discovery versus jesus

[Guest GhostRanger]

I think there's been a misunderstanding of vocabulary over the last couple of pages. The correct meaning of intelligent design states that it refutes natural selection, which is an integral part of evolution, so intelligent design does contradict evolution. What Ghost says, however, is that god caused evolution, which can't really be proven either way so is, I think, a valid claim.

 

 

 

but...

 

 

Because the Bible is a theological book, it does not give the science behind how it was done. That's irrelevant to religion, but it doesn't mean religion refutes the science behind it.

 

 

 

So this stuff:

on the first day God created light; on the second, the firmament of heaven; on the third, he separated water and land, and created plant life; on the fourth day he created the sun, moon, and stars; on the fifth day marine life and birds; on the sixth day land animals, and man and woman. On the seventh day, the Sabbath, God rested, and sanctified the day.

is metaphorical? I thought the "world appeared in seven days" concept was what Christians think actually happened.

 

 

 

Before you try and make the claim you are, I recommend doing a little more research on that scripture and what it actually says. The word "day" does not translate to mean what our version of the word day means.

[pianofrieak2]

I think there's been a misunderstanding of vocabulary over the last couple of pages. The correct meaning of intelligent design states that it refutes natural selection, which is an integral part of evolution, so intelligent design does contradict evolution. What Ghost says, however, is that god caused evolution, which can't really be proven either way so is, I think, a valid claim.

 

 

 

It may be possible but it's merely a mix of evolution and creationism. I see absolutely no reason to believe in such a thing, and it is very unpopular among Christian circles. Please don't get the idea that Christians believe in that sort of thing...whether or not Ghost does is beside the point.

 

 

 

 

 

1. irreducible complexity - The different parts of something complex were

 

added at different times. You're assuming that every single part was created at the same time. Complex objects become complex. They don't begin as complex objects.

 

 

 

I know what evolution is. You're mixing the two concepts.

 

 

 

1. How would a cell with no outside mind know what pieces he needs for the flagella to work? Take, for instance, the mouse trap.

 

 

 

A mousetrap has many pieces that have to work perfectly, are in the right place, and are in the right order. Evolution says it's purely chance, but why would evolution keep a useless piece that's necessary in the chain? Evolution has to know what pieces are needed...when...and if it doesn't help the organism at that instance, it won't keep it. And yet the flagella has to have pieces in order in time and in the right place. It's why irreducible complexity is such a marvelous concept. It uses evolution to disprove itself.

 

 

 

3. The Earth is not the only habitable place in the universe.

 

Show me proof because in my research, the Earth is the only habitable place in the universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God is present in high school biology classes. It's called "Divine origins." It takes up one powerpoint slide, along with "extraterrestrial interference", during the introduction to the evolution chapter. Why can't we go into more detail and teach intelligent design in science class?

 

because:

 

Intelligent design cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions and proposes no changes to its hypothesis.

 

 

 

Well, at the very least, it doesn't give us false doctrine about science. And it explains how we got here...as compared to any other workable theory of which evolution has ideas but doesn't explain. Besides, to address your point, intelligent design does generate predictions because it says our world was created by an orderly God and behaves in an orderly fashion...unlike evolution.

 

 

 

Intelligent design is geared towards refuting evolution. The only objective and teachable concept in ID is the existence of a higher being, which is already being taught. All the other concepts (irreducible complexity, etc) are meant to argue against claims made in evolution. The problem, obviously, is that evolution, as a truely scientific theory (refer to the quote above), has already changed its hypothesis (unlike ID) over the years to take into account these claims.

 

 

 

Intelligent Design must refute evolution in order to have people recognize it as a viewpoint. But its purpose in life is NOT to refute evolution...merely provide an explanation for the great order we see in our universe.

[Anesthesia]

3. The Earth is not the only habitable place in the universe.

 

Show me proof because in my research, the Earth is the only habitable place in the universe.

 

 

 

I think you'll find that given the overwhelming (if not infinite) size of the universe the burden of proof is in fact upon you.

[pianofrieak2]

3. The Earth is not the only habitable place in the universe.

 

Show me proof because in my research, the Earth is the only habitable place in the universe.

 

 

 

I think you'll find that given the overwhelming (if not infinite) size of the universe the burden of proof is in fact upon you.

 

 

 

Alright...going back I see no reason why you made that response. :oops:

 

 

 

If you tell me why you did, perhaps I would take the time to show you my evidence. Until then, your statement merely goes to serve the same point of the Bible: we serve an awesome and powerful God.

[Astralinre]

1. irreducible complexity - The different parts of something complex were

 

added at different times. You're assuming that every single part was created at the same time. Complex objects become complex. They don't begin as complex objects.

 

 

 

I know what evolution is. You're mixing the two concepts.

 

 

 

1. How would a cell with no outside mind know what pieces he needs for the flagella to work? Take, for instance, the mouse trap.

 

 

 

A mousetrap has many pieces that have to work perfectly, are in the right place, and are in the right order. Evolution says it's purely chance, but why would evolution keep a useless piece that's necessary in the chain? Evolution has to know what pieces are needed...when...and if it doesn't help the organism at that instance, it won't keep it. And yet the flagella has to have pieces in order in time and in the right place. It's why irreducible complexity is such a marvelous concept. It uses evolution to disprove itself.

 

 

 

Hm... Have you read Behe? I think I've heard him use that same analogy about the mousetrap. May I expand a little on what you wrote?

 

 

 

The problem with those complex objects gradually becoming complex is this - evolution works on natural selection; beneficial traits are passed on, harmful or useless traits eventually disappear. Irreducible complexity states that certain organs, such as the eye, are made up of many tiny parts which would be useless without every single other part of the organ along with it. How would something like this evolve? Even if a mutation brought about one piece of it, that piece would be useless until all the other parts came about, hence it wouldn't be preserved.

 

 

 

The flagellum is a perfect example of this on the cellular level. It's made up of dozens of parts, each of which is useless by itself, and the majority of which are found nowhere in cells except in the flagellum. It's an incredibly complex structure, and I haven't seen anything in the current evolutionary theory that explains how it could evolve.

 

 

 

3. The Earth is not the only habitable place in the universe.

 

Show me proof because in my research, the Earth is the only habitable place in the universe.

 

 

 

Perhaps you ought to say, "The earth is the only known habitable place in the universe." Anesthesia's point is that, as large as the universe is, it's quite likely that there's another planet where some form of life could survive.

[Bloodredsword]

*this is not about wat is better this is a topic on daily planet abouy jesus very intresting*

 

 

 

so a few days ago i was watching daily planet. it talked about jesus walking over a lake on water. (im not sure im not a very religeous person). it satated that in certain times the lake has a layer of ice under the water. scientists belive this is how he walkeed accross.

 

 

 

 

 

discuss

 

 

 

Goodness gracious, can't science accept something they can't explain? No one knows how gravity works and no one knows how Jesus physically walked on water. *sigh* It's just supernatural events they worry about...

 

 

 

Anyway, I think that there is no way ice will freeze on top of a lake enough for a man to walk across. For one thing, in the Scriptures, it was in the Lake of Tiberias, a lake that is very stormy. Ice=no chance

 

 

 

Plus, Jesus met them while they were in the boat. It was during a storm and the disciples were terrified and thought they were going to lose their lives. Would this happen if they were stranded in ice that somehow managed to support a full-grown man? Definately not.

 

 

 

wow listen to this guy he has good points

 

 

 

i agree with him

 

 

 

scientists for once in their miserable doubting lives need to acept the unexplainable and stop making up ridiculous excuses :x

[bearofthunder]

 

1. irreducible complexity - The different parts of something complex were

 

added at different times. You're assuming that every single part was created at the same time. Complex objects become complex. They don't begin as complex objects.

 

 

 

I know what evolution is. You're mixing the two concepts.

 

 

 

1. How would a cell with no outside mind know what pieces he needs for the flagella to work? Take, for instance, the mouse trap.

 

 

 

A mousetrap has many pieces that have to work perfectly, are in the right place, and are in the right order. Evolution says it's purely chance, but why would evolution keep a useless piece that's necessary in the chain? Evolution has to know what pieces are needed...when...and if it doesn't help the organism at that instance, it won't keep it. And yet the flagella has to have pieces in order in time and in the right place. It's why irreducible complexity is such a marvelous concept. It uses evolution to disprove itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A cell doesn't know what it needs for the flagella to work. Some cells developed the correct part, some cells didn't. The cells that developed the correct part lived and reproduced, the ones who didn't died. It's called natural selection, and it's been shown by fossils of different "versions" of animals who couldn't survive because they developed the wrong structure.

 

 

 

In the sense of the mousetrap: Let's say each mousetrap starts with a wooden board. The correct parts to be added are:

 

1) spring

 

2) cheese

 

 

 

and the goal is: catch mice.

 

 

 

So, the wooden boards mate. Their baby wooden boards have things attached to them. Some have springs, some have wheels, some have light bulbs. To survive, the baby boards have to catch mice, right? So, only the ones with springs will catch mice, so they live and reproduce, while the rest die out. Now, the new baby boards (all with springs attached) have, once again, different things attached to them. Some have cheese, some have chocolate, and some have ham. The mice (let's pretend) only like cheese. So, the cheese+spring boards have an advantage over all the other kinds, so the cheese+spring boards live and reproduce, while the others die out. Voila, you get the mousetrap we have today, in the correct order with the precise parts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, at the very least, it doesn't give us false doctrine about science. And it explains how we got here...as compared to any other workable theory of which evolution has ideas but doesn't explain. Besides, to address your point, intelligent design does generate predictions because it says our world was created by an orderly God and behaves in an orderly fashion...unlike evolution.

 

 

 

Intelligent design is geared towards refuting evolution. The only objective and teachable concept in ID is the existence of a higher being, which is already being taught. All the other concepts (irreducible complexity, etc) are meant to argue against claims made in evolution. The problem, obviously, is that evolution, as a truely scientific theory (refer to the quote above), has already changed its hypothesis (unlike ID) over the years to take into account these claims.

 

 

 

Intelligent Design must refute evolution in order to have people recognize it as a viewpoint. But its purpose in life is NOT to refute evolution...merely provide an explanation for the great order we see in our universe.

 

By "prediction," what scientists are talking about is the ability to predict (in biology) what will happen in future generations of living beings. Predictions are capable of being made in biology, chemistry, and physics, which is what makes them true sciences. ID, on the other hand, does not have the capability of making predictions. It is, basically, acknowledgment of god's existence and his authorship of the world, which, as I said, is already being taught in biology classes. You say that there is more to ID, that its main purpose is not to refute evolution, but what else is there to teach about ID?

[pianofrieak2]

A cell doesn't know what it needs for the flagella to work. Some cells developed the correct part, some cells didn't. The cells that developed the correct part lived and reproduced, the ones who didn't died. It's called natural selection, and it's been shown by fossils of different "versions" of animals who couldn't survive because they developed the wrong structure. In the sense of the mousetrap: Let's say each mousetrap starts with a wooden board.

 

 

 

The correct parts to be added are:

 

 

 

1) spring

 

 

 

2) cheese and the goal is: catch mice.

 

 

 

So, the wooden boards mate. Their baby wooden boards have things attached to them. Some have springs, some have wheels, some have light bulbs. To survive, the baby boards have to catch mice, right? So, only the ones with springs will catch mice, so they live and reproduce, while the rest die out. Now, the new baby boards (all with springs attached) have, once again, different things attached to them.

 

 

 

Some have cheese, some have chocolate, and some have ham. The mice (let's pretend) only like cheese. So, the cheese+spring boards have an advantage over all the other kinds, so the cheese+spring boards live and reproduce, while the others die out. Voila, you get the mousetrap we have today, in the correct order with the precise parts.

 

 

 

Lol! :roll: C'mon, bear, are you being serious with that example? That's just plain ridiculous.

 

 

 

Let me expound upon what Astra said since you must've missed it.

 

 

 

Mousetrap needs what?

 

1. Board

 

2. Spring

 

3. Latch (to kill mice)

 

4. Cheese or whatever

 

 

 

Evolution says all of these parts evolved. Yet, without any of those parts, can the mousetrap work? No. It must have all 4 in the right order at the same time.

 

 

 

Next, if evolution has the board, why would it make a spring? Let's say it's a mutation and it makes a spring.

 

 

 

Voila, a spring. Oh, wait. The mousetrap still won't work. :roll: Now natural selection says useless pieces will be taken out. So evolution would remove the board and the spring. Say we got a board, spring, and a latch all at the same time. Will it work? No it needs bait (cheese). So it still won't work.

 

 

 

So evolution will remove all of them. The chances of getting these 4 things at the same time and at the exact perfect area is extremely, extremely small. Shall we get a real-life example?

 

 

 

 

 

Now, let me give you some research actual numbers.

 

1. Flagella rotate at 10,000 rpms. They have over 40 parts. They are able to stop on a quarter turn and reverse direction going 10,000 rpms in just a quarter turn. NO machine exists in the world like that.

 

 

 

Of the 40 parts, how many does the cell have naturally? 12. There goes the argument of the cell just reusing parts.

 

 

 

No, of the 28 left, how did the cell get it? There is no way it would happen.

 

 

 

There is no way that evolution would mutate to get these helpful things, keep them all, and get them in the same order, the same place.

 

 

 

That, my friend, is the argument of Behe. Irreducible Complexity. And natural selection would make sure it didn't happen. Evolution violates itself.

[insane]

 

So evolution will remove all of them. The chances of getting these 4 things at the same time and at the exact perfect area is extremely, extremely small. Shall we get a real-life example?

 

 

 

 

Indeed. And the chances of these things coming together at the same time, are very rare. Chemical kinetics is a field of chemistry that involves how fast reactions proceed, and reaction orders are determined by the Molecularity of the reaction. 0, 1st, and 2nd order reactions are quite possible, 3rd order are rare (3 molecules colliding simultaneously), and anything above 3 molecules colliding is (for now, said to be) impossible.

[bearofthunder]

 

Lol! :roll: C'mon, bear, are you being serious with that example? That's just plain ridiculous.

 

 

 

Let me expound upon what Astra said since you must've missed it.

 

 

 

Mousetrap needs what?

 

1. Board

 

2. Spring

 

3. Latch (to kill mice)

 

4. Cheese or whatever

 

 

 

Evolution says all of these parts evolved. Yet, without any of those parts, can the mousetrap work? No. It must have all 4 in the right order at the same time.

 

 

 

Next, if evolution has the board, why would it make a spring? Let's say it's a mutation and it makes a spring.

 

 

 

Voila, a spring. Oh, wait. The mousetrap still won't work. :roll: Now natural selection says useless pieces will be taken out. So evolution would remove the board and the spring. Say we got a board, spring, and a latch all at the same time. Will it work? No it needs bait (cheese). So it still won't work.

 

 

 

So evolution will remove all of them. The chances of getting these 4 things at the same time and at the exact perfect area is extremely, extremely small. Shall we get a real-life example?

 

 

 

 

 

Now, let me give you some research actual numbers.

 

1. Flagella rotate at 10,000 rpms. They have over 40 parts. They are able to stop on a quarter turn and reverse direction going 10,000 rpms in just a quarter turn. NO machine exists in the world like that.

 

 

 

Of the 40 parts, how many does the cell have naturally? 12. There goes the argument of the cell just reusing parts.

 

 

 

No, of the 28 left, how did the cell get it? There is no way it would happen.

 

 

 

There is no way that evolution would mutate to get these helpful things, keep them all, and get them in the same order, the same place.

 

 

 

That, my friend, is the argument of Behe. Irreducible Complexity. And natural selection would make sure it didn't happen. Evolution violates itself.

 

 

 

No, you're assuming that the first generation object has to be able to catch a mouse (do amoebas eat steak? nope). I guess I made the mistake of saying that mouse-catching was the goal starting from the very first parents, which is wrong. Natual selection is about competition. A "useless" part is not gotten rid of unless there is a better part in existence that wins out. If there is no better part, then everyone advances to the next generation, to see whether or not someone's child will get an advantage and win. "Useless" parts may become useful in later generations when combined with other things. If they aren't, then it's up to the future generations to get rid of them depending on the things attached. What appears to you to be "four exactly right parts at the exactly right time" is actually generations of elimination.

 

 

 

My example was somewhat unclear. Here is my corrected version (we need to pretend the board eats...boardfood, since all living beings have a source for food):

 

 

 

Journey to mouse-trapping (in consecutive generations):

 

1) boards - all reproduce (no advantage)

 

2) board+spring, board+lightbulb - all reproduce (no advantage)

 

3) board+spring+latch, board+spring+pen, board+lightbulb+battery, board+lightbulb+paper - board+spring+latch has new purpose, can catch mice, so IT becomes a MOUSETRAP.

 

 

 

from then on we're dealing with a separate chain from the original "board family":

 

 

 

4) board+spring+latch+cheese, board+spring+latch+chocolate - board+spring+latch+cheese has advantage, so ONLY IT reproduces

 

 

 

Result: board+spring+latch+cheese = modern mousetrap (The chocolate one was also a mousetrap, but it was worse than the cheese one, so that's why the chocolate died out.)

 

 

 

As you see, only from the third generation on does a mousetrap come into existence. The first and second generation objects cannot catch mice, but they aren't meant to. They didn't know some of their children would become mousetraps, and it didn't impact their own survival (they ate boardfood). Since no one in 1st and 2nd had an advantage, everybody reproduced to the 3rd generation.

 

 

 

As for your cell example, all you need to do is imagine 28 mutations.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Intelligent design, the one I believe in, was first used in the Bible. Genesis 1:1.

 

 

 

In my High School social science classes such as World Civilization, the religions that people practiced in different parts of the world were taught in an unbias fashion. That is the setting they should be taught in. It is a social science.

 

 

 

Also, go back to my previous point that Genesis is not a textbook. Religion and science are in two completely different fields.

 

 

 

My point is that God could have created the earth and he could have done so through evolution. Because the Bible is a theological book, it does not give the science behind how it was done. That's irrelevant to religion, but it doesn't mean religion refutes the science behind it.

 

 

 

The words 'Intelligent' and 'Design' are not mentioned in Genesis at all. If you mean Genesis itself, then thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s called creationism; two different things (Which might I add is illegal to teach due to separation of church/state).

 

 

 

Religion study isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a social science, it is humanities subject.

 

IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll quote something that explains it a bit better:

 

 

 

What are the differences between the social sciences and the humanities? Actually the differences are less significant in the content than in the approaches to the content. The social sciences, like the natural sciences, claim a high degree of objectivity. They seek, as far as possible, to quantify their findings. They strive, ideally, to remove all imposed emotion, value judgments, and subjectivity from their work. Not so in the humanities. The valuation and interpretation given to works in the humanities depend very much on informed, subjective judgment, conditioned by the culture and values of a particular civilization. Whereas the social sciences are primarily concerned with discovering universal truths about the interrelationships of human beings in groups, the humanities have a profound appreciation for the accomplishments, thought, values, and literary, artistic, and musical expression of the unique, individual human being.

 

 

 

Historians may strive to be scientific in their methodology, but history can never be an exact science because there is no way to experiment. History cannot even be an exact descriptive science, because, as all historians well know, it is impossible to reconstruct the past exactly. Too many things happened for which there are no surviving records. Even when there are bits and pieces of evidence, our interpretation of that evidence is coloured by our own point of view, however much we may strive to be objective.

 

 

 

IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t teach creation stories, however we should only teach them as relating to our culture and cultures past (a historical basis rather then a factual basis), rather then all this intelligent design baloney.

 

 

 

 

Since you've apparently read enough to know some key terms, how do you explain away irreducible complexity? Why would you say it has absolutely no relevance? Is that because it appeals to a higher power for the creation of the world as compared to gases that assembled...according to gravity (which, oddly enough depends upon mass which was scattered throughout the universe)? Besides, it doesn't address the core of the earth or anything else that makes the Earth the only habitable place in the universe.

 

 

 

I'm not advocating teaching Genesis in public schools. I AM saying teaching Genesis' ideas about the world...through the eyes of intelligent Design.

 

 

 

BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS A THEORY. :?

 

 

 

I ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâexplain awayÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ irreducible complexity by ignorance. For example the flagella is an example of something touted as irreducibly complex however when researchers bothered to look at it, they showed that it is reducible. Irreducible complexity is a ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ågod of the gapsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Death_By_Pod]

 

So evolution will remove all of them. The chances of getting these 4 things at the same time and at the exact perfect area is extremely, extremely small. Shall we get a real-life example?

 

 

 

 

Indeed. And the chances of these things coming together at the same time, are very rare. Chemical kinetics is a field of chemistry that involves how fast reactions proceed, and reaction orders are determined by the Molecularity of the reaction. 0, 1st, and 2nd order reactions are quite possible, 3rd order are rare (3 molecules colliding simultaneously), and anything above 3 molecules colliding is (for now, said to be) impossible.

 

 

 

Using a flawed example (getting 4 things at the same time, whirlwind in a junkyard etc) is bound to get flawed results (such as 'impossible' probability).

 

 

 

Your playing a game of poker, you deal a hand out; lets say you get Jack club, Ace club, 3 heart, 8 diamond, King club (any random hand, it doesn't matter). The probability of getting that hand is 52P5 (52!/(52-5)!) = 1 out of 311875200; normally you would laugh at odds like that, saying that it's almost impossible to get, yet you were just dealt that hand.

 

 

 

So whereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the flaw?

[Kryptic]

scientists belive this is how he walkeed accross.

 

 

 

Science can only explain soo much..

 

 

 

And this is all circumstancial - no real factual evidence.

[Evrae]

The irreducible complexity argument ignores two imporatant things:

 

 

 

1) Evolution does not always add components - it can take away

 

 

 

2) More than one change can happen in a single generation - unlikely, but still possible. It only needs to happen once, and it is passed on.

 

 

 

I am surprised no-one has mentioned the eye! (what use is half an eye?)

 

 

 

People who use this arguement have no clue about evolution. Each level of improvement can be slightly better than the last, all the way from light sensing panels to the 'modern' eye.

 

 

 

And as for 'Evolution is only a theory', which i believe someone said earlier, do you know what a theory is? It has passed all that scientific investigation can throw at it for over a century. Itelligent design would be grateful to be called a theory.

 

 

 

The reason for ID's creation was to get around US laws, which ban religion (creationism) from the classroom. It tries to get around this by disguising it as science.

 

ID is not science. No true scientist would assume that because he does not know the answer, some supernatural force must be responsible. Science should try to answer the unanswerable. It might not be possible now, but in a century? Two centuries?

 

 

 

 

 

As for people who say that religion and science are compatible i would like to say they are fundamentally opposed. Religion tells people to believe without question. Science questions everything, even itself. This is the beauty of the scientific method.

 

 

 

The only use i see for religion is as a moral guider. It can no longer claim to have the literal truth, and so only has moral truth. But to do something because you are told to, not because it is the right thing to do? That is the way to evil and numerous atrocities through the years.

 

 

 

The greatest good for the greatest number. If you follow this principle, you will find that you follow the important commandments of most religions.

 

 

 

I would extend this. Humanity is a species. No species has survived forever. They change to keep up with a changing world. We must change. Do what is best for the species, best for humanity. If that means testing on animals, so be it. But we must let go of what holds us back. For millennia religion has kept societies together. But in keeping themselves whole, most seek the distruction of alternatives. And when peoples ix, this had led to problems. Religion has been a driving force for progress, but now it holds us back.

 

 

 

The only religion I have respect for is Buddhism, the most unusual of the lot (no offence intended). But if there is a god like the christian god, then i would expect to go to heaven. Any god who threatens death for disbelief is not worth that belief.

[pianofrieak2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâexplain awayÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ irreducible complexity by ignorance. For example the flagella is an example of something touted as irreducibly complex however when researchers bothered to look at it, they showed that it is reducible.

 

 

 

Where?

 

 

 

Irreducible complexity is a ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ågod of the gapsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Evrae]

Umm... I believe Insane was referring to chemical reactions. Not genetic mutations. No matter how unlikely something is, it can still happen. Natural selection will then select for those viable and better mutations. Evolution happens. To argue against it is to be like those who maintained that the world is flat. Think how you will be viewed in centuries to come?

 

 

 

What is more sensible and logical - to believe the unscientific myths and legends of 2000 years ago, or repeatedly tested scientific theories that have stood the test of 150 years of probing and assault? Particularly when those myths and legends are based on mistranslations. (virgin birth comes from some mistranlations from hebrew via the greek). When a principle belief of your religion comes from a muck up by the greek Septuagint, you can tell that there will be others. To believe the bible without question is foolish. You should question everything, and be prepared to see errors.

 

 

 

Sorry if i'm in rant mode, but i want to let off steam after the bust up with the local church youth group. They are unusually literalist (taking bible literally) for the UK, and seem to not understand the concepts of evidence, tolerance, debate, disagreement or even understanding the things they moan about. They went on about half an eye, and how schools lie to us.

 

 

 

So i'm kinda anti-religion at the moment. soz.

[Anesthesia]

Lol yeah right. Insane already proved that 4 is impossible...try 28? :lol:

 

 

 

Not impossible, improbable. What you crazy theists don't seem to understand the concept that time is infinite. It's so alarmingly egocentric to think that a world was created JUST for us, just as egocentric as thinking that the sun revolves around the earth.

 

 

 

With INFINITE time before us it is not only possible for that situation to occur, it is impossible for it NOT to occur.

 

 

 

Intelligent design proponents seem think that there must have been a start to everything - well that's just ludicrous. To suggest that there was an ultimate start to everything suggests that there was a nothingness before. If there was a nothingness before, what caused that nothingness? What came before it? They propose that god caused it, but who caused god? If god was never caused and is infinitely old then was was he doing before he caused everything? It has more holes in it than swiss cheese and just screams about the lesser man's need to think he is the centre of the universe.

[HugATree]

 

Gravity is the main force that, according to evolution, created our universe. According ot evolution, gravity caused gases to merge into balls of matter and then grow bigger and bigger into the planets and stars we now see.

 

 

What are you talking about? How does any of what you just said relate to evolution? It doesn't, which is odd as you claim to know what evolution is.

 

 

 

let me say that the whole argument of church and state came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, as the ignorant public.

 

Ignorant? Try reading the first amendment.

 

The term was used in the letter from Thomas Jefferson, but the Constitution still contains the concept.

[Guest GhostRanger]

let me say that the whole argument of church and state came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, as the ignorant public.

 

Ignorant? Try reading the first amendment.

 

The term was used in the letter from Thomas Jefferson, but the Constitution still contains the concept.

 

 

 

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The idea of seperation and state that has been twisted now, is completely different than what that says.

 

 

 

For instance, it would be against seperation of church and state to lead a prayer before a congressional meeting. Yet, doing so would not be against the first ammendment because there are no laws being made in favor of Chrsitianity, or prohibiting someone from practicing another religion.

 

 

 

You have to look at the contextual points about the first ammendment. Specficially, what the forefathers were thinking and why they were thinking that when it was written. But since this is a little off-topic, I'll leave it at that.

 

 

 

(Note: I'm not arguing for or against either side. Just pointing out that the present idea of "seperation of church and state" is not what is specifically cited in the Bill of Rights.)

[Anesthesia]

You have to look at the contextual points about the first ammendment. Specficially, what the forefathers were thinking and why they were thinking that when it was written. But since this is a little off-topic, I'll leave it at that.

 

 

 

Again off topic, but worth mentioning:

 

 

 

Why do you have to look at what they were thinking, what their intentions were, or why they were that? How are these people of over 200 years ago qualified to run a country today? What do they know of how a country needs to operate? Not just towards Ghostranger's post, but to anyone who is bringing up any constitution or document over 200 years old that is used to govern a country today. How do the people of those days know how to best govern a country 200 years in the future?

 

 

 

I'm not an american (and glad of it) so my facts my be hazy to say the least.

[pianofrieak2]

Umm... I believe Insane was referring to chemical reactions. Not genetic mutations. No matter how unlikely something is, it can still happen. Natural selection will then select for those viable and better mutations. Evolution happens. To argue against it is to be like those who maintained that the world is flat. Think how you will be viewed in centuries to come?

 

 

 

What is more sensible and logical - to believe the unscientific myths and legends of 2000 years ago, or repeatedly tested scientific theories that have stood the test of 150 years of probing and assault? Particularly when those myths and legends are based on mistranslations. (virgin birth comes from some mistranlations from hebrew via the greek). When a principle belief of your religion comes from a muck up by the greek Septuagint, you can tell that there will be others. To believe the bible without question is foolish. You should question everything, and be prepared to see errors.

 

 

 

Sorry if i'm in rant mode, but i want to let off steam after the bust up with the local church youth group. They are unusually literalist (taking bible literally) for the UK, and seem to not understand the concepts of evidence, tolerance, debate, disagreement or even understanding the things they moan about. They went on about half an eye, and how schools lie to us.

 

 

 

So i'm kinda anti-religion at the moment. soz.

 

 

 

Nonsense, man. I appreciate your viewpoint, but it made me laugh so hard that I couldn't help but comment. Please forgive me for any harsh points that I may make.

 

 

 

First thing: I found it hilarious taht hard-core Christians are "liberal" in the UK. They'd be conservative in the United States which is completely ironic to me. (Perhaps I should move to the UK!)

 

 

 

Secondly, you are being intolerant of Bible-believing Christians. Be careful who you call intolerant because you, yourself are being intolerant merely by calling them intolerant. Hypocrite?

 

 

 

Third, how do you know the virgin birth is different in other translations? My guess is that someone told you that and it sounds good to you. If you have any support, please let me know.

 

 

 

Lastly, the Bible should be 100% correct because its author is God. God inspired the Bible, and even though people wrote it into scrolls, God is still the author. And God can't lie. Therefore, the Bible is 100% true.

[Anesthesia]

Lastly, the Bible should be 100% correct because its author is God. God inspired the Bible, and even though people wrote it into scrolls, God is still the author. And God can't lie. Therefore, the Bible is 100% true.

 

 

 

Hahaha, so by that rationale anything written about god by any christian is 100% accurate?

 

 

 

God is still the author. And God can't lie. Therefore, the Bible is 100% true.

 

 

 

This bit is particularly funny. Do you know what a zealot is?

 

 

 

You are fanatical to the degree where any rational person would consider you dangerous.

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

Lol yeah right. Insane already proved that 4 is impossible...try 28? :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Have you not been paying attention? Everyone is trying to tell you that evolution is not a one-step process. So the impossibility of 4 pieces reacting simultaneously has nothing to do with 4 pieces added over time, in different generations. Also, chemical reactions have nothing to do with biological mutations anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

And whoever said that ID can't be taught is Intelligent Design is unconstitutional...let me say that the whole argument of church and state came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, as the ignorant public.

 

 

 

 

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The idea of seperation and state that has been twisted now, is completely different than what that says.

 

 

 

For instance, it would be against seperation of church and state to lead a prayer before a congressional meeting. Yet, doing so would not be against the first ammendment because there are no laws being made in favor of Chrsitianity, or prohibiting someone from practicing another religion.

 

 

 

You have to look at the contextual points about the first ammendment. Specficially, what the forefathers were thinking and why they were thinking that when it was written. But since this is a little off-topic, I'll leave it at that.

 

 

 

(Note: I'm not arguing for or against either side. Just pointing out that the present idea of "seperation of church and state" is not what is specifically cited in the Bill of Rights.)

 

 

 

No State legislature or the Congress of the United States shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

 

 

This is called the "establishment clause" and is the first sentence of the First Amendment. It not only:

 

 

 

1. allows the free expression of religion

 

 

 

but also:

 

 

 

2. prevents favoring one religion over another (look it up in any encyclopedia).

 

 

 

So, yes, the Christian prayer that is held before a congressional meeting is unconstitutional, as is the teaching of Intelligent Design in a biology classroom, since not all religions support the ideas of ID.

[Bubsa]

Gentlemen, without wanting to digress, I have to say the nature of this debate has been very encouraging. Very well supported points after another, probing questions, yet without the need to become derogatory.

 

KUTGW! :)

[Anesthesia]

yet without the need to become derogatory.

 

 

 

Have I not been trying hard enough?