I had to peel my self off the ceiling...
twice...
I want a refund.
Keep em' coming!
Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
[[So to put it crudely: Okay, God is “undetectable” by physical means.]]
I know you didn’t address me, but htis brings up a good point- the actual eyewitness accounts of ancient civilizations are also lacking, yet we have no problem believing they existed based purely on logical and correct annalysis’ of the evidences available. It is no different with detecting God, or at hte very least, an intelligence when we examine the evidences- which coincidently, have more evidnece to support in relation to the violations of nature than do the hypothesis of Macroevolution which must have violated Natural laws to a much higher degree inthat every species would have had to continually violate the natural laws and biological truths at every single step of the supposed macroevolutionary process- and, not only violate it trillions of times, but doing so in an ever increasing law violating manner all while resisting the negatives that impeed the law violating progressions as higher and higher natural complexities and irreducible complexities ‘evolved’ (Were the process of Macroevolution a reality).
[[Both theories rest on indirect evidence.]]
Ah- but one theory is more scientifically valid in terms of obeying natural laws, while hte other, as mentioned above, is implausible due to biological impossibilities and the ‘abilities’ of nature to superceed the laws.
Robert Herrmann usefully points out that "Direct evidence for the existence of postulated entities means that the entities directly impinge upon human or machine sensors." Neither God nor the Common Ancestor qualifies in terms of this criterion.
So on what basis can we say, speaking as scientists, that the theory of divine Creation is in any way "inferior" to the theory of the Common Ancestor in accounting for the facts of reality (in particular, for the rise of life and its articulation in the biological diversity we see all around us)?
Both theories rest on indirect evidence. The question is: Which one best accounts for the evolution of the universe? (Not just the biota.)
Thank you so much for all your insights and encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!
LOLOL! Well put, dear brother in Christ!
So to put it crudely: Okay, God is "undetectable" by physical means. But by the very same standard, so is the Common Ancestor so beloved to Darwin's evolution theory.What an excellent challenge! I do hope someone will engage - but I won't hold my breath. The typical correspondent these days won't touch such points at all.Robert Herrmann usefully points out that "Direct evidence for the existence of postulated entities means that the entities directly impinge upon human or machine sensors." Neither God nor the Common Ancestor qualifies in terms of this criterion.
So on what basis can we say, speaking as scientists, that the theory of divine Creation is in any way "inferior" to the theory of the Common Ancestor in accounting for the facts of reality (in particular, for the rise of life and its articulation in the biological diversity we see all around us)?
Both theories rest on indirect evidence. The question is: Which one best accounts for the evolution of the universe? (Not just the biota.)
Don't hold your breath--its a mug's game.
You folks are equating religious beliefs, for which there are no evidence, with science, for which there is evidence. You admit that god is undetectable and claim that the common ancestor is undetectable as well. That is a false comparison. There is no evidence for deities, while evidence pointing toward the common ancestor remains in the genomes. Its just a matter of working out the details. See the difference? Evidence vs. no evidence?
"Both theories rest on indirect evidence" it is claimed? False again. "Divine" creation rests on no evidence -- it is entirely a religious belief. That's why they call it a belief!
And the belief in divine creation is not a theory. In science theories are well defined--see my FR homepage for the definitions; religious beliefs do not meet the definition of a theory.
You guys should stick to metaphysics and those other squishy subjects. Leave science to those who are not trying to distort both the data and the methods in a vain effort to support their particular religious beliefs. (Mathematicians should leave well enough alone also. Mathematical models and calculations are only useful if they accurately and correctly represent the data. I know its only a legend, but the case of a mathematician proving a bumblebee can't fly is a worthwhile parable, and should be kept in mind.)
I don't believe in miracles, I rely on them..
If you knew me better you would also know that it is true.. I should be dead at lease 20 times that I know positively of.. I am an unlikely God believer.. Could be there are many other times I should be dead.. Its possible the same is true for you.. How do I know that?.. Well you are discourseing over this stuff. when I sometimes talk to the hooves of many sheeple.. You display a certain civil openess.. It is noticed..
Actually the Big Bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître. Monsignor Lemaître would be very upset with you for calling him an atheist.
It also demands that everything have been totally randomly formed and that our solar system not occupy a preferred position in the cosmos.(scientific evidence has clearly shown a preferred position.)
Nope. There's nothing random about energy, mass, gravity, or trajectory.
And there's nothing privileged about the Earth. It's a small planet, smaller than most, orbiting around a mediocre star, about 2/3rds of the way out on a disc of a rather ordinary galaxy.
... If the Big Bang happened, then God did not cause it, because the Big Bang demands that he not be involved in any way.
Msgr. Lemaître would disagree.
...First off, I know very little about Catholic doctrine.
Obviously.
(AIG has an informative page here. on that subject.) ...
snicker.
Educating your self is a good thing; But be careful, the sea of information is full of sharks.
And even more websites, (such as AIG) that are full of shi+.
[[Leave science to those who are not trying to distort both the data and the methods in a vain effort to support their particular religious beliefs]]
Hahahahaha- now I’ve heard everything- “Scientists don’t distort to fit their religious beliefs” hahahaha
[[There is no evidence for deities, while evidence pointing toward the common ancestor remains in the genomes. Its just a matter of working out the details. See the difference? Evidence vs. no evidence?]]
And how’s the evidence that conclusively shows common ancestry goign for you folks htese days? Not so well? So, what you’re saying hten, is that Common ancestry is still an evidenceless religious belief that somethign took place ‘in the past’, but that we ‘just don’t have the connections yet’... Religious a priori belief in Macroevolution (hiding under the blanket of science) vs. Science which studies actual empiracle evidence for ID - Psssst- You have no evidnece - just assumptions and imaginary scenarios abotu past unknowns - don’t kid yourself, Macroevolution is more a religious idea than the belief in intelligence behind life’s irreducibly complex systems. (and by the way- the bumblebee impossibility wasn’t nearly as implausible statistic wise as the biologically impossible Macroevolution is- not even close.
[[False again. “Divine” creation rests on no evidence — it is entirely a religious belief. That’s why they call it a belief!]]
False again, Divine Creation rests on the foundation of ID/IC- both of which are producible, testable forensic clues- somethign Macroevolution lacks
[[And even more websites, (such as AIG) that are full of shi+. ]
Pretty bold statement- problem is your accusation lacks any relevent substance- How bout filling us all in on all the “shi+” on those sites instead of giving vague petty opinions? Nah- that’d be too much actual work to go through and try to refute the science presented on those sites- huh? Easy just to malign and attack their character without backing up your statements.
If your going to fight dragons, wear fire proof underwear.
Thats what I always say.
Or dangle a Trilobite in front of them- that always throws them off guard
I much prefer my Trilobites roasted over a mesquite fire.
Dragon breath gives them a funny flavor.
dont get caught eating them, last I heard, they were endangered- Trilobites, that is- not the dragons
Answers in Genesis repeats the blue-green algae lie
AiG lies about Ambulocetus pelvis
AiG lies about Chicken & Human Lysozyme
ICR lies about Archaeoraptor
ICR Paluxy "man-tracks" article by John Morris Morris and Duane Gish have since distanced themselves from "Dr." Carl Baugh
Duane Gish claims Peking Man (H. erectus) was a "Giant ape" Gish accepts "Turkana Boy" as a human yet he rejects "Peking Man", even though the skull case is larger?
And hundreds more here.
CottShop, you don't have to lie all that often before you get a reputation as a liar.
Twice should do it for most people ...
Could you mention some of the best of these limited evidences, and briefly explain the observation, hypotheses, and prediction?
The current religious ideas concerning origins (and there are several thousand internally contradictory ideas worldwide) are based on revelation and scripture and pure speculation -- in other words, nothing.
I'm not too sure what "the current religious ideas concerning origins" means to you, but if we're talking about the general idea that God created everything as described in the Bible, then I'm very familiar with that.
Actually, when I look at the world around me (And I tend to do that a lot, having been fascinated by everything around me since youth) I see a lot of things make sense when compared against the Biblical account.
For example, the Bible says that each kind reproduce after their own kind. Growing up on the farm, this is exactly what I saw. And I've found no evidence to disprove it. The Bible also says of course that God created the universe. And I haven't figured any way else it could have come to be, at least without another strong faith. The Bible also gives a good reason why there is only one species that talks. There is a great gap between the intelligence of mankind and the nearest ancestor. The Bible also gives a reason why there is this theme of an even number of hands and arms on mamals, you know, the two eyes, 1 nose, etc: God made it that way. I see no reason why evolution would not have ended up producing animals with 5 legs and 3 eyes and the like. And the Bible also gives a reason for the similarity in life forms -- he knew a good way to do it, and used the same principle on lots of different species. As a computer programmer, I do the same thing -- I take an old program I wrote, and use it as a starting base then make it do a new task, reusing a lot of the same old code. If God were a master designer, I see no reason he'd do it differently. Now of course I cannot prove that any any of these Biblical informations are true, so it is a faith for me, but can you see how an honest person that wasn't predisposed to believe evolution could also find the Biblical account to be plausible and to be supported by limited evidence?
As long as one is honest and doesn't claim as fact anything that is really only belief, and as long as it is possible that God created the world, I don't see why the topic could not be honestly and rightly scientifically explored.
I find that there are many ways that the universe appears to have been created intelligently. I don't see why I can't use that as an observation, then hypothesize that it was created by an intelligent creator, and then try to find the best answer explaining what I find.
Sorry for rambling on so. I truly am trying to learn the truth. I see many claims to mountains of evidence but as an amateur scientist (as in physical demonstratable sciences) and engineer I'm accustomed to getting to the bottom of things, but this topic has been ever so elusive. Thanks very much for your help!
-Jesse
Among the disciplines involved in science, Mathematics and Physics are the most epistemologically pure in my view. Thus I find your dismissal of math to be quite revealing:
In universality and information theory, it easily "trumps" the DNA evidence for a common ancestor.
Nor do I share your sense of what makes mathematical models useful. An example quoted by Cumrun Vafa was that Einstein was able to pull Reimannian geometry off-the-shelf to describe General Relativity. Which is to say, the geometry was discovered long before the warped structure of space/time was posited.
Likewise today, Max Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe Model is the only closed physical cosmological model known to me. It is a mathematical model - radically Platonist - that every thing in space/time is actually a mathematical structure that really exists outside of space and time.
Every other physical cosmological model (inflationary theory, big bang, ekpyrotic, cyclic, imaginary time, multi-verse, multi-world, hesitating, et al) - crash and burn on the issue of physical causality. In the absence of time, events cannot occur. In the absence of space, things cannot exist.
IOW, if you dismiss both God and mathematical structures as "real" - you are stuck with no explanation for physical causality. OTOH, if you dismiss God but accept mathematical structures as "real" - you are stuck with no explanation for the origin of the mathematical structures.
To recap some open questions for science:
You are a bit like the drunk who loses a bet on a sporting event and says, "Play the tape over again, and this time make it double or nothing."
It's rather silly to calculate the odds for things that have already happened. Even sillier to depend on miracles rather than getting your brakes fixed.
That's funny. I talk to God all the time. He never mentioned you.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:10-16
But you are not doing science, and you should stop pretending that you are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.