Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Shalom
Wayne Jude:
On vaction will get back to you later ruby.
Rubystars:
I don't oppose "intelligent design" per se, as I believe that G-d did design and create the universe, but I do oppose the ID movement, as perpetuated by those who seek to have it included in school curricula.
I'm an evolutionist and a Christian. I believe that G-d created the laws of the universe and then guided them to form the stars, planets, and life. I've spoken to others who believe the same way.
You must remember however that science is based on methodological naturalism. It doesn't preclude you from having spiritual beliefs, but if you're a true scientist then you look to nature for explanations to natural phenomena.
You've gotten that confused with philosophical naturalism.
Rubystars:
--- Quote from: DanBenNoah on April 10, 2008, 06:43:53 PM ---Scientists that believe in intelligent design aren't necessarily part of this "movement" that you speak of, and they do use only natural means to arrive at their conclusions. If DNA and other evidence shows that the evolutionary theory has too many gaps and that there is no way all life could have evolved from bacteria on its own, then it is not far fetched to say that there could have been an intelligent designer. It is simply where the facts lead.
--- End quote ---
The facts don't lead to an outside designer. It is compatible to hold a belief in a designer or creator, but the facts do not necessarily lead to that.
--- Quote ---It actually takes more faith to believe in random chance resulting in the universe as we know it.
--- End quote ---
None of the natural processes work by "random chance".
--- Quote ---So if it's a tossup between the two, it's actually Intelligent Design that would be the most reasonable to teach in schools because it doesn't require as much faith as doctrines of the Darwiniacs.
--- End quote ---
Science never requires faith. Faith is something people partake of outside of science.
--- Quote ---Science can be easily manipulated as we have seen with the global warming controversy, and I would beware of believing something just because it's what the establishment believes.
--- End quote ---
Well I believe that the global warming issue has been used in a bad way
1. To distract us from the plots of globalists
2. To cause a general sense of fear and helplessness which can be manipulated
3. To place more regulations and drive up the costs of home-produced products while giving China (the biggest polluter) a pass.
However, global warming is a real phenomena, and it can have very real consquences. Inuit can no longer follow their traditional knowledge because of the changing Northern climate. Glaciers measured year to year have noticeably shrunk. Some animal species that need warmer temperatures have changed their home ranges northward a bit where they couldn't survive before.
While I disagree with the agenda in the way that global warming is being used as a political tool, it'd be silly to dismiss global warming itself.
--- Quote ---Years ago, all scientists were in agreement that the universe had always existed, and now they think it had a beginning.
--- End quote ---
Steady state wasn't the only model at any time, but there may have been a time when it seemed to best explain the available evidence. As more evidence came in from more observations, the theories were revised to accommodate that evidence. If there were never anything new to discover, then we could stop doing experiments right now. The fact that theories change is NOT a count against science. It's a count in its favor.
--- Quote ---Astrology used to be a science too. So I'm not personally going to jump on the bandwagon of the latest scientific trend in history, and I'm sorry to see that scientists who feel the same way are persecuted, but glad that this movie is exposing it.
--- End quote ---
Well Evolution's been around for quite a while now with mountains of converging evidence in its favor. To me rejecting the basic ideas of evolution is like being a geocentrist or a flat earther who says they don't wan't to accept the new fangled heliocentric idea of the solar system.
Rubystars:
--- Quote ---That's like saying if I see an ice sculpture of Hitler near the mosque at the North Pole, there is no proof that it was made by a human. The idea of humans carving the sculpture is compatible with that assumption, but hey, it could have automatically appeared on its own. The facts lie closer to the idea that there is a designer than the idea that there's not one.
--- End quote ---
There's a mosque at the North Pole? Santa's a Muslim? Do the elves have prayer rugs? How does he reconcile celebrating Christmas with his Muslim faith?
Seriously though, what in the natural world are you saying is obviously "designed"? I can't think of one thing that couldn't have arisen through natural processes (whether guided or not).
--- Quote ---The facts lie closer to the idea that there is a designer than the idea that there's not one.
--- End quote ---
Be more specific please.
--- Quote ---Which is why evolution is not plausible. If you have a bunch of formless matter to begin with and eventually you have thriving ecosystems and intelligent life, throwing in billions of years doesn't take away the chance factor.
--- End quote ---
As I said before, most of the natural processes that formed the earth and life etc. don't work by "random chance".
--- Quote ---No "natural process" can account for the change.
--- End quote ---
Be more specific. What specific natural process could not account for what specific thing we can observe in nature?
--- Quote ---And without randomness, life couldn't have begun according to the evolutionary model.
--- End quote ---
Are you talking about evolution (the origin of species) or abiogenesis (the origin of life)? They're two completely separate topics in science.
--- Quote ---The conditions had to be just perfect. Otherwise, life would be spontaneously created all the time, yet all life comes from other life.
--- End quote ---
Well, if another form of life did come about (another abiogenesis event) it would probably be destroyed by the life that's already here. That, and conditions just aren't what they were in the Archean era when life first appeared.
--- Quote ---Evolutionists are the exact same as any religion, complete with their priests and loyal followers who will hear nothing of another idea.
--- End quote ---
Science has nothing to do with religion, and that's what bothers the very religious who fail to understand the need for methodological naturalism.
--- Quote ---If I go up to a random atheist evolutionist (you can usually tell who they are by the body piercings) and tell them to scientifically prove radiocarbon dating to me, they won't be able to do it. They'll just reassure me that someone smarter than them, whom they have put their faith in, can explain it.
--- End quote ---
If I go up to the random religious Christian or Jewish creationist, do you think they'd be able to tell you how carbon dating worked or even what it is good for?
--- Quote ---And even evolution scientists, as the movie shows, refer to their beliefs as a "doctrine". Science may not require faith, but Darwinism sure does.
--- End quote ---
The beauty of the scientific method it's based on observations and measurements and evidence. That's it. You can, of course, have faith on your own. Science is simply neutral on that matter.
--- Quote ---That's just what opponents of the global warming "movement" say. So now you are personally able to defy the establishment and decide that there's an "agenda" involved? But it is impossible for evolutionists to have an agenda too? Who are you to pick and choose which establishment science to believe, and which "movement" is not questionable and which is? Why not just take all theories with a grain of salt?
--- End quote ---
Actually I was agreeing with the established science, simply disagreeing with the ways it's been used as a political tool. Evolution is factual. That fact can be used for good things and for bad things, but nevertheless it's a fact.
As for taking things with a grain of salt, that's how theories are set up. If you come up with the right evidence you can falsify any theory.
For example, let's say you found a fossil of a kangaroo in precambrian strata, and it was found to be a legitimate fossil and not a forgery. That would be strong evidence against evolution. Another piece of evidence that would completely invalidate evolution would be if a bird were to lay an egg and a kitten were to hatch out. Evolution predicts that Kangaroos will be found in a much later era, and it predicts that creatures will have similar genetics to their parents each generation.
--- Quote ---Long before steady-state theory, in the ancient world, the scientists of the day believed in an infinite universe. This eventually changed to the big bang theory in modern times, and then the steady state theory came about, then it was rejected, and so on.
--- End quote ---
The Big Bang theory actually is a very good theory when it comes to theology because it allows the universe to have a beginning. Most modern theories are revisions of that one. Refinements will always be made in science as new evidence comes in.
Science attempts to approach the truth as closely as possible, not find absolutes. Absolutes are for religion. Science has to leave the door open for future evidence.
--- Quote ---And what we are dealing with now is more observations coming in that cast doubt on evolution. The discovery of DNA, something Darwin didn't know about, makes the random combination of amino acids to form even the simplest life forms very unlikely.
--- End quote ---
There are other nucleotides beside DNA and beside RNA that are much simpler, that could have come first. Genetic material could have evolved first and cells later, from simple precursors which could have included a lot of different things. Abiogenesis research is a rich field of discovery right now. Cells are survival machines for the nuclear material inside of them.
--- Quote ---So this is a true example of evidence coming in from new observations, and the only ones willing to revise the prevailing theories to accommodate the evidence are the intelligent design crowd. So these are the people who are in favor of science, not the blind Darwiniac sheep.
--- End quote ---
What new evidence has come along that invalidates evolution? Be specific please.
--- Quote ---What's "quite awhile" within the context of history? It's really only been around for the last century or 2, when people weren't familiar with the implausibility of many of its claims.
--- End quote ---
Other theories that few people dispute have been around for a similar period of time:
Heliocentric theory
The Theory of Gravitation
The Cell Theory
Nuclear Theory
Why are you not taking these on?
--- Quote ---Also there have been evolutionists that have staged hoaxes in order to make it look like humans came from apes, etc. This shows that there's an element on a different level than science involved, and a scientist shouldn't have to appeal to these tactics to get their point across. At some point in time I'm confident that there will be more independence and honesty within the scientific community, and it will be the evolutionists who will be filed into the dust bin of history in the same category as geocentrists and flat earthers, and then people will have to find some other reason not to believe in G-d and intimidate people into blindly accepting their assertions under pain of ridicule.
--- End quote ---
The "hoaxes" had to do with competition between them rather than a real attempt to swindle the public, and furthermore, these "hoaxes" were exposed by fellow scientists, not creationists.
Also, you might want to see how many hoaxes fellows like Carl Baugh and Kent Hovind have perpetrated over the years.
Rubystars:
--- Quote ---Good grief, is Richard Dawkins trolling on our forum? That's funny, I can't think of one thing that could have arisen from nothing. And it's pretty despicable that a so-called believer in G-d could indicate that the universe could possibly form itself on its own. I think you're an atheist in drag.
--- End quote ---
I have a personal belief in God and that God used natural processes (that he created) to form the universe and life. What I don't claim is that science can demonstrate God's presence. It's my opinion that science can't do that. It's a matter of faith, not science, to believe in God.
Also, evolution does not claim that everything "Came from nothing". Why do you think it claims that? Where did you learn about evolution? I could show you some links that might help you know what it is you're actually fighting against and then maybe you can decide whether you still want to.
Since God is supernatural, and not measurable, the burden of proof is on believers. The one making an exceptional claim is the one who has the burden of proof.
What if I came up to you and said "I saw a green unicorn! It's in a barn just outside of town! I saw it eating hay!" Would you expect the burden of proof to be on me, or on you? How would you feel if you said "I don't believe you, prove it" and I said "Nuh uh, you can't prove I didn't see it, prove I didn't see it or I win!"
In my opinion God can't be proven any more than the green unicorn can, but of course as believers we know that He is very real. It's a matter of faith.
--- Quote ---How much more specific could I be? I said NO natural process can account for the change from nothing into something, let alone something complex
--- End quote ---
Evolution doesn't claim that anything changed "from nothing into something". I was wondering what specific claim of evolution (that it actually makes) that you don't agree with.
Most people who are unhappy with evolution and evolutionists feel that way because they don't understand what evolution actually says and believe it says all kinds of horrible things instead.
--- Quote ---Those ideas are 2 sides of the same coin. How life evolved is directly tied to how it began. And like I said, they both involve randomness.
--- End quote ---
It can be confusing because in creationism, both happened at the same time. In science however, they're separate subjects.
If you want to talk about it from a scientific perspective then you need to understand the difference between abiogenesis and biological evolution. Abiogenesis is the origin of life from chemical precursors, and biological evolution is basically how different types of life came about after the first life was here.
--- Quote ---Nice try, but that just proves 2 of my points. One, that the conditions had to be just perfect for life to spontaneously occur, and two that evolutionists (which are delusioned enough to believe in abiogenesis) depend on random chance.
--- End quote ---
There's an analogy that pretty much blows away that "perfect conditions" stuff.
Imagine if a puddle of water were to become sentient. It might wonder why the hole it's in fits its shape just perfectly. "Wow" it thinks to itself, "This hole fits me just right! It's the exact shape that I am!" The point of this is that life could have formed in another way, under other conditions. Life like us may need very specific conditions to form or to survive, but who is to say we're the only possible form of life? If life does form, then the conditions were obviously "just right" for it to form, no matter what kind of life it was.
Natural processes such as abiogenesis and evolution are actually selective processes, not "random chance". Where did you read that they were based on random chance? That's not true at all.
If you put rocks and flour into a sieve, is it "random chance" that the flour goes through and the rocks stay in the sieve? No, and natural selection works the same way, as a filter; the complete opposite of "random chance".
--- Quote ---I didn't say science was a religion, I said evolutionists practice a religion. Evolution is only a pseudo-science. And another thing that religious people fail to understand is how these supposedly fact-based thinkers will continuously deny the facts when it doesn't support their agenda.
--- End quote ---
Evolution doesn't require any faith, so how can it be a religion? Secondly, what "agenda" do evolutionists supposedly have?
--- Quote ---My point was that atheist evolutionists are following a religion and are no different from other religious practitioners, who often rely on those who know more than them to be the ones to explain what they have faith in.
--- End quote ---
The best way to overcome that is to learn as much as you can about the subject that you're interested in, especially if you want to argue against it.
--- Quote ---It's not "neutral" when scientists using simple observation and evidence who believe that there is an intelligent designer are octracized.
--- End quote ---
Many evolutionists believe in an "intelligent designer". That doesn't make them "Intelligent Design" advocates. ID is a very specific movement within the creationist community that is more about forcing creationism under camoflauge into public schools than it is about talking about the compatibility of theism with science. If it were just the latter, I'd feel differently about the ID movement.
--- Quote ---The establishment science on global warming says that climate change is due to human involvement, but the truth is that climate has changed many times in the earth's history and this is just another cycle.
--- End quote ---
I don't think they know what percentage of it is due to human activity, but it would be rather silly not to say some of it is due to that. What irritates me is how the liberals will use that to try to put all kinds of restrictions on Americans when China is the big global warming culprit.
--- Quote ---The scientists who agree with the latter are ostracized by the establishment.
--- End quote ---
If they are right then they should do more studies and publish them in respected journals to back up their claims. Peer review is a necessary part of the modern scientific method. If they can't convince other scientists there's probably a good reason for it.
--- Quote ---This is the same scenario as evolution. The establishment says that life came about by chance under perfect conditions that they can't reproduce, and by random mutations it gradually developed into what it is today,
--- End quote ---
Do you really think that's what it says?
--- Quote ---but the truth is that there was a designer (G-d) who made all things. Scientists who believe in the latter are ostracized.
--- End quote ---
God-believing scientists are not ostracized simply for being theists. Theism and Atheism are philosophical choices, based on personal beliefs or persuasions. Science does not confirm or condemn either philosophy.
Someone going around screaming that the earth is 6000 years old probably won't be given the time of day though.
--- Quote ---They are both used as political tools, because the evolutionist establishment tries to keep intelligent design proponents from being heard, and also keep it out of the classrooms.
--- End quote ---
It doesn't belong in science classrooms because it's not science.
--- Quote --- Shouldn't kids be able to hear what intelligent design scientists have to say too?
--- End quote ---
So you're going to let every hare-brained idea into every class without any real evidence? What's next? The Norse mythological creation story in science class? Holocaust-deniers in history class? There's something called a standard of evidence, and peer review, and the "ID" movement has failed on both counts.
--- Quote ---So therefore, you oppose the global warming politics, but you support the evolutionist politics. I'm just saying, why pick and choose?
--- End quote ---
I accept both as scientifically valid theories, and I expect both to be taught about in science class.
I don't always like the way evolution has been used politically either though. It just seems like global warming is being used more by liberals right now to try to take rights away from American companies.
--- Quote ---Scientists who believe in abiogenesis have tried and failed to produce RNA and cells from scratch.
--- End quote ---
There are other nucleotides that are more simple than RNA.
--- Quote ---The reason is because abiogenesis didn't happen--they were created by an Intelligent Designer.
--- End quote ---
Is there any reason that God couldn't have guided a chemical process to create the first life?
--- Quote ---"Abiogenesis is a rich field of discovery" basically just means it's a crock that can't be proven. It's about as much of a rich field of discovery as alchemy.
--- End quote ---
Alchemy isolated several elements and actually came up with a lot of the basis of modern chemistry. Newton, one of the greatest scientists in history, was an alchemist.
Some of the things that alchemists tried to do weren't scientifically valid but the only way they could find out was to try, and test their methods. Over time, of course, knowledge progressed and modern chemistry emerged.
--- Quote --- Also, why do you think I care about those other 2 people you mentioned?
--- End quote ---
They're big names within the creationist community and bring up many of the "points" that you bring up, so I thought maybe you had listened to them before.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version