Scientists Speak About Intelligent Design

Mr. Bill,

That entire video is another example of Lying For Jesus.

Let's start with Steven Meyer, and his co-conspirator Richard Sternberg. Sternberg abused his position as editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. to publish a non-peer reviewed screed on ID, written by Mr. Meyer. The article was rebuked and renounced by the editorial staff of the periodical for the best of reasons: It's a lie.

Jonathan Wells has a "pHD" in Religious Studies, hardly a reference for his being a stellar proponent for ID or anything else scientific. He is closely attached to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, another bastion of progressive thinking, and his anti-evolution rants come from that "Reverend's" opinions.

Scott Minich is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, and is therefor suspect as to scientific objectivism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Minnich
His attachment to the discredited "Dr" Michael Behe stains his views badly.

Jay Richards has a pHD in Theology and philosophy, hardly a credential for spouting his opinions of biology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Richards

Robin Collins has a pHD in philosophy. Yet another person who is ill-equipped to give expert testimony on evolutionary biology.

I hardly need mention the sad case of Guillermo Gonzales. Dr. Gonzales was denied tenure at Iowa State for lack of published, peer-reviewed contributions to the state of science, as well as his overall lack of promise in the field of astronomy. Hardly a reference for any controversial, positive notion.

Lee Strobel is a journalist and preacher. OK, as far as that goes, but he's no authoritative voice on evolutionary biology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Strobel

Mr. Bill, if these sources are the best you have, your argument is as weak as I thought it was. Nice music, slick video, extraordinarily weak science.

DF

One of the talking heads is listed as a "Philosopher of Science", another as a "Philosopher of Biology."

Would you take your car to a Philosopher of Auto Mechanics?

Do Click and Clack count?

DF

Hi Deep,

If you had said anything different, I would have been disappointed. Your disapproval lends credibility to what is said on the video.

On the other hand; if you HAD agreed with anyone on the video -- I would have had to rethink my position. How could I possibly believe that anyone you would believe would be credible?

Thank you for that accreditation. Now, I know that I can continue to recommend the video to other Friends.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by CrustyMac:
One of the talking heads is listed as a "Philosopher of Science", another as a "Philosopher of Biology."

Would you take your car to a Philosopher of Auto Mechanics?

I can't speak for the people in that video or their credentials, but I can say that Philosophers of Science do indeed have the requisite credentials to critique their scientific field of inquiry. Karl popper was a philosopher of science, as is Roger Penrose and many others.

I may not take my car to a philosopher of auto mechanics for repair, but if I had a question about how it REALLY worked at the most fundamental level, I would rather have the philosopher answer that instead of the mechanic.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
Do Click and Clack count?
DF

They were educated at MIT. They have to try not to sound incredibly smart. Seriously.

quote:

Thank you for that accreditation. Now, I know that I can continue to recommend the video to other Friends.

Like the Expelled video, your discredited series will succeed in convincing stupid people of the validity of a 6000 year old earth.

I beleive educated people will see the lies be motivated to explore rationalism.

Mr. Bill,

Yes, you can count on me to stand up for truth and reality every time they are assaulted by superstition, lies, and nonsense.

Every time.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by SittinPurdy:

quote:

Originally posted by CrustyMac:
One of the talking heads is listed as a "Philosopher of Science", another as a "Philosopher of Biology."

Would you take your car to a Philosopher of Auto Mechanics?

I can't speak for the people in that video or their credentials, but I can say that Philosophers of Science do indeed have the requisite credentials to critique their scientific field of inquiry. Karl popper was a philosopher of science, as is Roger Penrose and many others.

I may not take my car to a philosopher of auto mechanics for repair, but if I had a question about how it REALLY worked at the most fundamental level, I would rather have the philosopher answer that instead of the mechanic.

Okay, I'd never heard of a Philosopher of Science. From what I can tell, degrees in Philosophy of Science seem to be awarded by History Schools or Departments.

So, if I want to know the history behind auto mechanic thought and theory, I'll get a Philosopher of Auto Mechanics help. Otherwise, I'll get an auto mechanic to help me understand how an engine works, or an engineer to design one.

Hi Deep and Fish,

Yes, I know I can count on you for the truth -- much the same way as I can count of a used car salesman to sell me a car which has no problems.

By the way, Fish, you seem to have a low opinion of folks educated at MIT. I guess where you got your doctorate is a much better school -- but, I do give a wee bit of credit to those poor folks who got ed-you-kated at rundown old MIT and CalTech. Since their education is of such low quality -- I just don't know how they can make it in the real world.

But, of course, I know that you are doing much better and will make a fine politician -- for the school where you obtained you Ph.D. is far above lowly old MIT.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Mr. Bill,

This car is certified, inspected, maintained, runs like a top, and is guaranteed 100%. Money back if you're not delighted.

The thing that bugs me is that you and the rest of the C/ID crowd knows that the world is very old, and that evolution occurred, yet you will not admit it. That sort of deliberate dishonesty is a bit grating, I must admit.

DF

Hi Y'all,

While I know that you look down your very knowledgeable noses at those guys who have only the title "Philosopher of Science" or the title of "Philosopher of Biology" and such; I wonder if you know what that means. Have you ever wondered, or cared, what the letters Ph.D. mean? Well, to be sure you have a well rounded education -- Ph.D. means: "Doctorate of Philosophy" in different fields, i.e., a person with a Ph.D. in Biology can also be called a "Philosopher of Biology" -- or a "Doctor of Philosophy in Biology" as a person chooses.

A list of advanced degrees taken from a college web site:

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology:
Doctor of Philosophy

Biology :
Master of Science
Master of Science (Research)
Doctor of Philosophy

Biomedical Engineering:
Master of Science
Master of Science (Research)
Doctor of Philosophy

Chemistry:
Master of Science
Master of Science (Research)
Doctor of Philosophy (Integrated & Applied Sciences)

But, I guess these do not match your Ph.D. in BS. Or as one of our Used Car Salesmen Duo likes to say, "It's only MIT. What do they know?"

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

*shaking my head at Mr. Bill re MIT*


DF

quote:

By the way, Fish, you seem to have a low opinion of folks educated at MIT

Bill,

You misunderstood. I was simply pointing out that Click and Clack are MIT graduates. Nothing more or less.

Most people don't know that.

quote:

The thing that bugs me is that you and the rest of the C/ID crowd knows that the world is very old, and that evolution occurred, yet you will not admit it. That sort of deliberate dishonesty is a bit grating, I must admit.

DF

excuse me DF, but you are not speaking the truth. you have no right to assume that you know what i think, and that i'd lie about it. so your 'bugs' are coming from another source.

hip,

I was being generous, as I always am. The alternative to the hypocrisy of which I spoke is irredeemable stupidity.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
hip,
I was being generous, as I always am. The alternative to the hypocrisy of which I spoke is irredeemable stupidity.
DF

so you are saying that (I) am either a liar or forever stupid? and i should rather choose to be a liar than stupid?

first of all, liars are in danger of hell-fire, and lying to anyone is not worth grieving my Father or giving up my Heavenly home.

where do you get the hocus-pocus to read minds? only God can do that. be careful in attempting to elevate yourself to His lofty presence. pride comes before a fall, you know.

some day you will stand before Almighty God, and you will answer for all your slurs against Him and His children. i have already forgiven you, but without repentance on your part, God will hold you accountable for every innuendo and ugly word you say. may God have mercy on us all.

Hip,

I'm not saying you're a liar or forever stupid. You can learn.

We know, as a species, that Creationism/ID is not true. We have developed and learned and discovered the knowledge to *know* this.

But, as you have admitted, science is not your thing. If you are going to opine on the validity of science, you should educate yourself first or risk looking IDiotic. Biology is a scientific pursuit. You can bow out of the discussion, but otherwise you must either accept the mountains of evidence for evolution, come up with another scientifically-based explanation for the development of species, or look like a fool.

ID is not a scientifically based alternative. It's a religious alternative, and we have way too much experience with religion posing for science to take that seriously anymore. We've gone beyond that.

Shaking my fist at god? That is absurd on the face of it. You shaking your fist at science is much sadder.

Hocus pocus is your milieu, not mine. I do, however, know reality and truth when I see it, and when it comes to biology, you do not or you will not. That brings me back to my original point: C/ID is either hypocrisy or irredeemable stupidity.

DF

you have your 'facts', and i have mine.
i'll stand on God's Word. you can stand on any sinking quick-sand you choose, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
hip,

I was being generous, as I always am. The alternative to the hypocrisy of which I spoke is irredeemable stupidity.

DF

Hi Deep,

The real alternative is God's Truth -- and it is not an alternative. It is the Truth.

Deep, you worship at the feet of science; I worship at the feet of Him who created science. Is that ignorance or stupidity? No, it is only good sense to bet on the winning horse; especially when you have been given irrefutable inside info on the race.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

you're not entitled to your own, personal facts.

Facts are facts. They are factual to everybody. THIS is the fundamental problem with religion, especially as it relates to science.

Facts are provable, demonstrable, repeatable, and understandable. You have NO facts to demonstrate ID. None whatever. Not one.

I have a mountain of facts. A range of such mountains. Genetic mutation and natural selection are facts. Iron clad facts.

Sorry, hip, you can shake your beads and rattles at me all you want. Chant curses at me and cast spells to your heart's content. It's all superstition and nonsense.

I repeat: If you support C/ID you are either a hypocrite or helplessly stupid. Sorry, those are your choices.

DF

Hi Deep,

Actually, I am not an ID proponent; for I flat out believe in Creation as described in Genesis. Genesis is full of facts; and I believe them.

You say, "Genetic mutation and natural selection are facts."

I don't disagree with you. Genetic mutation is another term for adaptation. People, animals, plants all adapt to their environment. That is why you have people of all color skin; adapting to their environment with more or less skin melanin.

Natural selection does not disagree with the Bible either. It is normal that weaker species die out and stronger ones survive. Nothing unusual about that.

Where you and I part way is when you try to tell us that one species can evolve into a totally different species. I don't believe a horse was ever a fish. I don't believe that a fish became a land animal, then a monkey or ape, then a human. There is absolutely zero fossil record of anything like this happening. The "missing link" is still missing -- and will continue to be.

Could non-life cells floating in a primordials swamp suddenly become life? No. Life does not come from non-life; just a matter does not come from non-matter.

So, you see, Deep, on some things we agree. However when it comes to black magic, life from non-life, a fish becomes a horse or a man -- then we go down different paths. I still find Genesis much easier to believe. And, on top of that -- I have God backing me up.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

so you are saying that (I) am either a liar or forever stupid?

I would say that, Hip. Sad but true.

The earth is more than 6000 years old, Hip. Dinosaurs and man did not live at the same time. Two of every living animal and plant did not survive on a boat for over a month.

If you beleive those events are literal, provable science then, yes, you are either stupid, ignorant, lying or perhaps all the above.

I think you are simply ignorant. Bill is a transparent liar.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

so you are saying that (I) am either a liar or forever stupid?

I would say that, Hip. Sad but true.

The earth is more than 6000 years old, Hip. Dinosaurs and man did not live at the same time. Two of every living animal and plant did not survive on a boat for over a month.

If you beleive those events are literal, provable science then, yes, you are either stupid, ignorant, lying or perhaps all the above.

I think you are simply ignorant. Bill is a transparent liar.

Hi HippieGirl,

As we have both noticed over the months -- take LIAR, STUPID, and IGNORANT out of Fish's vocabulary -- and he would be tongue tied.

Sort of like: Hey, Fish, cat got your tongue?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Mr. Bill,

Do you want to erase those words from GF's vocabulary?

Stop posting Creationist nonsense for a couple decades. He'll dry right up.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
Mr. Bill,

Do you want to erase those words from GF's vocabulary?

Stop posting Creationist nonsense for a couple decades. He'll dry right up.

DF

Hey Deep,

Maybe I can pray for the cat to get your tongue also.

Ah, such serenity and peace we would have here.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't you?

It's not going to happen.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
Hip,

We know, as a species, that Creationism/ID is not true. We have developed and learned and discovered the knowledge to *know* this.

That's funny, I have never heard of such knowledge. The last time I checked, the cosmologists were still trying to reduce the BB singularity to a time prior to Planck time (10^-36 seconds). One way some theoretical physicists have attempted to circumvent this issue is with the creation of of superstring and Brane Theories, but these theories are not complete in that they're merely reductionist approaches that pass the buck on down the line, so to speak. They conspicuously avoid the questions of "why" and "when" it all started. Even worse, they can't even describe what "it" is except in very abstract mathematical terms that have no empirical validation.

Then we have Darwinism and the theory of evolution that derived from it. Essentially the TOE shows quite well that living organisms mutate, evolve and adapt, and it provides a decent explanation of what life is. However it, like the above-mentioned cosmological theories, is incomplete and says absolutely nothing about how or why there is life as opposed to simply non-living matter. It appears that life itself, in a sense, violates the principle of entropy just as the cosmological theories appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics (at least if you take the theories backward far enough to their logical conclusions -- that something came from nothing).

quote:

But, as you have admitted, science is not your thing. If you are going to opine on the validity of science, you should educate yourself first or risk looking IDiotic. Biology is a scientific pursuit. You can bow out of the discussion, but otherwise you must either accept the mountains of evidence for evolution, come up with another scientifically-based explanation for the development of species, or look like a fool.

Hippie might be uneducated in science, but her questions are quite pertinent. And, as I said, Evolutionary theory says nothing about the inception of life, rather it merely explains what we see in regard to the diversity of life and the underlying genetic structure of said life.

I agree that Evolution is as close to indisputable as a scientific theory can be (next to Relativity and Quantum theory) but I feel it is incomplete due to the fact that these questions of "how" and "why" seem inexplicable using the traditional scientific method. Likely the reasons for this is that the entire method of scientific inquiry (epistemology) is flawed and needs to be revised with alternative forms of logic such as infinitary logic or various forms of formal quantum logics. We also need to find away around Godel's incompleteness theorem before we get too "sure" of ourselves in regards to the internal consistency of our theories. I think we will see a paradigm shift in regard to what questions are asked and what is a reasonable answer to those questions.

quote:

ID is not a scientifically based alternative. It's a religious alternative, and we have way too much experience with religion posing for science to take that seriously anymore. We've gone beyond that.

ID in its purest form should say nothing of religion. I realize that many of its proponents do, but the pure study of the "big picture" of the universe, time, space, the beginning, ending, alternative realities etc., should have a place in the academic community.

quote:

Hocus pocus is your milieu, not mine. I do, however, know reality and truth when I see it, and when it comes to biology, you do not or you will not.

So, is your definition of truth that "one knows it when one sees it?" This isn't satisfactory.
How exactly are you sure of your sense perception and its accuracy? Have you checked all of the scientific arguments for possible logical flaws? Have you considered Idealism in a formal sense?

quote:

hat brings me back to my original point: C/ID is either hypocrisy or irredeemable stupidity.

1) Irredeemable stupidity to is posit that truth has no particular definition at all. One can be sure of something and be wrong, so this definition of truth is unsatisfactory.

2) I fail to see how the fact that some entertain the thought of a supreme intelligence is hypocritical. I assume you say this because of the inaccuracies in many Christian's thoughts about science, but this fact in itself does not diminish the study of the possibility of a God.

quote:

Originally posted by SittinPurdy:
I fail to see how the fact that some entertain the thought of a supreme intelligence is hypocritical. I assume you say this because of the inaccuracies in many Christian's thoughts about science, but this fact in itself does not diminish the study of the possibility of a God.

SP, do you believe in a god or gods?

quote:

Originally posted by SittinPurdy:

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
Hip,

We know, as a species, that Creationism/ID is not true. We have developed and learned and discovered the knowledge to *know* this.

That's funny, I have never heard of such knowledge.

Sure you have. You mentioned it later on in this same post: Epistomology. Of course we cannot "know" anything with absolute certainty. We can only have degrees of such. I "know" the sun will rise tomorrow with an immeasurable amount of doubt. Evolution is a little less likely than the sun coming up tonorrow but I can "know" it is true with great (but conditional) confidence.

But, besides all that, Creationism and ID are simply not science. Science demands testability. The concept of "A Designer" is not testable by any epistemological, empirical, natural means. Ergo, it is not science. You attempt to make it so does not wash with the scientific method.

quote:

The last time I checked, the cosmologists were still trying to reduce the BB singularity to a time prior to Planck time (10^-36 seconds).( . . .) Then we have Darwinism and the theory of evolution that derived from it.

Non sequitur and a common Creationist argument. Evolution deals with how biological systems evolved, not with their origins. Yes, logically, the evidence suggests an unbroken line of existence from the BB to evolution but the relationship stops there. Origins and evolution are wholly different theories that attempt to explain their seperate sets of evidence. It just so happens that one theory supports the other quote nicely.

But if the BB is found to be caused by the flick of a noodle from the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which is real) that will not change one single facet of evolutionary theory. In that respect, the two are mutually exclusive.

quote:

It appears that life itself, in a sense, violates the principle of entropy

Not at all. If that were true, nothing, I mean nothing could self-organize. Matter would not exist. No, Sittin, entropy deals with open systems. Evolution is a close system. This is really nothing more than young earth creationist science-babble that really has no basis in the natural world. If what you say is even remotely true, then you are suggesting a non-natural basis for origins. That immediately disqualifies you from logical, rational debate.

quote:

Hippie might be uneducated in science, but her questions are quite pertinent.

Questions are always pertinent. It's her (and Creationist's) conclusions that are fundamentally, almost psychotically invalid.

quote:

I agree that Evolution is as close to indisputable as a scientific theory can be (next to Relativity and Quantum theory) but I feel it is incomplete due to the fact that these questions of "how" and "why" seem inexplicable using the traditional scientific method. ( . . .)

2) I fail to see how the fact that some entertain the thought of a supreme intelligence is hypocritical. I assume you say this because of the inaccuracies in many Christian's thoughts about science, but this fact in itself does not diminish the study of the possibility of a God.

And here you go off into the netherworld of logical fallacy and untestable pseudoscience.

No one here denies the "possibility" of a god any more than we can say with certainty that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. You can say the IPU exists all you want but until you present some teatable evidence, it is quite rational to say "The IPU does not exist."

quote:

That's funny, I have never heard of such knowledge.

SP

Interesting quote, since you say in the next paragraph that natural selection is "as close to indisputable as a scientific theory can be". When we have proof on such a confident level, we make a provisional conclusion that a theory (or hypothesis) is true. To do otherwise is the Nihilistic morass that says "if we cannot know something beyond any conceivable doubt, then we cannot place any trust in it whatever". That's absurd. We need not plot every point on a graph to draw a curve.

The "How" of natural selection we understand pretty well. The "Why" is a more philosophical, even metaphysical, issue, meaning each of us can come up with a unique answer as respectable as any other. That is not science, but another thing altogether. Here's one: One of the fundamental, defining properties of life is the propagation of the living thing. There's a "why", for what it's worth.

Regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I agree it is profoundly relevant, but evolution does not violate it. I refer you to a short article by Richard Dawkins, http://richarddawkins.net/article,453,The-Only-One-in-Step,Richard-Dawkins who can, of course, explain it much better than I. He also discusses it at more length in "The God Delusion" and elsewhere.

Nothingness is not necesarily the logical conclusion of a backwards regression of either cosmology nor biology. Regarding cosmology, I have already admitted that science does not know from whence the universe came. This is honest ignorance. Inventing an answer, such as a timeless god poofed it into creation is highly unsatisfactory, however, as that brings up more unanswerable questions than it solves.

We've experienced the "god did it" paradigm, and found it less than lacking. There is not one thing in the universe, including itself, which requires the existence of god to explain. This, as well as the complete lack of evidence for an objective god, makes the insertion of gods an unnecessary complication in the modern sciences.

You know as well as I that Intelligent Design is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo. The hypocrisy of which I spoke is that cognitive dissonance of knowing the age of the world and life, and disbelieving it to make religious points around the neighborhood. Not knowing that the Grand Canyon didn't form in the last 6000 years, and that simpler life forms lived and died millions of years ago is inexcusible, yes irredeemable, stupidity in these modern times in America. I cannot believe anyone intelligent enough to navigate this forum is unaware of that knowledge. That would make such stupidity moot on this forum, and we can dismiss the concept and just say that C/ID is hypocrisy and nothing else, if you'd like.

As always, I'm enjoying your posts.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Y'all,

While I know that you look down your very knowledgeable noses at those guys who have only the title "Philosopher of Science" or the title of "Philosopher of Biology" and such; I wonder if you know what that means. Have you ever wondered, or cared, what the letters Ph.D. mean? Well, to be sure you have a well rounded education -- Ph.D. means: "Doctorate of Philosophy" in different fields, i.e., a person with a Ph.D. in Biology can also be called a "Philosopher of Biology" -- or a "Doctor of Philosophy in Biology" as a person chooses.

A list of advanced degrees taken from a college web site:

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology:
Doctor of Philosophy

Biology :
Master of Science
Master of Science (Research)
Doctor of Philosophy

Biomedical Engineering:
Master of Science
Master of Science (Research)
Doctor of Philosophy

Chemistry:
Master of Science
Master of Science (Research)
Doctor of Philosophy (Integrated & Applied Sciences)

But, I guess these do not match your Ph.D. in BS. Or as one of our Used Car Salesmen Duo likes to say, "It's only MIT. What do they know?"

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Thanks for the explanation, Bill. I'm a total moron, and appreciate being talked down to.

However, having never heard any of my Ph.D. friends refer to themselves as philosophers of biology or philosophers of physics, I was obviously confused. Usually, these people call themselves biologists or physicists.

Thanks for setting me straight... oh, wait, when I look up philosophy of biology, I get this explanation:

"Philosophy of biology

Main article: Philosophy of biology

Philosophy of biology deals with epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical issues in the biological and biomedical sciences. Although philosophers of science and philosophers generally have long been interested in biology (e.g., Aristotle, Descartes, and even Kant), philosophy of biology only emerged as an independent field of philosophy in the 1960s and 1970s. Philosophers of science then began paying increasing attention to developments in biology, from the rise of Neodarwinism in the 1930s and 1940s to the discovery of the structure of Deoxyribonucleic acid in 1953 to more recent advances in genetic engineering. Other key ideas such as the reduction of all life processes to biochemical reactions as well as the incorporation of psychology into a broader neuroscience are also addressed."

They aren't scientists at all, just philosophers. I'm pretty sure your Ph.D. friends will be pretty irked that you are comparing them to philosophical hacks.

Duke offers a degree in Philosophy of Biology. I notice that it is through the philosophy department and requires a couple of 200 level courses in biology. Hardly makes these people biologists. However, they will earn a Ph.D., so my calling them "hacks" is probably unkind, unless they are misrepresenting themselves as scientists, which you were.

quote:

Facts are provable, demonstrable, repeatable, and understandable. You have NO facts to demonstrate ID. None whatever. Not one.

DF, with this one fact, i don't need any others. and the FACT is, that i believe in Almighty God, who created the universe and everything in it. what you believe is of no consequence to me, other than i am grieved that you don't know Jesus as your Lord.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Sorry, hip, you can shake your beads and rattles at me all you want. Chant curses at me and cast spells to your heart's content. It's all superstition and nonsense.[quote]

DF, it is quite clear that you have no understanding of God Almighty. He certainly doesn't operate thru beads, rattles, curses, or spells. He is the all-powerful God of all the world. He needs no hocus-pocus to get the job done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I repeat: If you support C/ID you are either a hypocrite or helplessly stupid. Sorry, those are your choices.
DF [quote]

some would say, 'who died and left you in charge of choices?'
i wonder why you say such things, just because i believe differently than you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~


so you are saying that (I) am either a liar or forever stupid? [quote]

I would say that, Hip. Sad but true.[quote]
It's her (and Creationist's) conclusions that are fundamentally, almost psychotically invalid.
[quote]

GF, i forgive that you call me names, and attempt to negate my character. it is sad that you feel you must do so, because it detracts from the point in your posting. how can any of us learn thru derogatory remarks?

quote:

DF, with this one fact, i don't need any others. and the FACT is, that i believe in Almighty God, who created the universe and everything in it. what you believe is of no consequence to me, other than i am grieved that you don't know Jesus as your Lord.

Hip,

Belief exists. You are proof of it.

Before the currently fashionable god, people believed in Apollo, Zeus, Neptune, Thor, feathered serpents, volcano spirits, divine children, and holy objects and fantasies of all sorts. You don't believe in them any more than I do. I go one god farther, however, because belief in Jahwah is as irrational as all the others.

quote:

some would say, 'who died and left you in charge of choices?'
i wonder why you say such things, just because i believe differently than you.

You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs, but you know that dinosaurs and men never lived together. You know this, and if you say they did, then you are a hypocrite. You know that biological species developed to their current forms over billions of years, and if you deny this, you are a hypocrite.

Faith is believing in something you know isn't so. That does not make it admirable. Quite the contrary.

DF

quote:

You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs, but you know that dinosaurs and men never lived together. You know this, and if you say they did, then you are a hypocrite. You know that biological species developed to their current forms over billions of years, and if you deny this, you are a hypocrite.

Faith is believing in something you know isn't so. That does not make it admirable. Quite the contrary.
DF

you say that i am 'entitled' to my own beliefs, then call me names if i don't believe as you. how silly. and you do not 'know' what is in my mind. your continuously saying so doesn't change my thinking one bit. perhaps you have to repeat it, to try to convince yourself or others who doubt your wisdom.

as the Bible is my source of God's Word, i'll take my definition of faith from Him....
Heb 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

websters definition:
faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.


i don't base my beliefs on the hope of man's admiration, but on the assurance of Almighty God's Truth.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

Sure you have. You mentioned it later on in this same post: Epistomology. Of course we cannot "know" anything with absolute certainty. We can only have degrees of such. I "know" the sun will rise tomorrow with an immeasurable amount of doubt. Evolution is a little less likely than the sun coming up tonorrow but I can "know" it is true with great (but conditional) confidence.

Funny you use that analogy of the sun. Go and google for David Hume's "problem of induction." Hume makes good arguments for the fact that just because something has been consistent thus far in experience does not mean one can assume it will be true in the future, no matter how ostensibly "certain" it appears to be.

quote:

But, besides all that, Creationism and ID are simply not science. Science demands testability. The concept of "A Designer" is not testable by any epistemological, empirical, natural means. Ergo, it is not science. You attempt to make it so does not wash with the scientific method.

Yes, but testability requires sense perception and sense perception requires a couple of assumptions:

1) That our sense perception is an accurate representation of reality.

2) That everyone can agree on the results of sense perception.

And this is before one even considers Cartesian mind/substance dualism.

Many scientists scoff at these notions, yet they don't have very good arguments against them. Modern science as we know it closely follows the epistemology of positivism. They are simply relying on sense perception as being accurate. Keep in mind, I am not anti-scientific by any means, I just consider all schools of thought.

quote:

The last time I checked, the cosmologists were still trying to reduce the BB singularity to a time prior to Planck time (10^-36 seconds).( . . .) Then we have Darwinism and the theory of evolution that derived from it.

quote:

Non sequitur and a common Creationist argument. Evolution deals with how biological systems evolved, not with their origins. Yes, logically, the evidence suggests an unbroken line of existence from the BB to evolution but the relationship stops there.

Yes I know. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough (and that's my fault). What I meant was that the modern theory of evolution was a result of the older Darwinism (evolutionary theory has been revised since Darwin's books were written. I didn't mean to say that evolution was somehow tied scientifically to cosmology.

quote:

It appears that life itself, in a sense, violates the principle of entropy

quote:

Not at all. If that were true, nothing, I mean nothing could self-organize. Matter would not exist. No, Sittin, entropy deals with open systems. Evolution is a close system.

Actually it is the reverse, entropy deals with closed systems. But you are right, many physicists and chemists will say that entropy, as it was postulated in regard to thermodynamics, is not applicable to life. However, it should be noted that this is only because the methodology hasn't been devised for such experiments.

This is a complex topic because there are various "types" of entropy; one of the more interesting being Shannon entropy where Shannon showed a few basic laws of entropy in theoretical digital and computer systems (back in the 1940's).

quote:

This is really nothing more than young earth creationist science-babble that really has no basis in the natural world. If what you say is even remotely true, then you are suggesting a non-natural basis for origins. That immediately disqualifies you from logical, rational debate.

How would you define non-natural? Something not inherent just on earth or something not in the universe itself? Or would you say something that is not part of any possible conceived reality, either physical or mental, whatsoever? If there is a God, he/she/it is certainly a part of the "natural" order of things.

quote:

And here you go off into the netherworld of logical fallacy and untestable pseudoscience.

I fail to see how saying that a "God" can exist without religion is a logical fallacy.

quote:

No one here denies the "possibility" of a god any more than we can say with certainty that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. You can say the IPU exists all you want but until you present some teatable evidence, it is quite rational to say "The IPU does not exist."

You seem to dismiss the possibility of God out of hand (and it seems to be for emotional reasons). I don't. Remember, the conception of a "God" as I define it is more like a system of order or "syntax" rather than some moralistic being sitting on his heavenly throne. Not to sound like a New Age guru, but perhaps I would define it as a "cosmic sentience" or a self-consistent system of order that cannot de facto be defined by laws of physics as we know them today. Physics and all of science is based strictly on the empiricist school of philosophy (more recently positivism). Basically, for this reason, science will likely always fail to answer the "big" questions.

Remember one must ask, "why does something exist instead of nothing." Science can explain what we see and how it works, but it cannot explain the more fundamental questions. This is not to say science is unimportant, it certainly is not.

As I said previously, likely there will be a paradigm shift in the methodology of science/philosophy in order for these questions to be answered. I think there needs to be a revival of Idealism, which then can be bridged with science. It must start with a fundamental rethinking of the methodology of what knowledge is, how it can be achieved. Further, the major problems in the "philosophy of mind" need to be reconciled and combined into the existing scientific method. This has been tried many times and it still being tried. Perhaps one day it will result in a successful synthesis.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:

quote:

That's funny, I have never heard of such knowledge.

SP

Interesting quote, since you say in the next paragraph that natural selection is "as close to indisputable as a scientific theory can be". When we have proof on such a confident level, we make a provisional conclusion that a theory (or hypothesis) is true.

True inasmuch as the empirical school of philosophy (science) is able to ascertain. There are many problems with interpreting empirical truths as absolute truths for reasons I have already stated. There are still far too many problems within the realm of the philosophy of mind for this to be the case.

quote:

To do otherwise is the Nihilistic morass that says "if we cannot know something beyond any conceivable doubt, then we cannot place any trust in it whatever". That's absurd. We need not plot every point on a graph to draw a curve.

I am not advocating nihilism. I am saying that approaches to knowledge are incomplete and flawed in some fundamental ways.

quote:

The "How" of natural selection we understand pretty well. The "Why" is a more philosophical, even metaphysical, issue, meaning each of us can come up with a unique answer as respectable as any other. That is not science, but another thing altogether. Here's one: One of the fundamental, defining properties of life is the propagation of the living thing. There's a "why", for what it's worth.

But that runs into the "Prime Mover" problem. This is not to say I agree with the scholastic philosophical notion of a prime mover, but logically this is where your line of reasoning takes us.

There is a perhaps apocryphal story that is famous amongst philosophical circles regarding infinite regresses of causality. Hawking discusses it in "A Brief History of Time" (he says it was Bertrand Russell, other sources say it was William James). Essentially it goes like this: a philosopher was lecturing a lay audience on the nature of the physics of the universe and after the lecture an old lady said something like "your explanation of the universe is flawed, the earth actually rests on the back of a tortoise." The philosopher recanted and said "But what does the tortoise stand on." The lady said "Very clever, but you can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

Of course, as Bertrand Russell said in his famous book, "Why I Am Not a Christian," this argument basically says that God had to be created from something, and his creator had to be created,ad infinitum.

I think for this reason causality must be ditched somewhere down the line, which is why I suggested in a previous post that the fundamental methodology of science has to be reworked. As I pointed out, newer theories like String Theory and M-Theory essentially use the "turtles all the way down" argument. Basically, new formal logics have to be introduced to all of science, so perhaps something like quantum logics may be in order. In fact, as you may know, quantum theory (specifically the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) says that quantum systems have inherent, irreconcilable uncertainties in them that can only be calculated with probabilities. Quantum theory states that there will always be unknowns and gaps in our knowledge. I think this is true because of our flawed sense perceptions.

quote:

Nothingness is not necesarily the logical conclusion of a backwards regression of either cosmology nor biology.

True, but if you don't accept nothingness you must accept infinity. Either way, it's the "turtles all the way down" paradox.

quote:

Regarding cosmology, I have already admitted that science does not know from whence the universe came. This is honest ignorance. Inventing an answer, such as a timeless god poofed it into creation is highly unsatisfactory, however, as that brings up more unanswerable questions than it solves.

It brings up the inevitable "from whence did God come?" Likely, as I said, our notion of causality is likely only relevant to the universe as we observe it -- and is not relevant beyond what we observe in the here and now (and the "here and now" is very unintuitive, see Einstein's relativity) .

It is widely known that the laws of physics have changed dramatically since the early period of the BB. If this is true, it also means the laws of causality have changed. Since there is no way to "test" causality in a time before our own existence, we will likely have to fuse various epistemological methods with the current scientific paradigm. Empiricism alone wont cut it, therefore the scientists will be reduced to doing what I am doing -- using various untestable arguments.

quote:

We've experienced the "god did it" paradigm, and found it less than lacking. There is not one thing in the universe, including itself, which requires the existence of god to explain.

I disagree. Besides the obvious causality issues, we also have the "here and now" problem of mind/body dualism and the issue of determining exactly what consciousness is and why it exists. In order for a species to be "successful" in evolutionary terms it does not need consciousness. There are many examples of unconscious living organisms that are perhaps more resilient than humans and will likely survive after we are exterminated, whether through war, famine or natural disaster.

quote:

This, as well as the complete lack of evidence for an objective god, makes the insertion of gods an unnecessary complication in the modern sciences.

Ockham's razor only applies when there are better and simpler explanations. There is no simpler explanation because there is no other explanation at all. I am not trying to say I am certain a God exists (I certainly don't claim to know), but I think it is imperative that people keep an open mind.

quote:

You know as well as I that Intelligent Design is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo. The hypocrisy of which I spoke is that cognitive dissonance of knowing the age of the world and life, and disbelieving it to make religious points around the neighborhood.

I have never said the earth is 6000 years old. I don't believe that and I think it can be easily proven based on fossils, geology, carbon dating, etc. And the age of the universe can be easily proven based on Hubble expansion and the inflationary model. It can also be shown to be 13.7 billion years old based on other factors like cosmic background radiation.

As I told GoFish, you are erroneously assuming that "God" necessitates a 6000 year old earth. This simply does not follow.

I am with you in regard to the ignorance and closed mindedness of Christians and other religious folks, but many scientists are just as close minded.

quote:

Not knowing that the Grand Canyon didn't form in the last 6000 years, and that simpler life forms lived and died millions of years ago is inexcusible, yes irredeemable, stupidity in these modern times in America.

No argument from me here. I agree. The question for me has always been "why" and "how" and "are we experiencing the whole of reality?"

In the interest og "threadcreep" prevention, I am going to resist the temptation to address every one of your points and pick some cherries.

quote:

Originally posted by SittinPurdy:

quote:

But, besides all that, Creationism and ID are simply not science. Science demands testability. ( . . )

Yes, but testability requires sense perception and sense perception requires a couple of assumptions: 1) That our sense perception is an accurate representation of reality. 2) That everyone can agree on the results of sense perception. ( . . .)Many scientists scoff at these notions, yet they don't have very good arguments against them

A straw man argument followed by a non sequitur, I'm afraid.

The straw man is that "testability requires sense perception." That makes as much sense as stating "light requires photons" or "thought requires nerve cells." Yeah, that true but is a worthless bit of knowledge.

That said, this kind of thought process can be interesting with regards to thought process but has no place in a discussion of evolution or even modern science. The Creationists use this distractive ploy in public debates with evolutionists. Even biologists have a difficult time answering these kinds of questions because they are simply meaningless. Richard Dawkins himself was a victim of this kind of tactic:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B_MN_O9ICzY

quote:

Not at all. If that were true, nothing, I mean nothing could self-organize. Matter would not exist. No, Sittin, entropy deals with open systems. Evolution is a close system.

Actually it is the reverse, entropy deals with closed systems. [/QUOTE]

Good catch. I obviously stand corrected. Thanks.

quote:

How would you define non-natural? Something not inherent just on earth or something not in the universe itself? Or would you say something that is not part of any possible conceived reality, either physical or mental, whatsoever? If there is a God, he/she/it is certainly a part of the "natural" order of things.

And this is the point that Creationist need to understand: Natural philosophy (including all the sciences, of course) requires, by definition, "natural" as opposed to "supernatural" explanations. Once you attempt to apply the supernatural you depart from the natural. You depart from "modern science."

Such thought processes belong on the shelf with alchemy and phrenology. Science and society have evolved far beyond that.

Example: It could be said that the Invisible Pink Unicorn plants evidence in order to obscure its very existence therefore keeping us form even empirically observingly her. Such a claim requires supernatural belief, thus is outside what can be "known" by rational means. Now, if the IPU suddenly makes herself apparent by some natural means, then she is no longer "supernatural."

Creationism/ID requires supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon. Therefore, it is disqualified from rational, natural science.

The rest of your post seemed to appeal to redefine science because it disqualifies supernatural "observations." Again, a common Creationist appeal that has no basis in rational discourse.

When one checks the credentials of erstwhile "creation experts" one usually finds either a discredited mainstream scientist expelled from the academy for the promotion of non-scientific ideas or else a "theologian". Many of the degrees of these persons are "suspect" to say the least, their endeavors are too obvious to be stated but I shall for rhetorical purposes: they exist to separate the gullible from their money and to feed themselves well. They award one another advanced "degrees" and then publish in a circle. They hide behind the magical mystical power of the title "Doctor" and try to intimidate the peasants with their soi-disant "expertise" and that holy title.
In the acadeic world, there are doctorates and then there are "real" doctorates. You know, a 150 pp long study that is presented as a dissertation and those that are three or four tested fields and a book length contribution to original research and the academy at large. One is for money making purposes and vanity, the other for teaching credentials. One requires you to master the both the literature and research techniques of the field and be an expert as defined by one's peers in your area(s); the other to baffle those who do not have a graduate degree. A huge component of a PhD is the teaching burden for the student: for cause, it is a teaching degree! The PhD is, by definition both a mentor for others, a colleague to his peers, all while being an original researcher. She is not a money-maker per se. That is for an MBA.

quote:

Originally posted by Neal Hughes:
When one checks the credentials of erstwhile "creation experts" one usually finds either a discredited mainstream scientist expelled from the academy for the promotion of non-scientific ideas or else a "theologian". Many of the degrees of these persons are "suspect" to say the least, their endeavors are too obvious to be stated but I shall for rhetorical purposes: they exist to separate the gullible from their money and to feed themselves well. They award one another advanced "degrees" and then publish in a circle. They hide behind the magical mystical power of the title "Doctor" and try to intimidate the peasants with their soi-disant "expertise" and that holy title.
In the acadeic world, there are doctorates and then there are "real" doctorates. You know, a 150 pp long study that is presented as a dissertation and those that are three or four tested fields and a book length contribution to original research and the academy at large. One is for money making purposes and vanity, the other for teaching credentials. One requires you to master the both the literature and research techniques of the field and be an expert as defined by one's peers in your area(s); the other to baffle those who do not have a graduate degree. A huge component of a PhD is the teaching burden for the student: for cause, it is a teaching degree! The PhD is, by definition both a mentor for others, a colleague to his peers, all while being an original researcher. She is not a money-maker per se. That is for an MBA.

Hi Neal,

You say, When one checks the credentials of erstwhile 'creation experts' one usually finds either a discredited mainstream scientist expelled from the academy for the promotion of non-scientific ideas or else a "theologian".

Obviously, you would not make a statement just to hear yourself talk -- so, please enlighten we poor unknowing peasants with the source of this great knowledge. Where did you go to check the credentials of these people? Which Creation Scientist did you check? Please give us the source and the list of these folks you have discredited so that we mere peasants will know whom to ignore.

While you are at it; since you so readily discredit these folks -- perhaps you can share your credentials in the wacky, wonderful world of science and theology so that we know that you are qualified to discredit these folks.

It's a world of laughter, a world or tears
Its a world of hopes, its a world of fear
Theres so much that we share
That its time we're aware
Its a small world after all

CHORUS:
Its a small world after all
Its a small world after all
Its a small world after all
Its a small, small world

There is just one moon and one golden sun
And a smile means friendship to everyone.
Though the mountains divide
And the oceans are wide
It's a small small world

Just thought I would share one of my favorite songs with you.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Mr. Bill,

I gave you the curricula vitae of the prominent people in your video reference at the top of this thread.

Didja read it?

Neal is right, of course.

DF

You folks sure are good at confusing a person.

Actually, Bill, I study, teach and write about scholary communication. By virtue of my professional training, I qualified to judge the credentials of a "scholar" and advise on or against anyone consulting them.
Those four little letters after my name say so: MLIS. My academic appointments have been based on my ability to judge authors and sources.
I don't need a PhD in mammilian biology to smell a dog turd under my shoe -- a simple internet search and a survey of the sources suffices for me, but then again, I am not so gullible as some or awed by any title under the sun -- some of the biggest morons I have ever met have the most prestigious degrees in the world, but at least they came by them through sweat and years of toil and hundreds of thousand pages read and digested, not from an unaccredited diploma mill that caters from a select group of self-selected cohorts and then cite the guys who gave them their soi-disant credentials and publish in the two or three "journals" that cater to the same crowd.
I actually parsed an article from the Insane Creation Posse or whatever it is out of Texas and shall find it and reveal the results of the sourcing to a "candid world" as Jefferson said.

quote:

Originally posted by Neal Hughes: Actually, Bill, I study, teach and write about scholary (scholarly) communication. By virtue of my professional training, I qualified to judge the credentials of a "scholar" and advise on or against anyone consulting them.

Those four little letters after my name say so: MLIS. My academic appointments have been based on my ability to judge authors and sources.

I don't need a PhD in mammilian (mammalian) biology to smell a dog turd under my shoe -- a simple internet search and a survey of the sources suffices for me, but then again, I am not so gullible as some or awed by any title under the sun -- some of the biggest morons I have ever met have the most prestigious degrees in the world, but at least they came by them through sweat and years of toil and hundreds of thousand pages read and digested, not from an unaccredited diploma mill that caters from a select group of self-selected cohorts and then cite the guys who gave them their soi-disant credentials and publish in the two or three "journals" that cater to the same crowd.

I actually parsed an article from the Insane Creation Posse or whatever it is out of Texas and shall find it and reveal the results of the sourcing to a "candid world" as Jefferson said.

Hi Neal,

Golly, I am familiar with Ph.D., MD, and a few others -- but, I am not familiar with MLIS. Please forgive my ignorance as I ask what it means. I am familiar with TGIF (Thank Goodness It's Friday) and even So Happy It's Thursday -- but not MLIS.

This reminds me of an engineer I worked with at Ramo Wooldridge (before it was TRW) some years ago. He was so proud, as he should have been, to be an engineering graduate of MIT. But, this was ten years after college and he still had MIT book covers on all the books in his office. And in every conversation, he always managed to bring in, "Well, at MIT we did it this way."

One day, one of our coworkers, who had grown tired of hearing of Bob's MIT, told him, "Bob, did I ever tell you where I graduated? It was Sam Houston Institute of Technology -- good old S * * *!" Bob never forgave him.

By the way, you never told me the source of your information by which you have discredited the Creation Scientist, nor the names of those so discredited. It would certainly help us so that we will know who not to believe. We know we can believe you; but, how about all those discredited Creation Scientists? Where did you say you obtained this list?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by CrustyMac:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Y'all,

While I know that you look down your very knowledgeable noses at those guys who have only the title "Philosopher of Science" or the title of "Philosopher of Biology" and such; I wonder if you know what that means. Have you ever wondered, or cared, what the letters Ph.D. mean? Well, to be sure you have a well rounded education -- Ph.D. means: "Doctorate of Philosophy" in different fields, i.e., a person with a Ph.D. in Biology can also be called a "Philosopher of Biology" -- or a "Doctor of Philosophy in Biology" as a person chooses.

A list of advanced degrees taken from a college web site:

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology:
Doctor of Philosophy

Biology :
Master of Science
Master of Science (Research)
Doctor of Philosophy

Biomedical Engineering:
Master of Science
Master of Science (Research)
Doctor of Philosophy

Chemistry:
Master of Science
Master of Science (Research)
Doctor of Philosophy (Integrated & Applied Sciences)

But, I guess these do not match your Ph.D. in BS. Or as one of our Used Car Salesmen Duo likes to say, "It's only MIT. What do they know?"

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Thanks for the explanation, Bill. I'm a total moron, and appreciate being talked down to.

However, having never heard any of my Ph.D. friends refer to themselves as philosophers of biology or philosophers of physics, I was obviously confused. Usually, these people call themselves biologists or physicists.

Thanks for setting me straight... oh, wait, when I look up philosophy of biology, I get this explanation:

"Philosophy of biology

Main article: Philosophy of biology

Philosophy of biology deals with epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical issues in the biological and biomedical sciences. Although philosophers of science and philosophers generally have long been interested in biology (e.g., Aristotle, Descartes, and even Kant), philosophy of biology only emerged as an independent field of philosophy in the 1960s and 1970s. Philosophers of science then began paying increasing attention to developments in biology, from the rise of Neodarwinism in the 1930s and 1940s to the discovery of the structure of Deoxyribonucleic acid in 1953 to more recent advances in genetic engineering. Other key ideas such as the reduction of all life processes to biochemical reactions as well as the incorporation of psychology into a broader neuroscience are also addressed."

They aren't scientists at all, just philosophers. I'm pretty sure your Ph.D. friends will be pretty irked that you are comparing them to philosophical hacks.

Duke offers a degree in Philosophy of Biology. I notice that it is through the philosophy department and requires a couple of 200 level courses in biology. Hardly makes these people biologists. However, they will earn a Ph.D., so my calling them "hacks" is probably unkind, unless they are misrepresenting themselves as scientists, which you were.

Hi Crusty,

When I look at the list of "Doctor of Philosophy" degrees offered in the list above, it does not say Philosopy Dept -- but, instead: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biology, Biomedical Engineering, and Chemistry. Sounds pretty much like a Ph.D. in these schools of science. Of course, you can tell them their Ph.D. does not mean anything to you because you know much better than their university -- but, I do believe they would take offense.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Have you ever noticed how people will seek out information that will only validate what they have already made up there minds to believe and discount everything else? Interesting huh? Whatever happened to the concept of the open mind? Oh well.... somebody once told me to be open minded but not so open minded that your brains fall out. So, guess it is good to find a happy medium, huh.

quote:

Have you ever noticed how people will seek out information that will only validate what they have already made up there minds to believe and discount everything else?

It's called cognitive dissonance. We are all susceptible to it. Some more than others, obviously.

Some Problems with Random Samples of Creationist Literature:
Circular Citation Meets the Words “May and Could”

Neal M. Hughes, MLIS

While some of the prominent creationist scientists, as self-described, use portions of the scientific method and contemporary standards of charts and illustrations in their work, the abstracts, reference lists, and introductions often reveal a great deal behind the graphs, formulae and formal tone.

For example, let us consider first a work by D. Russell Humphreys, “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields, Creation Science Research Quarterly 21:3, Dec. 1984. Dr. Humphreys offers the reader an abstract that starts with an amazing statement: “God could have started magnetic fields in the solar system in a very simple way: by creating the original atoms of the planets with many of their nuclear spins pointing in the same direction. The small magnetic fields of so many atomic nuclei add up to fields large enough to account for the magnetism of the planets.”

Indeed, God could have, might have, and perhaps even should have done so, but does that even hint at objectivity? Using Humphreys’s device, one could start out with a premise along the lines of “The sky goddess, when sad, causes the rain to fall upon the earth, then it is absorbed by the atmosphere from the sea and enables her to cry when sad once again, perhaps.”

In each statement we find the lexicon of science oddly juxtaposed alongside the “perhaps” and “could” of divine intervention - the latter which cannot be proven to any means recognized as reasonable or scientific. My dog might have psychic powers which only other dogs recognize, why there are studies that dogs exhibit strange behaviors before an earthquake or a volcanic eruption, and now I shall next start to write about earthquakes and volcanoes and ignore the elephant in the room, my claim of psychic power to canis familiris. That would be the Humphreys method.

But the method of erstwhile scholarly communication exhibited in the above article is not the only flaw which one finds in the field. Let us now note the “circular citation” incumbent in these writers’ works. One example is the paper “Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth” by Vardiman, et al. In this example, the above cited example of supernatural intervention is endorsed as a necessary mechanism for the science to “work.”

The introduction once again contains a rather odd statement seldom found in any scientific communication in which society at large is familiar: “Scripture talks of at least two major events which occurred after Creation, the Judgment in the Garden of Eden and the Flood. It would seem appropriate to consider at least that an original distribution of elements could have been mixed, and radioactive processes speeded up during one or both of these events.” Scripture as well talks of Joshua commanding the sun to stand still for continued slaughter. One is surprised to learn not of a study that presupposes that the earth was once stationary and the sun around it revolving, until some supernatural event then occurred to fix the heliocentric model with which we have been long familiar, might this author suggest the final capture of the Ark of the Covenant by the Babylonians? That might be far-fetched, but no more than Vardiman’s prose.

Vardiman, et al. might aptly be termed a “creation posse.” While the two branches of the school of creationism is divided into the “Old Creation” v. “Young Earth” camps, they apply the same circular citations to and for one another’s reading and research enjoyment. In the above cited paper, the following citations occur in verbatim facimile:

[1]Baumgardner, J.R., Snelling, A.A., Humphreys, D.R. and Austin, S.A., Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[2] Chaffin, E.F., Theoretical Mechanisms of Accelerated Radioactive Decay, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin, Editors, 2000, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO, pp. 303-331.
[3] Chaffin, E.F., Accelerated Decay: Theoretical Models, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, volume.
[4] Davies, J.H. and Stevenson, D.J., Physical Model of Source Region of Subduction Zone , Journal of Geophysical Research, 97(1992), pp. 2037-2070.
[5] Gamble, J.A., Wood, C.P., Price, R.C., Smith, I.E.M., Stewart, R.B. and Waight, T., A Fifty Year Perspective of Magmatic Evolution on Ruapehu Volcano, New Zealand: Verification of Open System Behaviour in an Arc Volcano, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 170(1999), pp. 301-314.
[6] Gentry, R.V., Glish, G.J. and McBay, E.H., Differential Helium in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Management, Geophysical Research Letters, 9:10 (1982), pp. 1129-1130.
[7] Giem, P., Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon, Origins, 51(2001), pp. 6-30.
[8] Humphreys, D.R., Accelerated Nuclear Decay: A Viable Hypothesis?, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and
E.F. Chaffin, Editors, 2000, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO, pp. 333-379.
[9] Humphreys, D.R., Austin, S.A., Baumgardner, J.R. and Snelling, A.A., Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[10] Snelling, A.A., Radioactive “Dating” in Conflict! Fossil Wood in Ancient Lava Flow Yields Radiocarbon, Creation Ex Nihilo, 20:1(1997), pp. 24-27.
[11] Snelling, A.A., Stumping Old-Age Dogma: Radiocarbon in an “Ancient” Fossil Tree Stump Casts Doubt on Traditional Rock/Fossil Dating, Creation Ex Nihilo, 20:4(1998), pp. 48-51.
[12] Snelling, A.A., The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon “Ages” for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand and the Implications for Potassium-argon “Dating”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, R.E. Walsh, Editor, 1998, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 503-525.
[13] Snelling, A.A., Dating Dilemma: Fossil Wood in Ancient Sandstone, Creation Ex Nihilo, 21:3(1999), pp. 39-41.
[14] Snelling, A.A., Geological Conflict: Young Radiocarbon Date for Ancient Fossil Wood Challenges Fossil Dating, Creation Ex Nihilo, 22:2(2000), pp. 44-47.
[15] Snelling, A.A., Conflicting “Ages” of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Fossilized Wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 14:2(2000), pp. 99-122.
[16] Snelling, A.A., Geochemical Processes in the Mantle and Crust, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin, Editors, 2000, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO, pp. 123-304.
[17] Snelling, A.A., Radiohalos, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin, Editors, 2000, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO, pp. 381-468.
[18] Snelling, A.A., The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotope Dating, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[19] Snelling, A.A., Whole-Rock K-Ar Model and Isochron, and Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb Isochron, “Dating” of the Somerset Dam Layered Mafic Intrusion, Australia, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[20] Snelling, A.A. and Armitage, M.H., Radiohalos-A Tale of Three Granitic Plutons, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[21] Snelling, A.A. and Woodmorappe, J., The Cooling of Plutons on a Young Earth, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, R.E. Walsh, Editor, 1998, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 527-545.
[22] Snelling, A.A., Austin, S.A. and Hoesch, W.A., Radioisotopes in the Diabase Sill (Upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: An Application and Test of the Isochron Dating Method, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R.Ivey, Editor, 2003, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, this volume.
[23] Tatsumi, Y., Formation of the Volcanic Front in Subduction Zones, Geophysical Research Letters, 13(1986), pp. 717-720.
[24] Vardiman, L., Introduction, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin, Editors, 2000, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO, pp 1-25.


This is the most egregious instance of “incestuous citation and publication” that can be imagined. Firstly, the same few names appear again and again as co-authors or else editors of journals in which they also publish and present. How can there be a normal “blind” peer review when Vardiman , as only one example, wrote note 24 and then edited the journal along with Snelling and Chaffin in which it appeared?

In fact, the Creationists have not merely turned the standards for scholarly communication askew, but have inverted its intent: the promotion of new knowledge. Instead of the normal process of identification of problem, literature search for existing research on the problem or that which touches upon it, formulation of research plan, carrying out of research, presentation of results to peers in a working paper or at a conference [this step is optional], then after criticism and feedback both positive and negative, presenting the same to an academic journal for blind peer review, then following comments from reviewers, making editorial changes as needed and then publication under the name of the author once accepted by the editorial board.

Instead of identification of a problem as the first step in research, the Creationists seem to jump to the answer to the problem first in claiming divine intervention, then posing the anomalies within the literature and current research and then reiterating the answer of the divine as conclusion. Nota bene, these men seem to have a modicum of scientific discourse still left within them and are not adverse in positing their thesis statements with the words “could have” or “might have,” having had the techniques of scholarly communication drummed into their heads in former lives as legitimate scholars.

In short, other than examples in how not to conduct scholarly communication, the works of the various creation institutes and quarterlies ought to be avoided, lest one fall into a life of ridicule and righteous small circle intellectual incest.

I haven't seen MLentz around in a few days.

My personal theory: M is really Top Down Beemer in disguise, playing a joke on us.



DF

Hi Neal,

When you would not respond to my question about your MLIS designation; I went to Google and found it. I am not sure why you would not just answer my question; for I greatly admire Librarians. From my earliest childhood, I practically lived at the Sheffield Public Library -- and in high school, one of my favorite teachers was Mrs. Berryman, our librarian. Having left Sheffield when I was seventeen, just out of high school in 1955 -- and not being able to visit during the school year for thirty-five years; I was greatly surprised when I did visit to find Mrs. Berryman still remembered me. She was the only teacher still at SHS from my time; so, I went to her office to say hello. When I went in, I said, "Hi, Mrs. Berryman, you don't remember me; but, I just wanted to come by and say hello." Her reply shocked me, "Hi Billy, we were just talking about you last week." Those were her exact words -- and I have to admit that I was very surprised. I did not tell her my name; she instantly recognized me, after thirty-five years, and knew my name. It still amazes me -- but, then, Librarians have to be special people.

Anyway, when I Googled, I found this web page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Library_and_Information_Science and it tells us:

The Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) is the masters degree that is required for most professional librarian positions. The MLIS is a relatively recent degree; an older and still common degree designation for librarians to acquire is the Master of Library Science (MLS), or Master Science in Library Science (MSLS) degree.

The MLIS or MLS degree is usually acquired from an accredited library school. The American Library Association accredits programs across the U.S. and Canada.

As I said, next to knowledgeable pastors, theologians, and Creation Scientists -- the people I admire most would be authors and librarians. To me, books are life blood. Without books, life would be empty. People who write books and people who tend our libraries are very special people -- for they help influence the minds of children and adult alike.

And, without my own personal home library, it would be like life without food.

Now, to get to a statement in your recent post, "In short, other than examples in how not to conduct scholarly communication, the works of the various creation institutes and quarterlies ought to be avoided, lest one fall into a life of ridicule and righteous small circle intellectual incest."

You are not a scientist; yet, you pass judgment upon scientists -- even those who have attained the pinnacle of a Ph.D., or multiple Ph.D.s in their chosen fields. This does make me question your motive and your judgment; it also makes me question your objectivity. It appears to me that you have taken the atheist stance, "Don't bother me with facts. My mind is made up!"

And you accuse those of us who believe in the Bible of circular reasoning. Yet, you, Fish, Deep, and all the other atheist make bold statements -- and then attribute them to Dawkins, Hitchens, and Darwin, your bible writers. While pointing your finger at us and accusing us of circular reasoning -- you then do exactly what you accuse us of doing. I know, you are just hoping that no one will notice -- that you fellows have a wee bit of the intellectual incest bug within your own religion.

Yet, you do allow me an opportunity to share the Gospel with our Forum Friends. And, for that, I thank you.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net

Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!

Bill, I never once addressed the science behind the papers I offered. I addressed the method, the incest within the Creationist circles and the lack of blind peer review -- all of which I assure you I am qualified to judge. I did not address the science in particular for one reason: indeed, I am not qualified to judge it, by definition.
I would not advise any student seeking material on biological evolution to consult with any creationist website or journal. In fact, the journals are so obscure that an in depth search on standard academic databases would not reveal them as even existing. Would I recommned them for a liberal arts class on evolution and religion? Most certainly.
As a rule, people do not offer for print what they also edit, save as an editorial voice or a reply to the editor from a letter writer. People also largely refrain from citing themselves again and again, either as co- or single author of another treatment.
The normal method of scientific resarch and communication was as I communciated to you above. I do not see this in evidence at creationist websites or in their journals. For that reason, I reject them as advisable to any audience save for those researching creationism or as the antipodes of how not to form a scholarly paper.

A scholar who edits the work in which his own works appear has lost the respect of the academy. This is exacerbated by the format of the various papers: state conclusion then form a bunch of others' or original research that seems to introduce doubt in others' past work, then explain away all problems as divine intervention. It is considered normative for one to go where the evidence leads and then form the conclusion, not conclusion then citations to refute the existing canon/explain away any problem by a liteal deus ex machina.

quote:

I addressed the method, the incest within the Creationist circles and the lack of blind peer review

Scientific "incest." Good word, Neal. That aptly describes the following methodology cited in Bill's link:

"The ICR team began an exploration of changes in mitochondrial DNA by collecting and culling publicly-available human DNA records ( . . ) . From this, they constructed a consensus sequence called Eve 1.0. They continued their analysis by modeling human mitochondrial genetic history using Mendel's Accountant, a numerical program developed at ICR that can be used to mimic the accumulation of mutations in a population over time

So, in essence, they cherry picked some mDNA research, perverted it to their liking, ran it through their Creationist software and found the exact results they were looking for. Man, that's some good science.

Incestuous indeed!

quote:

My personal theory: M is really Top Down Beemer in disguise, playing a joke on us.
DF

i know who mlentz is, and he's not TDB

Liar!

I believe it, so that is the Truth!



DF


(j/k)

DF, sometimes you are just tooooo funny
right back atcha

I am working on an article right now on scholarly communication and how some soi disant scholars are actually stooges who cite one another, publish one another and even pay one another through various institutes, foundations, and other perversions of the terms.

Some people will lower themselves to money and their training to have their faces on the televisors, it seems, and nothing is too outrageous for them to claim with "science" backing them up.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" -- Bob Dylan

"You only need a nose to know when you step on a fresh dog turd" -- Neal Hughes

"Follow the money" -- Deep Throat

Mr. Gray..........it doesn't take long to realize where Deep Fat Fryer get's his philosophies and intellect from..............look at his location........


Hollywood.

That says it all.

M,

Got Bigotry?

I dare say if you moved to Hollywood, you'd lower the average IQ here.

DF

Who said I was a Bigot? Why do you say that? All I stated is that your philosophies and intellect came from your influence in living in Hollywood. Obviously you took that as a negative. I guess your true colors came shining through. So........with you comment of referring to be as a BIGOT proved you believe off the wall philosphies and crazy intellectual thoughts do come from Hollywood.

I guess the old saying is true.......

"The bit dog barks"..

Hollywood.

quote:

Originally posted by thehippiegirl:

quote:

My personal theory: M is really Top Down Beemer in disguise, playing a joke on us.
DF

i know who mlentz is, and he's not TDB

If he smokes those obnoxious, nasty smelling cigars I know who he is too...

quote:

Originally posted by MLentz:
Hollywood.

(pic of Horrywood))

Hey! I think I see Deep on the street corner selling his handmade hemp mu-mus! Cool.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:


When I look at the list of "Doctor of Philosophy" degrees offered in the list above, it does not say Philosopy Dept -- but, instead: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biology, Biomedical Engineering, and Chemistry. Sounds pretty much like a Ph.D. in these schools of science. Of course, you can tell them their Ph.D. does not mean anything to you because you know much better than their university -- but, I do believe they would take offense.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Twist and turn, Bill, twist and turn. I don't dispute that a PhD in Biology is a degree in scientific discourse. I dispute that someone who calls themselves Philosophers of Biology are scientists.

This isn't even apples and oranges. As I showed you Duke University has a PhD program in Philosophy of Biology. This would make those people, "Doctors of Philosophy" in Philosophy of Biology. Doesn't make them biologists. According to Duke's description, a person with a BS in Biology has more biology than a PhD in Philosophy of Biology.

Under your argument, a PhD in English makes a person a Philosopher of English. Not so.

I guess he must have sold you some of the magic dragon while you were posting on the forum. That explains it all........

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by MLentz:
Hollywood.

(pic of Horrywood))

Hey! I think I see Deep on the street corner selling his handmade hemp mu-mus! Cool.

Swoooooot. . . . Ear.

Congrats, M,

I didn't think the level of discourse here could get dumber. You've accomplished something.

DF

Don't mention it Deep Fat Fryer. I'm just trying to get down to your level.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
Congrats, M,

I didn't think the level of discourse here could get dumber. You've accomplished something.

DF

You have no chance of achieving my level.

If it appears low to you, then you are upside down.

DF

regarding the origin of the universe...


http://richarddawkins.net/article,2535,What-really-goes...,Brian-Cox-TED-Talks


DF

Just keep in mind you would need to go up three flights to get to my basement.

HOLLYWOOD! HURRAY HURRAY HURRAY FOR HOLLYWOOD!

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
You have no chance of achieving my level.

If it appears low to you, then you are upside down.

DF

The philosophy of science addresses paradigms and their shifts and the interplay between our understanding of the world and how we view science. It is a lot like the history of science -- it uses science as an auxillary for the main study. It is to science per se as literary criticism is to belles lettres. The two are not the same, although a piece of criticism can be presented in exactly the same frame as is belles lettres.
It's a lot like history: history is a branch of very specialized literature that uses chronology and both primary and secondary sources for its sourcing to make it "non-fiction." In many ways, history is actually closer to philosophy than it is mere laundry lists of events. Many students who think they want to become history majors soon figure this out and switch to education after their first historiography course. It is what separates the antiquarians from the historians.

A person writing on the history of science would address how the paradigm shift came about from Ptolemey to Kepler. A philosopher of science would address the ramifications on European society from this shift. An astronomer would use the current or evolving paradigms for further research in situ for heavenly bodies.

Neal, dude, you must translate for us lowly, unedumacated peons or in other words-

Je ne pas parle le francais.

Hi Mandomama,

About fifteen years ago, I was at the Comdex Computer Conference in Las Vegas. At that convention, a sharp marketeer gave a talk and in it he used a new phrase, "We have developed a new paradigm in computer technology!"

Immediately after that, every single marketeer in the industry had a new "paradigm" of this or that. It got to the point that I would rather eat shoe leather than hear about a new "paradigm." Nothing creates growth like a new cliche in marketing.

I wonder if Neal was at that computer conference? He certainly has a few "paradigms."

Sorry, Neal, it is just that cliches drive me crazy.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

I wonder if Neal was at that computer conference? He certainly has a few "paradigms."

Uhh, "paradigm shift" is a very accurate phrase for the type of shift in knowledge Neal was talking about. Its not even a "big word," Bill.

Keep it up Neal. Obviously not all of forum participants can keep up but those of us who can find meaning in your posts.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

I wonder if Neal was at that computer conference? He certainly has a few "paradigms."

Uhh, "paradigm shift" is a very accurate phrase for the type of shift in knowledge Neal was talking about. Its not even a "big word," Bill.

Keep it up Neal. Obviously not all of forum participants can keep up but those of us who can find meaning in your posts.

No kidding, Fish? Yes, I know that there are those who cling to every cliche mouthed or written by clever marketeers. We call them sheep, followers.

You follow your leaders. You are his sheep.

We follow our Leader. We are His sheep. Our sheepfold is eternal. But, then, so is yours; only much more tropical in temperature.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

"Paradigm" is not French but Greek that has entered English. The French is just funny song lyrics from the song "Psycho Killer" by the Talking Heads. It means: "That's what I did that night, that's what she said that night. Finally doing what I hoped for, I throw myself towards glory. OK." The "je me lance" also has the connotation of "making a name for oneself."

There have been large and rather violent paradigm shifts in history: the triumph of heliocnetricism over Ptolomey's astronomy for example, and also Einsteinian physics over classical Newtonian. The invention of the scientific method over rote acceptance for ancient wisdom is the best known. Such shifts can occur within any discipline.

quote:

I know that there are those who cling to every cliche mouthed or written by clever marketeers. We call them sheep, followers.

You have a cliche for cliches?

My term for "sheep followers" would be "pervert."

Are you a fish or a sheep?

And why must you be an animal? Is this some sort of Piute totem thing?

DF

You fellers is funny!

Hi Y'all,

This was posted on another discussion thread -- but, it so applicable here that I will also post it here.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Rramlimnn,

No, Fish and Deep are just babbling, hoping someone might believe their atheistic nonsense. We all assume that this duo is intelligent enough to understand what God-inspired writing means. Yet, our two Friends would stand under a horse who is peeing -- and swear it is rain -- if they thought it might confuse anyone or possibly advance their atheistic religion.

When the Dynamic Duo gets into this vein of babbling; we are just better off letting them talk to one another -- and the rest of us move on with more productive dialogue.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Mr. Bill, can I call you Mr. Bill?
It is plain for us all to see you are not capable of leaving well enough alone.

Apparently, the Trojan Horse has crashed into the gates of the city, and scary religious imbeciles are now spilling out.

Remember there is nothing more sacred than the facts....

A very wise bishop once said to my table after holding his glass very admiringly to the glass of Niepoort 1963 port before the candle flame: "You know, dear flock, religion is a lot like alchohol, both are wonderful when taken in moderation. Now where did you get that port, Mr. Hughes? I am feeling most intemperate at the moment and it is not from recalling today's sermon."

Hi to my Forum Friends,

Oh, yes, just as we are told in the Bible -- folks will cluster around their leader. In John 10:26, Jesus tells the non-believers, "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."

Then, in John 10:27-28, He speaks of we Christian believers, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."

So, if Jesus is not the leader of those who deny and mock Him -- then, just who is their leader? The apostle Paul answers this question in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, "And even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

So, no problem, mock all you want. But, like the man who has a copy of tomorrow's newspaper with all the sport scores for today -- we Christian believers can place our bet on the absolute winner -- for we already know who wins this game. If I were you, I would put everything I have on the winner -- Jesus Christ. It is not even a close game. The god of this world, Satan, loses -- and Jesus Christ wins all the marbles!

But, as in every game -- there will be winners -- and there will be losers. For some will never learn. After the game, while we are shouting "hallelujahs" for our Winner; you can be "burning" your losing tickets.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

No, Fish and Deep are just babbling

Mr. Bill,

You have a lot of nerve accusing us of babbling,when you go on and on about Creationism.

It's a lie, and you know it. If you don't, you are deluded beyond comprehension in these times.

The civilized, intelligent world has passed your kind up. We have moved on to the next level of knowledge. You refuse to come along. You may make your case, but it's not going to resonate with many people whose intelligence counts.

There is no science of Intelligent Design. There is no theory of it, beyond Creationism, which is silly to the nth degree.

Forgive me if, from now on, if I fail to respond to your inane posts about C/ID. I have grown weary of trying to defend truth, reason, and honestly gained knowledge against your superstitions and primitive traditions. Obviously, logic counts for nothing in your world.

I reserve the right to defend myself against your slanders, but otherwise, you may go on spouting your incredible nonsense to any such fools as who will listen. I come here to have fun, and enjoy intelligent conversation with other reasonable people, one of whom you are not.

Sorry.

It's been unreal.

DF

My Dear Deep One,

Romans 1:20-22, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and Professing to be wise, they became fools."

2 Timothy 4:3-4, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."

It would appear that the Lord knew, shall we say, foreknew, that Deep, Fish, and their gods, Darwin, Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, would be popping onto the world scene thousands of years ago. Yes, it appears that He described this ilk rather well two thousand years ago. Just as He foretold, by name, 500 years before the fact, that King Cyrus of Babylon would issue a decree to rebuild the temple -- He also knew that such as Deep, Fish, et al, would be doing everything within their limited powers to destroy His Word.

But, alas, that is much like Don Quixote swatting at windmills -- and just as futile. But, that is okay; just keep swinging -- we can use the generated fresh air.

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Hi Deep and Fish,

God asked me to deliver this sign to you both. He said that you will understand.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

This is so sad, ignorance on this scale isn't bliss, it is dangerous.

And here too.

And the good old Mississippi version....

And for those not lucky enough to be blessed with intelligent design, from birth, God comes back and performs miracles for a select few.

With any luck, those poor kids will have a Marjoe Gortner epiphany.

DF

Deep!

Found in one of Miami's links: A little boy's leg lengthens under the powah of god! Finally, here is the proof of amputee healing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk1cXfAMfEw&feature=related

I mean, I SEEN his laeg get longer! SEEN it, I say!

Brothers and Sisters, God is alive and well and passing out healing miracles, right, left and center, in Paragould, Arkansas. He even healed one woman's checkbook. She ain't afeard to tithe now.

What is that you say? You need proof?

See here for your proof. And do check out the other videos. Miracles are everywhere! Praise him!

GF,

I guess your secret is out. That was YOU commanding Jeesus to stretch that boy's leg!

Admit it!

Now, go call James Randi about your million bucks.

DF

ps, was that boy a stinker of an actor, or what?

quote:

I guess your secret is out. That was YOU commanding Jeesus to stretch that boy's leg!

Naw! I swear to go . . . er, I swear!

I am a Christian. Miracles do not exist in todays times. A miracle is defined as an event that transends the laws of nature. Giving birth IS NOT a miracle. A tornado missing a school house full of children IS NOT a miracle. A miracle is as defined in the Bible such as when Jesus Christ raised Lazurus from the dead.............water into wine........the parting of the Red Sea........etc, etc....

The "Miracles" you see today are "unseen". It amazes me how the so called faith healers only "heal" things that cannot be witnessed by human eyes........for example.......cancer, deafness, back pain, kidney pain, neck pain.

Have you ever seen someone without an arm as for a miracle and a new arm is generated? No.

Have you ever seen someone who is deformed from a car wreck and they are "healed" with a new face? No.

The bible states miracle has ceased in todays church. No miracles. Just faith.

How about a bank vice president singing?

M,

You'll be surprised to find I agree with you. Miracles, when they happen, are not influenced by god at all.

Oh, sure, one in a million cancer patients just gets better. The bell curve of probability predicts it. Heck, here in LA, a one in a million possibility should happen 18 times a day!

Limbs don't regenerate. Scars don't go away. You are right.

But all this has nothing to do with faith. Indeed, faith would predict miracles.

DF

Stop the presses (or the internet). Deep Fat and I "partly" agree on an issue.

However, miracles during the time of Christ did in fact occur. Miracles to given by God as signs of his existence. Today......God sent his Son Jesus Christ to intercede for our sins. I think that's pretty special. I and all Christians live by "faith".

"Faith" is the belief in something unseen. For example.........do you have faith that George Washington lived? There are no photographs, no living witnesses............just documented proof throughout the ages that ole GW did in fact exist.

Same thing with Jesus Christ. The bible is out history book. No one has ever seen Jesus today. There are no photographs of him........however.........we have "faith" that he exists from the holy scriptures.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
M,

You'll be surprised to find I agree with you. Miracles, when they happen, are not influenced by god at all.

Oh, sure, one in a million cancer patients just gets better. The bell curve of probability predicts it. Heck, here in LA, a one in a million possibility should happen 18 times a day!

Limbs don't regenerate. Scars don't go away. You are right.

But all this has nothing to do with faith. Indeed, faith would predict miracles.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by MLentz:
I am a Christian. Miracles do not exist in todays times. A miracle is defined as an event that transends the laws of nature. Giving birth IS NOT a miracle. A tornado missing a school house full of children IS NOT a miracle. A miracle is as defined in the Bible such as when Jesus Christ raised Lazurus from the dead.............water into wine........the parting of the Red Sea........etc, etc....

The "Miracles" you see today are "unseen". It amazes me how the so called faith healers only "heal" things that cannot be witnessed by human eyes........for example.......cancer, deafness, back pain, kidney pain, neck pain.

Have you ever seen someone without an arm as for a miracle and a new arm is generated? No.

Have you ever seen someone who is deformed from a car wreck and they are "healed" with a new face? No.

The bible states miracle has ceased in todays church. No miracles. Just faith.

Hi MLentz,

Yes, I have personally seen a friend who was so full of cancer, verified by the O.R. nurse who is another close friend and who was there to see the same thing the surgeon saw when he opened Lolita -- her body was full of cancer and she should have been dead in a matter of weeks, a couple of months at most. Yet, she lived another seven very productive years; serving as our choir director.

Yet, I have seen other friends with cancer not nearly so severe -- die within months.

Why is this? God obviously wanted Lolita's healing to show His glory. She was hopeless; yet, He gave her another seven years.

I personally had a large growth on my right temple, very cancerous looking. I prayed and in four days it was completely gone; not even a scar.

I could give you other cases where I personally experienced the hand of God working; but, I will leave that for another time.

God is still in the miracle business; but, God is still in the faith business also.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

et, I have seen other friends with cancer not nearly so severe -- die within months.

Why is this?

Because cancer works that way sometimes. Medicine may find out how spontaneous remission works some day. Until then, we fight cancer with what we've got and hope for the best.

I have a relative who was diagnosed with brain cancer 20 years ago, Was supposed to have 2 months to live. This was when brain cancer was a near-certain death sentence.

She still sits in a nursing home with drool coming from her mouth and occasionally shows some sign of knowing she is alive. I think they finally made her quit smoking last year.

Is this a "miracle" Bill?

Bill,
I agree with 99.9999% of your posts, however........I do not believe miracles happen in todays time.
As in my earlier post.......why do we not see healings in an outward physical nature in todays time? Mircales in the bible were supernatural events. Raising from the dead, water into wine, healing of leporsy, the virgin birth.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

quote:

Originally posted by MLentz:
I am a Christian. Miracles do not exist in todays times. A miracle is defined as an event that transends the laws of nature. Giving birth IS NOT a miracle. A tornado missing a school house full of children IS NOT a miracle. A miracle is as defined in the Bible such as when Jesus Christ raised Lazurus from the dead.............water into wine........the parting of the Red Sea........etc, etc....

The "Miracles" you see today are "unseen". It amazes me how the so called faith healers only "heal" things that cannot be witnessed by human eyes........for example.......cancer, deafness, back pain, kidney pain, neck pain.

Have you ever seen someone without an arm as for a miracle and a new arm is generated? No.

Have you ever seen someone who is deformed from a car wreck and they are "healed" with a new face? No.

The bible states miracle has ceased in todays church. No miracles. Just faith.

Hi MLentz,

Yes, I have personally seen a friend who was so full of cancer, verified by the O.R. nurse who is another close friend and who was there to see the same thing the surgeon saw when he opened Lolita -- her body was full of cancer and she should have been dead in a matter of weeks, a couple of months at most. Yet, she lived another seven very productive years; serving as our choir director.

Yet, I have seen other friends with cancer not nearly so severe -- die within months.

Why is this? God obviously wanted Lolita's healing to show His glory. She was hopeless; yet, He gave her another seven years.

I personally had a large growth on my right temple, very cancerous looking. I prayed and in four days it was completely gone; not even a scar.

I could give you other cases where I personally experienced the hand of God working; but, I will leave that for another time.

God is still in the miracle business; but, God is still in the faith business also.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

George Bush got off the cocaine and hooch and still had people invest in his multiple busted businesses to become President, if that isn't a miracle for such an abject failure in every area of a person's life, then I do not know what is!
And his brother Neil isn't even in the pen but doing business with his "education COW" for various school businesses. Nicole Bush isn't in the pen either after her multiple drug arrests. No former residents of NOLA have stalked Mr. Bush and Sec. Cadaveroff -- or however he is styled -- for vengeance, sound like a bunch of miracles to me.

M,

Strange you used George Washington as an example. I presume you did so because we all know he existed. There really is no doubt, based on the enormous amount of evidence.

It's not so with Jesus, and that's why so many of us must remain skeptical. The bible is not a history book. The story of Jesus is a reflection of many people of the time. For example, 2000 years ago, every man of significance was assumed to have been born from a virgin or otherwise miraculously born.

Faith with no, or poor, evidence is nothing to admire or to which one should aspire. It is the engine of superstition and misery in the world.

DF

The Bible is not a history book? Come now....surely you jest. What about the reference to many many cities, rivers, and the like the bible refers too (that are still in existence today).

There is enormous evidence that Jesus Christ existed. I love you comment of "The story of Jesus is a reflection of many people of the time". That is exactly correct. This "reflection" of people have passed down their belief's (the Bible) from generation to generation.

Let me make it simple for you.......just like the teachers passed down the history of ole GW from school year to school year.

Again.......faith the is belief in something unseen.

By the way DF........I still don't have an answer to my question......but here is another one......

Were you born of a woman? Where did she come from? Just answer that simple question.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
M,

Strange you used George Washington as an example. I presume you did so because we all know he existed. There really is no doubt, based on the enormous amount of evidence.

It's not so with Jesus, and that's why so many of us must remain skeptical. The bible is not a history book. The story of Jesus is a reflection of many people of the time. For example, 2000 years ago, every man of significance was assumed to have been born from a virgin or otherwise miraculously born.

Faith with no, or poor, evidence is nothing to admire or to which one should aspire. It is the engine of superstition and misery in the world.

DF

M,

Adam and Eve? Noah? The Exodus? Jesus?

Surely YOU jest.

You don't understand. The attributes of Jesus were given to many people of the time. He is quite possibly the amalgamation of many prophets of the time.

Plato's Timaeus mentions cities, rivers, and other features that till exist. It does not make it a holy document, nor historical, since I believe it mentions Atlantis as well.

Old books are not the same as accurate books.

And yes, I was born in the normal way. So was my mother. So what?

DF

Great! Thanks for asking that last question. Now..........where did you ancestors come from?

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
M,

Adam and Eve? Noah? The Exodus? Jesus?

Surely YOU jest.

You don't understand. The attributes of Jesus were given to many people of the time. He is quite possibly the amalgamation of many prophets of the time.

Plato's Timaeus mentions cities, rivers, and other features that till exist. It does not make it a holy document, nor historical, since I believe it mentions Atlantis as well.

Old books are not the same as accurate books.

And yes, I was born in the normal way. So was my mother. So what?

DF

England.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by MLentz:
"Faith" is the belief in something unseen. For example.........do you have faith that George Washington lived?

M, is this your unanswered question?

regards

Thanks.
Now from England Back......where do your ancestors originate?

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
England.

DF

M,

Don't play stupid tricks. Make your point.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
M,

Don't play stupid tricks. Make your point.

DF

Hi Deep,

Not a stupid trick; merely asking, "Who was YOUR original ancestor? What did he/she/it look like?"

Keep in mind now, we are talking about Deep's Family Tree; no one else, just Deep.

Anyone have a banana? By the way, did bananas evolve from a simple cell in the primordial swamp also? If so, why did it not evolve into a living creature? Did Darwin play a cruel joke on Mr. Banana?

Can't you see big yellow bananas running around claiming to be Deep beings.

Sure gets confusing; doesn't it?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Why so testy? No trick question here.
Again.....where do you ancestors originate?
Simple Question.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
M,

Don't play stupid tricks. Make your point.

DF

*shaking my head at the utter stupidity of the responses here*


DF

quote:

Don't play stupid tricks. Make your point.

Deep my friend. You are normally pretty quick to catch on to these kinds of things so I'm a little disappointed in you, friend.

M is trying to get you to admit that your great, great great granddad was a monkey.

For example, my lineage comes directly from the Spider Monkey lineage just under 500 years ago. My family is known for flinging dung at people who irritate us. Just prior to that, my ancestors were banana slugs.

My guess would be that your lineage can be traced directly to the Bonobo Chimp which is known for their rather prolific and indiscriminant mating habits. Am I close?

Come come now DF and GoFish (GoFish.......I will deal with you later)....

Why is that such a hard question to answer......
Again...........where did your ancestors come from before England....
Simple Question.

Hi MLentz,

This is not a new ploy with Deep and Fish. Any time they do not have a real answer -- they try one of two ploys. First, they try to ridicule you. If that does not work; then they fall back to plan B, toss out some cutesy remarks hoping that you, and everyone else, will forget your question.

As the Bible says in Ecclesiastes 1:9, "There is nothing new under the sun" -- especially with our two atheist Friends.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

his is not a new ploy with Deep and Fish. Any time they do not have a real answer -- they try one of two ploys.

Bill,

Deep has an answer. It's just that you two are so blindingly ignorant that answering with a thoughtful response will probably be a waste of time.

If M were to ask me, I would inform him that there is an unbroken lineage of ancestors from me to my dad to my dad's dad and so on. Each of those generations were just slightly different from the previous generation. The changes between a few hundred generations can not even be measured. The changes between a few thousand generations can just barely be measured. Changes that span tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of generations can seen in the fossil record.

That is all "evolution" means: Very small changes over unimaginable amounts of time resulting in speciation.

If you go back an unimaginably long time, about 100,000 generations, you will find one of my (and your) ancestors that looked like a cross between a hairy, ape and a hairless human. If he were alive today, you might not even notice him walking down a city street but a closer examination would revel someone who looked much like the Geico man in the commercial. We was probably naked, used stone tools and lived somewhere south of the convergence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

200,000 generations before him, you find a 3.5"-foot tall, skinny primate flitting between the dwindling jungle-islands on the African plains. A few tens of thousands of generations before that, you find one of my guys swinging from a tree and throwing dung and his enemies. Prior to that, you would find a marsupial-like creature burrowing under the leaves and burrowing in the ground hiding from T-rex.

That is what dozens of convergent, corroborated branches of science tells us, Bill. Either it happened this way or Yahweh has planted the evidence just to make it seem this way.

This is third grade, basic evolution, Bill. Its not hard to grasp. You just have to open your eyes to the possibility that the bible isn't a science book.

I got it, GF, I'm just unwilling to play M's juvenile games.

All this talk of not disproving god is a silly child's game. Anyone with the simplest understanding of logic knows it is the responsibility of those who posit a notion to prove it. They cannot, so they regress to fools' games.

Then, M thinks he'll get a laugh out of me speaking the truth about evolution. There is nothing funny about his entrenched, deliberate stupidity. Indeed, it's pitiful and sad.

This whole thread is pitiful and sad, as is the intellectual and scientific deterioration C/ID is causing in our nation and the rest of the Western world. The only reason I don't ignore these IDiots is because people need to know that they are wrong and evil.

DF

Hello DF.............

You still refuse to answer my question? Again.......for the fith time.....where do your ancestors come from prior to England?
Simple Question.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
I got it, GF, I'm just unwilling to play M's juvenile games.

All this talk of not disproving god is a silly child's game. Anyone with the simplest understanding of logic knows it is the responsibility of those who posit a notion to prove it. They cannot, so they regress to fools' games.

Then, M thinks he'll get a laugh out of me speaking the truth about evolution. There is nothing funny about his entrenched, deliberate stupidity. Indeed, it's pitiful and sad.

This whole thread is pitiful and sad, as is the intellectual and scientific deterioration C/ID is causing in our nation and the rest of the Western world. The only reason I don't ignore these IDiots is because people need to know that they are wrong and evil.

DF

Ok..............GoFish..........

For the sake of this argument let's say I believe each and every thing you just said....ok.......stay with me now...........remember........I am giving you benefit of the doubt.....

Now...............

Your last sentence states.......and I quote

"you would find a marsupial-like creature burrowing under the leaves and burrowing in the ground hiding from T-rex."

Ok.......GoFish....here is the question....

What about before the marsupial like creature.....what was there? Where did it come from?

Simple Question.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

his is not a new ploy with Deep and Fish. Any time they do not have a real answer -- they try one of two ploys.

Bill,

Deep has an answer. It's just that you two are so blindingly ignorant that answering with a thoughtful response will probably be a waste of time.

If M were to ask me, I would inform him that there is an unbroken lineage of ancestors from me to my dad to my dad's dad and so on. Each of those generations were just slightly different from the previous generation. The changes between a few hundred generations can not even be measured. The changes between a few thousand generations can just barely be measured. Changes that span tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of generations can seen in the fossil record.

That is all "evolution" means: Very small changes over unimaginable amounts of time resulting in speciation.

If you go back an unimaginably long time, about 100,000 generations, you will find one of my (and your) ancestors that looked like a cross between a hairy, ape and a hairless human. If he were alive today, you might not even notice him walking down a city street but a closer examination would revel someone who looked much like the Geico man in the commercial. We was probably naked, used stone tools and lived somewhere south of the convergence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

200,000 generations before him, you find a 3.5"-foot tall, skinny primate flitting between the dwindling jungle-islands on the African plains. A few tens of thousands of generations before that, you find one of my guys swinging from a tree and throwing dung and his enemies. Prior to that, you would find a marsupial-like creature burrowing under the leaves and burrowing in the ground hiding from T-rex.

That is what dozens of convergent, corroborated branches of science tells us, Bill. Either it happened this way or Yahweh has planted the evidence just to make it seem this way.

This is third grade, basic evolution, Bill. Its not hard to grasp. You just have to open your eyes to the possibility that the bible isn't a science book.

quote:

What about before the marsupial like creature.....what was there? Where did it come from? Simple Question.

The molecular evidence currently indicates that mammals evolved from reptiles. Reptiles evolved from vertebrates. Vertebrates from non vertebrates, non vertebrates from cell colonies, cell colonies from single cell organisms, CCO's from RNA and RNA from self-organizing chemicals not much more complicated than soap bubbles.

All that came only after a billion sun exploded the created the heavy elements the created rocks that created accretion discs that created the sun that created the planets that attracted comets loaded with the building blocks of life.

I skipped over a kajillion steps in between but this will give you an idea. Origins and evolution illustrates less complex forms evolving into more complex forms.

An excellent show on the subject is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/

This is the barest highlights of 4 billion years of hard work by our molecules, Lents.

Come on, Lentz, what's your point? Where do you want to go with this?

(edited for egregious spelling mistakes made in haste 5 minutes before having to get into the shower)

Excellent GoFish!
Thanks for giving me your answers (unlike DF).
Now.......your last comment was concerning 4 billion years of hard work with our molecules.
What was before that? In other words.....what preceded those molecules and what were their origin?

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

What about before the marsupial like creature.....what was there? Where did it come from? Simple Question.

The molecular evidence currently indicates that mamals evolved from reptiles. Reptiles evolved from vertebrates. Vertebrates from non vertebrates, non vertebrates from cell colonies, cell colonies from single cell organisms, CCO's from RNA and RNA from self-organizing chemicals not much more complicated than soap bubbles.

All that came only after a billion sun exploded the created the heavy elements the created rockes that created accreation discs that created the sun that created the plantets that attracted comets loaded with the building blocks of life.

I skipped over a kajillion steps in between but this will give you an idea. Origins and evolution ilustrates less complex forms evolving into more complex forms.

An excellent show on the subject is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/

This is the barest highlights of 4 billion years of hard work by our molecules, Lents.

Come on, Lentz, what's your point? Where do you want to go with this?

quote:

What was before that? In other words.....what preceded those molecules and what were their origin?

Mr, Lentz,

Your questions are like those of a very annoying child. I only have so much patience. Please make your point.

I promise.......this is no trick question.

Again......what existed before the 4 billion years of hard work by our molecules. I truly want to know what existing before then.

Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

What was before that? In other words.....what preceded those molecules and what were their origin?

Mr, Lentz,

Your questions are like those of a very annoying child. I only have so much patience. Please make your point.

quote:

I promise.......this is no trick question.

Again......what existed before the 4 billion years of hard work by our molecules. I truly want to know what existing before then.

Thanks.

yes please explain

quote:

yes please explain

Okay, rather than a constant regression of "what happened before that" lets start with this:

Okay, some basics: A galaxy is a "swarm" of stars consisting of a hundred billion (or so) stars. Many of the "stars" you see in the night sky are actually these galaxies. There are literally more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of all the earth. Put that in your bong and smoke it.

Back in the 1920's, a guy named Edwin Hubble (the guy they named the space telescope after) proved that these galaxies were moving away from each other at enormous speeds. Yes, everything in the sky is moving away from everything else. It is as if we are witnessing an explosion from inside the explosion itself.

So, if everything is moving away from everything else, then one can't help but presume that all the galaxies were once closer together. Go back far enough, and you have a point where everything in the universe was contained in a space innately smaller than the size of the period at the end of this sentence. At the point, the laws of the universe simply don't apply. This infinitesimally small "point" was the cosmic egg. The Beginning of the Big Bang.

There have been countless scientific observations and experiments since Hubble (notably background radiation studies) that have confirmed the basics of the Big Bang beyond a rational doubt.

So, start from there. The entire universe had a starting point (perhaps even multiple starting points). Molecules came into existence at some point, Mr. Lentz. The universe became more and more complex and structured over time as it sought equilibrium. Matter formed. The elements (only 117 of them) were "created." Life evolved.

If you want to insert a deity at this beginning "point" you are welcomed to, of course. Beyond that, science has some pretty darn good rational explanations.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

yes please explain

Okay, rather than a constant regression of "what happened before that" lets start with this:

Okay, some basics: A galaxy is a "swarm" of stars consisting of a hundred billion (or so) stars. Many of the "stars" you see in the night sky are actually these galaxies. There are literally more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of all the earth. Put that in your bong and smoke it.

Back in the 1920's, a guy named Edwin Hubble (the guy they named the space telescope after) proved that these galaxies were moving away from each other at enormous speeds. Yes, everything in the sky is moving away from everything else. It is as if we are witnessing an explosion from inside the explosion itself.

So, if everything is moving away from everything else, then one can't help but presume that all the galaxies were once closer together. Go back far enough, and you have a point where everything in the universe was contained in a space innately smaller than the size of the period at the end of this sentence. At the point, the laws of the universe simply don't apply. This infinitesimally small "point" was the cosmic egg. The Beginning of the Big Bang.

There have been countless scientific observations and experiments since Hubble (notably background radiation studies) that have confirmed the basics of the Big Bang beyond a rational doubt.

So, start from there. The entire universe had a starting point (perhaps even multiple starting points). Molecules came into existence at some point, Mr. Lentz. The universe became more and more complex and structured over time as it sought equilibrium. Matter formed. The elements (only 117 of them) were "created." Life evolved.

If you want to insert a deity at this beginning "point" you are welcomed to, of course. Beyond that, science has some pretty darn good rational explanations.

Wow! Fish,

First you told us that you want to be a politician. And now you show us that your heart is really in fairy tale writing and fiction. Well, maybe both careers have the same prerequisites -- the ability to tell a whopper; and the ability to try to make others believe that whopper. Now that I think about it, I guess politicians and fairy tale writers do come from the same egg.

This huge universe, over 200 billion galaxies, each containing over 200 billion stars and planets -- all came from something as small as the period in my writing. Wow! I cannot think of a single politician, living or dead, who can sell that story.

And, by the way, supposing you become "Super Politician" who CAN sell this tale -- who or what created that small period? And who or what hung it in space? And, to go a bit deeper, who or what made that space?

Lay it on me, baby. I am eager to learn.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

SUPER POLITICIAN TO THE RESCUE!

quote:

all came from something as small as the period in my writing

Bill,

I agree it is unbelievable. Preposterous. Ridiculous. Far beyond my ability to deeply understand.

That does not change the fact that the a ball of mass the size of your fist has enough energy to destroy a very large city using today's technology. That's one helluva lot of energy from a tiny bit of mass.

Your primitive beliefs to not change the fact that black holes exist. Black holes are infinitely small points of mass that contain the mass of a hundred, a million, a billion or more suns. We observe them, literally, everywhere we look in our universe.

Black holes are based on the same principals as the Big Bang.

Want to feel humble? Check it:
http://sci.gallaudet.edu/Science/relativesizes.html

Tanks GoFish.........very informative. I had never heard that explained in that manner before. Very interesting.....

Now.........

Tell me..........what was before the small period you refer too in your post that initiated the Big Bang. What was before that?

Thanks -

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

all came from something as small as the period in my writing

Bill,

I agree it is unbelievable. Preposterous. Ridiculous. Far beyond my ability to deeply understand.

That does not change the fact that the a ball of mass the size of your fist has enough energy to destroy a very large city using today's technology. That's one helluva lot of energy from a tiny bit of mass.

Your primitive beliefs to not change the fact that black holes exist. Black holes are infinitely small points of mass that contain the mass of a hundred, a million, a billion or more suns. We observe them, literally, everywhere we look in our universe.

Black holes are based on the same principals as the Big Bang.

Want to feel humble? Check it:
http://sci.gallaudet.edu/Science/relativesizes.html

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

yes please explain

Okay, rather than a constant regression of "what happened before that" lets start with this:

Okay, some basics: A galaxy is a "swarm" of stars consisting of a hundred billion (or so) stars. Many of the "stars" you see in the night sky are actually these galaxies. There are literally more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of all the earth. Put that in your bong and smoke it.

Back in the 1920's, a guy named Edwin Hubble (the guy they named the space telescope after) proved that these galaxies were moving away from each other at enormous speeds. Yes, everything in the sky is moving away from everything else. It is as if we are witnessing an explosion from inside the explosion itself.

So, if everything is moving away from everything else, then one can't help but presume that all the galaxies were once closer together. Go back far enough, and you have a point where everything in the universe was contained in a space innately smaller than the size of the period at the end of this sentence. At the point, the laws of the universe simply don't apply. This infinitesimally small "point" was the cosmic egg. The Beginning of the Big Bang.

There have been countless scientific observations and experiments since Hubble (notably background radiation studies) that have confirmed the basics of the Big Bang beyond a rational doubt.

So, start from there. The entire universe had a starting point (perhaps even multiple starting points). Molecules came into existence at some point, Mr. Lentz. The universe became more and more complex and structured over time as it sought equilibrium. Matter formed. The elements (only 117 of them) were "created." Life evolved.

If you want to insert a deity at this beginning "point" you are welcomed to, of course. Beyond that, science has some pretty darn good rational explanations.

WOW!!!!! and y'all say were crazy

quote:

Okay, some basics: A galaxy is a "swarm" of stars consisting of a hundred billion (or so) stars. Many of the "stars" you see in the night sky are actually these galaxies. There are literally more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of all the earth. Put that in your bong and smoke it.

No thanks I don't smoke that stuff

He already covered that period thing.

He has no idea.

matter and anti-matter.

These are very educational. Enjoy.

Evidence for Evolution II

Evidence for Evolution III

2 each,

Maybe you should start smoking something. GF is entirely correct in that many of the "stars" we see at night are galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars.

This is elementary cosmology. May I presume you believe in the celestial sphere on which the stars are painted for our amusement?

Everything GF has said about the universe is absolutely correct, but he left out one thing.

The Universe is much more impressive and magnificent than the Earth-centered astrology of the bible.

The simple people who wrote that book knew nothing of cosmology, and that would be expected except that they were supposed to be knowledgeable about life, the universe, and everything. It's one of the numerous physical errors in that "inerrant" book.

Buy some Zig Zags and talk to a high school kid about getting something. Obviously your mind needs expanding.

DF

This is good too.

Miamiz,

Bravo, bravo!

DF

My question is so very simple!
What came before the matter that GoFish stated could be placed on the head of a pencil?
Where did that come from and what existed before that?
Simple Question. I would really like to know.
Thanks

M,

Rather than play juvenile games, give us your hypothesis.

Make sure you have evidence to back it up, ok?

DF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpob74lEZhY&feature=related

Deliverance banjo player gets it right eventually.


DF

I don't have a hypothesis. I really want to know what came before the period of mass your were talking about in the previous posts? Why is that so hard to answer? You have given me excellent answers to date. I need more information............so........again........

What came before the small amount of mass that you stated could fit on the head of a pencil?

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
M,

Rather than play juvenile games, give us your hypothesis.

Make sure you have evidence to back it up, ok?

DF

quote:

Tell me..........what was before the small period you refer too in your post that initiated the Big Bang. What was before that?

Spinoza's God? The Creator? Something? Honestly, we don't really know.

There are three schools of thought (that I know of). One is that there was no "before" this point. Before the point, there was nothing. Noting means an absence of space and time. If time did not exist, then there was no "before." There was just a Beginning.

Another school of thought it the "turtles all the way down" postulate that states that this universe is just one of many who have expanded and contracted, exploding and collessing over and over again.

Another theory is called "brane theory" where there were some fluctuations in the quantum fabric. I barely know enough to even think about this brane concept, much less expound upon it.

Bottom line: At some point there was darkness then there was light. And it was good.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
2 each,

Maybe you should start smoking something. GF is entirely correct in that many of the "stars" we see at night are galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars.

This is elementary cosmology. May I presume you believe in the celestial sphere on which the stars are painted for our amusement?

Everything GF has said about the universe is absolutely correct, but he left out one thing.

The Universe is much more impressive and magnificent than the Earth-centered astrology of the bible.

The simple people who wrote that book knew nothing of cosmology, and that would be expected except that they were supposed to be knowledgeable about life, the universe, and everything. It's one of the numerous physical errors in that "inerrant" book.

Buy some Zig Zags and talk to a high school kid about getting something. Obviously your mind needs expanding.

DF

Nope I don't need nothing to smoke and my mind doesn't need expanding especially about what y'all would want one to believe. Maybe you need to get off that stuff and start thinking rational
My mind is right where it needs to be.
Life was made one way that is from God, not some cosmic matter as you would want one to believe. But if thats what you wanna believe thats all on you.

Bash away I can take it, Because I stand strong in my belief and it will not waiver.

quote:

At some point there was darkness then there was light. And it was good.

WOW, Thats what was stated in the Bible. God said There shall be light and there was light and it was good.

Quote: "many of the "stars" we see at night are galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars."


There are only two:

M31 and M33

quote:

There are only two:

M31 and M33

Say WHAT?

M31 and M33 are visible to the naked eye from our hemisphere but never fear the rest of them appear to be out there. Only time will tell.