If I only had a thumb...
Eat yer Sapien heart out!!!
Every day and every way; I'm getting better and better....
Posted on 10/17/2008 7:59:18 AM PDT by Soliton
Three antievolutionists have been appointed to a six-member committee to review the draft set of Texas state science standards, and defenders of the integrity of science education in the Lone Star state are livid. "The committee was chosen by 12 of the 15 members of the board of education, with each panel member receiving the support of two board members," as the Dallas Morning News (October 16, 2008) explains. Six members of the board "aligned with social conservative groups" chose Stephen C. Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, Ralph Seelke, a biology professor at the University of Wiconsin, Superior, and Charles Garner, a chemistry professor at Baylor University.
Meyer, Seelke, and Garner are all signatories of the Discovery Institute-sponsored "Dissent from Darwinism" statement. Meyer and Seelke are also coauthors of Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House, 2008), which, like Of Pandas and People, is a supplementary textbook that is intended to instill scientifically unwarranted doubts about evolution. A recent review by biologist John Timmer summarized, "But the book doesn't only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book." Garner reportedly told the Houston Press (December 14, 2000) that he "criticizes evolutionary theory in class."
Meyer and Seelke also testified in the 2005 "kangaroo court" hearings held by three antievolutionist members of the Kansas state board of education, in which a parade of antievolutionist witnesses expressed their support for the so-called minority report version of the state science standards (written with the aid of a local "intelligent design" organization), complained of repression by a dogmatic evolutionary establishment, and claimed to have detected atheism lurking "between the lines" of the standards..
(Excerpt) Read more at ncseweb.org ...
There, you did it again, you undermined your very own position...there's absolutely nothing the chemist said that was remotely religious or unscientific in his paragraph and yet, like Joe the Plumber, you continually shift away from what he said to his credibility.
Your in the clutches of a cult and don't know it.
It frightens me that you have so little confidence in your own beliefs that you are unwilling to say what they are and stand behind them?
Run away little boy, when you are man enough to stand behind your own beliefs we can discuss this issue further.
I thought you were making a series point about the speed of light but it looks like I am in the middle of something. I see the thing I mentioned as a stumbling block for people to believe in creation I'm not getting what you guys are talking about. How does 186,282.397 miles per second prove or disprove the God of the Bible?
Yeah except they had a tendency to get it backwards. They should have had God make the Sun first, before the light.
They had a problem with the basics like cause and effect.
Huh? If I say that Despator is a myth, or Ra is a myth, or Apollo, etc. that is to become religious? LOL Wow I must be the most religious person in the world : )
You have my sincere condolences.
The claim is made that the God of the Bible is omnipotent and omniscient. The scientific fact is that the speed of light limits the speed that information can be sent.
Unless someone can demonstrate faster than light speed (instantaneous) communication, the speed of light limit falsifies the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient God.
If you knew everything you would be right.. You don't..
It is possible you do not know everything..
There may be things beyond your present observations..
To say something don't(or does) exist absolutely.. is RELIGIOUS...
Because it takes "faith" to say it.. Takes the jump of faith..
Where exactly does spiritual light reside on the EM spectrum?
Einstein felt closer to God when he studied physical light. I’m no Einstein. Are you?
Einstein didn't believe in a God who concerned himself with the actions of men. Do you? If you do then you don't believe in the same God Einstein did.
So many Gods so little time.'Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders?' Friedrick Nietzsche
“Where exactly does spiritual light reside on the EM spectrum?”
I feel like I’m debating a robot. “This does not compute. Insufficient data. God is not real. My data banks prove it. Spiritual and mystical concepts are incapatible with my data banks.”
“Einstein didn’t believe in a God who concerned himself with the actions of men. Do you? If you do then you don’t believe in the same God Einstein did.”
I wasn’t aware of that. Einstein thought God was inhuman? If you have any handy links, I would like to see them.
‘Is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s blunders?’ Friedrick Nietzsche
Was it a horse who Nietzsche spoke with? I forget. Something in a barn yard, but my memory is fuzzy on that point.
Why do you believe God can’t break the speed of light? Do you believe God can’t break the idea of conservation of energy and matter. If God creates one atom He has broken a different law. EVERYTHING God does is miraculous and, therefore, therefore a breaking of the laws of nature. So why pick this particular law?
I have on a shelf a pagan God of fertility. It is a carved little rock that looks like a fat pregnant woman minus a head and appendages. I am pretty sure that at one time someone prayed to this God or at least a similar God.
So the question is, does this God exist? I can hold the rock in my hand, so the rock exists. Was God just an idea that the rock helped visualize? Was the idea real? Sure : )
Now the next question is, is there a real, headless, armless, legless, fat, pregnant, God of fertility, floating around out there? I can't prove that there isn't : (
The next question is can I falsify that God? Since this is a God of fertility, I would assume that I would have to pay it homage to get my wife pregnant. So I do a little experiment and get my wife pregnant without paying homage to the fertility God. Now I have falsified that God, it is as simple as that. No faith required, just knowledge properly applied.
And I feel like I am debating with people who have never thought for themselves, that just accept what they are told without ever challenging anything that they are told. Sheep.
I wasn’t aware of that. Einstein thought God was inhuman? If you have any handy links, I would like to see them.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." -- Albert Einstein
“And I feel like I am debating with people who have never thought for themselves, that just accept what they are told without ever challenging anything that they are told. Sheep.”
Then you know me about as well as you know spiritual light. You think you have all the answers. You’re ‘proof is Swiss cheese on the floor, and you refuse to admit it.
You are evidently a fan of local realistic theories, which are predicated on two major assumptions: locality and physical reality. Locality requires that signals or any other kind of transfer of energy between space-like separated regions cannot occur at speeds exceeding the speed of light. (And realism holds that physical reality exists fully independently of acts of observation. But this second consideration need not detain us here.)
And yet quantum theory holds that all quantum particles are connected to each other through the space-like attribute with a zero time of interaction. That is, instantaneously. This phenomenon is called quantum entanglement; and it suggests that the universe is fundamentally non-local in the manner in which information is propagated and distributed at the quantum level.
In any case the speed of light cannot be a constraining factor on an omnipresent, omniscient, all-powerful, eternal God.
The speed of light itself perhaps is an abstraction, though a useful one since it seems to be a reliable constant for most intents and purposes. But then as metmom points out, there have been macro-scale observations in recent times that suggest the speed of light can slow down or speed up. I suppose that, like every scientific principle, it is a useful, general benchmark but one which does not always hold.
In short, the concept of the speed of light as the universal speed limit basically holds only at the scale of classical (Newtonian) physics.
You wrote:
Your first false (or at least not demonstrated) supposition is that there is anything "outside" of our Universe. Your second false supposition is that the Universe was created by an intelligent being and that the creator isn't subject to its own laws. Etc. Etc. If you have any evidence to back up any of your claims I would be more than happy to look at it :)The "demonstration" is purely logical: God as creative agent cannot be conflated with that which He creates. The Artist must be "outside" of his work of art.
We know -- or at least strongly suspect on the basis of satellite imaging of the CMBR that space and time had a real beginning about 14 billion years ago.
If space and time BEGAN, then it is illogical to speak of a time or space "prior" to that beginning. So the inception event had to have been moved from "outside" the space/time continuum of the evolving universe. The only candidate for moving such an inception event can only be God Himself; the natural process cannot be the originator of itself unless it can be demonstrated that it FIRST created space and time. For without space, no objects can exist; without time, no events can occur.
RE: my "second false supposition" that the universe was created by an intelligent being who is not subject to the laws that obtain in the creation. Do you believe that anything that cannot be validated/falsified on the basis of the scientific method MUST therefore be "false?"
If the scientific method is pretty much limited to direct observables (via our five senses as technologically extended), and there are things in the universe which are not directly observable -- e.g., thoughts, mind, the self, soul, God, culture, qualia, et al. -- then why would you insist on subjecting such things to tests for which the scientific method is unqualified and inadequate? And then, being unable to test them, declaring that they therefore cannot exist?
And yet as Eric Voegelin once remarked, a universe that contains intelligent beings cannot have had less than an intelligent cause. It is simply illogical to say that the order of the universe is the production of chance or accidental cause.
But that seems to be the very gist of what you boil all this down to, LeGrande.
And by the way, I post things regarding evolution that metmom and tpanther disagree with, but we disagree with respect. Do you realize how many millions of people tried to disprove God? But you’re the one who can do it. You’re tilting with windmills. What is your goal? To prove you’re Don Quixote?
Until it can be demonstrated that the speed of light isn't the limit that information can be sent at, it is good enough for me. Just falsify Einsteins Theory of Relativity and I will reevaluate my position : ) It is entirely possible that I am wrong.
If God creates one atom He has broken a different law.
Actually particle anti-particle creation happens all the time. That concept is fundamental to quantum physics.
EVERYTHING God does is miraculous and, therefore, therefore a breaking of the laws of nature. So why pick this particular law?
Because I accepted a challenge from a poster about 500 posts back : ) But you are right, anytime someone claims that God is breaking a law of nature without evidence to back up their claim then they are falsifying their concept of God.
Making unsubstantiated claims without any evidence is no proof at all, except maybe that the person is mentally unstable.
"Show me a trick and I'll believe in You".
Not according to the BB scientists...
I am very familiar with quantum entanglement and you are being disingenuous when you claim that information is distributed at the quantum level, by implying that information is being sent instantaneously. Schroedingers equations are extremely deterministic.
In any case the speed of light cannot be a constraining factor on an omnipresent, omniscient, all-powerful, eternal God.
You are simply asserting something without any evidence. I simply deny it without any evidence required to do so. Have you ever read that anywhere before : )
The speed of light itself perhaps is an abstraction, though a useful one since it seems to be a reliable constant for most intents and purposes. But then as metmom points out, there have been macro-scale observations in recent times that suggest the speed of light can slow down or speed up. I suppose that, like every scientific principle, it is a useful, general benchmark but one which does not always hold.
We are talking about the speed of light in a vacuum away from large gravity fields and you know it. Light is the one invariant that we have. If you think you can disprove it I am all ears : )
In short, the concept of the speed of light as the universal speed limit basically holds only at the scale of classical (Newtonian) physics.
I think that you are confusing what you consider the probabilistic nature of QM with the reality that QM is completely deterministic, it has less degrees of freedom than Newtonian physics. The wave functions location can be precisely determined and because it is a wave function it travels at the Speed of Light.
The "demonstration" is purely logical: God as creative agent cannot be conflated with that which He creates. The Artist must be "outside" of his work of art.
Again you are jumping to a conclusion without any evidence or logic to back it up. Dispator (the Celtic God of creation) says that we are Gods. The Universe itself is God and not separated from its creator. Who are you to disagree with Dispator? Are you following my satire or do I need to spell it out more clearly?
We know -- or at least strongly suspect on the basis of satellite imaging of the CMBR that space and time had a real beginning about 14 billion years ago.
Again you are assuming a single big bang and that our event horizon is the entire universe. Those may be false assumptions and probably are. The creation of our "universe" maybe nothing more than spontaneous pair anti-pair appearances on a massive scale, a completely natural event.
If space and time BEGAN, then it is illogical to speak of a time or space "prior" to that beginning. So the inception event had to have been moved from "outside" the space/time continuum of the evolving universe. The only candidate for moving such an inception event can only be God Himself; the natural process cannot be the originator of itself unless it can be demonstrated that it FIRST created space and time. For without space, no objects can exist; without time, no events can occur.
Let's examine your argument rationally. You are saying that before anything at all existed, that God existed. God isn't anything at all, it is nonexistent. Therefore God doesn't exist. Does that about sum up your argument?
RE: my "second false supposition" that the universe was created by an intelligent being who is not subject to the laws that obtain in the creation. Do you believe that anything that cannot be validated/falsified on the basis of the scientific method MUST therefore be "false?"
No, just that the scientific method is based on evidence and falsification. If you have a theory (like String Theory) that can't be tested, and has no evidence to support it, it is useless, except maybe as an idea generator. The same concept holds true for Religion. If the Judea/Christian Religion was true if would have tons of evidence that could be tested. It is based on prophecy, so there should be tons of verifiable, accurate and completed predictions, there aren't, so it is falsified : ) The speed of light explains why it is impossible to predict the future, it even explains why it is impossible to know the now.
If the scientific method is pretty much limited to direct observables (via our five senses as technologically extended), and there are things in the universe which are not directly observable -- e.g., thoughts, mind, the self, soul, God, culture, qualia, et al. -- then why would you insist on subjecting such things to tests for which the scientific method is unqualified and inadequate? And then, being unable to test them, declaring that they therefore cannot exist?
If your concept of God is an idea, then I won't disagree with you. On the other hand, if your concept of God is more than that and able to influence our universe in ways that are directly observable then we should be able to use the scientific method to test those observable features. You can't have it both ways : ) (Not observable and observable.)
And yet as Eric Voegelin once remarked, a universe that contains intelligent beings cannot have had less than an intelligent cause. It is simply illogical to say that the order of the universe is the production of chance or accidental cause.
But that seems to be the very gist of what you boil all this down to, LeGrande.
That is only if you make the faulty assumption that there is a creator in the first place. All the evidence points to increasing complexity and intelligence via feedback loops. Even the Bible (as a history book) shows progression of belief and knowledge, from ignorance and superstition to enlightenment and knowledge, falsifying the religious principle of Knowledge and Truth coming from God and shows instead that it is learned through interaction (feedback loops).
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.