Darwin's Beagle ship replica plan [for his 200th birthday]

BBC News ^ | 19 July 2006 | Staff

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is no semantic game to declare that the biblical texts speak well enough for themselves as to God's actions and intentions. They do not need my interpretation to say what they say any more than the force of gravity needs my help to remain in effect.

[andysandmikesmom]

You know, you and I are never going to agree on this...you do not believe that the Bible is subject to interpretation, and I do believe it is....this is a disagreement, and its obvious, that neither one of us is going to change their own mind or the mind of the other person...

[Fester Chugabrew]

I know it's hard to read everything in my posts. I have stated in the past, however, that the biblical texts are indeed subject to interpretation. The issues is whether their intended meaning is duplicitous, and it is not. The issue is also whether they are clear enough to speak for themselves, and they are. Problems on the receiving end only serve to substantiate what those texts say about the condition of humans: "All have gone astray."

[andysandmikesmom]

And the phrase "All have gone stray", applies to everyone, to you, to me, to all the FR posters, to every single person that has ever lived, is living now, or will live in the future...so, we are all subject to going astray...I agree with that... it applies to one and all...You have no argument with me on that...A point of agreement, perhaps the only one, between you and me...

[Dimensio]

I take it as axiomatic that the biblical texts were authored by the Creator as a means to communicate the bigger picture of where all things come from and where they are headed.

Then you are admitting that you are assuming your conclusion and that the basis for your claims is no better than the basis of the claims of followers of other religions.

They are not mystical or esoteric texts, nor do they invite superstition. In fact they are quite the opposite, declaring these things in ordinary language even a child can understand.

Even if this is true, it is in no way evidence of divine authorship or accuracy. The biblical texts, like God Himself, are natural.

How have you determined that "God Himself" is natural? Please be specific.

Contained the the command to fill the earth and subdue it is the injunction to undertake science. The texts themselves are sufficient evidence of God's existence and intentions, just as your own words testify to some extent not only of your existence but also your intentions.

You are again assuming your conclusion to support your conclusion.

Am I assuming my conclusion when I conclude from your words that you exist and have intentions?

How have you determined that they are "my words"? What else can you determine about me? If I claimed to be a non-human entity who created the universe and all in it, would you believe me? Why or why not?

But you are not convinced the biblical texts were authored by anyone other than a collection of human authors, who themselves were inspired by nothing other than their own imaginations as they reacted to the physical world about them.

I come to this conclusion about all religious texts. Do you have reason than I should treat the "biblical texts" any differently?

Actually, those kinds of authors are the ones who fabricate Darwinism with all its esoteric spillage.

Please support this claim with evidence.

Why did ordinary human authors arrive at a creation taking six days?

Not all human cultures imagined a six-day creation period with a day of rest. The six-day account may have been devised to fit a pre-established seven-day week in convention at the time.

An almighty God could just poof everything into existence in an instant. That makes for stronger drama, and is more consistent with an Almighty being.

How have you determined what is consistent with an "Almighty being"?

At any rate, the texts say of themselves they were authored by the Creator Himself. I'll take their word for it. It is reasonable enough, just like intelligent design is reasonable enough and not mystical or superstitious.

Why is it reasonable to conclude divine authorship and intelligent design?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Then you are admitting that you are assuming your conclusion . . .

No. You have decided to make that admission and more on my behalf. Axiomatic statements assume their conclusion in the first place. They are asyllogistic in nature.

I come to this conclusion about all religious texts.

Is this a conclusion that you've assumed, or is it a conclusion based upon evidence? If the latter, what evidence did you use to make the conclusion that the biblical texts are solely a human product?

Why is it reasonable to conclude divine authorship and intelligent design?

Because the texts present a cohesive explanation for the origin, current condition, and pending change for all things science is given to observe, and because there happens to be a ubiquitous presence of particle matter that behaves according to intelligible patterns. Perhaps you could explain why such a conclusion is unreasonable?

[Dimensio]

No. You have decided to make that admission and more on my behalf. Axiomatic statements assume their conclusion in the first place. They are asyllogistic in nature.

So you are not assuming your conclusion but instead are appealing to an axiom, which is an assumed conclusion. What is the difference?

Is this a conclusion that you've assumed, or is it a conclusion based upon evidence? If the latter, what evidence did you use to make the conclusion that the biblical texts are solely a human product?

It is a default conclusion than I have regarding all religious claims as a result of seeing no evidence for any of them and also seeing evidence against many of them.

Because the texts present a cohesive explanation for the origin, current condition, and pending change for all things science is given to observe

How have you determined that these explanations are accurate and that they are of divine origin?

and because there happens to be a ubiquitous presence of particle matter that behaves according to intelligible patterns.

Why do you believe that your interpretations of the claims of the "biblical texts" are the most reasonable explanation for this?

Perhaps you could explain why such a conclusion is unreasonable?

Thus far neither you nor anyone else has provided evidence that the claims of the "biblical texts" are anything more than ad-hoc attempts of a specific culture to explain the world as they saw it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

So you have no evidence of a heavens and earth that exist as organized matter that performs specific functions? What scientific explanation do you have for the existence and functioning of these things if it is not intelligent design? Be sure to include evidence for your claims.

[Dimensio]

So you have no evidence of a heavens and earth that exist as organized matter that performs specific functions?

I made no such claim or inference. I only question your claim of explanation.

What scientific explanation do you have for the existence and functioning of these things if it is not intelligent design?

I did not claim to have one. I only asked that you support your claims of such. Attempting to shift he burden of evidence onto me in no way supports your claim.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Attempting to shift he burden of evidence onto me in no way supports your claim.

Sure it does. It indicates intelligent design has not been eliminated as a scientifically credible explanation; that claims of "religion," "superstition," mysticism," etc. do not hold water in connection with intelligent design; that there is no substantial alternative to be offered on your part. If you are going to claim intelligent design is not scientific then you had best be ready to offer an alternative that is.

[Dimensio]

It indicates intelligent design has not been eliminated as a scientifically credible explanation

Explanations are not credible as scientific merely because they have not been "ruled out". An explanation must be justified as scientific by showing that it conforms to the scientific method. Thus far, you have not done this. Moreover, you have not merely asserted that what you call "intelligent design" has not been "ruled out" as an explanation; you have asserted that "intelligent design" is the most reasonable conclusion for observed events. You have not justified that claim either, and you are changing the subject away from my request for you to do so.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The scientific method must make use of intelligent design, and its object must be intelligible. Science may take place under the axiom that all things are intelligently designed and do so both without harm and without the burden of proving this axiom is scientific. It is up to you, since you assert the axiom is unscientific, to suggest a different axiom under which science may comfortably operate. Be my guest.

[Dimensio]

Science may take place under the axiom that all things are intelligently designed and do so both without harm and without the burden of proving this axiom is scientific

The only axiom of science is that the fundamental properties of the universe are constant and uniform. All other claims must be supported with evidence. If you are operating with additional axioms then you are not doing science.

[Fester Chugabrew]

To what, other than intelligent design, should one scientifically attribute the properties of "constant" and "uniform?" There is no harm to science if one operates with the assumption in mind that the universe is a product of intelligent design. Unless you can scientifically debunk such an axiom or at least offer an alternative that is more viable, your cries of "unscientific" will fall on deaf ears.

[Dimensio]

To what, other than intelligent design, should one scientifically attribute the properties of "constant" and "uniform?"

It is not unscientific to withhold a conclusion in the abscence of information regarding a cause.

There is no harm to science if one operates with the assumption in mind that the universe is a product of intelligent design.

It is an unjustified assumption with no basis in evidence. You are attempting to redefine the rules of science rather than provide evidence for your claim.

Unless you can scientifically debunk such an axiom or at least offer an alternative that is more viable, your cries of "unscientific" will fall on deaf ears.

Your irrational approach is not my failing. It is your responsibility to show that your claims are supported by evidence; claims cannot be claimed true by default unless disproven. Science does not operate in that fashion and your attempts to redefine science does not change this fact.

[bvw]

I'll donate to this. Love the ships of that era.

[bvw]

Ooops spoke to soon, read only the headline. If it was a faithful genetic replicant, I would. It ain't, it's just a clone on the outside. All ID on the inside.

[PatrickHenry]

I'll scratch your name off the subscription list.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is an unjustified assumption with no basis in evidence.

On the contrary, it is a reasonable assumption based upon evidence consisting in the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions, not to mention an intelligible universe. Your inability to provide a more satisfactory explanation only further substantiates intelligent design as a viable theory.

[Dimensio]

On the contrary, it is a reasonable assumption based upon evidence consisting in the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions, not to mention an intelligible universe.

Despite repeated requests, you have refused to provide any reason to believe that "intelligent design" is a more reasonable explanation for the above than "not intelligent design". You offer no methods of design, nor have you provided any means to distinguish "designed" from "undesigned". As such, it is not honest for you to claim that your assumption is reasonable. Moreover, the fact remains that you are attempting to introduce a foriegn axiom into your methodology. This means that you are not doing science.

Your inability to provide a more satisfactory explanation only further substantiates intelligent design as a viable theory.

You are again claiming that a lack of an "alternate" explanation is a substitute for providing evidence for your own. It is not; your claim of "intelligent design" must be supported by evidence, not the abscence of another explanation that you find "more satisfying". It is not honest for you to claim that what you call "intelligent design" is substantiated when you have provided no evidence for your claim.