believer, "Deuteronomy 25:5-6, please " Wait, didn't earlier in another thread say that you, as a christian, aren't obligated to follow the old laws? If you don't follow the old laws, since you say you're with the new covenant, then you logically cannot quote it to support your position.

Crispentine, “if you commit homosexuality, you will suffer physical pain and STD's.” It’s possible, but it’s not a given, just like it’s possible if a heterosexual has sex that they too and experience some pain & contract STD’s. “the reason why africans gained rights was because they didn't choose to be black.“ And you’re reasoning is that people choose to be gay, des...more

Crispentine,

“if you commit homosexuality, you will suffer physical pain and STD's.”

It’s possible, but it’s not a given, just like it’s possible if a heterosexual has sex that they too and experience some pain & contract STD’s.

“the reason why africans gained rights was because they didn't choose to be black.“

And you’re reasoning is that people choose to be gay, despite the fact they know full well a fair % of society will reject them out of hand, & that they risk loosing close friends and family? In the understanding of human psychology that sort of risk aversion makes no sense. Needless to say, but if blacks prior to the 60’s could have chosen to white, I think most would have so they wouldn’t be persecuted.less

HO "defeating the ring leaders will cause the drug market to tumble, and there will be very little crime and very little violence." I would agree that attacking the dealers is a priority, however, a single assault strategy is a lost cause in this dynamic. Dealers are the supply, the buyers are the demand, both must be addressed.

hawk, “The forensic method is exactly what Meyers uses,” Meyers is a scientist, really? What are his articles? As I recall, Meyers, your ID scientist didn’t bother to attend the trial in Dover. “irreducible complexity and design and not random chance.” Uh hello, evolution isn’t ‘totally random chance’, there is the SELECTION aspect. “There is no natural law or know...more

hawk,

“The forensic method is exactly what Meyers uses,”

Meyers is a scientist, really? What are his articles? As I recall, Meyers, your ID scientist didn’t bother to attend the trial in Dover.

“irreducible complexity and design and not random chance.”

Uh hello, evolution isn’t ‘totally random chance’, there is the SELECTION aspect.

“There is no natural law or known action by matter and energy alone that can do this.”

Sure there are, simple laws can express increased complexity quite easily, just look at the patterns found in emergent properties. Totally natural too.

“It mirrors everyday experiences of life for creation and manufacture by humans as we know it.”

Well, not quite, the things we make aren’t living, nor do they reproduce on their own & undergo attrition, natural selection, mutations, genetic drift and so forth that living things do. Different things which have different properties = different outcomes.

“The probability is exceedingly high that an intelligent agent was involved in creation of life. “

Then describe the mechanisms this designer used so we can know indeed it did what you assert it did.

We still will probably end up not knowing exactly how life was created unless the Creator left more clues such as used in foresic science through more research.

“Collins assumes, as Darwin did, that scientists may reasonably extrapolate from micro- to macroevolution."

There is no reason to suggest that micro changes + longer periods of time do not equal larger macro changes, so it’s, not really an assumption. It’s not that much different than looking at the slight movement of tectonic plates in which their compounding movements add up over the eons to equal large macro more evident changes.

“Antony Flew was a philosopher of science.”

I think his point was that Flew, although a philosopher of science, doesn’t actually practice or work in the field of science testing, analysis and research so he’s removed from knowing, much like Behe & others of the DI, that the immune system isn’t irreducible complex. That the Eye, flagella, blood clotting cascade and so on aren’t irreducible complex.less

believer, “I did not say the Genesis Flood caused the rocks to age but rather gave the rocks the appearance of being much older than they are” What’s the difference? Either making them actually older or just ‘look older’ would be utterly indistinguishable and is not supported ANYWHERE in empirical evidence. If you have evidence that water/floods age the radioactive isotopes in mine...more

believer,

“I did not say the Genesis Flood caused the rocks to age but rather gave the rocks the appearance of being much older than they are”

What’s the difference? Either making them actually older or just ‘look older’ would be utterly indistinguishable and is not supported ANYWHERE in empirical evidence. If you have evidence that water/floods age the radioactive isotopes in minerals, thus making them ‘look older’ then by all means let’s hear it. Otherwise, you are wrong, deal with it.

And the flood waters, how did they age or make the moon, sun, & the rest of the solar system just ‘look older’? Talk about totally dodging the questions, like I said, you shamelessly make it up as you go.

“it is not that I think that I am cannot be wrong, but rather I do not believe God is wrong”

But that still leaves the question if your INTERPRETATION isn’t wrong.less

believer, “Your view of science is a godless view of science” Believer, I already explained why assuming gods existing & being involved in nature is counterproductive to science. It’s not ‘my view’ that science doesn’t allow for the supernatural to be involved, it’s how the scientific method (methodological naturalism) works. Ultimately it’s which method produces fruits, & th...more

believer,

“Your view of science is a godless view of science”

Believer, I already explained why assuming gods existing & being involved in nature is counterproductive to science. It’s not ‘my view’ that science doesn’t allow for the supernatural to be involved, it’s how the scientific method (methodological naturalism) works. Ultimately it’s which method produces fruits, & this one produces fruits; trying to have the supernatural involved would kill all scientific inquiry.

‘I believe that God is involved in all scientific processes”

Good for you, but that is a metaphysical philosophical claim, not a scientific one. Believe your god causes gravity for all I care, but for science to work & explain cause & effect relationships in nature & thus that we actually LEARN something, it must not include the supernatural.less

“why do you think that your observation and understanding has any rational meaning at all?” I already covered why above, tests performed can be repeated… that whole methodological naturalism thing which produces fruits, one of which you're using right now. That would be a good indicator that we can a) learn something about reality & b) that the methodology works at explaining reality, as ...more

“why do you think that your observation and understanding has any rational meaning at all?”

I already covered why above, tests performed can be repeated… that whole methodological naturalism thing which produces fruits, one of which you're using right now. That would be a good indicator that we can a) learn something about reality & b) that the methodology works at explaining reality, as if it didn't work, we wouldn't have said fruits, would we?

“Only within the last two centuries have scientists thrown off these reasonable assumptions for a random explosion followed by chance mutations.”

Like I said, maybe the big bang wasn’t random; we really don’t know at this point what preceded it, & considering we’re relegated to a sample size of 1 for the universe, so it’s hard to know how random it was. Evolution isn’t cosmology, but mutations are pretty much random, however certain mutations are more common than others & certain sections of the genome are more prone to mutations, so in some sense it’s not all that random.

“It is totally preposterous to throw all the ingredients for a chocolate cake in the ocean and come back in a million years and expect a delicious treat to be waiting.”

The only preposterous thing is your creationist strawman argument. Well yes, given what we know of cakes, they’re not living and they don’t tend to increase in complexity over time. Living organisms on the other hand are living, they reproduce, they do undergo mutations & selection & pass on more successful genes, & there is competition for resources & undergo attrition & can become genetically isolated by geography & undergo genetic drifting. Comparing non-living things to living things is the hallmark of creationists. Different properties = different outcomes!!!less

Railhead, “If the creation model is not accurate, I have to ask: what is the basis for science and all logic?” The basis for science is human reason, observation, experience, analysis, repeatability, falsifiability, etc.I really don’t follow your point with regards to creation model, since when has it tried to use formal concepts of logic? Take for example believer who says that circul...more

Railhead,

“If the creation model is not accurate, I have to ask: what is the basis for science and all logic?”

The basis for science is human reason, observation, experience, analysis, repeatability, falsifiability, etc.I really don’t follow your point with regards to creation model, since when has it tried to use formal concepts of logic? Take for example believer who says that circular reasoning is A-OK for the bible, or Prophet, who disregards basic logic principles like the laws of non-contradiction & suggests that contracting properties can occur in nature. It’s not my side that has the issue with logic here.

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

http://www.answers.com/topic/principle-of-non-contradiction

“Why do you assume that your brain is correctly interpretting anything you see in a world that is totally governed (or not governed) by randomness?”

B/c the tests performed can be repeated again & again & again & again & so on. Such repeatability & overall consistency with evidence from many different independent realms suggests, logically, that they’re correct & that at the macro level at least, it’s not entirely all random. It’s certainly not random that the size always rises in the East, (disagree?) nor is it random that the tides ebb in correlation with the moon, we understand the cause & effect relationships quite well.

“Why is there any stability and predictability in a universe that was created by a random explosion?”

I don’t know, nor have I claimed to know, but Lawrence Krause has stated that the descriptive physical laws require a state which is stable. Maybe the expansion of the big bang wasn’t random; we really don’t know what occurred prior, so we can’t conclude it was random. I’ll let you stick with that false premise for now.

“What makes you think that the movement of molecules in your brain has any meaningful significance whatsoever?”

Maybe the countless neurological studies showing that the physical brain activity is linked to modes of thought & action, & when certain sections of the brain are damaged or missing that they impact the conscious self that people normally identify with.less

Do you have evidence the water causes rocks to age? No, of course not. But you will immediately leap to an unfalsifiable claim rather than to suggest we humans can use reason & logic to understand reality. “if I operate outside of those parameters…” If you operate outside of those standards you’re no longer doing science & in review when comparing the efficacy of said method, to uh, ...more

Do you have evidence the water causes rocks to age? No, of course not. But you will immediately leap to an unfalsifiable claim rather than to suggest we humans can use reason & logic to understand reality.

“if I operate outside of those parameters…”

If you operate outside of those standards you’re no longer doing science & in review when comparing the efficacy of said method, to uh, creationism, the comparison couldn’t be more evident in the fruits. Where are those fruits of the creationist methodology? You don’t have an open mind in considering, even at the slightest, that you could be wrong. That IS the height of arrogance & a closed mind.less

Believer, “if I were to operate within your and others parameters of science and knowledge which tends to reject the influence of God or even His existence then I would be open-miinded” Believer, the operation of science is really agnostic towards god(s) existing at all. Science doesn’t’ say explicitly they cannot exist, but rather for methodological naturalism to effectively operate...more

Believer,

“if I were to operate within your and others parameters of science and knowledge which tends to reject the influence of God or even His existence then I would be open-miinded”

Believer, the operation of science is really agnostic towards god(s) existing at all. Science doesn’t’ say explicitly they cannot exist, but rather for methodological naturalism to effectively operate it must do so under the assumption that if they do exist that they do not interfere with the natural world and its order. The reason for this is obvious under closer review.

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

For the purposes of science, if we assume god(s) exist, & further that they can interfere with tests, then tests& gathering empirical data themselves become utterly pointless as one could always say that ‘god/devil/angel/demon’ was monkeying with the evidence or test to affect the results & thus we could never pin down the root cause & effect relationship. In short, the supernatural cannot be tested directly. Needless to say, but such an endeavor would be pointless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Science

The strength of empirical studies, as opposed to revelations, is that they require the most root cause & effect relationships to be made evident via testing and analysis. This is why science works as it explains the cause & effect relationship much better than previous methodologies, & it improves over time as the knowledge base grows. Hence the fruits…

The strict methodology requires repeatability for all proposed hypotheses. If you submit something which in all practicality cannot be tested by others it utterly fails as it cannot be shown to be incorrect. Another requirement of demarcation of science is that of falsifiability, this too is critical as it requires that all proposed hypotheses be possible to be shown wrong.

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

Take for instance your non-starter of god causing the global flood that you assert caused the rocks to age. This is an utterly unfalsifiable argument; it can never be refuted b/c it’s logically flawed, as a god could hypothetically make them whatever age they wanted them to appear so no matter what tools we used to determine their age one could always say ‘see, god made em that way!’.less

believer, “if you mean by closed minded I choose to believe God” That’s such a shame. Here I think is the big different between you and I when it comes to knowledge, & how humans ought to seek to learn about the world. Steve20 pointed this out earlier. He is a Christian, and he accepts what science explains, & yet both he and I would readily jettison any of the views of which science d...more

believer,

“if you mean by closed minded I choose to believe God”

That’s such a shame. Here I think is the big different between you and I when it comes to knowledge, & how humans ought to seek to learn about the world. Steve20 pointed this out earlier. He is a Christian, and he accepts what science explains, & yet both he and I would readily jettison any of the views of which science describes should other more supported and well tested evidence come along. It’s highly unlikely considering the large magnitude of evidence, but its science, so it’s philosophically possible.

We are quite open minded when it comes to knowledge about reality, you on the other hand are not. You’re not open to anything, & therefore the quest for learning anything is pointless if you think it’s all in the book you claim a god wrote. The Dark Ages have your close minded mindset to thank.

“very much open to interpretation since none of these concepts can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.“

They can be proven in terms of which is most congruent with the existing evidence, it’s not the creation model, that much is for sure. Both are mostly mutually exclusive, and thus logically both cannot be correct on all counts. Either the universe was created in 6 literal days, or it wasn’t, the boy there is zero evidence that it was created over 6 days. There is very good reason why the method of science works and produces fruits, whereas other methods do not, so the preverbal question once again arises. Since you’re proposing creationism, what are its fruits?

For instance, what evidence is there that water ages rocks, let alone at the rate you suggest? If the flood caused the aging of rocks as you think, what then aged the sun, the moon, & so on?

“So to accuse a person of being closed minded with regards to concepts that are still being debated is a wee bit of a stretch.”

The lower limit of the age of the earth, universe, moon are not debated at all in science any more than tectonic plates are debated to actually occur. There is no debate as to if it’s actually 6,000 or 10,000 years young (old), the debate is if it’s 4.57 billion years old, or even older.less

According to you, shouldn't god be smiting them right about now? This is the rhetoric of pat roberston, and falwell, so I wont lump you in with them automatically, but your past comments suggest you might think god would smite them.Or at least before they win the world series?

"same-sex marriage has been legal in MA for around 7 years and the divorce rate is already up to near 50%?" I am not even sure if that figure is accurate, but even still what does that matter, hetrosexual marriages have been long been on the decline in terms of staying power, nearly the same figure of 50% end in divorce.

"God's truths as found in God's Word!!" And circular reasoning and round and round you go. Care to retort on any of my other points I made? “if your empirical evidence is a result of faulty thinking” And what if it’s not, then what? Is there any amount of evidence that could ever convince you that indeed the earth is old as science suggests? Or I am wrong to understand your close-mi...more

"God's truths as found in God's Word!!"

And circular reasoning and round and round you go. Care to retort on any of my other points I made?

“if your empirical evidence is a result of faulty thinking”

And what if it’s not, then what? Is there any amount of evidence that could ever convince you that indeed the earth is old as science suggests? Or I am wrong to understand your close-mindedness?

What is your evidence that water ages rocks again?less

“I said previously that the scientific community has been guilty of conjuring up apparent fossils discoveries” You stated simply ‘these supposed ape-men have been proven to be frauds’ & ‘All these have been proven to be frauds’. Well, they weren’t ‘all frauds’, even if Piltdown was, that was nearly 50 years ago that was shown to be a fraud and hasn’t been used since. �...more

“I said previously that the scientific community has been guilty of conjuring up apparent fossils discoveries”

You stated simply ‘these supposed ape-men have been proven to be frauds’ & ‘All these have been proven to be frauds’.

Well, they weren’t ‘all frauds’, even if Piltdown was, that was nearly 50 years ago that was shown to be a fraud and hasn’t been used since.

“Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the Museum of Natural History…”

I’ll see your quote mine and raise you an answer.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html


http://creation.com/vige-function

VIGEs and chromosome 2 ‘Why would it quickly deteriorate?’

B/c that section of the chromosome is now inactive, obviously.

“Again, the evidence shows otherwise”

Right. I mean, who am I to suggest that other Great Apes which share more in common genetically, morphologically, and embryologically relative to any other living species could mean anything. I mean to suggest that is evidence to the contrary, you’d have to ignore it all like you are.

“http://creation.com/are-there-apemen-in-your-ancestry”

Well if one leaves out the rest of the fossils and pretends that only those in the case as in this site are known then yeah, it would look like the fossils are still missing, but those at the Smithsonian show the collection to be much for robust and vast. Hardly the 5-6 specimens as this link would imply.

“I do agree that the theory of evolution is just that a theory”

Go home honey, it’s a theory in the very same context and meaning as gravitational theory is a theory, as in how atomic theory is a theory, or how quantum mechanic theory is a theory.less

“sorry but the evidence is misleading;” Which evidence, the fossils, the genetics, the embryology, paleostratigraphy? Earlier you said all the fossils were frauds, now you’ve back peddling to say they exist, but now not enough exist. How many would have to exist to make it reasonable? Talk about moving the goal posts... “I might raise an eyebrow if we had a complete transitional foss...more

“sorry but the evidence is misleading;”

Which evidence, the fossils, the genetics, the embryology, paleostratigraphy? Earlier you said all the fossils were frauds, now you’ve back peddling to say they exist, but now not enough exist. How many would have to exist to make it reasonable? Talk about moving the goal posts...

“I might raise an eyebrow if we had a complete transitional fossil record”

And what of those I showed you from the Smithsonian Institute? Or what of genetics like ERV’s and human chromosome 2 fusion, GULO, SINE’s and LINEs?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

“you are more than welcome to believe that you descended from apes.”

Back it up a minute. I am not merely stating we’re descended from a more basal primitive ape, but I am saying we’re still apes today. Take a look at how we’re defined by our genetics, morphology; H.Sapiens is part of the Great Ape Family. 'apes' refers to a larger grouping classification for primates, we are 'apes' in the same way that all ducks are birds.

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

“An explanation that is consistent with the evidence is what is needed to prove the theory of evolution”

But science theories aren’t ever ‘proved’, they don’t work that way. There is plenty of evidence in fossils to suggest the relationship of many life forms not to mention humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Genus_Homoless

Kathy, “Why in the world would I want to believe in the supposed absolute truths by men” I dunno, maybe it would have something to do with the fruits of science, I mean for instance many of them which you’re taking of advantage of right now? “who cannot even resolve all the wickedness of humanity & the world” Well, to be sure we haven’t resolved all the wickedness, but to s...more

Kathy,

“Why in the world would I want to believe in the supposed absolute truths by men”

I dunno, maybe it would have something to do with the fruits of science, I mean for instance many of them which you’re taking of advantage of right now?

“who cannot even resolve all the wickedness of humanity & the world”

Well, to be sure we haven’t resolved all the wickedness, but to suggest that our quality of life isn’t better than those only a few hundred years ago is at variance with reality. Science is responsible for many of the things that you take advantage of and don’t even think about.less

believer, “that's something you need to take up with those scientists” I will take it up with them as soon you’ve shown those of AIG, ICR and the like are actually practicing methodological naturalism (science) & not mere apologetic. “same scientists that Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate” Well, I am not Dawkins' so I cannot speak as to when or whom he’s canceled debates ...more

believer,

“that's something you need to take up with those scientists”

I will take it up with them as soon you’ve shown those of AIG, ICR and the like are actually practicing methodological naturalism (science) & not mere apologetic.

“same scientists that Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate”

Well, I am not Dawkins' so I cannot speak as to when or whom he’s canceled debates with. I’ve seen some of his debates & you’d have to me a little more specific on who’s he’s canceled with. But Believer, if your idea of science accuracy is equated with who wins a debate, then no wonder you don’t get it. Science knowledge isn’t gained by debates. Debates don’t establish truth, what matters is who has established more empirically tested data and who can explain reality more accurately. Science wins over creationism hands down there.less

believer, “if your empirical evidence is a result of faulty thinking” And what if it’s not, then what? Is there any amount of evidence that could ever convince you that indeed the earth is old as science suggests? Or I am wrong to understand your close-mindedness? What is your evidence that water ages rocks again? Like I said, make it up as you go. Here is another logical premise fo...more

believer,

“if your empirical evidence is a result of faulty thinking”

And what if it’s not, then what? Is there any amount of evidence that could ever convince you that indeed the earth is old as science suggests? Or I am wrong to understand your close-mindedness?

What is your evidence that water ages rocks again? Like I said, make it up as you go. Here is another logical premise for ya believer, very simple too. ‘Positive claims require positive evidence.’ If a claim is made without evidence, there is really no rational reason to accept it, let alone accept it on face value as a matter of faith.

Keep in mind believer that it is you who declare circular reasoning to A-OK when it comes to the bible, not me, so if any ‘faulty thinking’ is occurring it’s from those who adopt logical fallacies. I am not the one saying we cannot learn from nature by virtue of adhering to the rigorous methodology of naturalism, you are. I have all the fruits of science, what are the fruits of creationism?less

Hawk, “The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable” It might not be directly observedable, but that doesn’t mean we cannot gather empirical evidence which is consistent and testable to understand what occurred in the past. This is done in geology and astronomy to name a few. We can, in the same way CSI investigators collect evidence from a crime scene to d...more

Hawk,

“The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable”

It might not be directly observedable, but that doesn’t mean we cannot gather empirical evidence which is consistent and testable to understand what occurred in the past. This is done in geology and astronomy to name a few. We can, in the same way CSI investigators collect evidence from a crime scene to determine who the killer is, determine other past events based on gathering and testing empirical data. We need not directly witness an event to know it occurred, unless you’re saying evidence from a crime scene cannot convict a murdered no one actually saw occur.

There are plenty of tests done in labs which are repeatable where bioengineers learn about the changes in genes which translate to changes in embryonic development which lead to new morphological features and new phenotypes. Take a look at Stickleback fish, great example of evolution in the wild and in the lab being studied for development.

Evolution certainly is falsifiable. A single instance of finding rabbits in the Cambrian would kill it about spot on.

We’ve never seen a single life form, fully formed or otherwise, pop out of no where, so yeah that sort of creation, along the lines of spontaneous generation, was long falsified. Macro evolution is just species to species evolution, & that is & has been observed. If you’re going to say that we’ve never seen a primitive ape turn into a modern human, well yes quite right we haven’t, but then again no one has even ‘seen’ a mountain form, or other geological formations as a result of tectonic plate movement. Yet we know, with quite certainty the cause as all the current evidence around. They’re understood as a result of the known current existing processes and fit quite well.

“Perhaps you now are able to test and falsify how non-life became life?”

I am not a geochemist, so I wouldn’t be doing it. The first replicators we would be hard pressed to even call ‘alive’, but there are some ideas on how it occurred, but nothing as solid as evolutionary theory. Still, that we do not understand fully how life started does not mean we cannot know if life has changed over time, they are different questions.

And Flew still rejects your judeo-christian god…

“Testing for information from an intelligent cause can be done in both cases as well”

Ok Hawk, then you tell me, since you’re proposing an intelligent agent built RNA and then a billion years later DNA, how it build them? What processes & mechanisms this designed used? If you cannot tell with any level of probability or certainty what mechanisms this agent used, then how can you even conclude a designer did it?less