What Religion Does to Rational Thought.
Sep 20, 2018 16:30:14 #
PeterS wrote:
In 2008 GOP presidential candidates were asked if ... (show quote)
Well Peter, we are talking about politicians, lol it's a given
Sep 20, 2018 16:30:29 #
PeterS wrote:
What you are missing Blade is that until there is another scientific theory to surpass evolution then it is going to stand just as Newtonian physics stood until Einstein surpassed him. You can debunk all you like but until you are able to introduce a new scientific theory Darwins theory is going to stand completely untouched.
Completely untouched my ass. Only in the minds of fools does it stand.
Fantastically Wrong: What Darwin Really Screwed Up About Evolution
Charles Darwin Doubts about His Theory
New Geology: Scientific evidence against evolution - the clash between theory and reality
This work is very long and detailed, it covers a hell of lot of ground.
Sep 20, 2018 16:52:58 #
PeterS wrote:
There ya go again. Your incessant accusations that Christians are irrational and thrive on logical fallacies is in itself irrational and logically fallacious. In your feeble mind, everything you disagree with, everything you oppose, everything you reject, everything you deny, everything you disbelieve is irrational and is automatically tossed into your basket of logical fallacies. Why do you think that developing a sense of right ... (show quote)
Argumentum ad ignorantiam is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proven false. In this instance this fallacy can be applied both ways. You argue the nonexistence of God is true because no one, at least in your mind, has proven it false. The believer argues the existence of God is true because no one has proven it false. Where does this leave us? A stalemate. An impasse. A futile and totally useless argument. A waste of time.
Nik's posting of a completely bogus theory about life emerging from rocks and minerals is most assuredly an irrational and poorly conceived scientific hypothesis. There is not a hint of logic, reason or critical thought anywhere in that idea. I felt compelled to point that out. It is science fiction.
Sep 20, 2018 16:57:23 #
Navysnipe wrote:
How was it disproven? Perhaps you meant to write D... (show quote)
So give us the parts of Creationism that have been proven! If you are going to mock Darwinism then give us the scientific proof behind Creationism that disproves the theory!
Sep 20, 2018 17:17:41 #
Morgan wrote:
Well Peter, we are talking about politicians, lol it's a given
That point was made that they were just placating their mindless supporters. The problem is that they set the standard for the rest of the nation--including influencing the standards for education. It's one thing to screw up the lives of their children but to allow them to screw up the lives of all of our children is completely unacceptable...
Sep 20, 2018 17:47:43 #
PeterS wrote:
That point was made that they were just placating their mindless supporters. The problem is that they set the standard for the rest of the nation--including influencing the standards for education. It's one thing to screw up the lives of their children but to allow them to screw up the lives of all of our children is completely unacceptable...
Absolutely, which is why when Trump speaks at schools I cringe.
Sep 20, 2018 18:35:28 #
Morgan wrote:
Absolutely, which is why when Trump speaks at schools I cringe.
Look, if they want evolution taught in their Sunday Schools and religious institutions then we can work something out. Otherwise, they need to keep Church and State completely separate!
Sep 20, 2018 18:37:51 #
PeterS wrote:
So give us the parts of Creationism that have been proven! If you are going to mock Darwinism then give us the scientific proof behind Creationism that disproves the theory!
Easy, you need faith to support creationism...
unless aliens colonized humans, that works scientifically, it's a bit harsh on the theory of god though.
Sep 20, 2018 18:39:03 #
PeterS wrote:
Look, if they want evolution taught in their Sunday Schools and religious institutions then we can work something out. Otherwise, they need to keep Church and State completely separate!
100% separate, if you can't make a point legally without the bible lose it.
Sep 20, 2018 19:50:16 #
padremike
Loc: Phenix City, Al
PeterS wrote:
Look, if they want evolution taught in their Sunday Schools and religious institutions then we can work something out. Otherwise, they need to keep Church and State completely separate!
I believe you've got it backwards. It's the State that is required to keep its rump scratching fingers out of the Church.
Sep 20, 2018 21:48:56 #
padremike wrote:
I believe you've got it backwards. It's the State that is required to keep its rump scratching fingers out of the Church.
So long as Chruch doesn't infringe on the rights of individuals the states rump scratching fingers wouldn't care what the Church did.
Sep 20, 2018 22:35:40 #
PeterS wrote:
So give us the parts of Creationism that have been proven! If you are going to mock Darwinism then give us the scientific proof behind Creationism that disproves the theory!
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design
Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information”
BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN
INTRODUCTION
While intelligent design (ID) research is a newscientific field, recent years have been a period of encouraging growth, producing a strong record of peer-reviewed scientific publications.
In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publications continue to appear. As of 2015, the peer-reviewed scientific publication count had reached 90. Many of these papers are recent, published since 2004, when Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There are multiple hubs of ID-related research.
Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is “developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology. ”Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature.
Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming “points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.
”
Other pro-ID scientists around the world are publishing peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific papers. These include biologist Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig who recently retired from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe.
Yes, Intelligent Design Is Detectable by Science
Time: Why Science Does Not Disprove God
But has modern science, from the beginning of the 20th century, proved that there is no God, as some commentators now claim? Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang. Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.
But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the universe: Why is our universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life? This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe that it will never find a scientific solution. For the deeper we delve into the mysteries of physics and cosmology, the more the universe appears to be intricate and incredibly complex. To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden “wisdom,” or structure, or knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature. And the situation becomes much more daunting as we expand our view to the entire cosmos.
Sep 20, 2018 23:56:13 #
padremike
Loc: Phenix City, Al
PeterS wrote:
So long as Chruch doesn't infringe on the rights of individuals the states rump scratching fingers wouldn't care what the Church did.
Peter, it does not actually cost anything ($$) to "pay attention." Your statement is intentional biased ignorance.
Sep 21, 2018 02:24:01 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
url=https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/ Pee... (show quote)
When did science start dealing with the supernatural or with logical fallacies for that matter which begs the question of just who were the peers who reviewed the papers?
And if we have a god then what is the purpose of the universe? I mean after all, if there is a god than all that is necessary for life to exist as it does today is a planet, a moon, a sun, and a god to fill in all the details. You guys keep talking about purpose well with a god you guys rendered the universe completely without any. I mean it's pretty but when you have a god the supernova that created the elements that make up all life on this and every planet is unnecessary. I mean god could wiggle his nose or simply make a model out of clay and it certainly would be just as good.
And of course if there was no universe then god could have made the earth just 6,000 years old and the numbers would work just fine. No need to become a master at defining the meaning of the Greek version of the old testament though if you did I'm willing to wager that's what the scripture meant all along.
And this from Nature on your peer review article by
Critics of evolution score publishing success
A new front has opened up in the battle between scientists and advocates of intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution and is regarded by its critics as another term for creationism.
A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue. The paper appeared in a low-impact journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. But critics say that it could still be used by advocates of intelligent design to get the subject on to US school curricula (see Nature 416, 250; 2002).
The article comes from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, a leading promoter of the theory. In the article, senior fellow Stephen Meyer uses information theory and other techniques to argue that the complexity of living organisms cannot be explained by darwinian evolution (S. C. Meyer Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 117, 213–239; 2004).
Many of Meyer's arguments have already been aired by advocates of intelligent design, but critics say that publication will be used to back up claims that the theory is scientifically valid.
Kenneth Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who has argued against Meyer in public debates, does not doubt that this will happen. “They've tried very hard to get material into peer-reviewed journals.”
Richard Sternberg, a taxonomist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information in Bethesda, Maryland, was editor of the journal publishing the Meyer paper when it was reviewed and accepted. Sternberg is also on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, which publishes papers on “scientific research in creation biology”. He says the paper was seen and approved by three well-qualified referees.
Meyer's article has attracted a lengthy rebuttal on The Panda's Thumb, a website devoted to evolutionary theory. But Miller says that, despite criticism of the journal, versions of the theory will find their way into the scientific literature at some point. Arguments for it can be written, he says, as reappraisals of certain aspects of evolution rather than outright rejection. “Peer review isn't a guarantee of accuracy,” he adds. “That is especially true of review articles.”
Here is the link to the article debunking Myers "Scientifically Reviewed" article. Read it or don't, I really don't care, https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers-hopeless-1.html but rest assured that for every article you guys manage to get published they will be thoroughly reviewed indeed.
Now here's one of two problems you have. Intelligent Design implies that there is a supernatural being out there directing how all the widgets and gidgets and gadgets are supposed to align. Now science is only equipped to deal with the natural world--there is no amount of inference that can prove that a god does or doesn't exist. For that you need faith and if you have none then you really are shit out of luck.
Now your second problem is that you are trying to disprove evolution through the creation of "Intelligent Design." Do you think Einstein sit there and said I don't believe in Newtonian physics so I'm going to invent a new theory for gravity to disprove the sorry old goat? NO! The nature of science is to prove something not disprove something. Forget about evolution. If ID is the golden ticket then it will prove itself through solid scientific theories proofs. But instead, you sit there and say evolution threatens creationism so we have to come up with something to debunk evolution that we can protect or view of the flat earth. The only purpose behind ID is to protect your view of the world even though there are any number of theists who are perfectly happy with evolution and the holy bible. That you guys can't come to term with science is your weakness and you really should stop trying to project it on everyone else simply because you can't stand having your CC's unchanging world threatened...
Sep 21, 2018 02:50:50 #
Bad Bob
Loc: Virginia
padremike wrote:
I believe you've got it backwards. It's the State that is required to keep its rump scratching fingers out of the Church.
All those rump scratching Priest Pedofliers would like that.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.