[Chuckit]

How many philosophies do you know that have temples?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

"My" definition is irrelevant. It does not fit with how the word is commonly used. If you want to redefine "religion" to mean "delicious cake," you can do that, but it becomes rhetorically useless.

You never answered, which definition is the correct one?

If a living creature like a kangaroo can be considered a marsupial, why can't a living creature like a bacterium?

That's hardly a fair analogy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

You know the difference between that and what I said? I actually give reasons why what I say is true. You, on the other hand, seem to be using the "So there" method of argument.

No, you thought you could patronize me with a loaded question. You failed. You're upset and now you're projecting. I understand.

1. Evolution has been around for over 100 years

So has Creationism

2. Evolution is fully supported by all the evidence we have and the scientific method

Fair enough.

3. The scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports evolution

Of course. So, let me ask you this. If the Creation argument is dominant only in the US and it doesn't have a leg to stand on, wouldn't it behoove "World Scientists" to work on properly educating the principles of evolution (I see a lot of "you don't know this" "you don't know that", etc...) insteading of focusing on attacking a principle as weak as Creationism? I submit to you these "attackers" are giving creedence to proponents of Creationism.

Now, explain how that's equivalent to the time when a bunch of philosophers were just beginning to write about something without the benefit of much evidence or the scientific method (which didn't come until much later).

I'm glad you asked. In ancient times folks would see a ship disappear. They noticed that it took longer for a ship to disappear if you were standing on a tower and that there was a difference between when the top of the ship disappeared and the bottom of the ship. They knew at a very early time that it appeared the ships were going over a "hill" and believed the earth to be round then. They lacked enough empirical evidence and the wizardry of modern technology to affirm this.

I've never supposed proponents of evolution are wrong, but they've also got a lot of work to do. It may interest you to know that while you're certain of many things, scientists are still working on learning the mechanisms of evolution and applying the most modern technology to the problems. Certainly you'll give them more time right? I mean you can close the case and all, but you would'nt begrudge a little more information would you? I look forward to their work as well.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

When you guess enough times, you're bound to get one right now and then. The problem wasn't that you turned out to not be wrong once, the problem is that you come to your conclusions based on evidence that all starts with "I assume."

Evidence of "theological scientists" was given to me by lpk two pages ago. You've not been reading the thread. I suspect you wouldn't get so worked up over semantics if you had.

That's easy. It wasn't (except in your own head).

Originally Posted by lpk

From the Vatican;
The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.

... quoted them as if they were somehow an authority on science now.

Originally Posted by lpk

That is why it has drawn criticism from the Vatican. It happens to be the same reason that it draws criticism from scientists. Imagine that.

... again citing the Vatican as if it were somehow now on par with science.

Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic and has based a significant portion of his career reconciling science and faith. We were called by lpk personally to watch two hour videos of this man in action. So when you say this accusation is only in my head, you're not only full of shxx Uncle, you've been rendered another hand-cymbal crashing monkey.

We can. The entire body of scientific literature (journals, not letters to the editor) does. Nowhere does it ever mention Creation once. If you're saying that one should be able to refute Creationism without mentioning Creationism, you're, well, a liar.

Strawman. That's not what I said. To defend evolution, you don't need to bash Creationism. Have I not been told that you should not be attacking one thing to support another? Does it only work one way now? Liars indeed!

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, you thought you could patronize me with a loaded question. You failed. You're upset and now you're projecting. I understand.

No, I asked you a very relevant question which you've been dodging.

What makes evolution different from other well-established scientific theories? What makes you a zealot if you defend it and not if you defend any other theory? And why should I give more credence to the creationists who don't accept it than to the flat-earthers who don't accept the globe?

So has Creationism

Not in the body of scientific theory, it hasn't. Creationism has been around in the scientific consensus for exactly 0.000 years.

Of course. So, let me ask you this. If the Creation argument is dominant only in the US and it doesn't have a leg to stand on, wouldn't it behoove "World Scientists" to work on properly educating the principles of evolution (I see a lot of "you don't know this" "you don't know that", etc...) insteading of focusing on attacking a principle as weak as Creationism? I submit to you these "attackers" are giving creedence to proponents of Creationism.

To the first part, do people need to be educated: Yes!! The main people buy into things like Creationism/ID is due to ignorance of what evolution is or what it says, or even fundamentals of science itself (example: not understanding what the word theory means in a scientific context).

To your second part: No. Unfortunately, most scientists and science professors would rather not spend time refuting pseudosciences like creationism. This is because from their point of view, it is a ridiculous waste of their time that they could spend doing something relevant to their field. They don't take it seriously - unfortunately, they don't realize that the ID/creationist people are very organized and have quite good marketing skills, and consequently they can gain legitimacy with the layperson when their lies are allowed to go unchallenged, leading to situations like what we have now when most of the American public seem are completely misinformed about even what a theory is.

Someone has to stand up and oppose these people, because they're not going to just stop their assault on the science. People need to be educating the public about the truth about evolution far more than what is being done right now.

I'm glad you asked. In ancient times folks would see a ship disappear. They noticed that it took longer for a ship to disappear if you were standing on a tower and that there was a difference between when the top of the ship disappeared and the bottom of the ship. They knew at a very early time that it appeared the ships were going over a "hill" and believed the earth to be round then. They lacked enough empirical evidence and the wizardry of modern technology to affirm this.

Whereas today, we have lots of empirical evidence which has been accumulating for over 100 years.

I've never supposed proponents of evolution are wrong, but they've also got a lot of work to do. It may interest you to know that while you're certain of many things, scientists are still working on learning the mechanisms of evolution and applying the most modern technology to the problems. Certainly you'll give them more time right? I mean you can close the case and all, but you would'nt begrudge a little more information would you? I look forward to their work as well.

Scientists are always working on learning the mechanisms of evolution... and everything else, too! We can't ever know everything, and science never sits still anywhere. We don't understand all the mechanisms of gravity, the subatomic particles that make up the atom keep getting subdivided further and further, scientists are still trying to work all the field forces together, etc. etc. etc.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

... quoted them as if they were somehow an authority on science now.

... again citing the Vatican as if it were somehow now on par with science.

His point is that evolution need not conflict with religion at all, and that the Pope agrees with this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I'm a mathematical physicist specializing in quantum mechanics. My professor, however, has done research in pretty much every area of mathematical physics. We haven't discussed any mathematical models, the most interesting discussion we've had was about ways to reconcile what IDers usually call `irreducibly complex systems'.

This seems consistent with what you said earlier; "We have also found some explanations for the `irreducible complexity' problem which is one of the main points of ID and Creationism."

Finding explanations for the "irreducible complexity problem" sounds an awful lot like falsifying an hypothesis no?

For instance. Or patterns in sand in shallow water. Things like this. In particular the fact that from very chaotic systems, order may arise spontaneously.

I'm a little surprised to hear a quantum physicist cite this in an evolutionary context. Certainly you understand why ice crystalization and the decreased entropy in these examples are woefully inadequate mechanisms for evolution. For one thing, ice crystalization relies on loss of heat energy whereas it is supposed that the gain of heat energy is one such evolutionary mechanism no? Where is the encoded information that directs this formation? Of course then you'd realize that snowflakes have remained consistent in their formation and appearance for millions of years.

No, we haven't discussed ID. We (= the people I have discussed Evolution with) were just focussing on Evolution.

... yet discussed explanations for the problem of "irreducible complexity". A term I'm sure we'd agree is prominently used in the ID context. Whomever you discussed it with, it sounds as if you've been falsifying the unfalsifiable. You don't find this the least bit interesting?

Two of us have done research in these and read several books and mathematical studies on this topic. One of the proposed mechanisms concerning the sudden appearance of complex structures which aren't found in lower species is the following: although the probability that the genes which are responsible for this additional structure (say a third arm or more sophisticated eyes) are `switched on' by chance (cosmic rays...

Generally resulting in increasing entropy right?

errors in duplicating the DNA

... otherwise known as mutations. Mutations are generally harmful, deleterious, or neutral, but mathematically rare as beneficial. What is the mathematical definition of "rare" anyway? What is it for impossible?

it is argued that there are `master switches' that switch on/off whole branches of genes. The dormant genes are inherited by future generations and only if this master switch is switched on, the genes become active.

In this way, you don't need to activate all these genes at once, but only one after the other. I'm not arguing that this is proven to be correct, but it seems (to the laymen) a plausible explanation.

I appreciate that and understand the context in which you presented it. I will say I find it interesting whenever a dicussion of evolution ensues, the terms used to describe the plausible mechanisms themselves invoke intelligent agency at every turn... or switch.

An external agent is the first thing to exclude from any theory in physics in order to have a well-defined and testable theory. Even though I'm a laymen in the field of genetics and evolution, I know what a scientific theory should look like. It always excludes external agents which are beyond comprehension.

I can appreciate that. I personally (emphasis on IMHO) believe that this constitutes an inherent limitation on intellectual advancement and presents an obstacle we may overcome one day. A long, long time from now.

Well, it is destructive for the following reason: it is obvious that -- say -- 100 years ago, we did not know how to describe the Hydrogen atom properly. For one reason or another, it had discrete spectral lines and there was no way to describe it using classical mechanics.So an ID/Creationism-type of argument invokes a higher power which is supposedly responsible for this miracle in science.

This argument would've worked say "100 years ago", but proponents of ID are not working within the suppositions of "who" or "why". Zealots are, but I've already qualified that I don't care where funding comes from. Scientists working within the framework of ID are working on "what" and "how". No one actively involved in the discipline is suggesting Jesus Christ did it and that He did it to show you how much He loves you. Zealots are and they will continue to. That said, it is not exclusive to them. I've seen some pretty excitable bastardizations of science by popular media supporting evolution.

A decades years later, this `miracle' could be explained using the brand new theory of quantum mechanics. In the same manner, there might be developments in biology that Creationists/IDer might attribute to workings of this higher power. Then, a few years later, this may be explained by some new findings.

Then again, if the evidence did not support the theory, but happened to affirm another hypothesis, it may simply remain "unanswered" and/or "unanswerable".

So ID/Creationism is a step backwards and hinders scientific progress.

I absolutely disagree and I'm glad you and your friends discussed irreducible complexity.

As you rightfully put it, science doesn't cover the `why', religion does. So there is no destructive interference if you say that God/a higher is responsible for this extreme diversity in biology, physics, geology. However, if you add elements of `why' to `how', you mix water and oil. Most scientists, religious or not, are aware of this distinction.

Of course I agree. I'm not interested in the "why" in light of scientific interest. I'll save the other interests for my Pastor. I have no problem with this at all.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This seems consistent with what you said earlier; "We have also found some explanations for the `irreducible complexity' problem which is one of the main points of ID and Creationism."

Finding explanations for the "irreducible complexity problem" sounds an awful lot like falsifying an hypothesis no?

Irreducible complexity ≠ ID. It doesn't even entail ID.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

No, I asked you a very relevant question which you've been dodging.

No, it was a silly question crafted as most silly questions are. "Dodging the question" implies I didn't answer it. I most definitely did, twice. So, you don't like the answer?

What makes evolution different from other well-established scientific theories?

Asbsolutely nothing. Well, except the natural differences in choice of field and one's relative lack of familiarity with the other.

What makes you a zealot if you defend it and not if you defend any other theory?

This does not make you a zealot. Giving creedence to Creationism by recognizing it as somehow, a formidible opponent might be the fruits of one.

And why should I give more credence to the creationists who don't accept it than to the flat-earthers who don't accept the globe?

I don't recall that anyone has asked you to. Certainly not me.

Not in the body of scientific theory, it hasn't. Creationism has been around in the scientific consensus for exactly 0.000 years.

okay

To the first part, do people need to be educated: Yes!!

Excellent! Unite to attack ignorance then! I grew up and was educated in a public school system in the Conservative midwest and not once in any public venue was Creationism, ID, the Bible or any other religiously-motivated doctrine educated, implied, or discussed, most certainly not in any origins science context. History class was a little different, but only as it relates to culture, not origins science.

The main people buy into things like Creationism/ID is due to ignorance of what evolution is or what it says, or even fundamentals of science itself

Yes, and the perfect example of secular failure. Was this really the point you were trying to make?

(example: not understanding what the word theory means in a scientific context).

Yes and as such it behooves the World scientists to attack ignorance, not Creationism!

To your second part: No. Unfortunately, most scientists and science professors would rather not spend time refuting pseudosciences like creationism. This is because from their point of view, it is a ridiculous waste of their time that they could spend doing something relevant to their field.

Is that so? There seems to be pretty good money in it for both don't you think? I can google hundreds of books, blogs, articles, and entire websites dedicated to attacking Creationism and defending Evolution. Some of the most prominent scientists of our day are quoted in those texts and in some cases those prominent fellows authored the texts. Of course, I disagree with your notion of science somehow not wanting to "waste" their time on Creationists.

They don't take it seriously - unfortunately, they don't realize that the ID/creationist people are very organized and have quite good marketing skills, and consequently they can gain legitimacy with the layperson when their lies are allowed to go unchallenged, leading to situations like what we have now when most of the American public seem are completely misinformed about even what a theory is.

I appreciate your having attributed "the American public" to me, but I'm not sure I know who you're talking to here. I have a thorough understanding of what theory is.

Someone has to stand up and oppose these people, because they're not going to just stop their assault on the science. Hopefully, by engaging the fight with an interest in one theory instead of opposition to another hypothesis, the World's Scientists will be educating the public about the truth on evolution far more than what is being done right now.

Whereas today, we have lots of empirical evidence which has been accumulating for over 100 years.

The evidence is fun to look at and learn about, no doubt about it.

Scientists are always working on learning the mechanisms of evolution... and everything else, too! We can't ever know everything, and science never sits still anywhere. We don't understand all the mechanisms of gravity, the subatomic particles that make up the atom keep getting subdivided further and further, scientists are still trying to work all the field forces together, etc. etc. etc.

Kind of wordy and unnecessary don't you think?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This seems consistent with what you said earlier; "We have also found some explanations for the `irreducible complexity' problem which is one of the main points of ID and Creationism."

See below.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Finding explanations for the "irreducible complexity problem" sounds an awful lot like falsifying an hypothesis no?

No, it was a proposed explanation within the framework of Evolution.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'm a little surprised to hear a quantum physicist cite this in an evolutionary context. Certainly you understand why ice crystalization and the decreased entropy in these examples are woefully inadequate mechanisms for evolution. For one thing, ice crystalization relies on loss of heat energy whereas it is supposed that the gain of heat energy is one such evolutionary mechanism no? Where is the encoded information that directs this formation? Of course then you'd realize that snowflakes have remained consistent in their formation and appearance for millions of years.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The formation of snowflakes has very little to do with ID vs. Evolution, neither covers the formation of snowflakes. The steadily increase in entropy gives us a time arrow in the first place since all microscopic theories are symmetric with respect to time-reversal.

Evolution is a lot like a thermodynamic process.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

... yet discussed explanations for the problem of "irreducible complexity". A term I'm sure we'd agree is prominently used in the ID context. Whomever you discussed it with, it sounds as if you've been falsifying the unfalsifiable. You don't find this the least bit interesting?

Nonsense. The proposed mechanism is mathematically and physically well-defined and it doesn't involve to God. So again, the hypothesis of an intelligent entity is not testable.

There is no need for an intelligent entity to enter the equation in the proposed mechanism. So I have done neither.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

... otherwise known as mutations. Mutations are generally harmful, deleterious, or neutral, but mathematically rare as beneficial. What is the mathematical definition of "rare" anyway? What is it for impossible?

You can assign probabilities to each event and with the correct mechanism (otherwise the probabilities are meaningless), you can go on to calculate the total probability.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I appreciate that and understand the context in which you presented it. I will say I find it interesting whenever a dicussion of evolution ensues, the terms used to describe the plausible mechanisms themselves invoke intelligent agency at every turn... or switch.

No, the switch is turned by another mutation. There was NO intelligent agent.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I can appreciate that. I personally (emphasis on IMHO) believe that this constitutes an inherent limitation on intellectual advancement and presents an obstacle we may overcome one day. A long, long time from now.

Actually it's the opposite.
This intellectual limitation hindered progress and it was only that we have embraced these ideals of science, in particular turning to Greek philosophers and separating God out of the equations, that we were able to get where we are now.

Scientifically, we have surpassed nations and belief systems that were ahead of us at that time (Persia and China for instance). Now you want to go a step backwards.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This argument would've worked say "100 years ago", but proponents of ID are not working within the suppositions of "who" or "why". Zealots are, but I've already qualified that I don't care where funding comes from. Scientists working within the framework of ID are working on "what" and "how". No one actively involved in the discipline is suggesting Jesus Christ did it and that He did it to show you how much He loves you. Zealots are and they will continue to. That said, it is not exclusive to them. I've seen some pretty excitable bastardizations of science by popular media supporting evolution.

And I have given you ample explanation as to why God can have no part in the explanation of what and how.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Then again, if the evidence did not support the theory, but happened to affirm another hypothesis, it may simply remain "unanswered" and/or "unanswerable".

It will not remain unanswerable, that's a very incorrect notion here. Unexplained, perhaps, but not inexplicable. Then it may take some more time until a satisfactory answer is found.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Of course I agree. I'm not interested in the "why" in light of scientific interest. I'll save the other interests for my Pastor. I have no problem with this at all.

Then take what you claim seriously and exclude God from how and what, and embrace him where science ends: why?

If you take God as allmighty entity seriously, there is no need for such micromanagement at all.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Evidence of "theological scientists" was given to me by lpk two pages ago. You've not been reading the thread. I suspect you wouldn't get so worked up over semantics if you had.

I remember it. I originally asked about "theological scientists" because it was an inherently unclear term and I simply wanted clarification. I was actually surprised to see you backpedal to "I assume," but then it suddenly clicked with your overall pattern, and became evidence in and of itself. I'm not "worked up," but you're in fact the one not reading the thread it seems:

... quoted them as if they were somehow an authority on science now.
... again citing the Vatican as if it were somehow now on par with science.

Quoted in a direct response to factual statements you made about the Vatican! (factual statements which appear to be in error, though I don't presume to know or care what the Vatican's official stance is). He didn't bring it up as an authority or for any other reason, you did. And it wasn't lpk it was CharlesS. You're really flailing here.

Strawman. That's not what I said. To defend evolution, you don't need to bash Creationism. Have I not been told that you should not be attacking one thing to support another? Does it only work one way now? Liars indeed!

Evolution has support. That is irrelevant in a thread where the support for evolution hasn't been questioned. In this thread, the (incredibly weak) basis of creationism has been emphasized by "your side." Once again, you're determined to have the argument you've prepared for, not the argument actually taking place. Maybe you should revive an old thread where evolution and the evidence was actually under discussion.

Now then...

For one thing, ice crystalization relies on loss of heat energy whereas it is supposed that the gain of heat energy is one such evolutionary mechanism no?

No. I don't know where you got that from. Unless it's just to lead into this:

Generally resulting in increasing entropy right?

The entropy ploy is a non-starter. The earth is not a closed system, it absorbs orders of magnitude more energy from the sun than it spends on all life.

Scientists working within the framework of ID are working on "what" and "how".

No they're not. Exactly what "what" and "how" questions can you propose that any ID "scientist" is working on?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

See below.

No, it was a proposed explanation within the framework of Evolution.

I wasn't aware that a discussion within the framework of evolution could even include an "irreducible complexity" supposition. i.e. Evolution acknowledges irreducibly complex structures???

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The formation of snowflakes has very little to do with ID vs. Evolution, neither covers the formation of snowflakes. The steadily increase in entropy gives us a time arrow in the first place since all microscopic theories are symmetric with respect to time-reversal.

Now you've lost me. I was simply saying that the granual organization of sand and ice crystalization have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is a lot like a thermodynamic process.

okay, but again I ask; what encoded information is used for the formation of ice cystals, sand on the beach, etc...?

Nonsense. The proposed mechanism is mathematically and physically well-defined and it doesn't involve to God. So again, the hypothesis of an intelligent entity is not testable.

I wasnt talking about the intelligent entity being testable, I was talking about irreducibly complex structures. You're saying the mechanism for irreducibly complex structures are mathematically and physically well-defined or did you mean "seemingly irreducibly complex" structures?

There is no need for an intelligent entity to enter the equation in the proposed mechanism. So I have done neither.

So, why would you be discussing irreducible complexity at all?

You can assign probabilities to each event and with the correct mechanism (otherwise the probabilities are meaningless), you can go on to calculate the total probability.

Realizing of course that the "correct mechanism" is highly debatable (remembering that we know evolution is fact, but the mechanisms are in question) we cannot know we have the "correct" mechanism and therefore any calculation on probability would be circular no? So, it seems it is impossible to calculate the rate of divergence without circular reasoning.

No, the switch is turned by another mutation. There was NO intelligent agent.

Of course, there couldn't be. What determines when the switches are thrown 'one after the other'? What mechanism?

Actually it's the opposite.
This intellectual limitation hindered progress and it was only that we have embraced these ideals of science, in particular turning to Greek philosophers and separating God out of the equations, that we were able to get where we are now.

See discussion on theistic scientists. There's nothing destructive about a scientist who may feel there is a Divine entity behind it, it's just not a plausible explanation of what we see in the scientific sense. i.e. God did it to show you how much He loves you is not a scientific answer to these questions. In that I agree.

Scientifically, we have surpassed nations and belief systems that were ahead of us at that time (Persia and China for instance). Now you want to go a step backwards.

Absolutely not as you'll recall that I'm not for the teaching of ID or Creationism in the public schools. I don't know why World Scientists are uniting to attack Creationism when A. it's supposedly an American condition and B. it only serves to illustrate that one is not being taught well enough. How well versed in the theory of evolution do you suppose the average public school teacher is? This is a public school system that no longer teaches about the Bible, Creationism, or ID. Having gone through the public school system over 17 years ago, none of the above were mentioned. Not one. Was my experience here in the Midwest somehow an isolated one or is it possible that evolution is simply not being taught very well? I believe it's the latter and I'll go so far as to say they need to stop opposing one thing, and supporting another. As I said before, the step backwards is due solely to people resting on their laurels with regard to science and not because of any Creationist agenda. You can't blame Creationists for people not knowing more about evolution. God was not mentioned in my science class nor Creationism or ID. I hope that's now clear.

And I have given you ample explanation as to why God can have no part in the explanation of what and how.

Yes, you've given your explanation of why God can have no part in the explanation, but see I don't remember ever claiming God did. See comments on thought-policing.

It will not remain unanswerable, that's a very incorrect notion here. Unexplained, perhaps, but not inexplicable. Then it may take some more time until a satisfactory answer is found.

Then again, as I stated; it "may" not be found.

Then take what you claim seriously and exclude God from how and what, and embrace him where science ends: why?

First of all, I've not mentioned God. If you are this focused on God however, I may be able to direct you to some faith-building exercises. I've already claimed I'm not interested in the who or why as I can easily discuss those issues with others, I'm interested in the what and how. It makes no difference to me whether one thinks it's a god, an alien being, an energy source, or the flying purple spaghetti monster because we don't need science to dictate "who".

If you take God as allmighty entity seriously, there is no need for such micromanagement at all.

micromanagement would imply an on-going meddling in the affairs of nature. I've never proposed this. As far as I know, it has been suggested that God is outside of our linear time. *crude example to explain away your supposition of intelligent "meddling" or as you say, "micro-management" coming up *Warning; highly unscientific material below.

Not unlike throwing a handful of jacks on the floor and arranging them in a long row. I've arranged them all at once. I've set my subordinates at the beginning of the row. I then require them to play within laws I've already set such as; "must start at the beginning of the row and move toward the end". This progression will appear linear to them all the while I can see the start and end of the row all at once. To be clear, this is not a scientific explanation of anything, but only a refutation of your notion that it would somehow detract from a God's "almighty" nature and that I'd suggest "micromanagement" was necessary.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I remember it. I originally asked about "theological scientists" because it was an inherently unclear term and I simply wanted clarification. I was actually surprised to see you backpedal to "I assume," but then it suddenly clicked with your overall pattern, and became evidence in and of itself. I'm not "worked up," but you're in fact the one not reading the thread it seems:

Well you're right, I didn't even need to use the word "assume" as it had been pretty well established as fact. Your desire to be argumentative noted.

Quoted in a direct response to factual statements you made about the Vatican! (factual statements which appear to be in error, though I don't presume to know or care what the Vatican's official stance is). He didn't bring it up as an authority or for any other reason, you did. And it wasn't lpk it was CharlesS. You're really flailing here.

That's not really flailing, that's simply natural given the number of people I'm compelled to respond to. So I got CharlesS confused with his #1 fanboy, not really a big catch Uncle. Now, read what was submitted by CharlesS. My context was stating that the Vatican is opposed to notion of ID and Creationism. Why would you propose that my statements on the Vatican and others appear to be in error then go on to say you don't presume to know or care??? Either you presume to know or you don't. Talk about flailing.

Evolution has support. That is irrelevant in a thread where the support for evolution hasn't been questioned.

No, actually the thread is about the support of Creationism being questioned. Remember; "World Scientists unite to attack Creationism"??? It seems the World Scientists would be better served attacking ignorance, not Creationism, seeing as how ID and Creationism were not taught to me in the public school system. They could probably start by running you through a quick rehash on the formation of a snowflake.

In this thread, the (incredibly weak) basis of creationism has been emphasized by "your side."

Thought-policing. Why is it "my side"??? Because I don't wholly reject the work of proponents of ID, but believe these are not to be taught in public school science classes??? This is silliness.

Once again, you're determined to have the argument you've prepared for, not the argument actually taking place.

My notion was very simple; to watch the silly hand-cymbal crashing monkeys bash their arms sore. I appreciate your visual aide.

The entropy ploy is a non-starter. The earth is not a closed system, it absorbs orders of magnitude more energy from the sun than it spends on all life.

Proof that we need to work on how evolution is taught, not how to silence Creationists who have nominal contribution to the study of science in public school. The earth's systems are indeed open, but the earth as a whole itself is classified as a closed system because there is a limit to how much matter is exchanged.

No they're not. Exactly what "what" and "how" questions can you propose that any ID "scientist" is working on?

increasing number of examples of finely tuned mechanisms/organisms and that the varied, but precise conditions comprising our earth system for example, are statistically rare. Resiliance in design and evidence of common form as it relates to common function over common ancestory, etc...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I wasn't aware that a discussion within the framework of evolution could even include an "irreducible complexity" supposition. i.e. Evolution acknowledges irreducibly complex structures???

No, by suggesting a way these structures could have evolved, you solve the mystery to what IDers and Creationists call `irreducibly complex structures problem'. Since there is a mechanism that gives rise to these structures, they are not irreducibly complex. I have merely used your language to make the explanation more immediate.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Now you've lost me. I was simply saying that the granual organization of sand and ice crystalization have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

This is where you are wrong. Even though the process is very simple, every snowflake is different from the other. Also, the patterns in the sand in shallow water is also a consequence of chaotic dynamics. These phenomena are called self-organization, i. e. order may emerge spontaneously from chaotic systems.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

okay, but again I ask; what encoded information is used for the formation of ice cystals, sand on the beach, etc...?

Physically, that depends on what you want to describe. If you want to describe that 1 liter of water eventually becomes one big chunk of ice, you will have a very easy time to do that with thermodynamics. If you want to understand the formation of snowflakes, things are a lot, lot more involved.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I wasnt talking about the intelligent entity being testable, I was talking about irreducibly complex structures. You're saying the mechanism for irreducibly complex structures are mathematically and physically well-defined or did you mean "seemingly irreducibly complex" structures?

No, I was arguing that what might seem irreducibly complex isn't. I was proposing a genetic mechanism and making analogies to very simple physical systems.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

So, why would you be discussing irreducible complexity at all?

To conclude that they don't exist.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Realizing of course that the "correct mechanism" is highly debatable (remembering that we know evolution is fact, but the mechanisms are in question) we cannot know we have the "correct" mechanism and therefore any calculation on probability would be circular no? So, it seems it is impossible to calculate the rate of divergence without circular reasoning.

No, it's not. You propose a testable model and compare it to experiment.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Of course, there couldn't be. What determines when the switches are thrown 'one after the other'? What mechanism?

I'm not an expert and this model is not mine. If I remember correctly, it was proposed by an expert, but even if it was introduced with a specific example, my co-worker hasn't mentioned it during the discussion.

The mechanism is to assume that there is a hierarchy of genes that have certain master switches on top which may enable or disable whole branches. The flipping of switches is a statistical process which you can describe mathematically.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

See discussion on theistic scientists. There's nothing destructive about a scientist who may feel there is a Divine entity behind it, it's just not a plausible explanation of what we see in the scientific sense. i.e. God did it to show you how much He loves you is not a scientific answer to these questions. In that I agree.

No, because as I said, in my line of work, there is no difference between what you call a theistic scientist (I would call it a scientist who believes in God) and a non-religious scientist.

You may remember that William of Occam was a monk and that many other famous scientists were/are religious. But the success of science is a direct consequence of the fact that scientists are aware of the boundary of faith and science whereas you are trying to blur that line again.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Absolutely not as you'll recall that I'm not for the teaching of ID or Creationism in the public schools. I don't know why World Scientists are uniting to attack Creationism when A. it's supposedly an American condition and B. it only serves to illustrate that one is not being taught well enough. How well versed in the theory of evolution do you suppose the average public school teacher is? This is a public school system that no longer teaches about the Bible, Creationism, or ID. Having gone through the public school system over 17 years ago, none of the above were mentioned. Not one. Was my experience here in the Midwest somehow an isolated one or is it possible that evolution is simply not being taught very well? I believe it's the latter and I'll go so far as to say they need to stop opposing one thing, and supporting another. As I said before, the step backwards is due solely to people resting on their laurels with regard to science and not because of any Creationist agenda. You can't blame Creationists for people not knowing more about evolution. God was not mentioned in my science class nor Creationism or ID. I hope that's now clear.

Well, I think you single out Evolution here. How much of a clue do you have about General Relativity? How about Quantum Mechanics? Or even Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics? Very little.

So how can you judge what a good Theory of Everything is? You can't. Even experts can't (since even Quantum Field Theory is mathematically not yet well-defined). There is no need to single out one theory and claim Evolution is not well-suited for students. I disagree, it is a theory based on comparatively simple ideas and has a framework that is easy to grasp. Which is not true of the physical theories I've mentioned.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Yes, you've given your explanation of why God can have no part in the explanation, but see I don't remember ever claiming God did. See comments on thought-policing.

Including God is the same as including any other `intelligent agent'.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Then again, as I stated; it "may" not be found.

You never know. But to put this question out of reach by claiming it was an intelligent agent is definitely the wrong way to go.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

First of all, I've not mentioned God. If you are this focused on God however, I may be able to direct you to some faith-building exercises. I've already claimed I'm not interested in the who or why as I can easily discuss those issues with others, I'm interested in the what and how. It makes no difference to me whether one thinks it's a god, an alien being, an energy source, or the flying purple spaghetti monster because we don't need science to dictate "who".

Science doesn't dictate anything, it acknowledges that who (in the case of your spaghetti monster) or why is out of its reach. This would be a `theistic' discussion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Not unlike throwing a handful of jacks on the floor and arranging them in a long row. I've arranged them all at once. I've set my subordinates at the beginning of the row. I then require them to play within laws I've already set such as; "must start at the beginning of the row and move toward the end". This progression will appear linear to them all the while I can see the start and end of the row all at once. To be clear, this is not a scientific explanation of anything, but only a refutation of your notion that it would somehow detract from a God's "almighty" nature and that I'd suggest "micromanagement" was necessary.

If God has done anything, then it's exactly what you propose here: giving initial conditions and `rules of the game'. The rest is done by itself in a unique manner. There is nothing irreducibly complex here: everything is a consequence of the rules and the specific initial conditions.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, it was a silly question crafted as most silly questions are. "Dodging the question" implies I didn't answer it. I most definitely did, twice. So, you don't like the answer?

You didn't answer the question, until this:

Asbsolutely nothing. Well, except the natural differences in choice of field and one's relative lack of familiarity with the other.

Finally. Thank you.

So I guess this settles the question about whether evolution needs special disclaimers or "alternate views" presented when it is taught.

This does not make you a zealot. Giving creedence to Creationism by recognizing it as somehow, a formidible opponent might be the fruits of one.

Excellent! Unite to attack ignorance then! I grew up and was educated in a public school system in the Conservative midwest and not once in any public venue was Creationism, ID, the Bible or any other religiously-motivated doctrine educated, implied, or discussed, most certainly not in any origins science context. History class was a little different, but only as it relates to culture, not origins science.

Yes but you see, the creationists are always trying to change this. I went to undergrad in Kansas, and there was this constant battle going on where the school board wanted to remove evolution from the science curriculum. Elsewhere the creationists have been infiltrating school boards and getting them to require creationism be taught alongside evolution (such as in that Dover case that lpk linked to a while back in the thread).

Increasingly, it's becoming more common to see profs required to preface any discussion of evolution with "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." which is incorrect. Some places have even stuck warning labels on biology textbooks for crying out loud! This, of course, all serves to disseminate ignorance of what a theory is, which leads to:

Yes, and the perfect example of secular failure. Was this really the point you were trying to make?

Yes and as such it behooves the World scientists to attack ignorance, not Creationism!

When the creationists are the primary ones perpetuating the ignorance, then they need to be fought in order to fight ignorance.

Is that so? There seems to be pretty good money in it for both don't you think? I can google hundreds of books, blogs, articles, and entire websites dedicated to attacking Creationism and defending Evolution. Some of the most prominent scientists of our day are quoted in those texts and in some cases those prominent fellows authored the texts. Of course, I disagree with your notion of science somehow not wanting to "waste" their time on Creationists.

It's true, though. There are only a small percentage who realize what's going on, although the number is increasing.

Kind of wordy and unnecessary don't you think?

Not really. Tons of people don't understand what a theory is, and don't realize that just about every other major concept in science - i.e. electricity, atoms, etc. - are theories. They think evolution is somehow "different" from the others - read Kevin's post that I was replying to and you'll see.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Well you're right, I didn't even need to use the word "assume" as it had been pretty well established as fact. Your desire to be argumentative noted.

It's not argumentative just to point out evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

My context was stating that the Vatican is opposed to notion of ID and Creationism. Why would you propose that my statements on the Vatican and others appear to be in error then go on to say you don't presume to know or care?

Because CharlesS cited a source which contradicted your statements, and you gave no rebuttal, and I don't care enough to double-check it so I'm taking his word for it.

Meanwhile, you seem to have dropped the bulk of the problem in favor of the crumbs. You invented the "Vatican as authority" problem from nowhere.

"World Scientists unite to attack Creationism"??? It seems the World Scientists would be better served attacking ignorance, not Creationism

CharlesS has already covered this fully and succinctly: "When the creationists are the primary ones perpetuating the ignorance, then they need to be fought in order to fight ignorance."

seeing as how ID and Creationism were not taught to me in the public school system.

Only by perpetual energies spent fending them off in the legal system. Eventually it's time to go to the source.

Thought-policing. Why is it "my side"?

It's not, that's why I put it in quotes.

My notion was very simple; to watch the silly hand-cymbal crashing monkeys bash their arms sore.

And again, congratulations. You've managed to engender an argument in the MacNN political/war lounge, something that is done by 100 different people every day without even trying. Bravo. An excellent use of your time.

Proof that we need to work on how evolution is taught, not how to silence Creationists who have nominal contribution to the study of science in public school.

And the article was about teaching. What's your objection?

The earth's systems are indeed open, but the earth as a whole itself is classified as a closed system because there is a limit to how much matter is exchanged.

I don't see what your point is then, because biological systems don't generate or destroy matter. If you're trying to imply that entropy can't be decreased without "exchanging matter" (ie with only energy input), you're proved wrong by the electron transport chain in chloroplasts, which takes photons as input and combines CO2 and water to make glucose and oxygen. If you're going to argue that photons are matter, then that blows away your "closed system" argument because photons come from the sun to the earth. So what's your point?

increasing number of examples of finely tuned mechanisms/organisms and that the varied, but precise conditions comprising our earth system for example, are statistically rare. Resiliance in design and evidence of common form as it relates to common function over common ancestory, etc...

Unfortunately I can't decipher that first sentence fragment, but the second one is clearly a "why" question. "Common function" is a question of purpose.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

How many philosophies do you know that have temples?

Do Apple Stores count?

[Kevin]

[CharlesS]

Jesus uses BSD Unix?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

It's not argumentative just to point out evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not sure you're qualified to make this assessment. Read below...

Because CharlesS cited a source which contradicted your statements, and you gave no rebuttal, and I don't care enough to double-check it so I'm taking his word for it.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

That is why it has drawn criticism from the Vatican. It happens to be the same reason that it draws criticism from scientists. Imagine that.

First of all, I gave a rebuttal; "Well, they're also opposed to gay marriage contradicting psychological advancement and abortion so you can't win 'em all. They're still reeling about how wrong they were on Galileo and might be a little gun-shy in general."

That rebuttal included the first hint of my distaste for using the Vatican as some kind of authority on science. What happens when the Vatican doesn't acknowledge science? I mentioned that the Vatican and others have a problem with ID and/or Creationism. I mentioned specifically that one of their problems with it is that it limits God;

Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on ‘Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution’

The following is the text of the talk to be delivered by Vatican Observatory Director Jesuit Father George V. Coyne, “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution,” at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., Jan. 31:

Abstract

I would essentially like to share with you two convictions in this presentation: (1) that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, while evoking a God of power and might, a designer God, actually belittles God, makes her/him too small and paltry...

I served the Catholic Church in various capacities for over 15 years including 8+ years of education on its doctrine. I'm well aware of the Catholic stance on ID/Creationism and I'm well aware of the Catholic's history with regard to science. For you to suggest I don't know what I'm talking about is both kneejerk and ignorant. If you'd like to argue for nothing more than the sake of it, I'd recommend choosing someone else. When you say I don't know what I'm talking about, you do so with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever.

Meanwhile, you seem to have dropped the bulk of the problem in favor of the crumbs. You invented the "Vatican as authority" problem from nowhere.

I mentioned one of the problems the Vatican has is that it limits God. I was correct. I did not invent their authority on the matter. However, the responses I got on this statement were interesting;

That is why it has drawn criticism from the Vatican. It happens to be the same reason that it draws criticism from scientists. Imagine that.

Relegating Catholicism on par with science. This was not my invention, this statement was not made by me. Though, I'm not sure why I'd be disappointed by the use of Catholicism for scientific affirmation when we're also using Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.

various calls to watch Ken Miller. Ken Miller is a Catholic and the lion's share of his work has included the reconciliation of faith with science. Another invention of mine??? Better read the thread you're contributing to.

CharlesS has already covered this fully and succinctly: "When the creationists are the primary ones perpetuating the ignorance, then they need to be fought in order to fight ignorance."

You're so blinded by this adversarial nature that you can't see the forest for the trees here. Creationism/ID were not taught in my public school. Ignorance is perpetuated by lack of education. Kids are getting the education from their Christian homes and at Church which teach notions of Genesis origins and Creationism. If you want to squelch ignorance, you're not going to be able to go into one's home, you'll have to educate evolution more effectively. You don't fight Creationism/ID. You support evolution. Unless of course it's impossible to support the TOE without attacking Creationism/ID.

Honestly, I don't know what this doesn't make sense to you. Let me clarify; Creationism/ID cannot be responsible for the lack of education you receive in the public school system if these two notions haven't had anything to do with the public school system for several decades. If folks spent half as much time educating evolution as they did attacking Creationism, you in fact would be fighting ignorance and not philosophy. Got it???

Only by perpetual energies spent fending them off in the legal system. Eventually it's time to go to the source.

Well, unfortunately for you the source is within the home and you're generally not welcome there unless you're invited.

My intent in this thread has been to put zealots on parade. My intent was to expose the fact that many here do not oppose ID/Creationism nor defend evolution out of concern for science nearly as much as concern for their own personal philosophies.

And again, congratulations.

Well, thank you again. Your visual aid has proven effective in this.

I don't see what your point is then, because biological systems don't generate or destroy matter. If you're trying to imply that entropy can't be decreased without "exchanging matter" (ie with only energy input), you're proved wrong by the electron transport chain in chloroplasts, which takes photons as input and combines CO2 and water to make glucose and oxygen. If you're going to argue that photons are matter, then that blows away your "closed system" argument because photons come from the sun to the earth. So what's your point?

My point is that photosynthesis is not proof of evolution.

Unfortunately I can't decipher that first sentence fragment, but the second one is clearly a "why" question. "Common function" is a question of purpose.

No rather, it's a question of design.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

First of all, I gave a rebuttal; "Well, they're also opposed to gay marriage contradicting psychological advancement and abortion so you can't win 'em all. They're still reeling about how wrong they were on Galileo and might be a little gun-shy in general."

That rebuttal included the first hint of my distaste for using the Vatican as some kind of authority on science.

That's not a rebuttal to CharlesS's statement that you were wrong when you said ID "has received criticism from the Vatican for limiting God."

And if you don't like the Vatican as an authority, then why were you the one who brought them up in the first place?

I served the Catholic Church in various capacities for over 15 years including 8+ years of education on its doctrine. I'm well aware of the Catholic stance on ID/Creationism and I'm well aware of the Catholic's history with regard to science. For you to suggest I don't know what I'm talking about is both kneejerk and ignorant. If you'd like to argue for nothing more than the sake of it, I'd recommend choosing someone else. When you say I don't know what I'm talking about, you do so with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever.

With respect to this thread, you have responded to more imagined arguments than actual ones (which I guess is not surprising if you're coming in with baggage from over 15 years). If anyone is arguing for the sake of it, it's you.

If folks spent half as much time educating evolution as they did attacking Creationism, you in fact would be fighting ignorance and not philosophy. Got it???

Yet that ignorance wants to shorten the time spent educating evolution. So which is it, ebuddy, do they teach evolution in the smaller and smaller aliquots allowed them or do they spend a few minutes trying to increase their allowance of time to teach?

Well, unfortunately for you the source is within the home and you're generally not welcome there unless you're invited.

Except when the source is in the Discovery Institute

My intent was to put zealots on parage

The very definition of arguing for its own sake. No wonder you bring it up so often, it's foremost in your mind the whole time.

My intent was to expose the fact that many here do not oppose ID/Creationism nor defend evolution out of concern for science nearly as much as concern for their own personal philosophies.

Well you've done a piss-poor job of it then, since all you've done is repeat your claim over and over.

My point is that photosynthesis is not proof of evolution.

Total non-sequitor. That has nothing to do with what you said.

No rather, it's a question of design.

How is design a "what" or "how" question?

[CharlesS]

God, this thread is still alive?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

That rebuttal included the first hint of my distaste for using the Vatican as some kind of authority on science. What happens when the Vatican doesn't acknowledge science? I mentioned that the Vatican and others have a problem with ID and/or Creationism. I mentioned specifically that one of their problems with it is that it limits God;

I didn't bring up the Vatican. You did. I responded to you with that link that showed that the Vatican dislikes ID for the same reason that I, and others in this thread, and most other sane people do. I'm not quite sure where you get that I was putting the Vatican on an equal footing with the scientific community. I also don't understand what bringing up their other baggage has to do with anything.

Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on ‘Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution’

The following is the text of the talk to be delivered by Vatican Observatory Director Jesuit Father George V. Coyne, “Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution,” at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., Jan. 31:

Abstract

I would essentially like to share with you two convictions in this presentation: (1) that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, while evoking a God of power and might, a designer God, actually belittles God, makes her/him too small and paltry...

Well, the most recent article straight from the Vatican that I was able to find in my search was the one that objected to ID simply because it is BS scientifically. If it also limits God, then hey, they've got more than one objection. Great. I'm sure there's some point to this, but I can't remember what it was.

You're so blinded by this adversarial nature that you can't see the forest for the trees here. Creationism/ID were not taught in my public school.

It's not yet. As I've already said several times, the creationists are constantly trying to change this fact. I lived in Kansas for 5 years, okay? At some point, lpk provided a link to the Dover case, and countless others keep popping up all over the country. The only reason creationism isn't in more public schools is because people stand up to the creationists and oppose them, and challenge them in the courts. Unfortunately they keep on trying, so it's like whack-a-mole.

Ignorance is perpetuated by lack of education. Kids are getting the education from their Christian homes and at Church which teach notions of Genesis origins and Creationism. If you want to squelch ignorance, you're not going to be able to go into one's home, you'll have to educate evolution more effectively. You don't fight Creationism/ID. You support evolution. Unless of course it's impossible to support the TOE without attacking Creationism/ID.

So what do you do when these guys are constantly infiltrating school boards and trying to get them to pass curricula that remove the theory of evolution and give time to ID?

Honestly, I don't know what this doesn't make sense to you. Let me clarify; Creationism/ID cannot be responsible for the lack of education you receive in the public school system if these two notions haven't had anything to do with the public school system for several decades. If folks spent half as much time educating evolution as they did attacking Creationism, you in fact would be fighting ignorance and not philosophy. Got it???

And I don't know what (sic) this doesn't make sense to you: Creationists spreading ignorance causes ignorance to be spread. Creationists spouting things like "It's just a theory, not a fact" perpetuates ignorance. Creationists getting on school boards and making them remove evolution from the science curricula, give equal time to creationism/ID, preface everything with "this is just a theory" disclaimers, sticking warning labels on textbooks, etc. perpetuates ignorance. Creationists constantly preaching misinformation about the meanings of the words theory and law causes ignorance about the meanings of the words theory and law! And if people don't hear the opposing side to these preachings, they will just accept them as fact.

My point is that photosynthesis is not proof of evolution.

Huh?

[olePigeon]

Budhism and Hinduism are not religions in the same sense that Christianity is. Temples are built to show respect, not worship. There aren't rules to live your life by like Christianity, there are only guidelines and suggestions to help better yourself, family, friends, and the world around you. You're not going to some special Hell if you don't do all of those things.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy on 06-29-2006
I'm going to stop at the local Barnes and Noble and have a look. This is way more work than I had ever anticipated from an internet forum, but I assure you if I'm unable to find the quote, I will apologize formally in this thread.

So this was kind of interesting. Did you ever find that citation in the past month? When's the formal apology due?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

So this was kind of interesting. Did you ever find that citation in the past month? When's the formal apology due?

While there is no formal; "100th Anniversary edition" of Origin of Species, there is a 1959 publication as facsimile of original work that was printed by Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 1592242855.



This and other copies are available for anywhere from $25.00 on up, but I've not found them in any of the bookstores here locally nor are they located in any of the public libraries here in town including the State library downtown. I haven't decided if it's worth the cost for purchase. However, knowing that the "unproved and unprovable" phrase occurs prominently in Creationist sources I decided to challenge them and their responses were both interesting and dissappointing. One such response was;

Present Truth; There is no way that we sit around making up false quotes to put on our sites- therefore the quote either came from that book OR from another book that quoted that book.The fact is, if even 1 or 2 or even 3 quotes were accidentally not accurate - there are still thousands of them that say the same thing - truth is truth!

This was probably the single most feebly worded response I've received to any question in all my days and I've told them as much. I will continue to challenge them and two others I'm waiting on responses from. *update; one of them has yet to respond and the other advised me they would and haven't gotten back to me. The statement remains on their site. I've been email-bombing them to either remove the statement or verify first-hand its authenticity. I've even given them the starting places that I believe will verify the source once and for all, but I'm going to let them do the legwork. I'm not going to purchase the book only to return it however, it is not my intent to lie to any of your nor is it to put up with the lies of others, especially those supposedly acting on behalf of God.

Until such time as I receive a reply with affirmation of the "unproved and unprovable" phrase, please accept my apologies for using it.