Posted on 09/30/2005 2:09:51 PM PDT by truthfinder9
Same answer as before. Yes, by first examining all possible physical explanations and ruling them out. Once that is accomplished (if ever), the supernatural explanation remains. But not before, and not as a starting point.
Nice.. thats almost prose.. LoL.. and could/would make a damned good tagline besides..
CMB observed by Penzias and his pal around 1970. CMB does not equal red shift. And LeMaitre was a creationist with an idea outside the mainstream of scientific thought. I can only imagine the barbs that would have been hurled his way by todays science community. Yikes.
Liar. He did not say that it wasn't a scientific theory.
I never said he did. I said he said it's a proselytizing mechanism for fundamentalist protestants. Before you start calling names, learn some basic syntax.
That's why you guys are losing this public debate. You simply can not address the issue honestly.
Snicker. Let's see, so far it's transpired at the Dover trial that creationists have burned artwork depicting evolution, turned school board meetings into religious services, and harassed unbelievers. Way to win the public debate.
Yes I think there definitely is meaningful distinction between natural and artificial. The origins of a car would be artificial imo. I would disagree with anyone who describes a car's origins as natural.
Mid 60's actually. Yes, I was wrong about that.
And LeMaitre was a creationist with an idea outside the mainstream of scientific thought.
In what respect was Lemaitre a creationist? He estimated the age of the universe as lying between 10 billion and 20 billion years; modern estimates fall within that range. Many Christians also subscribe to the big bang, and that their deity caused it, but they're not usually called creationists. I have no idea what his ideas on biology were.
Lemaitre's work was a direct consequence of the expanding solution to the GR field equations proposed by Friedmann in 1922. Einstein didn't like it initially, in that it offended his world view, but accepted it in reasonably short order, and said eventually he found it beautiful. Einstein rejected lots of mainstream ideas; his philosophical intuitions were not very reliable. Lemaitre was invited to major scientific conferences and major laboratories to present it, and it made him famous; Einstein himself nominated Lemaitre for the highest Belgian scientific honor, and it earned him admission to the Pontifical Acdemy, all within seven short years of its first proposal.
I'm amused by the constant need to claim marginalization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
Bull. 'So' agrees with the positive part of the sentence. Had I wanted to say he agreed it isn't scientific, I would have said that explicitly.
Classy metaphor.. The visual it gives me is of a liberal anything bloviating about anything..
i.e. In a red suit with a big "C" on it (the Cunundrumator).. nice..
A liberal trying to make anything simple tends to always make it simplisitic..
And my reference to how LeMaitre might have been treated was not by his contemporaries but by yours.
I do appreciate your honest portrayal of Einstein and why he inserted a cosmological constant to keep it static. Credit where credit is due Professor.
In your mind, perhaps. But in terms of how most people understand it, "so" is synonymous with "thus". In other words, whatever you described gets locked up into that word.
Regardless, though, the important thing is that you're acknowledging that ID's alleged unscientific nature is merely your own opinion.
I would have pinged inquest as well but I'm currently on his crap list, but then again I'm on a lot of folks' crap list. I can live with that. :-}
Interesting enough, I pulled this from the talk.origins site. While there is a rebuttal on the page St. Dawkins, it doesn't actually address the implications, nor the significance behind St. Dawkin's statement. This fact betrays an intellectual dishonesty:
"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Dawkins 1986, 6)..
Now, this statement can be vociferously denied, or hand waved at, but since this was made by the person holding the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, one must bring into question the motivations seen in the recent fandango.
What is at the heart of the matter is that a local school district is being sued in Federal court, all polemics about 'destroying science' or 'ape worship' aside. The real danger here is IMHO a parallel to what happened in Russia, regarding Lysenkoism--a questionable science at the time that was co-opted by the State to promulgate a political philosophy. After all, if State policies can be backed by a consensus of scientists, who can argue? ( not to mention, the purging of other scientists who argued against. Of course, if one's life is threatened, it is pretty easy to join the 'consensus' ). This event resulted in killing millions of people through famine.
God , at least the God of strict monotheism, is not a "supernatural" cause. This may be the point of disagreement between us. I should also clerify what I mean by "attitude" toward religion. Neither rejected, as Thomas Huxley did, the notion of revelation as knowledge. With Huxley, and probably is with Dawkins, is a matter of anticlericalism as much as irreligion. Until Darwin came along, the scoentific societies in England were dominated by amateurs. most of whom were clergymen. By espousing Darwin, "professionals" like Huxley came to dominate those same circles. Dawkins, like Lord Russell before , is antiChristian and has the further agenda of removing all Christian influence from society,
If you accept the notion of the big bang, it would seem so.
If one believes that Jeusus Christ rose from the dead. It is said that he went through a closed door. Scientifically, we know there is space between our molecules so that if the molecular structure were different, with our molecules in the cracks not aligned to the molecules of the door, we could pass through it. This is an example where something supernatural has a scientific explanation.
If evolution focused on simple life forms, then it would be true. Instead what is found is a complex variety of mathematical and scientific laws along complex life forms.
Why is there light waves? Why are there sound waves? There is no reason we should have electricity, sound and light. A person sees someone else talking but cannot hear what they are saying. Why isn't that true if the person is face to face? It could have been. We could have all evolved without sight and hearing like worms. Instead, we are designed with a sorts of senses and the scientifically designed laws are at work for our enjoyment.
Here is a scientific marvel: It is capable of processing up to 30 billion bits of information per second. It boasts the equivalent of 6000 miles of wiring and cabling. What is it? The human brain. A reaction in one neuron spread to hundreds of thousands of others in a span of less than 20 milliseconds-10 times less than the blink of an eye.
Why is this world designed and not something that has evolved because we can relate things that exist to things we design. The problem is this universe runs on a quality law not quantity. Why not say it took googul number of years for everything to form. Evolution requires getting it right every time. If I say I am thinking of a number between 1 and 100, you have 99 chances of getting it wrong.
Look at the hurricanes. A quality event of less than a day destroyed houses that took months to build. People can look at the Grand Canyon and say it took millions of years to form or a quality event (world-wide flood) caused layers to be packed one on top of another in 40 days. That why believing in God who in infinite chose to create it all in 6 days, can be very logical and even scientific. He did as a pattern for our work schedule. He could have done it in an hour or even a second. Take a copy machine, one cannot make a copy without having an original. Evolution focuses on having a copy without an original.
In order for a force to occur that has to be a source of that force. True science and math instead of leading a person away from God, declares the glory of His wisdom. Things are too precise to be left to chance.
Not at all. We've established it is a religious idea - according to Dembski. I've asked you for one other example of a scientific idea with a religious penumbra. And you've failed to come up with one. So we can deduce either that
ID is a scientific idea, but it is unique among all such, in that it has a religious penumbra
or
Scientific ideas don't have religious penumbras, and ID, because of its religious penumbra, is not a scientific idea.
Of course, there could also be the third alternative, that ID is not any kind of scientific idea at all, but a strategem to get the teaching of religion into school. This is supported by various pronouncements by Philip Johnson, and by the DI's own notorious wedge document.
Or there's a fourth alternative, which is that ID is simply a relabelling of creationism. This is supported by the fact that Of Pandas and People the first major work to use the term Intelligent Design, took an existing text draft where the word creationism was used and did a global find/replace with the term 'intelligent design'.
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.