of an intelligent agent (perhaps writing or art) or natural erosion.

Can’t this be analogous to ID?

Oliver,
I tried to answer your specific questions, but I’m a bit fuzzy as to what point you’re trying to make.

What I said was no Christian takes ALL of the bible literally. It’s a matter of correctly interpreting the intention of the biblical writer. Clearly, some parts are easier to discern than others. Most of it is pretty obvious.

Therefore, of your eight dot points:
I disagree with points 1 & 2.

I disagree with point 3. The Bible does not teach a flat earth. (I said there is no hint of it.)
Point 4 is roughly okay (but I still struggle to understand its relevance to what you’re trying to say).
I don’t understand what you’re saying in point 5. You may have misunderstood me.
I disagree with point 6. Genesis has never been rewritten. The Dead Sea Scrolls would confirm this. And the gospel of Thomas is not part of the Bible (It wasn’t accepted as part of the Christian canon).

But overall, I think you were heading towards points 7 & 8 as some kind of conclusion.

I don’t think that ID requires a dissection of religion. Look above at David f’s definition of ID (22/5):

“Intelligent design is the assertion that ‘certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.’ It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.”

With ID, the definition of God is pretty loose. It doesn’t depend on Scripture.

I don’t think miracles interfere with the concept of a creator God (If that’s what you were getting at in point 7). The physical norms of the universe describe the underpinnings of God’s creation, which we are privileged to investigate. Miracles describe God’s intervention within the created order.

With over 200 posts and counting here, are we ready to admit that Zimmerman was wrong and ID is not dead?

Trav,

There are no semantical games going on here. I know exactly what I’m talking about.

<<Most modern day ID proponents more or less believe in the evolutionary story of history.>>

That depends on what you mean by “evolutionary story of history”.

<<Yet, by confusing [ID] with a term associated with young earth belief (creationism) you don’t help discussions at all.>>

I’m not confusing anything here. The only difference between ID and creationism is that ID proponents aren’t fussed about any specific god. Some aren’t too fussed about timelines either, but that’s it.

By refusing to give ID legitimacy, I am in fact helping discussion.

<<There is most certainly strong evidence for evolution, but there is definitely some things which can be taken as evidence for ID.>>

Could you give an example?

I’ve asked creationists for evidence many times and I knock down every bit of ‘evidence’ they give in an instant. Heck, Dan S de Merengue eventually stopped giving me “evidence” because he grew tired of me debunking everything he said.

<<I’d suggest you consult John Lennox, Steven Meyer, etc.>>

Yes, I know their arguments, and they’ve all been debunked repetitively or have been shown to be fallacious. For example, Meyer’s “signature in the cell” isn’t exactly Occam’s razor-friendly, and fails to acknowledge that just complexity does not imply design. Complexity arises from either sloppiness or necessity and a perfect being would not be sloppy, nor would they need to make living creatures so complex when they could simply use magic.

<<...no one on either side ever makes convincing arguments (to me, anyway) about why the truth of evolution would cancel out God or make him extremely unlikely.>>

When I mentioned evolution and the existence of god, I was speaking from my own personal point-of-view. The purpose of evolution is not to disprove any gods.

<<...could such a [deistic] God be detected by scientific research? Clearly not.>>

Why not?

And if they can’t be detected, then we have no way of distinguishing between this deity and something that doesn’t exist, so why bother?

Continued...

...Continued

When trying to understand something, we compare it to, and make use of things that we do understand. So if god is this immeasurable, non-demonstrable and unverifiable thing, then all we can compare him to and make use of to understand him is... nothing. After all, you can’t answer a mystery with a mystery.

Holy books are of no help either considering (as david f pointed out on this thread already) there is no reason to believe one over the others.

<<Now, is such view of a God all that different from the God of theism?>>

Which god of theism? There are billions of people in the world with millions - if not billions - of different ideas about who god is.

It’s kind of amusing in a way. A billion or so people in the world have a personal relationship with Jesus and yet not one of them can agree on what exactly he wants.

<<There’s no reason why, if God created the universe, he couldn’t step in and act within the world he created.>>

Yes, just as there’s no reason why we should believe that these miracles occurred when they go against every bit of practical knowledge we’ve acquired. For example, we have two choices:

1. We can believe that some old scribblings from ancient primitive people are true and that the purported miracles happened, or;

2. We can conclude that are just old stories and fables, and that none of it happened as it was purported to have.

Now from your day-to-day life experiences, what would you say was more likely?

Unless you witness verifiable miracles from time-to-time, or unless you have some special reason for which you are willing to forgo rational thought in this particular instance, you would have to pick 2.

It’s just too co-incidental that the more we learn about the world in which we live, the less frequently miracles occur and the less appearances god makes to people.

<<And again, would such a God be detectable by Science? No, clearly not.>>

Again, why not?

Continued...

...Continued

<<You claim that “anything that manifests in reality is measureable, demonstrable and verifiable” ... But this view is absurd.>>

No, it’s not absurd.

If a multiverse exists, then some day it will be demonstrable and verifiable. That it is not yet demonstrable is irrelevant to what I’m saying. But most theists claim that god is transcendent and will never be demonstrable or verifiable. So again, you can’t, and never will be able to tell the difference between your god and something that doesn’t exist.

<<[Science] cannot explain why there is a world to begin with...>>

What makes you think there is, or has to be a ‘why’?

<<...much less why this world should have observable natural laws and appear so ordered and so finely tuned for life like us.>>

Yes, life like us. If things happened differently then it may have been life like something else, or they may have been no life at all.

To say that something couldn’t happen because it is unlikely is ridiculous when we know it did happen. It’s the ‘Argument from Incredulity’ fallacy.

<<Science doesn’t tell us that there is or isn’t a reason for existence and the universe- it can’t>>

And neither does religion.

<<...science itself is based on presuppositions that it itself cannot justify...>>

But it’s all we’ve got, and it’s proven itself to be very reliable.

<<It is shallow to suggest that God, if he did exist, would reveal himself from within a test tube.>>

A god that is willing to punish disbelief is obliged to unambiguously reveal himself, and I don’t believe that a perfect being would reward gullibility over reason.

<<After all, would Hamlet be able to detect Shakespeare if he went looking in his attic?>>

We are talking about a non-existent being creating existing life, not an existing being creating an non-existent life.

<<I hope you can see why I believe that objections about God not being detected by science simply miss the point, and are extremely impotent.>>

I hope that you can now see that they don’t and that they are not.

Dan S de Merengue wrote: "The proponents of Intelligent Design don't think of themselves beyond criticism. But if someone could write an informed critique of ID, then maybe we all might learn something."

Dear Dan,

How do you know what the proponents of ID think? How do you know what is in the minds of the other proponents?

Belief in the existence of an entity such as an Intelligent Designer is no evidence for the existence of the entity.

An informed critique in the belief in the existence of the Tooth Fairy would logically start out with the examination of the mind of the person who believed in the Tooth Fairy since there is no evidence for the existence of the Tooth Fairy. I have no basis for criticism of those who believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy as long as they are content to enjoy their beliefs and not interfere with science or the teaching of science.

Belief in the existence of a Tooth Fairy or an Intelligent Designer is a pleasure that like masturbation can be enjoyed alone or in company.

There is no more evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer than there is for the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

A number of years ago my wife and I had the pleasure of a visit from a delightful six year old girl who lost a tooth and found a coin under her pillow next morning. We discussed the possibility of the Tooth Fairy visiting her when she got back to Adelaide.

"Sure she will. Adelaide is a big city."

Our delightful friend is now 24 years old and studying in New York. She no longer believes in the Tooth Fairy. She has grown up.