# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Dawkins.  Really?  REALLY?

## MsDoodahs

YouTube - expelled no intelligence allowed (part 10 of 10) PL

Okay, so he says there is no God but that some higher techy intelligent life from elsewhere in the universe could have seeded planet earth with life and that if science looks for evidence of that INTELLIGENT DESIGN, science might very well find it.

Discuss if ya wanna.

Oh, and if you have a chance, watch Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed

----------


## coyote_sprit

We could very well be a harvesting ground for a much more intelligent species, granted this species doesn't necessarily have to be god.

----------


## rpfan2008

But the basic question still remains.

Who created the intelligent designers?Got to be something superior..

 Isn't this that plane old _egg or hen first_ type question? This theory can't reject a supreme creator but only delays his appearance in the argument by one step.

----------


## Aratus

one step or 100,ooo??? ...in isaac newton terms & mode, is our Creator Being a very lazy cosmic clock tweaker as of late?

----------


## MsDoodahs

> But the basic question still remains.
> 
> Who created the intelligent designers?Got to be something superior..
> 
>  Isn't this that plane old _egg or hen first_ type question? This theory can't reject a supreme creator but only delays his appearance in the argument by one step.


Exactly!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Okay, so he says there is no God but that some higher techy intelligent life from elsewhere in the universe could have seeded planet earth with life and that if science looks for evidence of that INTELLIGENT DESIGN, science might very well find it.


This is all very hypothetical, not particularily scientific however, I'll bite. 

If we assume that life on earth was seeded from intelligence from elsewhere in the universe, who's to say whatever intelligence seeded us wasn't seeded from intelligence elsewhere?  Do you at least accept the possibility that if we are a product of intelligent design, it might very well be another form of evolved life, not a God?

Sort of like how you are the superior form of life to the bacteria in your body.  You can intelligently take pills to affect the world of the bacteria.  We are much like the cells of the earth.  the earth could be considered our superior being, and who's to say it isn't?  Perhaps the earth functions like a cell in a greater being.  Perhaps that being knows how to modify it's internal behavior, and we are its internal behavior. This does not mean that greater being is a God, any more than it means we are Gods to the cells in our body.

Also, the concept of life on earth being seeded from elsewhere in the universe, does have legitimate scientific reasoning.

What would be the reasoning to assume the rocks are seeded by a supernatural God?

/Ramble

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Do you at least accept the possibility that if we are a product of intelligent design, it might very well be another form of evolved life, not a God?


Do you at least accept the possibility that God is ... another form of evolved life?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Do you at least accept the possibility that God is ... another form of evolved life?


Well... i guess it really depends what you mean by the word God

----------


## YumYum

I think that Mitt Romney's sideburns made a good point when he said that there is a distinction between a creator and a G-d. If there is a G-d, he doesn't communicate with us so we can worship him or serve him the way he would like. That's what G-d's are for; to worship. On the other hand, if we were put here by a "creator", they or he/she may be observing us as some sort of experiment; much as we observe bacteria in a dish. The creator/s do not want to be worshipped. Either way, from this perspective we are not special or unique from other life forms.

----------


## rpfan2008

> Exactly!


That means at the end of this chain there is someone who was never created by anyone, but it started creating others. And this fundamental question, I believe, have been given enough time by our ancestors. And this puzzle is the reason why decency and values started flowing into human beings. 

Offtopic:

And in a historic POV, I also believe that pagan phallic worshipers are actually NOT sex-worshipers, but they assumed if copulation is the only way how life can be born there must have happened a  divine copulation that created the first of us. And pagan phallic symbols represent copulation not the one organ of a gender. I wonder if experts promote this theory.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

Read the Science fiction "UPLIFT" series by David Brin.

The first of six books in the series is titled "Sundiver", but the real meat of the uplift theory of seeded intelligence begins in the second book, "Startide".

----------


## ClayTrainor

> That means at the end of this chain there is someone who was never created by anyone, but it started creating others. And this fundamental question, I believe, have been given enough time by our ancestors. And this puzzle is the reason why decency and values started flowing into human beings.


Why does there have to be a beginning or an end?

----------


## rpfan2008

> Why does there have to be a beginning or an end?



Am I supposed to answer this?

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Well... i guess it really depends what you mean by the word God


I think that is true.

----------


## rpfan2008

Practically speaking, the God we 'fear' may not be the God who created us.

The God we fear/respect is an imagination, but helped build a spiritual civilization. 

And the creator God (real one) might be busy somewhere else creating other things.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Am I supposed to answer this?


You imply that everything begins with someone, or did i mistake you?

----------


## rpfan2008

> You imply that everything begins with someone, or did i mistake you?


Is there any other possibility?
Can something exist since ever?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Is there any other possibility?


Yes.  Infinity.  No beginning, no end.  True freedom, not created freedom.

Big bang could be true, i personally believe it is, but it's a process of something else that already existed.  Nothing, by it's very definition Cannot exist!




> Can something exist since ever?


Well, aren't you claiming an individual does?

Ahhhh, the epic questions of mankind

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

$#@! Richard Dawkins. He's just another AGW douchenozzle. I would no more ask his opinion on evolution than I would his opinion on how to roast a politician over a fire. He's among the scientific elite that is conveniently NOT telling the public that there are several competing theories of evolution (only one of which is based on Darwin) for fear that 'Creationists' will tear him to shreds over it. He's no different than a goddamn High Inquisitor in my opinion.

----------


## rpfan2008

> Yes.  Infinity.  No beginning, no end.  True freedom, not created freedom.
> 
> Big bang could be true, i personally believe it is, but it's a process of something else that already existed.  Nothing, by it's very definition Cannot exist!
> 
> 
> 
> Well, aren't you claiming an individual does?
> 
> Ahhhh, the epic questions of mankind


Mathematically as far as I know, Infinity can always be finite, but doesn't deserve the effort. I mean one can never reach infinity but can always reach one step closer to it. Infinity is created for our convenience, it doesn't exist naturally. Am I wrong?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Mathematically as far as I know, *Infinity is always finite.* I mean one can never reach infinity but can always reach one step closer to it. Infinity is created for our convenience, it doesn't exist naturally. Am I wrong?


Yes you are, at least according to my own logic.  Your very first statement is a direct contradiction.  Show the math, burden of proof is on you now.  I'm here to learn

----------


## rpfan2008

I edited my statement.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Mathematically as far as I know, Infinity can always be finite, but doesn't deserve the effort. I mean one can never reach infinity but can always reach one step closer to it. Infinity is created for our convenience, it doesn't exist naturally. Am I wrong?


Infinity by it's very nature is indefinite, it cannot be reached.  How many number combinations are there?  Infinity...

Where did existence begin?  Infinity...

Possible?

----------


## rpfan2008

> Yes you are, at least according to my own logic.  Your very first statement is a direct contradiction.  Show the math, burden of proof is on you now.  I'm here to learn


Say, while calculating in nm-- 1Km is infinity and so forth. 
or vacuum have infinite electrical resistance but actually it's not, but some very high value.


Is there any practical example of infinity?

----------


## rpfan2008

> Infinity by it's very nature is indefinite, it cannot be reached.  How many number combinations are there?  Infinity...
> 
> Where did existence begin?  Infinity...
> 
> Possible?


Does numbers exist in nature? 
Nature have quantity, not numbers.

These things are human created theories.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Does numbers exist in nature? 
> Nature have quantity, not numbers.
> 
> These things are human created theories.


They are concepts we apply to observations.  Working concepts 

How many number combinations are there?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Say, while calculating in nm-- 1Km is infinity and so forth. 
> or vacuum have infinite electrical resistance but actually it's not, but some very high value.


1km is not infinity, that is a defined number.

Vacuums clearly dont have infinite resistance, if their resistance is defined.  That doesnt mean they dont exist within infinity.





> Is there any practical example of infinity?


How many number combinations are there?  Where is the end or beginning of outer space?

Ever read M theory, or String? 

http://math.yorku.ca/infinity_old/Im...ewInfinity.jpg

Are there any practical examples of an ending or beginning to existence?

----------


## rpfan2008

> 1km is not infinity, that is a defined number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many number combinations are there?  Where is the end or beginning of outer space?
> 
> Ever read M theory, or String? 
> 
> ...


Infinity can't exist in nature.

Please don't confuse infinity of nature with infinity of a mathematical theory. Nothing is infinite in nature. Infinity is a theoretical concept, when something is too small to observe it approaches 0 and when it's too big to calculate it approaches infinity.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Infinity can't exist in nature.


Burden of proof is on you.




> Please don't confuse infinity of nature with infinity of a mathematical theory. Nothing is infinite in nature.


Where does the universe / multi-verse and time end or begin?  Please enlighten me, i've been seeking these answers for some time 

By the way, you were the one who first claimed that Infinity can't exist in mathematics... now you're contradicting yourself a bit 




> Mathematically as far as I know, Infinity can always be finite, but doesn't deserve the effort.





> Infinity is a theoretical concept, when something is too small to observe it approaches 0 and when it's too big to calculate it approaches infinity.


Singularity is a theoretical concept as well, you agree?

----------


## rpfan2008

> Burden of proof is on you.


How can I prove a negative? 
Why don't you give me an example  of something that is infinite in nature,  whether a human is present to count it or not. 






> Where does the universe and time end or begin?  Please enlighten me, i've been seeking these answers for some time


How can I know the answer to that?




> Singularity is a theoretical concept as well, you agree?


I believe it is.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I think that Mitt Romney's sideburns made a good point when he said that there is a distinction between a creator and a G-d. If there is a G-d, he doesn't communicate with us so we can worship him or serve him the way he would like. That's what G-d's are for; to worship. On the other hand, if we were put here by a "creator", they or he/she may be observing us as some sort of experiment; much as we observe bacteria in a dish. The creator/s do not want to be worshipped. Either way, from this perspective we are not special or unique from other life forms.


almost

a god implies a supernatural entity with supernatural powers and existence outside of time and all that

a creator could be anything, not neccisarily a god.  There is a school of thought out there who thinks aliens from Nibiru came down to Earth looking for gold, found all these primates running around, took them into a lab and suped up their DNA to create modern humans, and used them as slaves to mine their gold.  This would be an example of a creator.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> How can I prove a negative? 
> Why don't you give me an example  of something that is infinite in nature,  whether a human is present to count it or not.


You made the claim that a negative was true. Are you admitting that it was a false statement?

Space and time are quite possibly infinite, unless you have practical reason to suggest otherwise?




> How can I know the answer to that?


Every question has an answer, and ever answer leads to more questions.... 

You will never look somewhere and find "nothing"

----------


## UK4Paul

If some intelligent life (X) could have "seeded" life, why could X not have also created life fully formed?

Why not just skip the hundreds of millions of years that allegedly took us from a supposed primal soup to what we have today... and get right down to, you know, _proper_ creation 

Come on, Dawkins... if you're going to open _that_ can of worms, be prepared to consider opening it all the way.

----------


## rpfan2008

> You made the claim that a negative was true. Are you admitting that it was a false statement?
> 
> Space and time are infinite, unless you have practical reason to suggest otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> Every question has an answer, and ever answer leads to more questions....


I guess by "space" you mean "volume of the universe", but how can I verify that?

Time?
How can time be finite or infinite? Does time even exist outside our mind? 
  Time is an imaginary quantity or a perception, just like numbers..

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I guess by "space" you mean "volume of the universe", but how can I verify that?


Space is the distance between objects, time is the period between occurances.  There is absolutely nothing practical that exists to suggest that these dimensions are finite, though i'm open to whatever evidence you have.





> How can time be finite or infinite? Does time even exist outside our mind? 
>   Time is an imaginary quantity or a perception, just like numbers..


Numbers are representations of observations. There are other number systems that exist, binary, hexadecimal, decimal, etc... in which we use different symbols to represent these truths.  The truths are consistent no matter what symbols you use to represent them,  the truths are not subjective.   but there are underlying truths to them all.  These truths have never been proven to be finite.

----------


## rpfan2008

> Space is the distance between ob
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers are representations of observations. There are other number systems that exist, binary, hexadecimal, decimal, etc... but there are underlying truths to them all.  These truths have never been proven to be finite.
> 
> Space is the distance between objects, time is the period between occurances.  There is absolutely nothing practical that exists to suggest that these dimensions are finite, though i'm open to whatever evidence you have.



Clay please consider this.

The distance between two objects is a natural quantity, I sort of believe now. The distance would exist even if there is no observer present to measure it in a std unit (in case of no observer distance could be Xtimes its diameter, circumference wtv , the diameter, radius etc of the bodies will continue to exist even without an observer.)

But in case of time the system is totally different, you always need an observer who can *feel* that time has passed. OR an origin of time. 

(a) Without an observer: objects don't feel that time has passed. 
(b) without an origin: - we can still explain time as a multiple of a time period (of some repeating event) ....but what if no event ever happened at all.

...........

Any thoughts. 
I'm more confused.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

As ridiculous as aliens seeding the planet sounds, it is still more plausible than mythological claims of gods.

----------


## Natalie

> YouTube - expelled no intelligence allowed (part 10 of 10) PL
> 
> Okay, so he says there is no God but that some higher techy intelligent life from elsewhere in the universe could have seeded planet earth with life and that if science looks for evidence of that INTELLIGENT DESIGN, science might very well find it.
> 
> Discuss if ya wanna.
> 
> Oh, and if you have a chance, watch Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed


I watched that movie the other day!  It was really good.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I watched that movie the other day!  It was really good.


Michael Moore did a great video on economics a while back.  It was almost as good as this movie.

----------


## Eric21ND

Expelled is horrible!  Talk about taking Dawkins out of context.  We hate when the media doesn't give Ron Paul a fair shake so don't be a hypocrite regarding Dawkins.

YouTube - PZ Myers: Expelled from Expelled! - Richard Dawkins

----------


## Goldhunter27

> Michael Moore did a great video on economics a while back.  It was almost as good as this movie.

----------


## UK4Paul

> As ridiculous as aliens seeding the planet sounds, it is still more plausible than mythological claims of gods.


So... _seeding_ by Intelligence is "more plausible", but _creating_ by Intelligence is less plausible...?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> So... _seeding_ by Intelligence is "more plausible", but _creating_ by Intelligence is less plausible...?


Nice try with the word games.

Seeding by an alien life form is more plausible than creating by a supernatural omnipotent being that lives outside of time



Do you guys even realize your intellectual dishonesty?  Trying to pretend that when someone talks about artificial creation by an alien from another planet is the same thing as a god. . .  I mean, you have to willfully know you are lying.

----------


## UK4Paul

Mitt, I'm not attempting to play "word games". I'm attempting to highlight the irrationality of the athiest view that intelligence - at whatever level - can exist within our Universe (as we know it does), but not outside of it.

I don't care whether you call it god, God, flying spaghetti monster, aliens, whatever.

The point is... to accept intelligence is possible within our Universe, but reject the possibility of intelligence outside of our Universe... is irrational.

You believe that you (an intelligent human being) ultimately evolved from some kind of primordial soup less than 4.6 billion years ago. Project that forward another 4.6 billion years and it's easily conceivable than an entity with the ability of "God" (in the sense of creating an actual Universe) could easily exist.

It's speculation, but it's merely extrapolating on something you already believe - that we got from primordial soup (a simplification, I appreciate) to you, in 4.6 billion years. Project forwards another 4.6 billion, and you have "God" entities creating Universes as easily as creating a loaf of bread.

Now what's to say that didn't already happen... prior to our Universe? The "God" entity didn't _already_ do that?

Sure, it's speculation... but it's not _irrational_ speculation.

That's my point. Give it another 4.6 billion years of evolution, and life could be producing such "God" entities like Walmart produces burnt out checkout clerks

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> The point is... to accept intelligence is possible within our Universe, but reject the possibility of intelligence outside of our Universe... is irrational.


Define "outside of the universe"

I think you have this idea that the universe is like a box.  Theres an inside the box, and an outside the box.  And I am being naive to think that nothing could be outside the box.

The universe isnt a box.  There isnt an "outside".  There is no space outside of space.

----------


## UK4Paul

OK, fair point. None of us have a complete and all-encompassing understanding of precisely what the Universe is.

But if we go by current scientific belief, it is generally claimed our Universe had some kind of a "beginning", i.e. the Big Bang.

But some scientists must at least _conceive_ of stuff "outside" of our Universe, otherwise they wouldn't even consider such concepts as "multiverses".

So in whatever "space" they place these "multiverses", that would be my definition of "outside of the universe".

So, if it is _not_ irrational to conceive of multiverses (as even suggested by Richard Dawkins), and it is _not_ irrational to conceive of a "God" entity evolving at some point in this Universe... why is it irrational to consider the possibility that such a "God" entity actually started _this_ Universe?

After all, if aliens might have seeded planets, might it be possible to seed an entire Universe?

Sure, it might sound unlikely... but try telling your friendly local primordial soup that YOU would be the end result 4.6 billion years later

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> OK, fair point. None of us have a complete and all-encompassing understanding of precisely what the Universe is.
> 
> But if we go by current scientific belief, it is generally claimed our Universe had some kind of a "beginning", i.e. the Big Bang.
> 
> But some scientists must at least _conceive_ of stuff "outside" of our Universe, otherwise they wouldn't even consider such concepts as "multiverses".
> 
> So in whatever "space" they place these "multiverses", that would be my definition of "outside of the universe".
> 
> So, if it is _not_ irrational to conceive of multiverses (as even suggested by Richard Dawkins), and it is _not_ irrational to conceive of a "God" entity evolving at some point in this Universe... why is it irrational to consider the possibility that such a "God" entity actually started _this_ Universe?
> ...


ughhh.  Its not like multiple universes are sitting in a room somewhere.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Expelled is horrible!


I enjoyed it immensely, but then ... I enjoy the reaction of the members of the Church of Darwin whenever they're challenged.  

lolol...

----------


## Grimnir Wotansvolk

someone shine the LibertyEagle signal, I'm tempted to start posting about poop again

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Trying to pretend that when someone talks about artificial creation by an alien from another planet is the same thing as a god. . .


lol.....

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> lol.....


So you are saying that if I went to mars and started planting trees there, I would be a god?

----------


## MsDoodahs

> So you are saying that if I went to mars and started planting trees there, I would be a god?


Of course not!

Call me when you DESIGN a tree.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Of course not!
> 
> Call me when you DESIGN a tree.


Trees have evolved just like all other life... they were not designed, unless you'r referring to the process of evolution as the designer.

Do you remember when Ray comfort tried to tell us that a Banana is intelligently designed?

YouTube - Atheists nightmare debunked. Ray Comfort/Kirk cameron

Same logic applies to trees...

----------


## Goldhunter27

> Of course not!
> 
> Call me when you DESIGN a tree.



Question, if god designed trees, did he design this too:



I'd like to know what tell my 4 year old cousin.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I'd like to know what tell my 4 year old cousin.


Sorry to hear bro

----------


## Eric21ND

> I enjoyed it immensely, but then ... I enjoy the reaction of the members of the Church of Darwin whenever they're challenged.  
> 
> lolol...


Church of Darwin...pffft please!

----------


## Goldhunter27

> Sorry to hear bro


Thanks for the words. It's just an awful thing for a 4 year old to go through, it blows my mind. Things are looking up for him though.

----------


## tremendoustie

I think physicalists miss the point in these kinds of discussions when they view matter as the fundamentally existent thing, and suppose that all else needs to be proved from matter.

The mind is the fundamental thing that exists. What we call matter is only a particular type of experience of the mind -- that is what observation is. Now, it's true that with our minds, we have perceived a great deal of evidence for the existence of matter -- that is, we have a large number of experiences which are very predictable, and described well by a few laws which we call "physics".

Matter, however, is the derivative concept, while the mind is fundamental.

I do think the characteristics (and experiences) of my mind, as well as those of others, if I assume that they exist (which I do), point to the existence of a supreme mind.

----------


## Eric21ND

I swear religious people are stuck in the 19th century, as if Darwin is the only scientific authority exspousing evolutionary theory these days.  Have any of you even had an intro level biology course?

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Trees have evolved just like all other life... they were not designed,


Spoken like a true believer.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Church of Darwin...pffft please!


The behavior is the same.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Spoken like a true believer.




You're not being logical, just confrontational.  You didn't even provide reasoning, just an accusation.  What is your motivation in this thread?

----------


## Goldhunter27

> You're not being logical, just confrontational.  You didn't even provide reasoning, just an accusation.  What is your motivation in this thread?


It's called trolling

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Thanks for the words. It's just an awful thing for a 4 year old to go through, it blows my mind. Things are looking up for him though.


Well, all i can say is i Hope for the very best for that young boy, keep him in good spirits.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

MsDoodahs is so gleefully ignorant of academic matters, she should be embarrased

----------


## MsDoodahs

> You're not being logical, just confrontational.  You didn't even provide reasoning, just an accusation.  What is your motivation in this thread?


Was the OP not clear enough?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Was the OP not clear enough?


A heavily edited interview? Not even close.  It looks as though you're just trying to stir up some emotions, not actually challenge logic or reason.

You never answered the questions from this post, which was a direct response to the OP.




> This is all very hypothetical, not particularily scientific however, I'll bite. 
> 
> If we assume that life on earth was seeded from intelligence from elsewhere in the universe, who's to say whatever intelligence seeded us wasn't seeded from intelligence elsewhere?  Do you at least accept the possibility that if we are a product of intelligent design, it might very well be another form of evolved life, not a God?
> 
> Sort of like how you are the superior form of life to the bacteria in your body.  You can intelligently take pills to affect the world of the bacteria.  We are much like the cells of the earth.  the earth could be considered our superior being, and who's to say it isn't?  Perhaps the earth functions like a cell in a greater being.  Perhaps that being knows how to modify it's internal behavior, and we are its internal behavior. This does not mean that greater being is a God, any more than it means we are Gods to the cells in our body.
> 
> Also, the concept of life on earth being seeded from elsewhere in the universe, does have legitimate scientific reasoning.
> 
> What would be the reasoning to assume the rocks are seeded by a supernatural God?
> ...

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> It looks as though you're just trying to stir up some emotions, not actually challenge logic or reason.


Exactly.  MsDoodahs should be ashamed of herself.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

some moonbat liberal told me Ron Paul is a social darwinisrt <eyeroll>  tones

----------


## Bman

I think Paul was clear when he stated that he supports neither Evolution or Creationism.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I think Paul was clear when he stated that he supports neither Evolution or Creationism.


That doesnt make any sense.

----------


## Bman

> That doesnt make any sense.


Yes it does.  It means I don't know, and I don't profess to know.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Yes it does.  It means I don't know, and I don't profess to know.


It means "I know my position does not stand up to scrutiny, so Im going to take a phony fence sitting position so I dont sound like a complete moron"

----------


## Bman

> It means "I know my position does not stand up to scrutiny, so Im going to take a phony fence sitting position so I dont sound like a complete moron"


Yeah, but are really going to fault someone for saying this is not my area of expertise?  I think it's far better to plea the fifth than end up with your foot stuck in your mouth.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Yeah, but are really going to fault someone for saying this is not my area of expertise?  I think it's far better to plea the fifth than end up with your foot stuck in your mouth.


I suppose.  Taking this fence sitting stance, like the alleged "agnostics", is generally an attempt to avoid criticism.

We all know RP doesnt believe in evolution.  But he also knows that saying such a thing out loud comes with the baggage of being laughed at (and rightly so).

----------


## Bman

> I suppose.  Taking this fence sitting stance, like the alleged "agnostics", is generally an attempt to avoid criticism.


Sure, but why waste time being criticised for something you cannot prove to someone else.

----------


## nayjevin

> I suppose.  Taking this fence sitting stance, like the alleged "agnostics", is generally an attempt to avoid criticism.
> 
> We all know RP doesnt believe in evolution.  But he also knows that saying such a thing out loud comes with the baggage of being laughed at (and rightly so).


I think 'do you believe in evolution' is a loaded question, which can be intelligently avoided.

One can believe in micro-evolution, but not macro.  One can believe that evolutionary principles do exist, but that the commonly understood 'Darwinist' definition of evolution has flaws.

Kinda like, 'Ron Paul huh?  So you're a Fox News Republican then.'

'Well, I don't agree with what the Republican or Democratic parties have been doing lately.'

----------


## tremendoustie

> I suppose.  Taking this fence sitting stance, like the alleged "agnostics", is generally an attempt to avoid criticism.
> 
> We all know RP doesnt believe in evolution.  But he also knows that saying such a thing out loud comes with the baggage of being laughed at (and rightly so).


If you did believe in God, creation would be a rational stance. There is no strong evidence indicating that creation did not happen. Certainly there is also no strong evidence showing that it did happen, which is why it's really not a scientific theory.

As I say though, it's not an illogical stance, if you start from the point of view of belief in God.

----------


## Bman

> If you did believe in God, creation would be a rational stance. There is no strong evidence indicating that creation did not happen. Certainly there is also no strong evidence showing that it did happen, which is why it's really not a scientific theory.
> 
> As I say though, it's not an illogical stance, if you start from the point of view of belief in God.


You do have to admit that the hubble-telescope itself is proof enough that the universe has indeed been around for billions of years.  That the 10,000 years ago and seven days issue is pure nonsense.

----------


## Bman

> Who is to say that our time and God's time are the same?


I'm clear on that.  Some people are not.  All I'm saying is that the hubble telescope has picked up images of light that are 13+ billion light years away.  Even if they messed up the math, it would never translate anywhere remotely close to 10,000 years.  I'm saying some arguments for creationism are just so outlandishly ridiculous, or naive that the people who preach these ideas (such as 10,000 years and seven days literally) are completely nuts, or stupid.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I think 'do you believe in evolution' is a loaded question, which can be intelligently avoided.
> 
> One can believe in micro-evolution, but not macro.  One can believe that evolutionary principles do exist, but that the commonly understood 'Darwinist' definition of evolution has flaws.
> 
> Kinda like, 'Ron Paul huh?  So you're a Fox News Republican then.'
> 
> 'Well, I don't agree with what the Republican or Democratic parties have been doing lately.'


It only appears to be a loaded question because you think such uneducated responses are reasonable positions to hold.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I'm saying some arguments for creationism are just so outlandishly ridiculous, or naive that the people who preach these ideas (such as 10,000 years and seven days literally) are completely nuts, or stupid.


I'm saying all arguments for creationism are outlandishly ridiculous.

----------


## nayjevin

> It only appears to be a loaded question because you think such uneducated responses are reasonable positions to hold.


I'm sorry, could you be more specific about what I think?  I don't fully understand my position yet.

----------


## Bman

> I'm saying all arguments for creationism are outlandishly ridiculous.


I'm quite fine with the idea that it always was and always will be.  I just cannot make much more of a positive claim for it past the laws of thermodynamics.  Some will always believe that it had to have gotten here some how.  Being that we live in such a blink of an eye I think it's quite natural that most hold such ideas.  Nonetheless I still cannot rationalize out their theory.  The big bang itself is a creationism theory.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> The big bang itself is a creationism theory.


Dont play their word games.

Everything explaining the creation of the universe would fall under "creation" if you literally mean "creation".

When we are discussing a theistic "creation" story, we are talking about the idea that the universe was designed by an intelligent, conscious, supernatural being.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> I swear religious people are stuck in the 19th century, as if Darwin is the only scientific authority exspousing evolutionary theory these days.  Have any of you even had an intro level biology course?


Actually, I don't believe most people who have been through a basic Biology course have been exposed to evolutionary theories that aren't based on Darwinian thought (Natural Selection). As I stated earlier, Dawkins is a dishonest $#@! who is among the scientific elites who would rather people NOT know there are at least (last time I checked) 4 competing theories of evolution for fear it would give 'Creationists' ammunition. Its just as $#@!ing hypocritical as the Anthropogenic Global Warming $#@!s who've manipulated and hidden data so as to not cast doubt on environmentalism. Its called the Politicization of Science. 

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

Science in Turmoil - Are we Funding Fraud?

----------


## tremendoustie

> You do have to admit that the hubble-telescope itself is proof enough that the universe has indeed been around for billions of years.  That the 10,000 years ago and seven days issue is pure nonsense.


If you're going to assume God created the world, wouldn't it make sense that he would create it in a mature state? For example, he would presumably create trees -- do you think if you cut them down you would not see rings? If he wanted there to be visible stars, clearly he'd need to create the light from the stars as well.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> A heavily edited interview?


Do you have a source for the unedited version?  If not, how do you know it was "heavily edited?"




> It looks as though you're just trying to stir up some emotions, not actually challenge logic or reason.


Certainly emotions have been stirred up .  That's what happens when someone's belief system is challenged.  

I don't recall you being upset when the belief system of others is challenged and their emotions are stirred.  Yet ... it appears you take exception when your own belief system is challenged.   Why is that, Clay?   




> You never answered the questions from this post, which was a direct response to the OP.


I'll go reread - it appears you edited your post after I read it...

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Certainly emotions have been stirred up .  That's what happens when someone's belief system is challenged.


Your not challenging, you're attacking, and you don't even answer most of questions that get asked of you. 




> I don't recall you being upset when the belief system of others is challenged and their emotions are stirred.  Yet ... it appears you take exception when your own belief system is challenged.   Why is that, Clay?


Are you saying I'm upset?  All i'm doing is pointing out your obvious emotional need to fire up this debate.  I am not emitting any emotional responses here, i'm pointing out your desire to see them.

I don't "believe" in evolution, it's not a leap of faith.  I can only reason that it's "probably" true, as it is the most reasonable explanation so far based on the observable evidence we have.  Do you understand how the scientific method works?  It's not about proving things, its' about disproving things.

You're not challenging, you're just trying to be confrontational, as if you're making some kind of point that hasn't been made 1000 times already on this forum.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Sure, but why waste time being criticised for something you cannot prove to someone else.


This is a good point.

Why am i wasting my time? god dammit... I think i'm just bored.

----------


## YumYum

I find it interesting that scientists can prove evolution and what took place millions of years ago by scientific method, but scientist can't prove global warming by scientific method, which is supposed to be happening right under our noses. If we can't trust scienctists on global warming, which can today be observed, why should we trust scientists on their claims of events regarding evolution that supposedly took place 65 million, or even a billion years ago?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I find it interesting that scientists can prove evolution and what took place millions of years ago by scientific method, but scientist can't prove global warming by scientific method, which is supposed to be happening right under our noses. If we can't trust scienctists on global warming, which can today be observed, why should we trust scientists on their claims of events regarding evolution that supposedly took place 65 million, or even a billion years ago?


Ever been to a museum, or a biology research lab? 

Why should we trust scientists who say that pluto will do a full revolution of the sun?  It takes pluto 500 years or somethign like that for Pluto to do a full revolution, how can we possibly know, it'll happen?  No man has ever lived long enough to see the full revolution of pluto around the sun.  The reason we know it will, is because of the scientific method and reason.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> I find it interesting that scientists can prove evolution and what took place millions of years ago by scientific method, but scientist can't prove global warming by scientific method, which is supposed to be happening right under our noses. If we can't trust scienctists on global warming, which can today be observed, why should we trust scientists on their claims of events regarding evolution that supposedly took place 65 million, or even a billion years ago?


We "pick and choose" which science we buy into...

----------


## YumYum

> Ever been to a museum, or a biology research lab? 
> 
> Why should we trust scientists who say that pluto will do a full revolution of the sun?  It takes pluto 500 years or somethign like that for Pluto to do a full revolution, how can we possibly know, it'll happen?  No man has ever lived long enough to see the full revolution of pluto around the sun.  The reason we know it will, is because of the scientific method and reason.


From what I have studied, I believe in evolution as it is defined "A change in the genetic pool due to the environment". All the other stuff is debatable. I would not compare the revolution of Pluto (which is observable) with the same argument that man came from a primate species that is similiar to the lemur. (this newly found species is supposedly our ancestor, this species is now extinct and cannot be observed) How would any one know we came from this primate? Were the scientists there 20 million years ago to take data? Yet all evolutionists have now accepted we come from a lemur type primate. In the last three decades, scientists have been taking data, which they say confirms global warming. Do you accept their conclusions? No, you don't, but you will accept that  advanced scientific method has unraveled what happened 20-250 million years ago as fact, but you will not accept the findings of the world's top scientists who are actually taking data and have determined that the world is experiencing global warming due to fossil fuels being used and methane gas. There are atheists on this board who think these scientists are a bunch of liars and idiots. Are these scientists, who believe in global warming, also atheists who believe in evolution? If so, why would you believe any views they have on evolution, given that they are liars and incompetent? Do you accept their views on evolution, but not on global warming?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> From what I have studied, I believe in evolution as it is defined "A change in the genetic pool due to the environment". All the other stuff is debatable.


which other stuff?




> I would not compare the revolution of Pluto (which is observable)


have you ever observed Pluto make an orbit?  Where you there?




> How would any one know we came from this primate? Were the scientists there 20 million years ago to take data?


Where you there to see Pluto complete its orbit?




> In the last three decades, scientists have been taking data, which they say confirms global warming. Do you accept their conclusions?


Yes




> No, you don't,


Yes I do. . .




> but you will accept that  advanced scientific method has unraveled what happened 20-250 million years ago as fact,


Yes




> but you will not accept the findings of the world's top scientists who are actually taking data and have determined that the world is experiencing global warming due to fossil fuels being used and methane gas


Yes I will. . . because. . . its $#@!ing true




> There are atheists on this board who think these scientists are a bunch of liars and idiots.


some of them, sure.  But the evidence speaks for itself

----------


## ClayTrainor

> We "pick and choose" which science we buy into...


Glad you finally admitted it 

Science has nothing to do with "choice".  If you reject the theory of evolution, it's still science.  Science is a method, not a conclusion.

Ever heard of the Scientfic method?  Here's a lesson.   



Try putting your hypothesis through the process.

----------


## UK4Paul

> I'm clear on that.  Some people are not.  All I'm saying is that the hubble telescope has picked up images of light that are 13+ billion light years away.  Even if they messed up the math, it would never translate anywhere remotely close to 10,000 years.  I'm saying some arguments for creationism are just so outlandishly ridiculous, or naive that the people who preach these ideas (such as 10,000 years and seven days literally) are completely nuts, or stupid.


This is what you're missing - SPACE can also expand. And the expansion of space is, as far as we can tell, _not_ limited to the speed of light.

So just because we can see 13.7 billion light years around us does _not_ automatically make the Universe 13.7 billion years old. This is actually just the "horizon" we can SEE.

But unless we know the speed of the expansion of space, we don't know its age - it could be 6,000, 10 billion or 60 trillion years... we don't know, unless we know the speed limit of the _expansion of space itself_.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> From what I have studied, I believe in evolution as it is defined "A change in the genetic pool due to the environment". All the other stuff is debatable. I would not compare the revolution of Pluto (which is observable) with the same argument that man came from a primate species that is similiar to the lemur. (this newly found species is supposedly our ancestor, this species is now extinct and cannot be observed) How would any one know we came from this primate? Were the scientists there 20 million years ago to take data? Yet all evolutionists have now accepted we come from a lemur type primate. In the last three decades, scientists have been taking data, which they say confirms global warming. Do you accept their conclusions? No, you don't, but you will accept that  advanced scientific method has unraveled what happened 20-250 million years ago as fact, but you will not accept the findings of the world's top scientists who are actually taking data and have determined that the world is experiencing global warming due to fossil fuels being used and methane gas. There are atheists on this board who think these scientists are a bunch of liars and idiots. Are these scientists, who believe in global warming, also atheists who believe in evolution? If so, why would you believe any views they have on evolution, given that they are liars and incompetent? Do you accept their views on evolution, but not on global warming?


I'll let MRS help ya out with that one, since he already took the time to respond, and i agree with his response.

----------


## UK4Paul

From Richard Dawkins' _The God Delusion_, p145 (bolding mine):




> This objection can be answered by the suggestion, which Martin Rees himself supports, that *there are many universes, co-existing like bubbles of foam, in a 'multiverse' (or 'megaverse', as Leonard Susskind prefers to call it)*. The laws and constants of any one universe, such as our observable universe, are by-laws. The multiverse as a whole has a plethora of alternative sets of by-laws. The anthropic principle kicks in to explain that we have to be in one of those universes (presumably a minority) whose by-laws happened to be propitious to our eventual evolution and hence contemplation of the problem.


Dawkins himself doesn't define "multiverse", but basically he is using this theory as one way of explaining the supposedly "just right" laws of the Universe.

So then, I ask the athiests on this forum... if Dawkins can postulate many universes, and we happen to live in the one that's just right for our life...

Why is it irrational to postulate a "God" entity evolving in one of these universes, with the ability to create _our_ Universe?

(Using Dawkins' definition of "multiverse"... whatever Dawkins means is my definition... if he can get away with not defining it, then I'll use his open-ended definition.)

_Why on earth is this irrational?_

http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1...age&q=&f=false

(Unfortunately, this particular section is not available on Google Books, but people are welcome to read the quote in its larger context - he talks about multiverse theory on pages 145-7.)

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Why is it irrational to postulate a "God" entity evolving in one of these "multiverses", with the ability to create our Universe?


Thats not what you are postulating at all.  Thats not what you believe.

Here is what you are doing.  You are trying do define "god" in as loose terms as possible, with as many attributes as possible, hoping that we will agree to some small sliver of one of them, that way you can say "SEE!!! SEE!!!! The atheists believe in the same thing I do!!!! They believe in God and Jesus!

----------


## MsDoodahs

> *Where* you there?
> 
> 
> 
> *Where* you there

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Thats not what you are postulating at all.  Thats not what you believe.
> 
> Here is what you are doing.  You are trying do define "god" in as loose terms as possible, with as many attributes as possible, hoping that we will agree to some small sliver of one of them, that way you can say "SEE!!! SEE!!!! The atheists believe in the same thing I do!!!! They believe in God and Jesus!


lol....

What is that saying about being able to dish it out?

----------


## UK4Paul

You're right, that's not what I believe... but what I'm doing is simply pointing out that Dawkins' reasoning for the probable _non-existence_ of "God" is inherently flawed.

Much of his arguments are based on the improbability of "God" based on the necessity of "God's" COMPLEXITY... but complexity _already exists_ in at least one universe (ours), so an entity with the needed complexity to be "God" (however he defines "God") _could_ arise and create a universe... just as we, after an alleged 4.6 billion years, can create _cars_.

Bottom line: If you believe in evolution, the evolution of an entity with the defining properties of "God" _can_ exist at some point in space / time / "multiverse". After all, why speculate that life elsewhere consists merely the equivalent of _little green men_?

For me, I believe in God but I cannot explain precisely where this entity came from, except that this God existed prior to our universe.

But Dawkin's dismissal of this possibility is not only irrational, but also flawed... based on his own belief on what he believes evolution is capable of!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> lol....
> 
> What is that saying about being able to dish it out?


So you admit that you're being totally unreasonable?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Glad you finally admitted it 
> 
> Science has nothing to do with "choice".  If you reject the theory of evolution, it's still science.  *Science is a method, not a conclusion.*
> 
> Ever heard of the Scientfic method?  Here's a lesson.   
> 
> 
> 
> Try putting your hypothesis through the process.


Then why is that little word "conclusion" in your *own* chart?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Then why is that little word "conclusion" in your *own* chart?


Science isn't defined by 1 step in the process.  There are scientific conclusions, but not all science is conclusive.




> 1.* a branch of knowledge or study* dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:      
> 
> 2. *systematic knowledge* of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Science isn't defined by 1 step in the process.


Oh, but you said that science is "not a conclusion".  So why are conclusions being drawn, per your chart?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Oh, but you said that science is "not a conclusion".  So why are conclusions being drawn, per your chart?


Science is not a conclusion

Science is used to form conclusions

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Oh, but you said that science is "not a conclusion".  So why are conclusions being drawn, per your chart?


Because a conclusion is part of science, not vice versa.




> Science is not a conclusion
> 
> Science is used to form conclusions


Yes, that's how i should've said it.  Thanks!

out of curiosity, do you have a degree in some kind of science?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Because a conclusion is part of science, not vice versa.  Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's how i should've said it.  Thanks!
> 
> out of curiosity, do you have a degree?


almost

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Science isn't defined by 1 step in the process.  There are scientific conclusions, but not all science is conclusive.


Yes.  Basically it is the best guess that science has, until they get more data.  Assuming the data hasn't been corrupted (as in Climate-gate, eh?).

But, in the end it is still just an educated guess, Clay.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> out of curiosity, do you have a degree in some kind of science?


Yes, I do, actually.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> But, in the end it is still just an educated guess, Clay.


You still keeping up on that ongoing debate that cigarettes cause cancer?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Yes.  Basically it is the best guess that science has, until they get more data.  Assuming the data hasn't been corrupted (as in Climate-gate, eh?).


If that's the best you got, than that's the best you got. 

But yes, the more data we have, the more we know.  That is correct.  Climate-gate was never a "consensus" or an established scientific theory... propaganda was used to tell us that.  There has always been a significant amount of highly qualified people in rejecting it.




> But, in the end it is still just an educated guess, Clay.


Fair enough.  When Nasa calculates the trajectory and energy capacity to get to mars, is it just an educated guess?  I suppose you could argue that, but it's very educated.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Yes, I do, actually.


Interesting, what field?

You didn't realize that Science is not the same thing as a conclusion, and you have a degree?

----------


## LibertyEagle

My Bachelor of Science is in Zoology.

----------


## forsmant

I have a degree in being an $#@!.

Also this thread has become retarded.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I have a degree in being an $#@!.
> 
> Also this thread has become retarded.


It wasn't retarded in the beginning?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> It wasn't retarded in the beginning?


it was

----------


## ClayTrainor

> My Bachelor of Science is in Zoology.


Got any research i can read?

----------


## forsmant

I actually only read the last two posts...

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I actually only read the last two posts...


haha 

Well.. yes... welcome to the most retarded thread of the day.  Enjoy your stay.

----------


## LibertyEagle

The thing you have to remember, is that there are differing amounts of data available for each thing that is studied.  You also have to remember that the conclusions drawn are only as good as the quality of the data.  And also remember that in many cases there are stakeholders involved who have something to gain from slanting both the data-gathering and the conclusions that are drawn.  Many conclusions, in fact, having been ascertained by undertaking huge leaps of logic; any one of which, if not valid, would totally derail the conclusion itself.

Bottom line is that the scientific method is just a tool, like everything else.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> So you admit that you're being totally unreasonable?


Unreasonable ... about what?

Also - where *did* you see the unedited version of the interview?  I would like to see it also, because "heavily" is subjective, and I might not agree that it is "heavily" edited.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Unreasonable ... about what?


Pretty much all of your posts in this thread.  You're trying to stir emotions, not actually discuss the issue.  You don't answer questions that are asked of you, and then you turn around and start making accusations.

You're not interested in learning about any of this stuff, as far as i can tell, you're just pushing some kind of personal agenda based on how your worldview...




> Also - where *did* you see the unedited version of the interview?


I didn't say i saw the unedited version. Ben Stein probably destroyed it. 




> I would like to see it also, because "heavily" is subjective, and I might not agree that it is "heavily" edited.


It's just painstakingly obvious that this is edited pretty heavily, and i don't have the patience to watch it again to show you specific examples.

Ben Stein uses dishonest Interview tactics that no serious documentary film maker would use.  
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index...erview-tactics

He's gotta keep himself busy somehow, when he's not shilling for Bank Bailouts.

----------


## Bman

> If you're going to assume God created the world, wouldn't it make sense that he would create it in a mature state? For example, he would presumably create trees -- do you think if you cut them down you would not see rings? If he wanted there to be visible stars, clearly he'd need to create the light from the stars as well.


Yeha that would make perfect sense.  That way anyone who could figure that stuff out would look like a fool for knowing better.  It's just insane.  If there is a higher power I'd certainly say he's not the god of the bible since it would seem he gets a kick out of fooling the people smart enough to realize that his story is a bunch of garbage, if taken literally.

----------


## Bman

> This is what you're missing - SPACE can also expand. And the expansion of space is, as far as we can tell, _not_ limited to the speed of light.
> 
> So just because we can see 13.7 billion light years around us does _not_ automatically make the Universe 13.7 billion years old. This is actually just the "horizon" we can SEE.
> 
> But unless we know the speed of the expansion of space, we don't know its age - it could be 6,000, 10 billion or 60 trillion years... we don't know, unless we know the speed limit of the _expansion of space itself_.


You do understand the doppler effect right?  We know that the universe is billions of years old, at least.  If you think it's a question you've never studied any science, which is your problem not mine.  Take some physics.  Even make sure that your physics instructor is a christian.  Mine was.  He gave some good points to consider intelligent design, but any of them will tell you straight up that what you just sadi is nonsense.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Whats outrageous about this entire thing is that so many people around here are pointing towards *BEN $#@!ING STEIN* as a source of reason and intelligence.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Whats outrageous about this entire thing is that so many people around here are pointing towards *BEN $#@!ING STEIN* as a source of reason and intelligence.


A good question for supporters of this film to ask themselves would be.

Where does Ben Stein get his credibility from?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> A good question for supporters of this film to ask themselves would be.
> 
> Where does Ben Stein get his credibility from?


certainly not from his economic analysis

----------


## ClayTrainor

> certainly not from his economic analysis




YouTube - Glenn Beck and Ben Stein on the Big Bank Bailout

----------


## Theocrat

> Whats outrageous about this entire thing is that so many people around here are pointing towards *BEN $#@!ING STEIN* as a source of reason and intelligence.


What you have done there is argue by _ad hominem_. Essentially, you have done this:
*Person A makes claim X.* (Ben Stein claims there is evidence for intelligent design which is being suppressed by evolutionists.)*Person B makes an attack on Person A.* (Mitt says Ben Stein lacks reason and intelligence, thus getting away from dealing with Stein's analysis of there being evidence for intelligent design.)*Therefore, Person A's claim is false.* (Therefore, we can't believe what Ben Stein says about intelligent design, according to Mitt.)
How is that in any way a rational refutation that intelligent design has evidence which is being suppressed by evolutionists, Mitt?

----------


## Theocrat

> certainly not from his economic analysis


(See my post above.)

----------


## YumYum

> (See my post above.)


Welcome back, Theocrat! It is good to discuss these issues and your input will contribute greatly. Are you a young Earth Creationist? If so, do you have a link that you could refer me to that explains scientifically how the Universe, Earth and all its life forms, were created in 6 days, each day being 24 hours? 

I went with my friend Irving to the Atheist/Christian debate "Does God Exist" at the University, and the Christians had on their side a scientist who was an astromoner, geologist and neurologist. This guy was pretty sharp and he discussed a matter called "quale", which is in our brains. We know it exist, but we cannot measure it, and cannot prove it exist with any physical methods. Yet we can see its effects. He likened the existence of God in the same way to the existence of Quale. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> the Christians had on their side a scientist who was an astromoner, geologist and neurologist.


That guy must have spent a lot of time in college to get all of those degrees.  




> he discussed a matter called "quale", which is in our brains. We know it exist, but we cannot measure it, and cannot prove it exist with any physical methods. Yet we can see its effects. He likened the existence of God in the same way to the existence of Quale.


Qualia dont exist.  We dont see any of their effects because they arnt real.

----------


## Theocrat

> Welcome back, Theocrat! It is good to discuss these issues and your input will contribute greatly. Are you a young Earth Creationist? If so, do you have a link that you could refer me to that explains scientifically how the Universe, Earth and all its life forms, were created in 6 days, each day being 24 hours? 
> 
> I went with my friend Irving to the Atheist/Christian debate "Does God Exist" at the University, and the Christians had on their side a scientist who was an astromoner, geologist and neurologist. This guy was pretty sharp and he discussed a matter called "quale", which is in our brains. We know it exist, but we cannot measure it, and cannot prove it exist with any physical methods. Yet we can see its effects. He likened the existence of God in the same way to the existence of Quale. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia


This thread is not about Creationism.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> what you have done there is argue by _ad hominem_. Essentially, you have done this:
> *person a makes claim x.* (ben stein claims there is evidence for intelligent design which is being suppressed by evolutionists.)*person b makes an attack on person a.* (mitt says ben stein lacks reason and intelligence, thus getting away from dealing with stein's analysis of there being evidence for intelligent design.)*therefore, person a's claim is false.* (therefore, we can't believe what ben stein says about intelligent design, according to mitt.)
> how is that in any way a rational refutation that intelligent design has evidence which is being suppressed by evolutionists, mitt?


theo!!!!!!!!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You didn't realize that Science is not the same thing as a conclusion, and you have a degree?


Actually, Clay, I was taking you to task for your condescending as all hell attitude towards MsD, suggesting that she somehow did not have your level of knowledge.  And it was YOUR drawing, might I remind you, that included the word "conclusion" when you had just stated that "Science is a method, not a conclusion".  

I am responding to this now, because when scrolling up, I saw that you had added this sentence, I guess as an attempted insult, while I was responding to your question on the particular bachelor of science degree that I held.

----------


## UK4Paul

> You do understand the doppler effect right?  We know that the universe is billions of years old, at least.  If you think it's a question you've never studied any science, which is your problem not mine.  Take some physics.  Even make sure that your physics instructor is a christian.  Mine was.  He gave some good points to consider intelligent design, but any of them will tell you straight up that what you just sadi is nonsense.


Yes, I understand the doppler effect. I am talking about THIS...




> While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, *there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light* (meaning that one cannot be observed from the other). The size of the observable universe could thus be smaller than the entire universe.


(bold mine)

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space


Tell me again why we KNOW the Universe is billions of years old... after factoring in the above paragraph.

----------


## YumYum

> This thread is not about Creationism.


You're kidding?

----------


## YumYum

> That guy must have spent a lot of time in college to get all of those degrees.  
> 
> 
> 
> Qualia dont exist.  We dont see any of their effects because they arnt real.


He was the real deal. He had his doctorate in Astronomy, Geology and was taking courses neurology to become a medical doctor. I thought the samething; too much school. He was very intelligent, and he made a case for Quale, which he claimed does exist. None of the atheist refuted his claim about quale. The debate was a great event. I'm going next year.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Actually, Clay, I was taking you to task for your condescending as all hell attitude towards MsD, suggesting that she somehow did not have your level of knowledge.


That's not what i'm saying, not even close, however if that's how it looks to MsD, than i apologize....  I'm saying she doesn't answer questions, and appears as though she's trying to antagonize. 





> And it was YOUR drawing, might I remind you, that included the word "conclusion" when you had just stated that "Science is a method, not a conclusion"


Yea... and what was your point with that, as someone holding a science degree?  Science is a method, not a conclusion, do you challenge this?




> I am responding to this now, because when scrolling up, I saw that you had added this sentence, I guess as an attempted insult, while I was responding to your question on the particular bachelor of science degree that I held.


I suppose it might be a little insulting, perhaps i should have approached you better on that, i'll apologize. *However,* it's just something you said that totally baffles me as someone without a degree, who takes a keen interest in science.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yea... and what was your point with that, as someone holding a science degree?  Science is a method, not a conclusion, do you challenge this?


Clay, don't try to change the subject.  It was you who first used the word "conclusion" and you did it in the diagram you were suggesting that MsD study.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Clay, don't try to change the subject.  It was you who first used the word "conclusion" and you did it in the diagram you were suggesting that MsD study.


I already addressed that.

Nice dodge.

----------


## tremendoustie

It seems to me that this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=179484

has a lot of substantive discussion which might begin to address some of these topics.

I would be interested in any questions about, or objections/refutations of the arguments therein.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> It seems to me that this thread:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=179484
> 
> has a lot of substantive discussion which might begin to address some of these topics.
> 
> I would be interested in any questions about, or objections/refutations of the arguments therein.


That seems like a much better thread to spend my time in.  Thanks

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I already addressed that.
> 
> Nice dodge.


Yes, you are correct that it is not a conclusion.  What I don't think you are realizing, or admitting, is that you use the "results" from the scientific method all the time as conclusions in your arguments.  Think about it.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Yes, you are correct that it is not a conclusion.  What I don't think you are realizing, or admitting, is that you use the "results" from the scientific method all the time as conclusions in your arguments.  Think about it.


The results of the scientific method are the best part, and they raise even more interesting questions than they answer... why wouldn't i use them?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The results of the scientific method are the best part, and they raise even more interesting questions than they answer... why wouldn't i use them?


You use them as facts, Clay, and they are not.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You use them as facts, Clay, and they are not.


I would never use them as facts, science is not a fact based thing, you just seem to be interpreting it that way.  I am open to anything that can disprove the current working theories, that has met the scrutiny of the scientific method.  However, contradictory ideas must also meet the scrutiny of the scientific method, if they are to be called science, which is very hard for a great many to accept.  This is why science is so controversial.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> This is what you're missing - SPACE can also expand.


Sorry, but Halton Arp blew massive gaping holes in the Red-Shift theory. Red-shift expansion (expanding universe based on the flawed Gravity-based Cosmology) is mathematical bull$#@!. It was discovered as early as 1971 that objects (quasars & galaxies) of different red-shift were connected via a 'bridge' (probably a Birkeland Current) which are filamentary electrical discharges. 

There is nothing that has been remotely demonstrated to show an expanding universe. Its all based upon mathematical nonsense and NOT empirical science.

----------


## ClayTrainor

LE, I have a question for you as someone holding a degree in Zoology.  What is zoology? 

Is this wrong?




> Zoology, (officially pronounced /zoʊˈɑlədʒɪ/[1], colloquially pronounced /zuːˈɑlədʒɪ/) occasionally also spelled zoölogy, is the branch of biology that focuses on the structure, function, behavior, and *evolution of animals.*

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LE, I have a question for you as someone holding a degree in Zoology.  What is zoology? 
> 
> Is this wrong?


It depends on how you define evolution, Clay.  If you mean in the Darwinian sense, no it is not.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> It depends on how you define evolution, Clay.  If you mean in the Darwinian sense, no it is not.


Evolution means process of change.

So you didn't study natural selection, in the evolutionary biology aspect of your studies?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I would never use them as facts, science is not a fact based thing, you just seem to be interpreting it that way.  I am open to anything that can *disprove the current working theories*, that has met the scrutiny of the scientific method.  However, contradictory ideas must also meet the scrutiny of the scientific method, if they are to be called science, which is very hard for a great many to accept.  This is why science is so controversial.


See, right there, Clay.  You consider scientific hypotheses and theories to be facts, unless disproven.  Yet, you will not face the inherent problems within the process itself.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Evolution means process of change.
> 
> So you didn't study natural selection, in the evolutionary biology aspect of your studies?


Darwin went much further than that, Clay.  Are you playing a game?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> See, right there, Clay.  You consider scientific hypotheses and theories to be facts, unless disproven.


What did i claim to be a fact?

I don't consider it to be a fact, please explain where i implied this.  Science is a method of testing which leads to results which suggest things to be true, until disproven.  All Theories can be disproven.  Natural Selection hasn't been in over 150 years, under the harshest of scrutiny.  It is the most likely explanation.  Life existed on earth for a long time, and changed.

Natural selection is a standard in biology, which is an aspect of zoology according to my research. I'm not aware of a single university that teaches otherwise.  Can you please enlighten me?  




> Yet, you will not face the inherent problems within the process itself.


Nice dodge, and accusation.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Darwin went much further than that, Clay.  Are you playing a game?


A game?

Why because i didn't explain every little thing darwin came up with?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Liberty Eagle, please explain the difference between a "fact" and a "theory"

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Liberty Eagle, please explain the difference between a "fact" and a "theory"


LE, when you're done answering MRS' question above, answer this one.

Is creationism a fact or a theory?

----------


## YumYum

Creationists  17

Evolutionists  22

C'mon Creationists, you need to pick it up!!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Is creationism a fact or a theory?


I would say neither.  It hardly qualifies as a hypothesis.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I would say neither.  It hardly qualifies as a hypothesis.


I agree for sure, I was going to add it but i didn't want to add an extra word.  I've asked the question of creationists before, and the tendency is to answer fact.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> YouTube - expelled no intelligence allowed (part 10 of 10) PL
> 
> Okay, so he says there is no God but that some higher techy intelligent life from elsewhere in the universe could have seeded planet earth with life and that if science looks for evidence of that INTELLIGENT DESIGN, science might very well find it.
> 
> Discuss if ya wanna.
> 
> Oh, and if you have a chance, watch Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed


I dont like this guy.. but that being said.. how do you know aliens didnt mess with our DNA or plant us here a long time ago?


i dont buy evolution...

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I dont like this guy.. but that being said.. how do you know aliens didnt mess with our DNA or plant us here a long time ago?


We don't know, but there's no evidence to suggest it that i'm aware of.  Every element of earth came from elsewhere in the universe, this we do know.  It's likely, the elements of life came here on a comet, as we have discovered the building blocks for life on comets elsewhere.




> i dont buy evolution...


So there isn't any sort of process of change, with life on earth?

Is it speciation you don't buy, or evolution?

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> We don't know, but there's no evidence to suggest it that i'm aware of.  Every element of earth came from elsewhere in the universe, this we do know.  It's likely, the elements of life came here on a comet, as we have discovered the building blocks for life on comets elsewhere.


Sorry, no. Comets are NOT icy balls of dust as had been thought. They are rocks. Their tails are electrical/plasma discharges, not gas being expelled from beneath the surface. 

YouTube - Comets (Extended ver) Plasma Cosmology Electric Universe

All the building blocks for life were here all along. There is zero proof of any kind of extraterrestrial origin for life. Furthermore, given the electrical nature of our universe, especially our planet, the necessary 'energy' has been here all along. Even Einstein (paraphrased) had it right "God doesn't play with dice with the universe".

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Sorry, no. Comets are NOT icy balls of dust as had been thought. They are rocks. Their tails are electrical/plasma discharges, not gas being expelled from beneath the surface.



Building blocks for life have been observed on comets. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57H02I20090818

----------


## tremendoustie

> Even Einstein (paraphrased) had it right "God doesn't play with dice with the universe".


He was talking about quantum mechanics ... and in the way he meant it, God does play dice, he was wrong.

----------


## nayjevin

> He was talking about quantum mechanics ... and in the way he meant it, God does play dice, he was wrong.


Could you expound on this or give me a link?  Not trying to trap, just learn.  Thanks

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> Building blocks for life have been observed on comets.


Which has nothing whatsoever to do with what I stated. There is demonstrable proof that comets are rocks, not balls of ice and dust. Otherwise, they wouldn't look like cratered rocks, but would be uniform. I will say again, THERE IS NO PROOF of an extraterrestrial origin to life on this planet.

----------


## rpfan2008

^ Is there any proof of existence of Time in physical world?

----------


## tremendoustie

> Could you expound on this or give me a link?  Not trying to trap, just learn.  Thanks


Sure 

Here's a pretty decent lecture by hawking on the topic of determinism.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/64

Basically, quantum theory implied that there was randomness to the universe, and Einstein liked the idea of determinism -- the same set of conditions always produce the same result. Quantum theory has since been verified many, many times over -- in fact, quantum electrodynamics could probably be considered the most spectacular scientific success to date, of any field, if you judge by how well observations match predictions.

So, we have that at least there are two types of causes in the universe -- deterministic causes, and randomness. Personally, I believe the mind is a third.

----------


## Bman

> Tell me again why we KNOW the Universe is billions of years old... after factoring in the above paragraph.


If you're saying it's older I will concede the point.  If you're saying it may be younger, then I will not and instead suggest that taking a couple physics courses would do you some good.  What we can see, we do know.  Due to relativity we can tell if things are moving and in what direction.  As a starting point billions of years is accurate as our best observation.

Remember there's nothing special about a telescope, other than the fact it is more sensative than our own eyes at seeing greater distances.  It does not magically travel billions of light years away.  It sees what we see, just better.

----------


## nayjevin

> Sure 
> 
> Here's a pretty decent lecture by hawking on the topic of determinism.
> 
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/64
> 
> Basically, quantum theory implied that there was randomness to the universe, and Einstein liked the idea of determinism -- the same set of conditions always produce the same result. Quantum theory has since been verified many, many times over -- in fact, quantum electrodynamics could probably be considered the most spectacular scientific success to date, of any field, if you judge by how well observations match predictions.
> 
> So, we have that at least there are two types of causes in the universe -- deterministic causes, and randomness. Personally, I believe the mind is a third.


stephen hawking is amazing, thank you.




> I have had motor neurone disease for practically all my adult life. Yet it has not prevented me from having a very attractive family, and being successful in my work. This is thanks to the help I have received from Jane, my children, and a large number of other people and organisations. I have been lucky, that my condition has progressed more slowly than is often the case. But it shows that one need not lose hope. 
> 
>  Stephen Hawking


http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/...sabilityadvice

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with what I stated. There is demonstrable proof that comets are rocks, not balls of ice and dust.


I never claimed they were made of ice and dust, I really have no idea.  That's not what I meant by building blocks of life which HAS been observed in samples we've returned from Comets.  I'm not referring to water but, Amino Acids.  

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...uilding_blocks





> Otherwise, they wouldn't look like cratered rocks, but would be uniform. I will say again, THERE IS NO PROOF of an extraterrestrial origin to life on this planet.


I'm not claiming they're not rocks, i dont know what your point is... And yes, Amino Acids have been observed in comet dust.

There is evidence that it's likely this planet didn't always exist, therefore it's likely that the building blocks for everything we know on this planet, came from elsewhere in the universe.






> Scientists have identified a crucial building block of life in samples captured from a comet and returned to Earth by the spacecraft Stardust. The discovery *lends support to the theory* that key ingredients of life arrived on the early Earth from space, through a heavy bombardment of comets and asteroids.
> 
> http://www.planetary.org/news/2009/0...dingBlock.html


YouTube - Science in Action: Amino Acids in Space

----------


## YumYum

Someone asked how do we know how old the universe is. I wanted to mention that we can determine the distance of the stars by using trig. Since we know how big the orbit of the Earth is, we can use trigonometry to calculate the stars' distances. Are Christians making the argument that the light from the stars could be coming at us faster than the speed of light? In this way, is it possible that our Universe is only six thousand years old? Interesting concept.

Please continue.....

----------


## constituent

> I think that Mitt Romney's sideburns made a good point when he said that there is a distinction between a creator and a G-d. If there is a G-d, he doesn't communicate with us so we can worship him or serve him the way he would like. That's what G-d's are for; to worship. On the other hand, if we were put here by a "creator", they or he/she may be observing us as some sort of experiment; much as we observe bacteria in a dish. The creator/s do not want to be worshipped. Either way, from this perspective we are not special or unique from other life forms.


Does God work within (or from outside) the machine, or is God the machine?

This seems to be the question you're getting at...

----------


## YumYum

> Does God work within (or from outside) the machine, or is God the machine?
> 
> This seems to be the question you're getting at...


I have no clue; that's why I am agnostic. My beef is with organized religion, not so much with the existence of G-d. In my opinion, I believe there is a higher being, whether it be aliens or G-d/s, but I do not think we as humans deserve any special recognition over other species, since we suck.

If there is a G-d, he works both outside the machine and inside the machine. He is either "all knowing, and all powerful", which would make Him an "unjust" G-d to allow all the suffering that mankind has had to endure. Or, He is a "just" G-d, but limited in His powers. I have seen the power of prayer work and I have seen first hand the power of prophecy come true. Pretty amazing stuff, but I really don't know what to make of it.

----------


## constituent

For the sake of discussion, it is my opinion that "God" _is_ the machine.

----------


## YumYum

> For the sake of discussion, it is my opinion that "God" _is_ the machine.


Could you please elaborate?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Could you please elaborate?


Nature is God.  God is Balance.

----------


## constituent

> Nature is God.  God is Balance.


1000 points for Mr. Trainor!

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> I have no clue; that's why I am agnostic.


I thought you were Jewish, with the way you kept writing "G-d"

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Nature is God.  God is Balance.


This is ridiculous.  Once you run out of holes to shove your god into, you just lay him out as a blanket over everything.

----------


## constituent

> This is ridiculous.  Once you run out of holes to shove your god into, you just lay him out as a blanket over everything.


The most moronic drivel I've read all week.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> This is ridiculous.  Once you run out of holes to shove your god into, you just lay him out as a blanket over everything.


If what you're saying is that "God" is just semantics, than i agree.

However, if anything is our higher power, it's nature itself... which we are all apart of.  We're just part of the balance.

----------


## constituent

> If what you're saying is that "God" is just semantics, than i agree.
> 
> However, if anything is our higher power, it's nature itself... which we are all apart of.  We're just part of the balance.


You're nicer than me, but you knew that already.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> And yes, Amino Acids have been observed in comet dust.


So what?




> There is evidence that it's likely this planet didn't always exist, therefore it's likely that the building blocks for everything we know on this planet, came from elsewhere in the universe.


Correlation does not equal causation. Furthermore, the Accretion Method of Planetary Formation has SERIOUS problems with it, namely that the Mathematics behind it fall apart (and thats ALL it is, a mathematical model). Just because some comets observed so far have amino acids on them does NOT mean that they delivered them to Earth and that's how life began here.

----------


## UK4Paul

> Sorry, but Halton Arp blew massive gaping holes in the Red-Shift theory. Red-shift expansion (expanding universe based on the flawed Gravity-based Cosmology) is mathematical bull$#@!. It was discovered as early as 1971 that objects (quasars & galaxies) of different red-shift were connected via a 'bridge' (probably a Birkeland Current) which are filamentary electrical discharges. 
> 
> There is nothing that has been remotely demonstrated to show an expanding universe. Its all based upon mathematical nonsense and NOT empirical science.


Well, I also happen to subcribe to plasma views of the Universe, but many on this forum do not.

Personally, if what you say is true... this makes it even more plausible the Universe could be young... because you then have _no basis at all_ for saying it's 13.7 billion years old... because then our viewing horizon (13.7 billion light years) are NOT correlated to its age!

My point is, whether it's expanding (as current "orthodoxy" dicates), or it's NOT expanding (as plasma ideas suggest), it _could_ be young, based on each side's own sytem!

----------


## UK4Paul

Hey YumYum




> Someone asked how do we know how old the universe is. I wanted to mention that we can determine the distance of the stars by using trig. Since we know how big the orbit of the Earth is, we can use trigonometry to calculate the stars' distances. Are Christians making the argument that the light from the stars could be coming at us faster than the speed of light? In this way, is it possible that our Universe is only six thousand years old? Interesting concept.


I'm a Young Earth Creationist << ducks for cover! >> ... so I might be able to explain my beliefs.

Personally, I do not subscribe to a lot of currently "orthodox" cosmology... I think Plasma electric models explain a lot of it. (Google is your friend here).

That said, even if current orthodox thinking is 100% true, it _allows_ for the possibility of a Young universe in several ways:

*(1) The alleged "Big Bang" was initially much faster than the speed of light.*

This is orthodox science, not Creationist "nonsense". Clearly then, the speed of light _can_ be violated when scientists have no other explanation 

*(2) Space itself, according to orthodoxy, is expanding.*

Thus, while the distance between two objects in space IS limited by the speed of light, the expansion of space itself can also increase the distance between these two objects... and it is this expansion of space that is NOT limited by the speed of light!

Thus, if an expansion of space happened, it could even be _instantaneous_, and the Universe could still look the same, with redshifts etc.

*(3) The speed of light might not actually be constant after all.*

I should point out, this is not "orthodox"... but various scientists have considered this possibility, and peer reviewed papers have discussed it. For more information, I recommend the book "Faster Than The Speed Of Light" (nothing to do with Creationism), and you'll see even the scientist who came up with the original modified version of the Big Bang theory has even considered this.

Of course, this would be controversial, because it would mean revising most of the current laws of physics! ... but if I recall, that has happened more than once in the history of science 

Personally, however, I favour the Plasma electric model of the Universe, in which God could have _easily_ created the Universe very recently... because it doesn't even require billions of years to form galaxies, etc... they are created electrically (and can be replicated in a lab), and can be held together with strong electromagnetic forces.

Because this Plasma science is not "mainstream" yet, some people will label it "pseudoscience"... but that is merely a label. It explains far more than current orthodoxy, without resorting to dark matter, dark energy and other pseudo-entities to make up for the gaping holes in their current theories

----------


## ClayTrainor

> So what?


You're serious?  The point is, the building blocks of life have been found on comets.  You denied this at first, and i proved it.  Amino acids are essential to life as we know it, but not the only ingredient required.  Amino acids have been found on comets, that is a fact.  Therefore, some key ingredients for life, also exist on comets. 




> Just because some comets observed so far have amino acids on them does NOT mean that they delivered them to Earth and that's how life began here.


I didn't claim it proves that, that's not how science works. I claim it lends to the credibility to the theory that life on earth could have been seeded from elsewhere in the universe, because it does.  Amino acids are very important ingredient to life on earth, and we have discovered them elsewhere in the universe.  This means nothing to you, at all?

----------


## Reason

dawkins is awesome

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> You're serious?


Yes, I am serious. 




> You denied this at first, and i proved it.


No, I did not. I said Comets are NOT icy balls of dust. They are rocks like asteroids.  




> Amino acids are essential to life as we know it, but not the only ingredient required.  Amino acids have been found on comets, that is a fact.  Therefore, some key ingredients for life, also exist on comets.


Which has NOTHING to do with my statement that comets are rocks. You stated:




> *Every element* of earth came from elsewhere in the universe, this we do know.


Bolded for emphasis. This is an unprovable statement. Furthermore, as I said, correlation is not causation. Just because amino acids have been found on one comet does NOT mean that the amino acids that are one (and only one) of the elements for life here came from 'out there'. 




> Amino acids are very important ingredient to life on earth, and we have discovered them elsewhere in the universe.  This means nothing to you, at all?


Its beside the point. I am talking about the fact that recent observations have disproven the notion that comets are balls of dusty ice. The idea is that water on this planet (which is one of the elements necessary for life) came from cometary material is baloney.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Yes, I am serious.





> No, I did not. I said Comets are NOT icy balls of dust. They are rocks like asteroids.


I never claimed anything about what comets are, i just know amino acids have been retrieved from comet dust.





> Bolded for emphasis. This is an unprovable statement.


WE know the universe exists, therefore it's possible the elements came from the universe.

Explain what other possible place that we know to exist, they could've come from?

I'm open to any other hypothesis willing to go through the scientific method.  Science isn't about proving things, it's about disproving things.  You understand this concept, right?




> Just because amino acids have been found on one comet does NOT mean that the amino acids that are one (and only one) of the elements for life here came from 'out there'.





> Its beside the point. I am talking about the fact that recent observations have disproven the notion that comets are balls of dusty ice.


If that's what you're talking about than you are on a totally different topic than me.

I'm saying building blocks for life have been found in comet dust. This is a fact. Amino acids are essential to life as we know it, and they exist in comet dust.  

Water exists elsewhere in the universe, we know this for a fact, whether it's on comets or not.  Elements required for life seem to be scattered throughout the universe.  This is just reality.




> The idea is that water on this planet (which is one of the elements necessary for life) came from cometary material is baloney.


Based on what?  Do you have reason to believe it came from somewhere else? If so, where and why?

Is it just a coincidence that Water happens to exist on the moon? 

The moon is just a rock in space, with water on it... another element for life, but not the only element required.

The theory is based on reason, and works better than.  "maybe a God Did it", wouldn't you agree?

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Someone asked how do we know how old the universe is. I wanted to mention that we can determine the distance of the stars by using trig. Since we know how big the orbit of the Earth is, we can use trigonometry to calculate the stars' distances. Are Christians making the argument that the light from the stars could be coming at us faster than the speed of light? In this way, is it possible that our Universe is only six thousand years old? Interesting concept.
> 
> Please continue.....


Anyone remember hearing about that guy who found a flaw in Einstein's theory?  It was in the news for a day or so, then ... nothing.

eta:  I guess maybe it didn't vanish after all (in light of UK4Paul's post (#192).

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Anyone remember hearing about that guy who found a flaw in Einstein's theory?  It was in the news for a day or so, then ... nothing.


yes and Quantum theory has recently disproven some of newtons laws, as universal laws.

What's your point?

Science gets disproven all the time, that's how science works.  It's a method of disproving.

----------


## YumYum

> yes and Quantum theory has recently disproven some of newtons laws, as universal laws.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Science gets disproven all the time, that's how science works.  It's a method of disproving.


Recently, scientists proved Quantum by observing a molecule at a temperature close to absolute zero. The molecole did something unexpected: it was in two places at the same time. As a math tutor at the University, I presented this to my math professor that this example can now explain why the slope of a vertical line is undefined. Quantum is going to open doors and the slope of a vertical line is the key. Scientists follow Newtonian procedure in experiments not because Newton established the methods to be followed, but because the Catholic Church laid out the ground rules for conducting experiments after their disaster rebuking Galileo. I find it ironic and actually funny that scientist who are atheist follow the stringent rules set down by the Catholic Church.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

Its pretty clear that MsD and others main problem is they just are uneducated in scientific matters.  

Ignorance is not an argument.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Scientists follow Newtonian procedure in experiments not because Newton established the methods to be followed, but because the Catholic Church laid out the ground rules for conducting experiments after their disaster rebuking Galileo. I find it ironic and actually funny that scientist who are atheist follow the stringent rules set down by the Catholic Church.


Im about to jump out my $#@!ing window after reading this.

----------


## UK4Paul

They call Creationists whacky, but my friend recently showed me an issue of New Scientist, in which they talk about "Boltzmann brains", which are hypothetical self-aware entities "which arises due to random fluctuations out of a state of chaos."

Here is the Wikipedia article on them. Naturally, if you want to read the New Scientist article you'd have to find a back issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

My point is... they hypothesize about all kind of things like this (and write about them in New Scientist), but the idea of a God is dismissed out of hand!

That, in my opinion, is irrational.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Scientists follow Newtonian procedure in experiments not because Newton established the methods to be followed, but because the Catholic Church laid out the ground rules for conducting experiments after their disaster rebuking Galileo. I find it ironic and actually funny that scientist who are atheist follow the stringent rules set down by the Catholic Church.


Are you saying the scientific method is based on the catholic church, and is supposed to be base done Newtons laws?

This post confused the hell out of me.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> the idea of a God is dismissed out of hand!


out of hand?

The idea of God has been around for thousands of years.  In this time, your crowd has yet to produce any evidence of any of your claims.

If you want to be taken seriously in the real world, you need some real evidence and real results.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> they hypothesize about all kind of things like this


How do you know they hypothesize these things ?  Where you there?

----------


## UK4Paul

> out of hand?
> 
> The idea of God has been around for thousands of years.  In this time, your crowd has yet to produce any evidence of any of your claims.
> 
> If you want to be taken seriously in the real world, you need some real evidence and real results.


Young Earth Creationists in the scientific community are analogous to Ron Paul supporters in the political field.

What happened in the last election? Ron Paul was marginalized, and the media went "very quiet" about him. They tried to exclude him from the debates. He was portrayed as a "kook", by the mainstream media.

The same thing happens in science. Young Earth Creationists _do_ provide real evidence, and real results... but they are marginalized, labelled as "history deniers", any science they produce is automatically "pseudoscience"... etc etc.

Anyway, the truth of the matter is, we all have the same evidence available to us. When they dig out a fossil from the ground, it's just a fossil. It is the _presuppositions_ that are brought to bear upon that fossil that is what matters.

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Young Earth Creationists in the scientific community are analogous to Ron Paul supporters in the political field.


omfg, arguments cant get much worse than this





> Anyway, the truth of the matter is, we all have the same evidence available to us. When they dig out a fossil from the ground, it's just a fossil. It is the _presuppositions_ that are brought to bear upon that fossil that is what matters.


Eventually you are going to have to catch up to the 21st century.  Hell, catch up to the 20th century.

Fossils are not all that important to modern biological research into evolution.  We dont all have the same evidence, because your side doesnt even realize there is an entire field of genetic research out there.

----------


## YumYum

> Are you saying the scientific method is based on the catholic church?
> 
> This post confused the hell out of me.


When the Catholic Church had to admit that the Earth revolves around the Sun they allowed scientists to do experiments using scientific method but development of science was greatly hindered by the Church's imposition of orthodoxy on all fields of thought.

With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions of Nicolaus Copernicus that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions. 

He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest. 

His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future. 

Scientists had to suffer torture, silencing, imprisonment and death at the hands of Christians who didn't agree with newly discovered facts about the world. Christianity lost the first battle with astronomers who realized that, contrary to what Christians asserted, the Sun did not orbit the Earth, and that the Universe doesn't seem to be designed specifically for humankind. Copernicus (1473-1543), Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo (1564-1642), Newton (1643-1727) and Laplace (1749-1827) all fought battles against the Church when they published scientific papers challenging religious orthodoxy. Bible verses were all the theories Christians needed; and Joshua 10:12-13, 2 Kings 20:11, Isaiah 38:8 and Isaiah 30:26 all contradicted astronomers. But through intelligence and clever politics, truth gradually won out over dogma, and the Church retreated... only to go on to fight similar ignorant battles, and violently impose dogmatic errors, in the arenas of physics, biology and philosophy.

The development of science was retarded by the Church's imposition of orthodoxy on all fields of thought. The Church claimed to speak in an unchanging and authoritative fashion not only on matters of behavior but also on the behavior of matter. The Reformation, by breaking the power of the Church made way for a variety of thought and for the questioning of tradition which is so vital to natural science.

Many scientists have held strong religious beliefs and have worked to harmonize science and religion. Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the Sun, and credited God with the design. In the concluding General Scholium to the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." 

Nevertheless, conflict has repeatedly arisen between religious organizations and individuals who propagated scientific theories that were deemed unacceptable by the organizations. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has in the past reserved to itself the right to decide which scientific theories were acceptable and which were unacceptable. In the 17th century, Galileo was tried and forced to recant the heliocentric theory based on the church's stance that the Greek Hellenistic system of astronomy was the correct one. Today, however, only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in a god.

Many theories exist as to why religions sometimes seem to conflict with scientific knowledge. In the case of Christianity, a relevant factor may be that it was among Christians that science in the modern sense was developed. Unlike other religious groups, as early as the 17th century the Christian churches had to deal directly with this new way to investigate nature and seek truth.

The perceived conflict between science and Christianity may also be partially explained by a literal interpretation of the Bible adhered to by many Christians, both currently and historically. The Catholic Church has always held with Augustine of Hippo who explicitly opposed a literal interpretation of the Bible whenever the Bible conflicted with Science. The literal way to read the sacred texts became especially prevalent after the rise of the Protestant reformation, with its emphasis on the Bible as the only authoritative source concerning the ultimate reality. This view is often shunned by both religious leaders (who regard literally believing it as petty and look for greater meaning instead) and scientists who regard it as an impossibility.

Daniel Pinchbeck goes into further detail on this subject in his book "2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl". He explains the guidelines set down by the Catholic Church that scientists had to follow when conducting experiments. If they couldn't measure it, see it, hear it, taste it, feel it or smell it , a scientist could not make any claims. This rule affected how Newton conducted scientific method.

Can you imagine if Newton could have delved into Quatum? Without such interference from theists, science would have been more than a thousand years more advanced! Kepler in the 17th century only revived Greek astronomical knowledge that was condemned and hidden by Christians in the second century.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Young Earth Creationists in the scientific community are analogous to Ron Paul supporters in the political field.
> 
> What happened in the last election? Ron Paul was marginalized, and the media went "very quiet" about him. They tried to exclude him from the debates. He was portrayed as a "kook", by the mainstream media.


oh wow, I was thinking about this *very thing* while I was making another batch of cookies!  Weird to sign back in and see this post.

----------


## UK4Paul

> How do you know they hypothesize these things ?  Where you there?


Because they write about them in New Scientist. The clue is in the title.

----------


## UK4Paul

> Fossils are not all that important to modern biological research into evolution.  We dont all have the same evidence, because your side doesnt even realize there is an entire field of genetic research out there.


Of course we do. That is a statement based on ignorance.

----------


## UK4Paul

Hey YumYum

You're right in what you say about the Catholic Church... but I'd also add that the actions of the Catholic Church over the centuries bear little resemblance to the words and actions of Christ. For many centuries, even the Bible was on the list of forbidden books by that Church!

----------


## MsDoodahs

Great piece by Fred Reed.  

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

"Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science). First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. (And of course the less you know, the greater the number of things that are plausible, because there are fewer facts to get in the way.) Again and again evolutionists assumed that suggesting how something might have happened was equivalent to establishing how it had happened. Asking them for evidence usually aroused annoyance and sometimes, if persisted in, hostility."

...

"Second, evolution seemed more a metaphysics or ideology than a science. The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles. You demonstrated chemistry, but believed evolution."

...

"Third, *evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism*, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does  except evolutionists. *We are dealing with competing religions  overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism*.

I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn't a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. *Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry*. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use)  of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress."

----------


## Theocrat

> Its pretty clear that MsD and others main problem is they just are uneducated in scientific matters.  
> 
> Ignorance is not an argument.


Mitt, that is another personal attack against the opposing side. Just because they don't agree with your (or any evolutionist's) interpretation of the scientific data does not make them uneducated in scientific matters. You need to understand that all scientists have assumptions that they come with before explaining natural scientific phenomena. It is their philosophical commitments about the nature of matter which controls how they interpret the data.

In the movie _Expelled_, that was one of the key points which Ben Stein was illustrating to the audience. It is not the scientific data which is the problem; it is whose understanding of that data should be considered necessary for scientific research and experimentation. There are plenty of scientists who are creationists or intelligent designers that are very intelligent people, and they are lovers of science, teachers of science, and successful scientists in their field. The problem within the scientific establishment is that their views are being suppressed, and their work is being disregarded without any open dialogue about it. If you had watched the movie, you would know that.

So, I take resentment to your claim that those of us who reject the Darwinian myth are uneducated about matters of science. Darwin is not the final standard for how natural phenomena is to be understood. When people like you make his theories an irrefutable truth, you are no different than Christians who believe God's word is infallible. And that is the point. It is religion versus religion, not science versus religion. You're so enamored with Darwin that you can't even see that, unfortunately.

----------


## Cowlesy

Just incase some haven't seen it yet.

www.collisionmovie.com

----------


## UK4Paul

MsDoodahs, that was a pretty good article... meaning that mitt's sideburns will probably hate it 

My favourite part was this:




> Always the question is How does this fit in with evolution, instead of, Does this fit in with evolution?


It's funny... a few people on this thread say the equivalent of "you don't know science, get a degree, study it"... yet the person in the article did precisely that... and still asked questions, and got treated like a child (or a heretic) for asking questions.

For every Just So Story that evolutionists tell us, we should also do as mitt's sideburns does, and ask: "Were you there?"

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Just because they don't agree with your (or any evolutionist's) interpretation of the scientific data does not make them uneducated in scientific matters.


But these people are clearly uneducated.  They dont even understand the basic vocabulary.  How can they discuss scientific matters such as these if they dont have the slightest grasp on the fundamental language being used?

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

> Young Earth Creationists _do_ provide real evidence, and real results...


such as?

----------


## nayjevin

Full disclosure: I used to be hardcore science and pretty much against religion in all forms, until I grew up and started to see beauty in the world. Now I understand there are wonderful aspects of both, but that both sides are prone to logical error. Each can be politicized, and each have led humanity in the wrong direction at times.

Spirituality and science both exist.  That religion and science are seen as enemies is a false dichotomy - similar to the idea that there are two kinds of political thought - Republican and Democrat.  It seems there are people all throughout the spectrum - and the most vocal on both ends seem to fall most heavily for the trap that there are only two opinions to be had.

Anyone who looks reasonably at science without losing grasp of the spiritual mysteries gets my respect.

Anyone who looks reasonably at spiritual matters without losing grasp of science also.

A great many hyper-intelligent physicists - even a great number of those responsible for the discoveries in quantum mechanics - have professed a resulting belief about our world that includes some conception of 'God'.

There are mysteries in our world unsolved.  Fact.  Both science and religion attempt to explain them.  We are not enemies!

I suggest The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Leon Lederman & Dick Teresi and The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell

----------


## MsDoodahs

> MsDoodahs, that was a pretty good article...


I read it in 2005 when it was posted at LRC.  

Changed the way I view evolution - and evolutionISTS - _permanently_.

----------


## UK4Paul

I just re-watched the video in Post #1 again, along with some earlier posts.

I have some question for Professor Dawkins, and for members of this forum to ponder:

(1) Given that you say we don't know how the Universe began, is it possible that the Universe itself was "seeded" from elsewhere?

(2) Is it possible that intelligence could arise through mechanisms _other_ than current evolutionary principles? (For example, could entire galaxies form a kind of "neural net" and acquire intelligence somehow? Could an entire Universe do so? Could lightening form a _thought?_)

(3) If you concede the possibility of life being _seeded_ from higher intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, is it also possible that this same higher intelligent life actually created life fully formed? Why would they be limited to simply _seeding_ life?

Notes: For the definitionists (who want words _strictly defined_ before they'll even discuss the issue), refer to Dawkins - the OP video, and The God Delusion. We'll use his definitions of "seeded" he means in the video, and "multiverse" in his book - which he himself doesn't actually define. By "elsewhere", I am refering to whatever location he places the possible multiverses he talks about.

Now let's discuss the issues.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Changed the way I view evolution - and evolutionISTS -* permanently*.


*Bolded for emphasis.*

This is the key difference between faith and science.    Science accepts that everything can be disproven, faith does not.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." - Carl Sagan

----------


## literatim

Atheism is simply faith that there is no God.

----------


## nayjevin

> Now let's discuss the issues.


I like you're angle.  I'd encourage all to avoid collectively defining groups as having a singular belief.  such as 'Creationists think such and so' and 'Evolutionists think such and so'.  Collectivist fallacy is fallacious!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Atheism is simply faith that there is no God.


I regard it as the lack of belief in a God.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> I just re-watched the video in Post #1 again, along with some earlier posts.
> 
> I have some question for Professor Dawkins, and for members of this forum to ponder:
> 
> (1) Given that you say we don't know how the Universe began, is it possible that the Universe itself was "seeded" from elsewhere?
> 
> (2) Is it possible that intelligence could arise through mechanisms _other_ than current evolutionary principles? (For example, could entire galaxies form a kind of "neural net" and acquire intelligence somehow? Could an entire Universe do so? Could lightening form a _thought?_)
> 
> (3) If you concede the possibility of life being _seeded_ from higher intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, is it also possible that this same higher intelligent life actually created life fully formed? Why would they be limited to simply _seeding_ life?
> ...


1.  Yes.

2.  Yes.  

3.  Yes/don't know of any reason they would be limited.

----------


## UK4Paul

> I like you're angle.  I'd encourage all to avoid collectively defining groups as having a singular belief.  such as 'Creationists think such and so' and 'Evolutionists think such and so'.  Collectivist fallacy is fallacious!


Absolutely!

Also, an important point is that people's views _do_ change. To take myself as an example: I used to be an athiest, then an Old Earth Creationist (OEC), and now a Young Earth Creationist (YEC).

So while athiesm, OEC and YEC by themselves may not (in general) change very much, people can and do change their belief systems, or create hybrid belief systems of their own.

As to belief in God, I understand why athiests consider it to be irrational. But this is why I posed that series of questions - such as, could intelligence arise through mechanisms _other_ than evolution?

For example, what is a "thought? We might be able to explain it to a certain (or even a complete) extent in terms of electro-chemical signals in the brain, combined with information stored in the neurons - but is it _possible_ then that a bolt of lightening (which also involves electricity and produces chemicals) might have a "thought"?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that science often begins by posing questions and hypotheses for research.

If God exists, nobody can fully explain WHY he/she/it exists, but maybe that's because much of scientific enquiry has been so fixated on explaining things through evolutionary processes, that not much research has been done on alternatives.

Is it possible that the very "singularity" (or whatever they call it) from which our Universe arose became "self aware" and directed itself in an intelligent manner?

Of course these ideas are speculative... and it's not necessarily the case that I believe them... but it is only as speculative as all the other ideas on how the Universe came to be... which _are_ speculative, because none of us were there.

----------


## nayjevin

> Of course these ideas are speculative... and it's not necessarily the case that I believe them... but it is only as speculative as all the other ideas on how the Universe came to be... which _are_ speculative, because none of us were there.


This is true.  I find that the vast majority of the time, particularly in matters of speculation, evidence is sought to reinforce preconceived ideas.  We look for proof that what we already believe is true.

Difficult for anyone to consider evidence that goes against a deeply held belief.

----------


## tremendoustie

> I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." - Carl Sagan


I've seen it happen sometimes in politics. It happened Saturday night on FTL -- an ex-cop drug warrior called up saying how drugs should be illegal, because they cause violence, especially in Mexico, etc.

Host asked something to the effect of, "Do you see Merck or Bayer having gunflights in the street? Does purchasing a Miller or Budweiser fund gangs? It's the fact that drugs are illegal that causes the violence"

Guy did a 180 on the spot, agreed that drugs should be legal, and promised he'd check out law enforcement against prohibition.

----------

