[gadster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
HAH I am going to prove the supernatural doesn't exist by posting a bunch of secular laws that the supernatural isn't even bound by!

That will show em.

Even the supernatural is natural.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by gadster:
Even the supernatural is natural.

Not necessarily
Supernatural;
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

Though one might say those things we witness in nature, that cannot be explained by any natural mechanism, fit a more plausible explanation if deemed miraculous and taken to the realm of the supernatural. For some that is the God of the Bible, for others it's an alien, and for many here it is Time.

At the end of the day; one who believes in the account of the global flood will see evidence in nature as proof of his theory. One who does not believe in the global flood account will disagree with the evidence, using other evidence, or implausibility of the theory. They will embrace the statistical improbabilities of one, while failing to realize the statistical improbabilities of the other depending on whichever world-view they happen to have. This is nothing new, and generally fruitless.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I accept evolution. There's a heap of evidence for it. Where we disagree is whether or not there is a limit to evolution and where evidence is significantly lacking. I posted quotes from numerous scientists in various fields and what they say is happening with the theory of evolution, that scientists (though not as dogmatically as scientific journals and popular media) are embracing "evidence" they would embrace in no other field.

That's just it Stradlater, you didn't look forward to anything other than slinging 8 more questions at me. Instead of reading my posts you were busily formulating new questions to ask. When I didn't answer to your liking you'd reword them and try again. It got old, plain and simple. Even one who shares your view asked what the heck it was you were calling for answers on.

I read your posts. Most questions were directed to what you wrote in your posts. By "didn't answer to my liking" you might mean "didn't answer."

No, ignoring ones that wreaked of mere adversarial positions and reworded questions to try and pin me to a corner. When you failed, you ignored what I had said and the numerous posts I offered from those more knowledgeable than you and I-you failed to address them. When I asked you if you believed all we know to exist happened by purely natural phenomena you started talking about aliens.

No, I said that if you were going to use I.D. to formulate the argument that there's evidence of design (and thus reasonable proof that your Christian god exists) then you'd have to admit that the alien theory is JUST as plausible under general I.D.

You were trying to get me to say that I believed only the God of the Bible was involved while failing to address my points and while failing to realize that you were basically willing to embrace any concept so long as it didn't match Biblical account.

Also untrue. I'm not willing to "embrace" any unknowable concept; that's my point. Not even with I.D. can you know that the existence of a creator is more likely. There's no REAL evidence. You offered no evidence. You offered pseudoscience and philosophy. I.D. is NOT a science.

You, likewise had proven too closed minded to even address it.

To address what? Christianity?

I.D. does not name a god, that is not the purpose of it. There are sound scientific methods used for determining deliberation from archeology, through crime investigation, and forensics. You ignored that I.D. is falsifiable and as such is a viable theory. Because you have nothing to offer in rebuttal doesn't mean other theories are more or less plausible than the one you seek every opportunity to disseminate like an old time gospel hour evangelist.

I.D. does not directly name a god, no; but that's the point. You people use the word "god" when gods are not the only possible creators.

I.D. may be able to be used to not-quite-absolutely identify those rocks found with Homo florensiensis.

But I.D. with its current methods cannot be used to confirm the presence of a designer of any of the following:
1. The universe.
2. The earth.
3. The human race.

You fell back on probabilities. Rarity rarely is proof of anything.

Direct rebuttals weren't working for you. They didn't help your case. Your questions got more and more vague as noted by others in that thread.

Now you're just making things up? Nobody other than you responded to my comments. And where are these "direct" rebuttals of yours?

Not to mention the fact that whenever I engage these debates I find evolutionists crawling out of the woodwork to argue with me. It starts with one, then adds in another like gadster or some other such Christianophobe, trying to tell me using no evidence whatsoever that all we know to exist is the result of purely natural phenomena. When I site statistical probabilities of such a notion I get the same ad hominem attacks against me. I'm sorry if I get tired debating people with closed minds.

I am not a Christianophobe. I don't believe I've used ad hominem, either. You may cite statistical probabilities, but statistics in no way offer evidence.

I don't have to twist anything Stradlater. You have your gods, I have mine.

If there is such a thing, then we share the same god[s].

This post should establish firmly that I do not concede to you. I have merely deemed something a waste of time based on your closed-mindedness and failure to address my points. At some point, you have to believe in something for which there is no evidence. This is faith. At some point, the debate becomes fruitless giving creedence to UFO theories and little green men. This is pretty much when I bailed out. You think by asking questions, you can remain on the offensive w/o having to address my points. Your questions were convoluted, poorly worded, and lacked honesty. You had proven time and again, unwilling to establish any grounds for the debate.

I addressed your points. You have yet to address mine. And though you may not admit defeat, your unwillingness to go back and respond to what I wrote is defeat in itself.

The mention of aliens was to prove a point: the point that you're willing to use I.D. as the basis of proof for your god, but are less likely to accept the possibility of another kind of creator. "UFO theories" and "little green men" show that it's doubtful you take it as seriously as you take your bible seriously. I.D., while claiming not to be biased, certainly appears to be.

Which points did I fail to address, anyhow?

Please stop making excuses for not carrying the argument on further. If you cannot, then you cannot.

It's likely neither one of us would. If you're looking to defeat someone, perhaps you should go back to playing Dungeons and Dragons.

What are you talking about? Dungeons and Dragons? My sig contains a chess board, buddy.

*fixed.
Since you're quoting from books you don't believe are true, why not quote from my personal apochrypha;
Ignorant is the man who sees a paved road and says; "oh how wonderful that the winds, rain water, dust, and thistles should naturally form this road for us to walk upon." Ebuddy 1:1

Your analogy, while amusing, still doesn't elevate I.D. out of pseudoscience.

Anyways, I'm not going to hijack any more of this thread. If you realize that I did answer you and that questions come out of those answers, please return to the previous thread for any further argument. You abandoned a thread because an I.D.-acceptable theory was brought up: that the designer could be a god or could be aliens and there's no evidence of one over the other. I guess that says something about your I.D. beliefs.

[barang]

Originally posted by gadster:
Science is ALL about testable theories. It's a free market of models that explain the way the world we live in works. Religion is intellectual Stalinism.

Funny how evolution is not a testable theory. So it's not scientific. Neither is the creative design movement, for that matter.

And yet evolution is treated as science

It's all about faith. Faith in evolution vs. faith in creation. IMO evolution takes much more faith.

[__^^__]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I was actually just discussing this recently... here is some of that.

"To start, I would just like to ask the people who think this story is factual, the ones that are reading this to look at it seriously, and from a scientific standpoint.

"Noah's Ark" - Dimensions: 450 feet long (135 meters), 75 feet wide (22.5 meters), and 45 feet high (13.5 meters). It would have had an interior space equivilent to 522 railroad boxcars.

Now, the species we are aware were available:

Land mammals: 4,400.

Reptiles: 4,600.

Insects: 750,000. (Are we including these?)

Total: 759,000.

But wait, Noah was supposed to take two of each animal.

Land mammals: 8,800.

Reptiles: 9,200.

Insects: 1,500,000.
---.

I am a practical person and have often wondered about this myself.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by barang:
Funny how evolution is not a testable theory. So it's not scientific.

What do you mean by testable? It certainly does make predictions that can be confirmed or not. All kinds of evidence informs us about the status of biological evolution as a theory - evidence from DNA, from the fossil record, from comparative anatomy, plant life, etc. What's not testable is the assertion that "God didn't create the world" or "atheism is right," but biological evolution doesn't make those claims (though individuals might).

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by gadster:
So how is God not allegorical?

God is allegorical.

The rta has been mistaken for a God and it can only end in tragedy.

[barang]

Originally posted by BRussell:
What do you mean by testable? It certainly does make predictions that can be confirmed or not. All kinds of evidence informs us about the status of biological evolution as a theory - evidence from DNA, from the fossil record, from comparative anatomy, plant life, etc. What's not testable is the assertion that "God didn't create the world" or "atheism is right," but biological evolution doesn't make those claims (though individuals might).

I can't say that I agree with that. The definition of science has to do with OBSERVATION. That is pretty much the whole point of science (or it's supposed to be). Therefore, neither creationism nor evolutionism is scientific. Neither has been observed, and therefore they're both rooted in faith.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by barang:
I can't say that I agree with that. The definition of science has to do with OBSERVATION. That is pretty much the whole point of science (or it's supposed to be). Therefore, neither creationism nor evolutionism is scientific. Neither has been observed, and therefore they're both rooted in faith.

Evolution has been observed.

[barang]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I hope ebuddy, the self-proclaimed skeptic of natural history, doesn't start trying to claim that the Genesis flood is factual.

But I wonder where these flood myths came from. Apparently lots of cultures have them. It's fascinating to think there was some great flood that destroyed a civilization - Atlantis? - say, 10,000 years ago, and the stories got spread into different cultures and distorted and turned into different myths.

There are lots of obviously impossible stories in the Bible and other cultures' mythology, so the presence of the story doesn't mean there has to be any truth in it. It probably just represents a common fear among agricultural peoples, due to real (but small) floods that really did hurt them. But it's great to wonder...


[edit] Perhaps a tsunami like the one that just occurred could have set off Great Flood stories. It certainly did enough damage.

Faith again. There is geological evidence that there may have been an epic flood, and it is strange that almost every single culture has a flood story in one form or another. But to reject it offhand and say "there never was a worldwide flood" is one of those things that even BRussell admitted is faulty.

Also, in response to those wondering about the dimensions of the ark, most of the explanations that I've heard imply that there were less species back then. For instance, one species of the dog family, etc. After thousands of years the species have changed and evolved into more and more differing species. That would definitly narrow it down.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
But I wonder where these flood myths came from. Apparently lots of cultures have them. It's fascinating to think there was some great flood that destroyed a civilization - Atlantis? - say, 10,000 years ago, and the stories got spread into different cultures and distorted and turned into different myths.

There are lots of obviously impossible stories in the Bible and other cultures' mythology, so the presence of the story doesn't mean there has to be any truth in it. It probably just represents a common fear among agricultural peoples, due to real (but small) floods that really did hurt them. But it's great to wonder...

[edit] Perhaps a tsunami like the one that just occurred could have set off Great Flood stories. It certainly did enough damage.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of this one: http://thenaturalamerican.com/id_montanaflood.htm

[zigzag]

Originally posted by barang:
Also, in response to those wondering about the dimensions of the ark, most of the explanations that I've heard imply that there were less species back then. For instance, one species of the dog family, etc. After thousands of years the species have changed and evolved into more and more differing species. That would definitly narrow it down.

Yeah, let's call it an even million creatures, or 750,000 for that matter. That would really narrow it down for old Noah.

After thousands of years the species have changed and evolved into more and more differing species.

You mean, like, evolution?

[barang]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Yeah, let's call it an even million creatures, or 750,000 for that matter. That would really narrow it down for old Noah.



You mean, like, evolution?

Yeah, micro evolution. Micro evolution has been observed and proven. Like when moths in Britain a hundred years ago changed colors to suit their envirnoment. Evolution on a small scale.

Remember, though, that no new species have ever been observed to have been created, only modifications of existing species. For instance, if a person who lives in malaria-infested area has a genetic immunity, he will pass on his genes, and one who has no immunity will die. After a while, the only people alive will have immunity. Survival of the fittest, plain and simple.

But no new species were created. No new species have ever been observed to have been created.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by barang:
But no new species were created. No new species have ever been observed to have been created.

Do you know what species means? Speciation has been observed -- both inside and outside the lab.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Do you know what species means? Speciation has been observed -- both inside and outside the lab.

This is where you're going to get really tired Barang. He's asking you questions he can't answer. An estriella aerogene that acquires the ability to ingest a synthetic sugar is still an estriella aerogene. Darwin's pigeons were all still unmistakeably pigeons. Different species of pigeon perhaps, but unmistakeably pigeons. We're not talking about different kinds of dogs Stradlater, we're talking about dog-fish. Stradlater, do you know what consitutes speciation? Have you observed a series of mutations having created wholly new data? New organs? No? That's because you can't. Why would you still believe in macro-evolution? Why do you have a problem with irreducible complexity? Because you have to, not because you have any augmented knowledge or interest in science. Give me an example of speciation in a lab Stradlater, I'll pick it to shreds. What do we generally see as the result of mutation? Disease, decay, degradation, and decreased reproductibility, but here's the wrinkle; against all known laws of probability time can heal all wounds right because of the .0001 chance that a mutation might even be neutral? Add a couple of billion years (give or take 20 million or so) and VOILA! This is why scientists will tell you that evo-biologists embrace evidence in this particular field that science would be willing to embrace in no other field.

I suppose using your suppositions we might want to simply shut down the SETI project, afterall there's no scientific method to determine design or intelligence. Why try?

[ebuddy]

For fun;

An increasing number of scientists believe that geological evidence indicates our world has undergone a catastrophic flood. This supposition naturally points them to whether or not the biblical account of Noah's flood could be true. Many people are reopening their Bibles for the description of the Ark to ascertain the feasibility of such a vessel to fulfill its designated purpose in light of present day knowledge of both zoology and shipbuilding.

"And God said unto Noah... Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt though make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of... the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side therof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it." (Gen. 6:14-16)

A cubit is the distance between an adult's elbow and tip of the finger, no less than 18-inches [45.72 centimeters].

Most Hebrew scholars agree the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long , 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when gigantic metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood.
These dimensions are especially interesting when compared to those given in the mythical, Babylonian account of the Ark. Here the ark is described as a perfect cube, extending 120 cubits in all directions and with nine decks. Such a vessel would spin slowly round and round in the water and from the standpoint of stability, would be a disaster.

The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.
Assuming an 18-inch cubit, Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars.
According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.
A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers.
However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.
In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.
Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book, "The Genesis Flood," state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.) To keep it real, add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.

Another enormous problem some have posed is the problem of gathering specimens of each kind of air-breathing land animal and bringing them aboard the Ark. However, the Genesis account indicates that God gathered the animals and brought them to Noah inside the ark two by two. Some have suggested this may have involved the origin of animal migratory instincts or, at least, an intensification of it. We also know that most animals possess the ability to sense danger and to move to a place of safety.

Once aboard, many have suggested that Noah's problems really began, with only 8 people to feed and water, to provide fresh air and sanitation for the huge menagerie of animals for a total of 371 days. However, a number of scientists have suggested that the animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were intensified during this period. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened.

Hey, it's as plausible as some other theories I'm hearing about.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I read your posts. Most questions were directed to what you wrote in your posts. By "didn't answer to my liking" you might mean "didn't answer."

No, what I meant was I was repeatedly answering the same questions reworded. it got old.

No, I said that if you were going to use I.D. to formulate the argument that there's evidence of design (and thus reasonable proof that your Christian god exists) then you'd have to admit that the alien theory is JUST as plausible under general I.D.

So you believe intelligence was involved or no???

Also untrue. I'm not willing to "embrace" any unknowable concept; that's my point. Not even with I.D. can you know that the existence of a creator is more likely. There's no REAL evidence. You offered no evidence. You offered pseudoscience and philosophy. I.D. is NOT a science.

Naturalism is not science either Stradlater, that's what I'm trying to tell you. You say there's no evidence of design, I say you're wrong. there's more out there to suggest design than there is to suggest purely natural phenomena.

To address what? Christianity?

You keep bringing Christianity into this because you have a chip on your shoulder. I understand this Stradlater, but it doesn't make you more discriminating of your science, nor does it make you right.

I.D. does not directly name a god, no; but that's the point. You people use the word "god" when gods are not the only possible creators.

I.D. doesn't name a god. You want it to so you can say; "See Creationist WHACKOS just like I said!!!" It simply says Intelligent Design. You'll keep bringing Christianity into this so you can wage some kind of war or indictment. This is why I said you might be best served playing Dungeons and Dragons. I could'nt care less about your auto sig BTW. It was humor. Something you seem a little less evolved in.

But I.D. with its current methods cannot be used to confirm the presence of a designer of any of the following:
1. The universe.
2. The earth.
3. The human race.

I.D., with it's current methods is particularly evident in the following;
1. The Universe
2. The earth
3. The human race

You fell back on probabilities. Rarity rarely is proof of anything.

I don't have to fall back on anything. If I told you that I sank a basketball from 600' away using a slingshot, you'd say I was full of it right? That's all I'm saying.

Now you're just making things up? Nobody other than you responded to my comments. And where are these "direct" rebuttals of yours?

Mikellanes asked you what the hell it was you were asking me. Uppp, there's another direct rebuttal.

I addressed your points. You have yet to address mine. And though you may not admit defeat, your unwillingness to go back and respond to what I wrote is defeat in itself.

I've addressed your points and even got you to admit that I.D. is involved in what we observe right? There is in fact defeat, but it is not mine.

The mention of aliens was to prove a point: the point that you're willing to use I.D. as the basis of proof for your god, but are less likely to accept the possibility of another kind of creator. "UFO theories" and "little green men" show that it's doubtful you take it as seriously as you take your bible seriously. I.D., while claiming not to be biased, certainly appears to be.

I.D. doesn't name a god. You apparently believe in I.D. I'm glad to see you coming around.

Please stop making excuses for not carrying the argument on further. If you cannot, then you cannot.

Don't be a moron Stradlater, I'm arguing with you now.

Your analogy, while amusing, still doesn't elevate I.D. out of pseudoscience.

Neither Naturalism.

Anyways, I'm not going to hijack any more of this thread. If you realize that I did answer you and that questions come out of those answers, please return to the previous thread for any further argument. You abandoned a thread because an I.D.-acceptable theory was brought up: that the designer could be a god or could be aliens and there's no evidence of one over the other. I guess that says something about your I.D. beliefs.

HAHA! So I've defeated you AGAIN!! See how silly this all is???

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Stradlater, do you know what consitutes speciation?

Do You? You still haven't answered this. Lets see if a one question post will get a reply.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by barang:
Yeah, micro evolution. Micro evolution has been observed and proven. Like when moths in Britain a hundred years ago changed colors to suit their envirnoment. Evolution on a small scale.

Remember, though, that no new species have ever been observed to have been created, only modifications of existing species. For instance, if a person who lives in malaria-infested area has a genetic immunity, he will pass on his genes, and one who has no immunity will die. After a while, the only people alive will have immunity. Survival of the fittest, plain and simple.

But no new species were created. No new species have ever been observed to have been created.

Sounds like personal adjustments to personal world theories.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I hope ebuddy, the self-proclaimed skeptic of natural history, doesn't start trying to claim that the Genesis flood is factual.

But I wonder where these flood myths came from. Apparently lots of cultures have them. It's fascinating to think there was some great flood that destroyed a civilization - Atlantis? - say, 10,000 years ago, and the stories got spread into different cultures and distorted and turned into different myths.

There are lots of obviously impossible stories in the Bible and other cultures' mythology, so the presence of the story doesn't mean there has to be any truth in it. It probably just represents a common fear among agricultural peoples, due to real (but small) floods that really did hurt them. But it's great to wonder...


[edit] Perhaps a tsunami like the one that just occurred could have set off Great Flood stories. It certainly did enough damage.

Excellent points.

Also, we forget what was the perception in those times of "the world". Rumors from "backyard" villages and reinterpretation to get attention from individuals feeling deprived of popularity can create quite a havoc in a culture and leading to simiilar "urban legends". Memes are self-sustainable in human cognition processes, including a need for wonder...

Other aspect to consider, from that same vein; inappropriate translations.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Do You? You still haven't answered this. Lets see if a one question post will get a reply.

Generally?
The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones. An example of this might be The Kaibab Squirrel, geographically isolated from the common ancestor with its closest relative, the Abert squirrel in the North Rim of the Grand Canyon about 10,000 years ago. Since then, several distinguishing features, such as the black belly and forelimbs have gradually evolved. Still unmistakeably, after 10,000 years a squirrel. Irreducibly complex, this squirrel will not continue to evolve through mutation to a mouse, nor a bear. While this may constitute speciation, it certainly does not support the vast amount of change required for all that we know to have come from common ancestory. Those compelling examples of similarities between species illustrate common need.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
No, what I meant was I was repeatedly answering the same questions reworded. it got old.

I reworded things in an attempt to get an answer out of you. When I say: "where is this evidence of I.D.?"

And you say: "look at the incredibly small probabilities!"

And I say: "how is rarity evidence?"

You answer with something like: "<insert event in which probability is low>"

...

Should I say: "wow! you've opened my eyes, I guess we definitively CAN know that the universe, the earth, and humanity was the result of intelligent design with intermittent intervention!"

I don't see it.

Again, an example I read which is similar to these low-probabilities you love to refer to:

The probability of being dealt that particular hand in bridge is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. Or equally absurd to in turn believe that with such a low probability, some Intelligence must have picked it for him.

So you believe intelligence was involved or no???

I believe that it's possible, but not "probable"

Actually, I believe that there's no way, at this time, to know -- or even infer likelihood.

Naturalism is not science either Stradlater, that's what I'm trying to tell you. You say there's no evidence of design, I say you're wrong. there's more out there to suggest design than there is to suggest purely natural phenomena.

All that has been definitely observed is natural. That, of course, admittedly does not mean that the universe is definitely wholly the result of natural phenomena; at the same time, this is a possibility...despite your probabilities, there is no more evidence of an intelligent designer than there is of natural phenomena. Actually, all observable evidence of existence -- at this point -- is natural.

You keep bringing Christianity into this because you have a chip on your shoulder. I understand this Stradlater, but it doesn't make you more discriminating of your science, nor does it make you right.

A chip on my shoulder over what? Honestly, I have no problem with Christianity; I have a problem with how it's been used throughout history.

I.D. doesn't name a god. You want it to so you can say; "See Creationist WHACKOS just like I said!!!" It simply says Intelligent Design. You'll keep bringing Christianity into this so you can wage some kind of war or indictment. This is why I said you might be best served playing Dungeons and Dragons. I could'nt care less about your auto sig BTW. It was humor. Something you seem a little less evolved in.

Humor... my sig-noting reply was a joke in itself. You know as well as I do that dungeons and dragons are aligned with "nerds," so your comment came across as both a joke and name-calling hostility. Chess, on the other hand, is aligned with less of this history, and I was joking about how it could appear that you didn't know the difference. I'm sorry, dissecting humor doesn't really make it funny if you didn't "get it" the first time.

I.D., with it's current methods is particularly evident in the following;
1. The Universe
2. The earth
3. The human race

You keep saying this, but all the evidence you fall back on is probability -- which is not really "evidence" at all. For you to fall back on probability, have you done any research on it? Do you know how these particular numbers are calculated?

I don't have to fall back on anything. If I told you that I sank a basketball from 600' away using a slingshot, you'd say I was full of it right? That's all I'm saying.

I would say that I'd love to see proof. If I trusted you, then I'd say: "Wow! What incredible luck!"

Mikellanes asked you what the hell it was you were asking me. Uppp, there's another direct rebuttal.

Incorrect. He wrote: "Just curious, what response are you waiting on ebuddy for? I looked back but couldn't find a pertinent question that you asked? Sorry if I missed it." Hardly a "what-the-hell" post. He probably couldn't find it because it had occurred so long ago on the page.

I've addressed your points and even got you to admit that I.D. is involved in what we observe right? There is in fact defeat, but it is not mine.

I never admitted this. I just clarified what you believe in: the equal possibility of a Christian god and, as you so I.D.-listicly put it, "little green men."

I.D. doesn't name a god. You apparently believe in I.D. I'm glad to see you coming around.

Where was this made apparent? Where am I coming around?

Don't be a moron Stradlater, I'm arguing with you now.

More name-calling hostility: unfortunate in any debate. I wanted to spare other members of this thread from an unrelated tangent, but since you seem to wish to continue the argument here, well here it is.

Neither Naturalism.

You aren't making sense here; but I briefly address naturalism above.

HAHA! So I've defeated you AGAIN!! See how silly this all is???

See a few lines above.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Stradlater, do you know what consitutes speciation?

Yes, and you explained it in a lovely enough manner. Speciation, indeed, involves the splitting of a single evolutionary lineage into two or more genetically independent ones. This has been observed and you even give an example. Your problem here is, that even if there was an example of a squirrel evolving into a bat, you'd still say: "But both are mammals, there's no proof that birds came from reptiles!"

We've only been around so long, wait a few hundred thousand years and you may just see a line of observation that satisfies you.

Have you observed a series of mutations having created wholly new data? New organs? No? That's because you can't.

With the amount of time since evolution was first theorized, of course we could not have observed such evolution.

Why would you still believe in macro-evolution?

The same reason that I believe a marble will, if placed on a very long slope, probably continue to descend, even if we've only observed a short time of this.

Why do you have a problem with irreducible complexity?

Because molecular evolution is much too flexible for IC to be an obstacle.

Because you have to, not because you have any augmented knowledge or interest in science.

Actually, I am quite interested in science.

Give me an example of speciation in a lab Stradlater, I'll pick it to shreds.

"Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972)."

Pick away. There are many more observed instances in the natural world, though; would you rather have some of these?

What do we generally see as the result of mutation? Disease, decay, degradation, and decreased reproductibility, but here's the wrinkle; against all known laws of probability time can heal all wounds right because of the .0001 chance that a mutation might even be neutral? Add a couple of billion years (give or take 20 million or so) and VOILA! This is why scientists will tell you that evo-biologists embrace evidence in this particular field that science would be willing to embrace in no other field.

Can you elaborate your point here? I understand that most hybridization and mutation leads to infertility and other hindrances; there are, however, plenty of examples in which infertility and decay are not factors.

I suppose using your suppositions we might want to simply shut down the SETI project, afterall there's no scientific method to determine design or intelligence. Why try?

Because there's the possibility of life out there, I see no problem continuing the project (so long as it isn't too expensive, and in this case it really isn't). There's the possibility of an intelligent designer, too, and I encourage you and your buddies to continue searching; in the mean time, your "evidence" is hardly compelling and certainly not evident of anything.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I hope ebuddy, the self-proclaimed skeptic of natural history, doesn't start trying to claim that the Genesis flood is factual.

But I wonder where these flood myths came from. Apparently lots of cultures have them. It's fascinating to think there was some great flood that destroyed a civilization - Atlantis? - say, 10,000 years ago, and the stories got spread into different cultures and distorted and turned into different myths.

There are lots of obviously impossible stories in the Bible and other cultures' mythology, so the presence of the story doesn't mean there has to be any truth in it. It probably just represents a common fear among agricultural peoples, due to real (but small) floods that really did hurt them. But it's great to wonder...


[edit] Perhaps a tsunami like the one that just occurred could have set off Great Flood stories. It certainly did enough damage.

I read Ovid's Metamorphoses a while back. It surprised me how much of the Genesis is in there.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by barang:
Yeah, micro evolution. Micro evolution has been observed and proven. Like when moths in Britain a hundred years ago changed colors to suit their envirnoment. Evolution on a small scale.

if that could happen to a moth in 100 years, what would happen in 1 million? Micro-evolution times 10,000!

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

So Genetic Divergence is what defines a species?

several distinguishing features, such as the black belly and forelimbs have gradually evolved.

Are you saying these squirrels are a different species because it has slightly different genetic makeup and therefore different characteristics?

Are you saying a beagle is a different species because it has a different genetic makeup and a different characteristics than a great dane? I think you are still dodging.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Have you observed a series of mutations having created wholly new data? New organs? No? That's because you can't. Why would you still believe in macro-evolution?

Of course not. Such phenomena take tens of thousands of years to occur. So what? There's plenty of evidence that requires evolution to create an empirically adequate theory.

You're confusing positivism with empirical adequacy.

Why do you have a problem with irreducible complexity?

Demonstrate one.

Give me an example of speciation in a lab Stradlater, I'll pick it to shreds.

Be my guest: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

We have been through this before and your 'picking apart' is less than compelling.

What do we generally see as the result of mutation? Disease, decay, degradation, and decreased reproductibility, but here's the wrinkle; against all known laws of probability time can heal all wounds right because of the .0001 chance that a mutation might even be neutral? Add a couple of billion years (give or take 20 million or so) and VOILA!

Phenotypes don't mutate, genes do. Almost all mutations are neutral. Is the heterozygote advantage that sickle-cell trait individuals have in an environment packed with malaria an example of "decreased reproductibility"? Please explain to me how it is. It sounds like you need to learn exactly what you're attacking before you attack it.

You do not seem to understand the "laws of probability". The laws of probability explicitly do not state that improbable events never happen. They specifically state how long you should have to wait to have an arbitrarily high chance of any event occurring, regardless of how improbable that event is. Probability is mathematically well-defined and empirically confirmed.

This is why scientists will tell you that evo-biologists embrace evidence in this particular field that science would be willing to embrace in no other field.

You would be of tremendous assistance to the scientific community in general if you would demonstrate specifically what evidence you are referring to.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
There are very few Orthodox Rabbi opinions online, let alone one regarding a relatively obscure subject as the Flood.

I think they are on the same web server as the Amish Church resources directory.

[Nicko]

I am amazed how these threads always devolve (no pun intended) into scientifically illiterate people using their religious convictions to declare how the world works, even though it has no basis in reality.

The facts of life are what they are. There are scientists in Asia who are working to grow human organs in pigs, most of our food is genetically engineered, and animals are being cloned... monkeys are next, and humans will follow in short order. Not only is evolution real, we will be able to harness its power and customize it to our specifications.

Welcome to the 21st century.

...And the 17th century called, they want their puritans back!

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by Nicko:
I am amazed how these threads always devolve (no pun intended) into scientifically illiterate people using their religious convictions to declare how the world works, even though it has no basis in reality.

The facts of life are what they are. There are scientists in Asia who are working to grow human organs in pigs, most of our food is genetically engineered, and animals are being cloned... monkeys are next, and humans will follow in short order. Not only is evolution real, we will be able to harness its power and customize it to our specifications.

Welcome to the 21st century.

...And the 17th century called, they want their puritans back!

Let us know when a human is successfully cloned, with no deleterious flaws - then I'll be impressed. And humans harnessing the power of evolution runs counter to the definition of evolution.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
Let us know when a human is successfully cloned, with no deleterious flaws

You will only be waiting a short time. So get ready. The only problem I see will be the ethical ramifications in some countries that will stifle the science needed to fulfill this.

The flaws of plant cloning have been eradicated for many years now, the flaws in animal cloning are just being looked at today, this will surely take more time, but the end result will no doubt be identical clones with no degenerative flaws.

This is wholly a new debate and I doubt most people even like the idea of human cloning, myself included (at this point) If this debate is to continue I vote to move it to anther thread, along with the current evolution debate.

Do Mods here ever split threads? This one is over due.

[Dimethyltrypt]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
*MacNStein smacks everyone with the Literal stick*

It's allegory, a morality tale. Even the Orthodox Rabbis don't teach it as an actual event.

The sad part is that some people think it really happened.

Intellectual opium -- religion -- is bad for them.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Dimethyltrypt:
The sad part is that some people think it really happened.

Intellectual opium -- religion -- is bad for them.

Religion/spirituality can be a wonderful and rewarding thing, my life (and the lives of my loved ones) is a glowing example of that. However, my point is that many people don't understand or know how to interpret scripture. So many things in the Bible and other holy texts are taken literally when they shouldn't. It leads to misunderstandings and a crisis of faith further down the line.

If a person is going to make an emotional investment in religion and spiritual growth, they need to intimately learn the aspects of the belief systems that interest them.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Dimethyltrypt:
The sad part is that some people think it really happened.

Intellectual opium -- religion -- is bad for them.

Any intellectual process will lead to a belief of some kind, not different than religion.

Religion is based on the observation of our existence (which is a fact) and interpreted through various rationalisations.
Science is such a set of observations -from a larger set of facts, granted-- but with as much rationalisations. Witness the interpretation of the nature of the world with the Greeks and the 4 elements; at the time, that was quite revolutionary. But we still live with a similar way of thinking; we have not evolved that much intellectually speaking. And we still cannot, through science, justify the existence of the Universe, so the door is wide open for explanations there.

Religions have a social function (one could say) of setting parameters of behaviors in terms of morals and ethics. Science's role is to create a better set up of living. Both sets of belief lead to a better standard of living for human kind.

But both are still sets of beliefs. Your stance is the one of philosophers who deny the existence of higher forces yet cannot prove that religion is necessarily bad; after all, religions do not act. Only humans do. They are the ones to blame for rationalizing through religion their animalistic nature.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
And we still cannot, through science, justify the existence of the Universe,

That's the problem. Existence is an absurdity. Their is no "justification" or reason for it. We live just because. Yet we cannot accept that as fact because we want to believe their is purpose and by that, we believe in god, or rather, a lie to comfort us.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by demograph68:
That's the problem. Existence is an absurdity. Their is no "justification" or reason for it. We live just because. Yet we cannot accept that as fact because we want to believe their is purpose and by that, we believe in god, or rather, a lie to comfort us.

We can't really know either way, can we?

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
We can't really know either way, can we?

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." - Socrates

[Dimethyltrypt]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Any intellectual process will lead to a belief of some kind, not different than religion.

Religion is based on the observation of our existence (which is a fact) and interpreted through various rationalisations.
Science is such a set of observations -from a larger set of facts, granted-- but with as much rationalisations. Witness the interpretation of the nature of the world with the Greeks and the 4 elements; at the time, that was quite revolutionary. But we still live with a similar way of thinking; we have not evolved that much intellectually speaking. And we still cannot, through science, justify the existence of the Universe, so the door is wide open for explanations there.

Religions have a social function (one could say) of setting parameters of behaviors in terms of morals and ethics. Science's role is to create a better set up of living. Both sets of belief lead to a better standard of living for human kind.

But both are still sets of beliefs. Your stance is the one of philosophers who deny the existence of higher forces yet cannot prove that religion is necessarily bad; after all, religions do not act. Only humans do. They are the ones to blame for rationalizing through religion their animalistic nature.

Woops, you forgot science is not meant to answer the same questions as religion does.

Philosophy, however, can answer the same question. But it trades religion's affectivity (I'm just translating the french word here, pardon me if it does not make sense.. hope you get the point) for science's rationality.

I think you're up for a couple of philo classes.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Nicko:
I am amazed how these threads always devolve (no pun intended) into scientifically illiterate people using their religious convictions to declare how the world works, even though it has no basis in reality...

[undotwa]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
spirituality...belief systems

I hate this terminology! It's so new agist. 'Belief system' truly makes me cringe.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by demograph68:
That's the problem. Existence is an absurdity. Their is no "justification" or reason for it. We live just because. Yet we cannot accept that as fact because we want to believe their is purpose and by that, we believe in god, or rather, a lie to comfort us.

But we don't know if it is a lie or not.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Dimethyltrypt:
Woops, you forgot science is not meant to answer the same questions as religion does.

Philosophy, however, can answer the same question. But it trades religion's affectivity (I'm just translating the french word here, pardon me if it does not make sense.. hope you get the point) for science's rationality.

I think you're up for a couple of philo classes.

I am no philosopher (and don't want to be) but philosophy does not answer all the questions either. Our existence is still one of the mysteries.

Imho, religion is used to answer the same ultimate questions regarding the existence of the Universe; but we take it as granted that God is at the origin of all things while Science is interpreted as the tool to explain it. But none of these two can lead us to the ultimate answer.

One could conjure up different points of view on the whole situation of how we acquire knowledge and if knowledge is independant of the knowers (is there knowledge without people to know it?).

My point of view is that there is knowledge out there (nnot necessarily only for us to get), but we are not geared for the whole thing; we could one day acquire much more than we do now, but it is for certain that this knowledge depends of the size of the Universe (encompassing the Real and the Imagined); the bigger it is, the more there is to know.

An example of this is the Incompleteness Theorem of G�del. It shows that there is knowledge out there but that Logic will not suffice to explain it (specifically, that Mathematics is not a finished object). Therefore, our hability to grasp the existence of a potential God at the origin of a Universe that tends to be infinite is not likely to be appreciated to its fullness because of the nature of the Universe of being infinite.

So even Logic or Philosophy "the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics" is just as limited as Science.

On the other end, when referring to religion and its "affectivity", and Science being freed from it, I am not certain that both are as distinct in practice. Ideally, Science uses Logic but as demonstrated by Heisenberg, some areas are subjected to the effect our own observations; therefore, knowledge acquired takes a personal perspective and objectivity needs to be redefined (without going into solipsism). On the other end, religion uses a premisse to justify our existence by providing a rationale for our Existence and that of a Creator. But in essence, religion is a theory of our existence using God as an explanation for its model.

To me, the line is very thin between the two, since we, as humans, are instruments of knowledge and our tools to acquire that knowledge, like Logic, are as fine as silexes.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

If there is a God, he sure is boring.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
...But in essence, religion is a theory of our existence using God as an explanation for its model.

you forgot to mention that this is only ONE supernatural explanation out of a countless number of possiblities.

[zizban]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
If there is a God, he sure is boring.

You haven't looked at the night sky lately, have you?

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Religion/spirituality can be a wonderful and rewarding thing, my life (and the lives of my loved ones) is a glowing example of that. However, my point is that many people don't understand or know how to interpret scripture. So many things in the Bible and other holy texts are taken literally when they shouldn't. It leads to misunderstandings and a crisis of faith further down the line.

If a person is going to make an emotional investment in religion and spiritual growth, they need to intimately learn the aspects of the belief systems that interest them.

Such is a truism, MacNStein. People who do not take the time to understand scripture at anything other than a facile level will inevitably develop misconceptions. We're dealing with a slightly different question, however. The crux of this particular debate is, are you arguing for a reinterpretation of Torah that contradicts mesorah or one that accords with it? Is it not true that orthodoxy is reticent to depart from the pshat, unless tradition explicitly dictates that there is good reason to do so? I realize that some rabbinical opinions do characterize as allegory much of Genesis, but I would not call those opinions normative. If you proceed to treat swathes of Torah as allegory, where do you draw the demarcation between allegory and history? At which point do you consign it all to the status of allegory? While it is a strong belief of our faith that there are multiple meanings of God's words, it is also quite firmly believed that the higher interpretations do not detract from the validity of the direct meaning.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
Such is a truism, MacNStein. People who do not take the time to understand scripture at anything other than a facile level will inevitably develop misconceptions. We're dealing with a slightly different question, however. The crux of this particular debate is, are you arguing for a reinterpretation of Torah that contradicts mesorah or one that accords with it? Is it not true that orthodoxy is reticent to depart from the pshat, unless tradition explicitly dictates that there is good reason to do so? I realize that some rabbinical opinions do characterize as allegory much of Genesis, but I would not call those opinions normative. If you proceed to treat swathes of Torah as allegory, where do you draw the demarcation between allegory and history? At which point do you consign it all to the status of allegory? While it is a strong belief of our faith that there are multiple meanings of God's words, it is also quite firmly believed that the higher interpretations do not detract from the validity of the direct meaning.

It is common knowledge that almost the whole of the Torah has been designated Remez/Sod by Rabbis since before the time of the Midrash haggadah. This is why, for over 1000 years, very little focus has been placed on literal exploration. They understood the greater importance of the implied and mystical meanings. To them, it's largely become a non-issue.


"The meaning and symbolism of a thing is far greater than it's perceived form." - Rabbi Isaac Luria c. 1568

[undotwa]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It is common knowledge that almost the whole of the Torah has been designated Remez/Sod by Rabbis since before the time of the Midrash haggadah. This is why, for over 1000 years, very little focus has been placed on literal exploration. They understood the greater importance of the implied and mystical meanings. To them, it's largely become a non-issue.


"The meaning and symbolism of a thing is far greater than it's perceived form." - Rabbi Isaac Luria c. 1568

Good post.

Christians haven't always interpreted the Bible literally either. It's not a modern Christian concept to say that the Bible is figurative. There have been fundamentalists at all times who received the Bible as is written (including a lot of the uneducated classes who didn't know better) but most theologians had an understanding of the metaphorical language contained within the Genesis and other parts of the Bible.

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It is common knowledge that almost the whole of the Torah has been designated Remez/Sod by Rabbis since before the time of the Midrash haggadah. This is why, for over 1000 years, very little focus has been placed on literal exploration. They understood the greater importance of the implied and mystical meanings. To them, it's largely become a non-issue.

It is taught that there are mystical interpretations of the text, but to say that mystical explanation is the sole focus of Torah learning, and that there is no focus on the Pshat, is completely untrue. The higher levels of analysis aid our understanding of the text; they do not replace the text.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
It is taught that there are mystical interpretations of the text, but to say that mystical explanation is the sole focus of Torah learning, and that there is no focus on the Pshat, is completely untrue. The higher levels of analysis aid our understanding of the text; they do not replace the text.

Who said "sole purpose"? Though, the implied and mystical interpretations are considered the main purpose and central focus.

Again, I strongly recommend that you read Rabbi A. Kaplan's (most likely the greatest of all Hasidic Theologians) commentary on Torah, especially his volumes regarding the Creation myth, the Flood, and Exodus. Unfortunately, it is rather pricey, but most schools with a Theology or religious studies dept are likely to have them. Anyone planning an in-depth study on the subject would be wise to purchase them, they're one of the best references you can own and a great investment.