Jump to content

Physicists can't avoid a creation event


Recommended Posts

The appeal to emotion is deliberate. Your sense of moral values is very tied to emotions. Your values are from biology, but that does not mean there is not an emotional component.

How I feel about a fact has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You were conflating or attempting to associate acknowledging your ability to (in principle) alter my values with me being okay with those altered values.

A religion can be based on worship and the assertion of a moral code based on faith. It need not postulate a "supernatural world".

I do not quite understand the role of faith in this. As far as I knew, such a set of concepts is more generally called a philosophy. In asking for an example, I am not trying to rebut the point, I genuinely want to know of some examples of such a religion.

Yes, that is what I am saying. The abstract is not amenable to scientific analysis, but is used in scientific reasoning. The abstract exists. That's all I am saying. I am not interested in the Supernatural. Someone else brought that up.

If that is the case, how are you defining god? If it is merely abstract, then it is no more or less real than Jar Jar binks. Or you may be putting it in the same category as a mathematical proof, something that follows from certain axioms? If this is the case, how exactly does it link back to the material world?

I do not believe you meant either of these, perhaps you could elaborate further?

Also, I do not accept that 'the abstract exists' is non-contentious or that the definition of 'exists' is taking on a fully consistent meaning. I ask for a third time that we take this up elsewhere (and possibly come back or continue this discussion in paralell).

To appreciate the numinous is to go down a path that does not involve science, but that involves values, and starts to bring in the idea of awe. Once this idea is brought in, one is beginning to bring in the basis for religion. Perhaps "appreciating the numinous" is like a mini-religion. You are doing something ("appreciating") that is not part of a scientific experiment. You are stepping outside the measurable world, yet valuing that non-material world. So, that could be your religion.

 

Science itself is numinous. I am making the connection between what scientists may believe and what religious people may believe, but I am not claiming they are identical. I see a link there.

 

This is a very broad (and unusual? At least unusual to me) definition of religion which does not necessitate faith. It also includes many things which normally go under names like art and philosophy.

Edited by Schrödinger's hat
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What caused God? Your argument fails just as quickly as that of an atheist.

It only shows that the universe began to exist in the trivial way that "object A is said to begin to exist at time t if and only if there is no time before time t at which object A existed". All of th

How does this augment his OP? The arrogance of theists (and you) in demanding humans are separate from the animal kingdom (special in some way) never ceases to amaze me, how exactly are we so special?

How I feel about a fact has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You were conflating or attempting to associate acknowledging your ability to (in principle) alter my values with me being okay with those altered values.

 

 

Feeling is important in the discussion of religion. Religion (and in fact life itself) is all about feeling.

 

I do not quite understand the role of faith in this. As far as I knew, such a set of concepts is more generally called a philosophy. In asking for an example, I am not trying to rebut the point, I genuinely want to know of some examples of such a religion.

I believe Buddhism does not require belief in the supernatural.

 

If that is the case, how are you defining god? If it is merely abstract, then it is no more or less real than Jar Jar binks.

Let's suppose for a moment that is true: god is no more or less real than Jar Jar Binks. What's wrong with that?

 

Or you may be putting it in the same category as a mathematical proof, something that follows from certain axioms? If this is the case, how exactly does it link back to the material world?

I do not believe you meant either of these, perhaps you could elaborate further?

Also, I do not accept that 'the abstract exists' is non-contentious or that the definition of 'exists' is taking on a fully consistent meaning. I ask for a third time that we take this up elsewhere (and possibly come back or continue this discussion in paralell).

To me it is so obvious that the abstract exists, I don't want to debate it.

 

This is a very broad (and unusual? At least unusual to me) definition of religion which does not necessitate faith. It also includes many things which normally go under names like art and philosophy.

Religion does require faith, as does science. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly the person who does not know the difference between believing in God and superstition may just have to consult a dictionary. It is a grave insult to call a Christian superstitious and I strongly resent everyone on these forums who claims that. Dim reeper Seems to have a very aggresive stance on these issues. Is he interested in discussion or is he just here to tell a few Christians how superstitious they are.

 

Well then I will have to add insult to injury, religion, all of them, are nothing but superstition, sometimes dressed up but a pig dressed up is still a pig...

 

Is this the type of discourse you scientist want to be known for?

 

To be quite frank Yes....

 

 

 

That just seems to be saying that things can come into being uncaused. I have discussed the flawed philosophy underpinning such claims.

 

Discussing it doesn't show it is flawed, in fact there is no reason to suppose no possible event can be uncaused...

 

Can you explain to me if life is such a inevitable consequence of the physical environment. Why have we not seen other planets with life on it.

 

Under the correct conditions yes i can argue that life comes into being through natural chemical processes, those processes while not as well known at this time as the causes for the diversity of life are quite well formed and point very strongly to life being a natural byproduct of complex chemical reaction under the conditions of the early earth.

 

As to why we have not seen other planets with life, how can we know, we haven't been to any planets like earth yet...

 

That still does not answer Divas question. Does these individual steps go back into infinity or does it have some sort of cosmic starter gun that started the first cause that led to it all.

 

Are you aware of any theories of the existence of the universe that do not require a starting gun? I suggest you learn to use google, google is your friend..

Link to post
Share on other sites

The age old debate between scientists and religious people: "Where does the universe come from?" "We don't know for sure." "Aha, so you are saying there is a god!" NONONO, not knowing does NOT imply the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feeling is important in the discussion of religion. Religion (and in fact life itself) is all about feeling.

But feeling does not change what is true, and trying to invoke someone's emotions in order to make a point like that is emotional manipulation.

 

I believe Buddhism does not require belief in the supernatural.

Reincarnation is certainly supernatural, so are many/most interpretations of the karma concept.

 

Let's suppose for a moment that is true: god is no more or less real than Jar Jar Binks. What's wrong with that?

Nothing. Fictional characters can be entertaining, and even teach us useful lessons, but they don't require faith for this, and claiming that they can do something on their own is absurd.

 

To me it is so obvious that the abstract exists, I don't want to debate it.

This depends largely on the definition of 'exists'. Abstract things cannot do anything except where they have a representation. Not only that, but not all those representations are the same. They occur in different brains/computers/pieces of paper. My Harry Potter may have different opinions than J.K. Rowling's harry potter. My solution to a differential equation must result in same output (in writing/typing/speaking) as everyone else's, but it need not be stored the same way.

 

If there is some math/abstract realm where these things exist in the absence of a representation, I have no access to it.

 

When someone says something exists they usually are implying that it can interact with the world, and can be accessed outside of a representation. I agree that much of the abstract is objective, but use of the word 'exists' requires either careful definition before use, lengthy debate, or some form of solipsism.

 

Religion does require faith, as does science. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

 

Science is the antithesis of faith (ie. believing in something in the absence of or in opposition to evidence). Or have you changed the definition of that word again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Creation

The Creator (He/She) created everything from nothing. Sometime called cause and effect.

 

The Creator created the rules that govern them as gravity, magnetism, force fields, conservation of angular rotation, entropy……

 

The Creator created the purpose and plan.

 

The Creator developed the deaths of the Cosmos.

 

*************************************

Creating everything from nothing is a principal feature of the Creator. By definition the Cosmos exists and formed from the Big Bang. Back at time zero, before the Big Bang nothing of the Universe existed and then emergedfrom the Creator. How ever it is explained, The entire mass and energy of the Cosmos exists and has blasted into space. To deny a beginning from zero is tothwart the Big Bang. To espouse another measure of this singularity is but to describe the Creator in another way.

 

Nothing of this glob of mass end energy would work without the rules that govern it. It is impossible to imagine a universe without gravity and the remaining rules. These are all measureable Scientifically effects are observable and flow in all equations and nit the Cosmos into its configurations. The rules do not evolve but are subject to Einstein's modifications. On the basis of complexity and a fundamental feature, a Creator had to derive them. Sciences uses them but has no idea how they originated.

 

The purpose and plan is a reflection of a builder and a creation this is the concept of Will. In this case the cosmos is an exquisite ballet of form and motion embraces complexity, form and elegance. This is the attributes projected by the Creator and signifies that He/She extends to the infinite. With Life and the nanoworld. This elegance and complexity is without equal.

 

Death is a reality of Creation. All entities come to adeath. The cosmos will be overcome be entropy just as life dies to make a place for the new and a new God is not formed. Death means a new beginning and is as real as a white dwarf that makes the large elements some of which are here on earth. Death brings about new evolvement and development of entities that counters other threats. This to isn't known by conventional science and predicting the perfect time and places for this to happen is beyond our reach but in the realm of the Creator.

Edited by zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Zorro. The parts of your post that aren't just assertions with nothing to back them up are an argument from ignorance. Many of your points have also already been covered.

Please post something relevant and useful to the discussion that hasn't already been posted if you are going to say anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But feeling does not change what is true, and trying to invoke someone's emotions in order to make a point like that is emotional manipulation.

 

If we are discussing feeling, it is fair game to ask how you feel. A large part of religion is about feeling. Suppose we are having a discussion about what is moral and what is not. Is it not fair to provide examples of how you feel about certain moral situations? How you feel about these situations is relevant to your moral choices.

 

Feeling does change what is true, when the discussion is about feeling. I agree that how I feel about a material object does not change that object.

 

Reincarnation is certainly supernatural, so are many/most interpretations of the karma concept.

 

 

According to http://blogs.alterne...11/06/20/23128/ the following religions don't require belief in a supernatural being:

Taoism, Jainism, Confucianism and Buddhism

 

Of course, that's just another source you might dispute. Suppose I take Buddhism and remove reincarnation and karma. I still have a religion, wouldn't I? A set of codes to live by, a set of values to believe in, and a stated purpose to life based on some sort of belief (not necessarily a supernatural belief). So, I think I'm on solid ground here: religion does not require belief in a supernatural being.

 

When someone says something exists they usually are implying that it can interact with the world, and can be accessed outside of a representation. I agree that much of the abstract is objective, but use of the word 'exists' requires either careful definition before use, lengthy debate, or some form of solipsism.

 

 

Let's look at it another way. You don't see any difficulty with the phrase "the abstract does not exist"? There are books about abstract things. All these books are about something that does not exist? If something does not exist, I don't think I can talk about it.

 

It's really simplest to just state that abstract things exist. Saying they don't exist gets very complicated. I agree that the way an abstract thing exists is different than the way a material thing exists. But to deny abstract things exist gets one into trouble. Abstract things can exist without a concrete representation in my opinion (not sure what you mean by "representation").

 

 

Science is the antithesis of faith (ie. believing in something in the absence of or in opposition to evidence). Or have you changed the definition of that word again?

 

Science is not the same as faith, but it is not the antithesis either. Science requires faith. Science requires faith that the scientific method is a useful way to learn about the world. Science is not about truth. It is a method. Any given scientific fact is subject to reversal by some future experiment, as has happened many times in the conduct of science.

 

I would say that the experiments of science are not refutable: if you put your apparatus together in a certain way and get a certain reading on a dial, I'll agree that reading is a "fact". But interpreting what you are measuring and what you are theorizing about is an important part of science. Science is about the ideas we attach to the measurements. Those ideas are not "facts" or "truth". They are the concepts we use to interpret the measurements. I do not regard those concepts as "truth", but rather part of a logical construct that we use. There is no way to prove the concepts are true, just that we aren't aware of their being contradicted yet.

 

Science can teach us about the natural world because the natural world works as it does, logic being an important part of the overall structure. If the world did not have a logical under-pinning, the scientific method would fail.

 

Logical world + discoverable world + eternal laws of nature + my feelings about it = my religion. You might say it's a terrible religion, but I feel awe at the power of the world around me, and that causes me to pray because I realize I myself am subject to this power. I realize that everything I have is given to me by this power. All the preceding is completely aligned with science. Are science and religion really so distant?

Edited by Anthony Mannucci
Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are discussing feeling, it is fair game to ask how you feel. A large part of religion is about feeling. Suppose we are having a discussion about what is moral and what is not. Is it not fair to provide examples of how you feel about certain moral situations? How you feel about these situations is relevant to your moral choices.

 

Feeling does change what is true, when the discussion is about feeling. I agree that how I feel about a material object does not change that object.

You're still trying to sidestep the issue. You were not questioning feelings about what I think should be, you were questioning feelings about what is, and doing so in a matter so as to attempt to imply acceptance of facts meant I was okay with murdering innocent children. This is emotional manipulation and is intellectually dishonest.

 

According to http://blogs.alterne...11/06/20/23128/ the following religions don't require belief in a supernatural being:

Taoism, Jainism, Confucianism and Buddhism

Taoism has a soul and many mystical elements, Jainism is where the idea of reincarnation came from.

I had not previously considered Confucianism a religion, looking at it in this light, they do share some aspects.

Of course, that's just another source you might dispute. Suppose I take Buddhism and remove reincarnation and karma. I still have a religion, wouldn't I? A set of codes to live by, a set of values to believe in, and a stated purpose to life based on some sort of belief (not necessarily a supernatural belief). So, I think I'm on solid ground here: religion does not require belief in a supernatural being.

If you took away the spiritual aspects, you would be removing the basis on which other aspects rest. I suppose you could say this form of Buddhism, or Confucianism or Unitarian Universalism were religions, but religion would be taking on a rather different meaning. The word philosophy is more commonly used in this context.

At any rate, faith would not be involved in such a world view as individual moral guidelines can be argued and weighed on their own merits rather than having some unprovable but compelling reason to believe them. The possible exception to this may be some aspects of/sects of Confucianism which seem on the surface to be making an argument from authority, but I do not know enough about it to be sure.

Let's look at it another way. You don't see any difficulty with the phrase "the abstract does not exist"? There are books about abstract things. All these books are about something that does not exist? If something does not exist, I don't think I can talk about it.

 

It's really simplest to just state that abstract things exist. Saying they don't exist gets very complicated. I agree that the way an abstract thing exists is different than the way a material thing exists. But to deny abstract things exist gets one into trouble. Abstract things can exist without a concrete representation in my opinion (not sure what you mean by "representation").

Some arrangement of physical, material things (including neural pathways) that someone does or might recognise as the abstract thing.

Science is not the same as faith, but it is not the antithesis either. Science requires faith. Science requires faith that the scientific method is a useful way to learn about the world. Science is not about truth. It is a method. Any given scientific fact is subject to reversal by some future experiment, as has happened many times in the conduct of science.

Noone can prove that induction is valid, but you must accept induction to escape solipsism, or even use logic, or survive long enough for the thought to occur to you.

Saying that induction is a valid way to learn about the world does require a small measure of faith, but it is the same level of faith I require to do anything.

After that, you are completely wrong. Science is about doing everything you can to disprove an explanation about the world on the assumption that it is either incomplete or completely wrong. Every single experiment is a test of every single principle on which it is based. Engineering based upon the science requires faith that the scientific principles are sound, but the science does not. This lack of faith is exactly why scientific hypothesis and even things accepted as facts get overturned.

 

Science can teach us about the natural world because the natural world works as it does, logic being an important part of the overall structure. If the world did not have a logical under-pinning, the scientific method would fail.

 

Logical world + discoverable world + eternal laws of nature + my feelings about it = my religion. You might say it's a terrible religion, but I feel awe at the power of the world around me, and that causes me to pray because I realize I myself am subject to this power. I realize that everything I have is given to me by this power. All the preceding is completely aligned with science. Are science and religion really so distant?

You were making sense right up until the pray bit. You're assuming that it is conscious, and that it can hear your prayers, and that it cares, and that it is capable of interrupting said laws to do something about it.

The word 'given' indicates some intent or purpose. All of this is completely out of line with science as it is positing an entity which is completely unnecessary with properties that should be detectable (responding to prayer) but have never shown up as having more effect than a placebo.

Other than that, it appears to be some form of vague deism/pantheism -- ie. naturalism with a hat on.

Edited by Schrödinger's hat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Zorro. The parts of your post that aren't just assertions with nothing to back them up are an argument from ignorance. Many of your points have also already been covered.

Please post something relevant and useful to the discussion that hasn't already been posted if you are going to say anything.

Thanx, schr:

 

This is a Religion Thread.

 

The assertions as you seem to say cover many grounds and may never fit in your faith mold. I present fact that many others here do that offers a solution to questions stymied by other disciplines. The proof is in the observable reality, the complexity and everything comeing from nothing, which are precepts of the Big Bang and other assertions of the Pseudo sciences. The proof of creation surrounds us. One is the complexity of the eye. It comes from something, is extremely complex and time is to short for it to evolve even if it could.

 

http://www.detecting...m/humaneye.html

 

eye-evolution.jpg

 

 

 

Others have made similar posts which is an indication that it is true and relevant. They as you have a high purpose to present their facts and faith, do they not?

 

All is relevant to the Forum as it is to the illumination of the Cosmos. Wouldn't you agree??? Sciences and atheist's don't have many of the answers as of yet, but they are low on the learning curves.

Edited by zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof of creation surrounds us. One is the complexity of the eye. It comes from something, is extremely complex and time is to short for it to evolve even if it could.

 

Where is your evidence for that? Have you recreated the last few billion years and taken data from it?

Edited by Fuzzwood
Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof of creation surrounds us. One is the complexity of the eye. It comes from something, is extremely complex and time is to short for it to evolve even if it could.

 

Where is your evidence for that? Have you recreated the last few billion years and taken data from it?

 

Fuz, Please read the Ref.

Not Much Else to Go On . . .

If one looks carefully at the average time required for the evolution of such a multipart system of function, Dawkins and other evolutionists will most likely be waiting for a very long time for any experimental confirmation. No wonder hypothetical claims of design flaws are so common. There does not seem to be too much else to go on as far as a significant example of real evolution in action. The statistics are against such a process actually working in real life (kind of like a perpetual motion machine). So, evolutionists are left with the design flaw argument - an argument that relies upon the assumed understanding of the identity, motives, and abilities of any possible designer or collection of designers. Such arguments prove nothing except for the arrogance of those who use such arguments - especially when the very ones proposing such arguments cannot make anything even remotely comparable to much less better than that which they are disparaging.

last page

Edited by zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuz, Please read the Ref.

Not Much Else to Go On . . .

If one looks carefully at the average time required for the evolution of such a multipart system of function, Dawkins and other evolutionists will most likely be waiting for a very long time for any experimental confirmation. No wonder hypothetical claims of design flaws are so common. There does not seem to be too much else to go on as far as a significant example of real evolution in action. The statistics are against such a process actually working in real life (kind of like a perpetual motion machine). So, evolutionists are left with the design flaw argument - an argument that relies upon the assumed understanding of the identity, motives, and abilities of any possible designer or collection of designers. Such arguments prove nothing except for the arrogance of those who use such arguments - especially when the very ones proposing such arguments cannot make anything even remotely comparable to much less better than that which they are disparaging.

last page

 

 

I hesitate to start this irreducible complexity horse feathers... but here we go... again....

 

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

 

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[4]

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can evolve,[6] and that Behe's examples constitute an argument from ignorance.[7] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

 

Your examples of things that cannot evolve fail miserably, are easily refuted. Have been shown to be horse feathers many times on this forum. The tactic of simply telling the same horse feathers over and over will not make irreducible complexity true...

 

300px-Stages_in_the_evolution_of_the_eye.png

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof of creation surrounds us. One is the complexity of the eye. It comes from something, is extremely complex and time is to short for it to evolve even if it could.

 

Where is your evidence for that? Have you recreated the last few billion years and taken data from it?

Actually, no. There is more than enough time for the eye to evolve. Scientists have worked out that the eye could have evolved, using known rates of mutation, in a minimum time of a few thousand generations.

 

The process goes like this:

There are chemicals that react to light. These are quite common throughout organic chemistry.

 

Some cells near the surface of an organism have these chemicals in them. When these chemicals are exposed to light it triggers a cascade reaction in the cell.

 

Over time, any organism that could use this cascade to trigger behaviour (such as increasing the production rate of chemicals that cause muscle contractions - and thus swim faster) would have an advantage because if less light reaches the organism then this could indicate a predator above it and faster swimming organisms would more likely escape a predator.

 

If these cells are more concentrated in areas on the organism, then this gives a better resolution. The organism can now, very crudely tell the direction of movement of the shadow across it.

 

If these concentrations of cells became concave (like a dimple), this would give even better directional sense. Also, a protective membrane across the dimple would protect the dimpled cell clusters.

 

At the moment, this structure is similar to a pinhole camera, and this would give the organism some degree of focus to the image formed on the light sensitive cells enabling the organism to "see" for the first time (not just detect light and shadow). At this point, we have a proto-eye.

 

The membrane across the proto-eye would refract light, so an increase in the thickness of the membrane in certain areas (such as the centre) would cause the light entering to be focused, giving the organism increased focus and enabling a wider aperture making the proto-eye more sensitive.

 

From here on in, we really have an eye. Further refinements will give better image quality, colour vision, and many other features. What is important is that each of these steps is only a small step and is easily within "micro Evolution", where only small changes occur.

 

Concentrations of particular chemicals in cells are directly controlled by the activity of genes, increase the the number of genes that produce that chemical, or reduce the genes that limit the product will allow a greater concentration of that chemical. Thus this is easily within he reach of a simple mutation.

 

We know that genes control where cells replicate in the body. The particular genes are the HOX genes, and experiments with fruit flies can cause eyes to appear on various parts of the body just by change the genes slightly. So, we know that genes can control where cells are located on the body of an organism, and this would enable simple mutation to influence where the light sensitive cells on the organism are located, and that they are dimpled in.

 

An organism has many different types of membranes on it, many of them clear or even transparent. Referring back to the HOX type genes that control where such structures are located on an organism, this allows though simple mutation to give us the transparent membrane over the dimple where the light sensitive cells are located.

 

As it has been show that genes can direct the formation of structures in an organism, then the thickening of the membrane into a lens is also within the bounds of mutation.

 

At no part of this is there a jump where mutation (and thus evolution) can not explain the changes that lead from simple cells to a functioning eye. As there is a natural explanation without the need for a dependence on a supernatural or other wise external being or force, then you argument that it is proof that there must be such a force is invalid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hesitate to start this irreducible complexity horse feathers... but here we go... again....

 

Quote

 

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[4]

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can evolve,[6] and that Behe's examples constitute an argument from ignorance.[7] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

 

Correct Quote: http://en.wikipedia....ehe#cite_note-1

 

You have falsified the Behe record. This is what the court said:.....Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature.[2]

 

 

Your corruption: http://en.wikipedia....ible_complexity What you fraudently issued was:

Instead of ....The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

 

Behr was religious in nature and not dismissed by the court or the scientific community.

 

This is a critical infraction on the Forum !

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ehe#cite_note-1

Irreducible complexity and intelligent design

See also: Irreducible complexity and Intelligent designBehe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution.[14] Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. The logic is very similar to the watchmaker analogy given by William Paley in 1802 as proof of a divine creator.

 

After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, some creationists felt that new strategies and language were necessary to return religious notions to science classrooms.[citation needed] The supplementary school textbook Of Pandas and People was altered to change references to creationism to use the term intelligent design. The books of lawyer Phillip E. Johnson on theistic realism, which strayed away from direct statements about a Young Earthand stuck to criticisms of evolutionary theory and purported biased "materialist" science, aimed to legitimise the teaching of creationism in schools. In March 1992 a conference at Southern Methodist University brought Behe together with other leading figures into what Johnson later called the wedge strategy. In 1993 "the Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars" met at Pajaro Dunes, and Behe presented for the first time his idea of 'irreducibly complex' molecular machinery. Following a summer 1995 conference, "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture," the group obtained funding through theDiscovery Institute. In 1996 Behe became a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (later renamed theCenter for Science and Culture) dedicated to promoting intelligent design.[15][16]

 

In 1993, Behe wrote a chapter on blood clotting in Of Pandas and People, presenting arguments which he later presented in very similar terms in a chapter in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. Behe later agreed that they were essentially the same when he defended intelligent design at the Dover Trial.[17][18]

 

 

Edited by zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct Quote: http://en.wikipedia....ehe#cite_note-1

 

You have falsified the Behe record. This is what the court said:.....Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature.[2]

 

 

Your corruption: http://en.wikipedia....ible_complexity What you fraudently issued was:

Instead of ....The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

 

Behr was religious in nature and not dismissed by the court or the scientific community.

 

This is a critical infraction on the Forum !

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ehe#cite_note-1

Irreducible complexity and intelligent design

See also: Irreducible complexity and Intelligent designBehe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution.[14] Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. The logic is very similar to the watchmaker analogy given by William Paley in 1802 as proof of a divine creator.

 

After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, some creationists felt that new strategies and language were necessary to return religious notions to science classrooms.[citation needed] The supplementary school textbook Of Pandas and People was altered to change references to creationism to use the term intelligent design. The books of lawyer Phillip E. Johnson on theistic realism, which strayed away from direct statements about a Young Earthand stuck to criticisms of evolutionary theory and purported biased "materialist" science, aimed to legitimise the teaching of creationism in schools. In March 1992 a conference at Southern Methodist University brought Behe together with other leading figures into what Johnson later called the wedge strategy. In 1993 "the Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars" met at Pajaro Dunes, and Behe presented for the first time his idea of 'irreducibly complex' molecular machinery. Following a summer 1995 conference, "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture," the group obtained funding through theDiscovery Institute. In 1996 Behe became a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (later renamed theCenter for Science and Culture) dedicated to promoting intelligent design.[15][16]

 

In 1993, Behe wrote a chapter on blood clotting in Of Pandas and People, presenting arguments which he later presented in very similar terms in a chapter in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. Behe later agreed that they were essentially the same when he defended intelligent design at the Dover Trial.[17][18]

 

 

 

Well then, you need to report me, in fact I think I'll report me....

Link to post
Share on other sites
You [Moontanman] have falsified the Behe record.What you fraudently issued was:[/font]

Instead of ....The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

 

Behr was religious in nature and not dismissed by the court or the scientific community.

 

This is a critical infraction on the Forum !

What "critical infraction" did Moontanman make? Read the court's ruling, http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf. Jump to page 79. We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

 

Behe and his claptrap have been dismissed by the scientific community over and over and over again, and he most certainly was dismissed by the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What "critical infraction" did Moontanman make? Read the court's ruling, http://www.pamd.usco...zmiller_342.pdf. Jump to page 79. We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

 

Behe and his claptrap have been dismissed by the scientific community over and over and over again, and he most certainly was dismissed by the court.

 

dh

 

Moontanman infractions are as I stated above in misquoting wiki. ..... Behe may be a problem with you and moo, but don't corrupt the record of him. Like I said before, this is the inquisition in reverse where pseudo sciences is on the throne with it's daggers pointed at people of religion.

Edited by zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites

dh

 

Moontanman infractions are as I stated above in misquoting wiki. ..... Behe may be a problem with you and moo, but don't corrupt the record of him. Like I said before, this is the inquisition in reverse where pseudo sciences is on the throne with it's daggers pointed at people of religion.

 

 

I did not misquote wiki, ID and irreducible complexity have been shown over and over to be false. Your repetitious claims will never make this not true and sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming na na na na na will not make the reality of the situation go away...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have falsified the Behe record. This is what the court said:.....Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature.[2]

 

 

Your corruption: http://en.wikipedia....ible_complexity What you fraudently issued was:

Instead of ....The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

 

Behr was religious in nature and not dismissed by the court or the scientific community.

 

This is a critical infraction on the Forum !

!

Moderator Note

There is no fraudulence or critical infraction here. Moontanman quoted a Wikipedia article on Irreducible Complexity and zorro quoted one on Michael Behe. The two give different reference numbers for the same court quote: ""We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Moontanman's article is reference #2, zorro's article is reference #54, not the #2 reference he states is fraudulent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

There is no fraudulence or critical infraction here. Moontanman quoted a Wikipedia article on Irreducible Complexity and zorro quoted one on Michael Behe. The two give different reference numbers for the same court quote: ""We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Moontanman's article is reference #2, zorro's article is reference #54, not the #2 reference he states is fraudulent.

 

I'll stick with wiki on Michael Behe. It measures Behe on a case of Separation of Religion and State and Intelligent Design is heavy into religion and seeks to be a factor in competitive biological dogma of Darwinistic thought . The courts didn't rule on Intelligent design but on his blood views anyway.

 

Woo did not distinguish or refute it so is still vulnerable. His retort is: ....Well then, you need to report me, in fact I think I'll report me....

Edited by zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll stick with wiki on Michael Behe. It measures Behe on a case of Separation of Religion and State and Intelligent Design is heavy into religion and seeks to be a factor in competitive biological dogma of Darwinistic thought . The courts didn't rule on Intelligent design but on his blood views anyway.

 

Woo did not distinguish or refute it so is still vulnerable. His retort is: ....Well then, you need to report me, in fact I think I'll report me....

 

 

And I did, it didn't quite work out the way you thought did it? ID, creationism, two sides of the same counterfeit coin, they are both not only depend on lies to exist they are not supported by reality in anyway. If you really are wondering about this stuff then think of this, Evolution is the absolute best supported theory in all of science, nothing in biology makes sense with out the light of evolution. Your Idea of God, which ever god you believe in, might very well be true but even if god is real and even if the Christian god is the real god, evolution is still mostly true and ID or creationism is totally false. It's lie, a lie perpetrated by liars that want personal power with out the effort of real knowledge, people who want to control everyone with lies and false promises.

 

If you are really looking for information i am going to give you what I think it the absolute best guy to explain it, he gives links to his sources and you can read the texts of his videos if you want. Of course you can ignore this and go on trying to find a silk purse attached to a sow but for once actually look at something besides what you want to hear. Sometimes the truth is difficult to adjust to when the evidence counters what you want the world to be like...

 

If you insist then feel free to continue to live in darkness, it's really your choice...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're still trying to sidestep the issue. You were not questioning feelings about what I think should be, you were questioning feelings about what is, and doing so in a matter so as to attempt to imply acceptance of facts meant I was okay with murdering innocent children. This is emotional manipulation and is intellectually dishonest.

 

No, I never meant to imply you were OK with atrocity. I was merely following the logic of your argument, that your morality comes from biology. If that is so, and I change the biology, I can change the morality. I am invoking feeling in this sense: how do you feel about that ease with which morality can change? It can change for me just as easily as for you. If you resist this scientific perspective of how morality comes from biology, then why do you resist it? Why should it matter? Perhaps it matters because you have a belief, irrational and outside of science, in a morality that is not biologically based. Perhaps you are not comfortable with the notion of psyche-based morality.

 

After that, you are completely wrong. Science is about doing everything you can to disprove an explanation about the world on the assumption that it is either incomplete or completely wrong. Every single experiment is a test of every single principle on which it is based...This lack of faith is exactly why scientific hypothesis and even things accepted as facts get overturned.

 

 

In my view, this is a very emotional view of science. I don't think science is about "doing everything you can to disprove an explanation." Science is about: make a guess, test the guess, refine the guess. Scientists are not and should not be obsessed with proving things wrong. Scientists have to work from a more postive angle, which involves faith to some degree.

 

 

You were making sense right up until the pray bit. You're assuming that it is conscious, and that it can hear your prayers, and that it cares, and that it is capable of interrupting said laws to do something about it.

The word 'given' indicates some intent or purpose. All of this is completely out of line with science as it is positing an entity which is completely unnecessary with properties that should be detectable (responding to prayer) but have never shown up as having more effect than a placebo.

Other than that, it appears to be some form of vague deism/pantheism -- ie. naturalism with a hat on.

 

Prayer is about getting in touch with our dependence on a higher power (call this power whatever you like). Prayer reconnects you with the scientific fact that you do not determine your path through life, it is determined by something outside of you. I am merely pointing out that prayer makes sense within the construct of science. I am not as interested in assumptions about my prayers being heard or what that entails. I am not saying one way or another what hears my prayer and whether my prayer is acted upon. If there is a higher being that is listening to my prayer, I do not presume to influence such a being. That being will do what it will. What I can do is reaffirm my dependence on a higher power (higher in the sense I am dependent on it).

 

Perhaps this is a more palatable phrase: everything we have comes from outside of ourselves. Call it naturalism wearing whatever article of clothing you prefer. I again end with this thought: are science and religion really so distant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I never meant to imply you were OK with atrocity. I was merely following the logic of your argument, that your morality comes from biology.

If that is so, and I change the biology, I can change the morality. I am invoking feeling in this sense: how do you feel about that ease with which morality can change? It can change for me just as easily as for you. If you resist this scientific perspective of how morality comes from biology, then why do you resist it?

Here you are doing it again. Implying that feelings somehow change or are relevant to what is true. My feelings on this matter have no bearing on its actuality. I do not resist this, except with one possible caveat or extension to my biology to be explained shortly.

Why should it matter? Perhaps it matters because you have a belief, irrational and outside of science, in a morality that is not biologically based.

Now you are not only putting words into my mouth (ie. assuming I have already taken your emotional manipulation bait when I have not), your question of 'why should it matter' is assuming some sort of meta-morality. Ie. that it should matter that it matters.

It's sufficient that I care, and that everyone else cares. If noone cared it would not matter.

Perhaps you are not comfortable with the notion of psyche-based morality.

What does this even mean? My psyche is an element of my biology.

 

 

Now that I think of it I can give you an even simpler basis for morality.

 

Assume I am rational being with some desires. In being rational, I can ignore these desires if fulfilling some or all of them would be irrational.

I perceive other rational beings indistinguishable from myself other than that I am not them.

They all report the same finding.

The suitable null hypothesis should not be 'my desires are more important' as this is singling out an individual thing as being important without any logical basis.

Thus my null hypothesis should be 'all of these desires should be in the same category' and thus any rational course of action cannot rate any of them as intrinsically more or less important based on which me-like thing they originate from.

 

This is general, it works whether entities care about dying/ending, in which case 'keeping the things alive' becomes a rational action or not (in which case murder is perfectly fine as noone minds).

I need no 'murder is wrong' or 'help others', it is all in-built into the desires other entities have and how they interact.

 

I consider my rationality to be derived from my biology, but if rationality does not fall under your concept of biology, then feel free to consider this the exception I mentioned above.

 

In my view, this is a very emotional view of science. I don't think science is about "doing everything you can to disprove an explanation." Science is about: make a guess, test the guess, refine the guess. Scientists are not and should not be obsessed with proving things wrong. Scientists have to work from a more postive angle, which involves faith to some degree.

 

There is nothing emotional about this. Test and attempt to falsify are exactly the same thing. You are right in that they often trust the findings of other scientist (but only insofar as they believe any anomalous data is much more likely to be from the one principle they are directly attempting to falsify), but this is not faith in the believing something with no evidence sense. They have very good reasons to believe the other scientists are not misleading them.

 

A meta hypothesis if you will of:

The scientists in category x are right enough, frequently enough, that I am more likely to either find new science of a mistake I have made when using their results.

 

However, a good scientist will not continue to believe the results on which (s)he based his/her work if (s)he has made a concerted effort to find more likely explanations for anomalous data.

 

 

Prayer is about getting in touch with our dependence on a higher power (call this power whatever you like).

Assumption of a higher power, indicating consciousness/intent.

What do you mean dependence? In what way do we depend?

You have not shown any evidence for non-material (read abstract) things that are external to me. The only examples you have of these are those which are internal to me. Representations of abstract concepts interacting in my own brain.

Prayer reconnects you with the scientific fact that you do not determine your path through life, it is determined by something outside of you.

?????????????????????????????????????????????

I am merely pointing out that prayer makes sense within the construct of science. I am not as interested in assumptions about my prayers being heard or what that entails.

It can only make sense in the context of rationality if it does something.

Either it has some effect on you other than the psychological, ie. is some way of receiving input about the world, or it has some external effect.

I am not saying one way or another what hears my prayer and whether my prayer is acted upon. If there is a higher being that is listening to my prayer, I do not presume to influence such a being. That being will do what it will. What I can do is reaffirm my dependence on a higher power (higher in the sense I am dependent on it).

Dependent in what way?

Perhaps this is a more palatable phrase: everything we have comes from outside of ourselves.

Only in the sense of the stuff we are made of comes from elsewhere and that

Call it naturalism wearing whatever article of clothing you prefer.

If the above is what you speak of, then it is naturalism with a hat on. If you are claiming some special connection or powers granted by your god, it is either non-falsifyable (useless) or you have not met the burden of proof.

 

I again end with this thought: are science and religion really so distant?

And again, I end with yes, if faith is included in your religion. Faith and science are polar opposites.

If you are excluding faith from your religion, then no they are not, but this is not what you mean and you know it.

 

I shall also add this note:

Please can the religious give some kind of definition or distinguishing label before joining a debate.

LIteralist Biblical/Quranic/etc gods, Non-literal Christian gods, non-interfering theistic gods, interfering or non-interfering deistic concepts and pantheistic concepts are far more different from one another than modern particle physics and the four element model. Shifting goalposts are extremely tiresome and non-productive in a debate, and an argument for deism in no way supports an anthropomorphic god.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What "critical infraction" did Moontanman make? Read the court's ruling, http://www.pamd.usco...zmiller_342.pdf. Jump to page 79. We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

 

Behe and his claptrap have been dismissed by the scientific community over and over and over again, and he most certainly was dismissed by the court.

 

No, No, No.

 

Per Wiki " Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature.

 

Nothing was said about his rejection by the Scientific Community, What was said is that generally the Scientific Community dismissed some of his blood complexity works. But gave no conclusionary ruling on it since it was a separation of Religion and State Case not a Scientific Critique.

 

 

see: ...http://www.pamd.usco...zmiller_342.pdf

Page 78..... We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory ofevolution. As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Beheand Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-oneinside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted

 

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 79 of 139

 

Professor Behe conceded thatthe proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and even if it could,Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution, not design.(22:107-10 (Behe); 2:15 (Miller); 38:82 (Minnich)).

 

We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity hasbeen refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by thescientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally,even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID asit is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66(Fuller)).

 

We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for designencompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnichthroughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.”Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we seeparts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference isquantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, thestronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects ofbiology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has beendemonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian

 

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 80 of 139

claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design isrationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). Aspreviously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the ReverendWilliam Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paleyreach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed usingthe same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify thedesigner, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6-7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductiveargument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruledout. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller)).

......

H. Conclusion

 

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the factsof this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates theEstablishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed theseminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, andmoreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,antecedents.

.....To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an orderpermanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any schoolwithin the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate ordisparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer toa religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratoryjudgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them bythe Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants toliability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominaldamages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costsincurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

 

 

fine print:

This is not a legal review and no ascertains has been made of appeals if any that finalized the Court or Scientific issues.

Zorro

 

FYI; The Professor Behe rebuttals : http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html

Edited by zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.