got2k9s
The Fly
Scientists believe in the possibility of their hypotheses, or else there would be nothing to do.Irvine511 said:no, science expects others to LEARN it.
it is not about belief.
Scientists believe in the possibility of their hypotheses, or else there would be nothing to do.Irvine511 said:no, science expects others to LEARN it.
it is not about belief.
deep said:What ID supporters really are concerned about is:
that God created man in his image.
Are you (supporters) honest enough to admit this?
nbcrusader said:
Is ignoring the holes or filling with unprovable theories just as anti-intellectual?
Especially the life from nothing aspect of evolution.
Create a single living cell in a lab and have a better argument.
got2k9s said:
IT OFFENDS the scientific community to even consider that a supernatural being exists, because it is so comfortable to rest in ones belief of superiority.
nbcrusader said:
I don't see that at the core of ID
got2k9s said:
Oh, you're not being rude? Continually telling me to go back and learn this or that . . . or 'understand the argument before I criticize,' etc. You certainly are treating me like you think I am stupid. But perhaps you can't help it, as that's obviously an extension of your elitism.
I am not failing to understand the terms of the debate - - I understand them perfectly.
What I am trying to say, and am getting TIRED of saying, is that everyone ignoring the elephant in the room is idiotic. It is a FEAR OF RELIGION in the school system that drives the "anti-ID" side of the debate just as much as you all say that RELIGION drives the "pro-ID" debate.
IT OFFENDS the scientific community to even consider that a supernatural being exists, because it is so comfortable to rest in ones belief of superiority.
BAH!
So, stop trying to point me in the direction of 'education' or 'intellect' and step down off that high horse.
A_Wanderer said:Earth being spherical, thats a scientific theory and that could technically be disproven
You are right, scientific theories never become the absolute truth, that is because they are not religion. They are tweaked and modified to explain what is observed,
(for instance why are there drone bees? what evolutionary purpose is for these insects to aid the colony? They themselves dont get to breed so what leads to the evolution of sterile animals? - the answer turns out to be the degree of relatedness between the drones and the queen and the breeding males, the drones by enabling the sucess of that breeding are actually ensuring that their common genetic material gets passed down,
This is moot anyhow because ID would not disprove evolution, ID is adressing the first life forms. In that it cannot provide the evidence, using the religious minded canard of "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"
Lets put the formation of the first life forms in context. We are talking about the entire surface area of the planet, and quite possibly volume at depth as the place of reaction. There is a highly reducing atmosphere, a planet giving off large ammounts of gas through volcanism and impacts from meteorites. There are innumerable places and permutations of reactions that could take place at any given moment in time. Now take this situation and spend one billion years allowing chemical reactions to take place. Is it not plausible that at least once a molecule was formed that could replicate on its own and have some basic form of metabolic process? It is no doubt highly unlikely, but thats the beauty of probability, if we have a near infinite ammount of tries the probability is that it is going to occur.nbcrusader said:
Is ignoring the holes or filling with unprovable theories just as anti-intellectual?
Especially the life from nothing aspect of evolution.
Create a single living cell in a lab and have a better argument.
Irvine511 said:it is not calling you stupid to say that you are uninformed.
but you seem to want to feel persecuted, so i'll leave you to it.
deep said:The last number I heard was that something like well over 50% of scientists believe in God
Devise a proof of God?Because even with "God's existence" as a theory, must an attempt to prove it take place before it's decided, in the scientific community, that it's UNPROVABLE?
Proof the earth is round, use measurements of shadows at the same time and measure the differences.Why do you say "technically?"
It either can or can't be disproven, right?
got2k9s said:
If they can believe in God without proof,
why not believe in Creationism/ID without it?
That is the difference between faith and science. Scientists are human beings too and as such they have the same potential to believe. They can also distinguish between faith and logic, divine and material, and not bring their personal faith in God to the table when dealing with observation and investigation of the world.got2k9s said:
If they can believe in God without proof, why not believe in Creationism/ID without it?
A_Wanderer said:If somebody tells me that my life is out of order because of my Chi
A_Wanderer said:Likewise for most alternative medicines and scams. Quakery florishes because of peoples ignorance.
A_Wanderer said:Lets put the formation of the first life forms in context. We are talking about the entire surface area of the planet, and quite possibly volume at depth as the place of reaction. There is a highly reducing atmosphere, a planet giving off large ammounts of gas through volcanism and impacts from meteorites. There are innumerable places and permutations of reactions that could take place at any given moment in time. Now take this situation and spend one billion years allowing chemical reactions to take place. Is it not plausible that at least once a molecule was formed that could replicate on its own and have some basic form of metabolic process? It is no doubt highly unlikely, but thats the beauty of probability, if we have a near infinite ammount of tries the probability is that it is going to occur.
We have known from the Miller experiment in the 1950's that the basic amino acids can be formed in these conditions, subsequently we have found that clays can aid in the formation of strands of these. We can form "cells" abiotically under similar conditions.
An important molecular clue about the origin of life comes from common attributes within life - namely RNA and it's role in tranfering information. I recomend looking up RNA world online for some information about a few competing ideas in the origin of life on Earth.
The "life from nothing" aspect of evolution is population pressures acting upon naturally formed and competing self-replicating molecules. Regardless of how the first life forms got here it does not disprove evolution, because population pressures still apply even to "intelligently designed" life forms.
BonosSaint said:OK, I'm curious how those proponents of ID on FYM would make it science-worthy. I don't want to be linked. Want to hear it in your own words not using the Bible as a core source, not taking it as an a priori truth for now. How would you argue ID outside of scripture? I'm assuming if you are a proponent of ID, you already know what independent scientific as opposed to philosophical arguments are applicable. I'm willing to hear you out.
BonosSaint said:OK, I'm curious how those proponents of ID on FYM would make it science-worthy. I don't want to be linked. Want to hear it in your own words not using the Bible as a core source, not taking it as an a priori truth for now. How would you argue ID outside of scripture? I'm assuming if you are a proponent of ID, you already know what independent scientific as opposed to philosophical arguments are applicable. I'm willing to hear you out.
deep said:People who support ID most likely do more harm to their belief system than good for it.
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:I feel like this is going in circles
Everything I have to say on this matter I've said on page 10 of this thread.
One thing I'd like to add though - I've gone to private, Christian schools since I was 4 years old (I'm now 21) and I can't ever remember discussing Creationism/ID in a science class....nope...I don't think so. We have, however, discussed it in great length in theology, religion, history (along with the creation stories of countless other religions and cultures), and sociology classes (in the context of how culture influences the interpretation of Scripture). I've never real felt it was necessary or important to discuss ID in my biology classes; I'd rather disect animals and leave the theology to the theology professor.
Just thought I'd make that clear b/c some of the posts in this thread are making it seem like Christians demand Creationism be part of a parochial curriculum, which in my experience is not the case. My parents spent more on my elementary and high school education than most people do on college ($7000/yr) and we'd be damned if we were only every exposed to a single creation story being passed off as science. I'm grateful for the sacrifices my parents made for my pre-college education and I think, if anything, it's taught me to be more open-minded, rather than close-minded to anything that isn't mainstream Christian thought.
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
Please explain....
How could believing in ID harm a belief system that is based on the supreme authority of God?
Or am I mistunderstanding and you're referring to a more specific situation where Christians that use this belief in science?
indra said:
I had a very similar experience. I went to Catholic high school, a Catholic college, then transferred to a Quaker college (I was not then, and am not now, any of those religions -- the schools were simply better than the area public ones, which quite frankly sucked. The family, ie., my dad -- who was the only one who gave a shit about that stuff -- was Methodist.) In those schools, science was taught in science classes, religious elements were discussed in religion/theology, philosophy, history, literature, etc., classes.
I don't get why people want ID taught in science classes public schools when it isn't even taught there in all religious schools.