"Intelligent" Design

[swansont]

Regardless of the context of the book, the quote by this scientifically prestigious author was quite emphatically clear that as for the fossil record, the "tree," in Gould's view consists of branchless "nibs," and a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions being used by evolutionists to make the case for it.

 

And I gave you a context for that view.

 

unsubstantiated? Hardly.

[buzsaw]

And I gave you a context for that view.

 

unsubstantiated? Hardly.

 

You gave a context from which my quote came? I must've missed it. Which post did you give it? What exactly in the context from which the quote came diminishes from the message of the quote, relative to my point?

[buzsaw]

i wan't talking about the context of the book, I was talking about the quote.

Can you explain more clearly, exactly what in the quote or quote context it is that I am miss-interpreting?

To continue your sentence for you: ",because secularist scientists are all part of a global conspiracy to prop up a theory that they know to be false to promote their godless philosophies." That about right?

Wrong! My contention has always been that secularist scientists have been indoctrinated on their theories throughout their education from primary grades on up. There is no deliberate conspiracy. They are sincere in what they practice and believe. Since no alternative ID viewpoint has been allowed as consideration in any phase of their education, they have simply not considered another viewpoint, for the most part. ID special creationist scientists often interpret what is observed differently than the more secularist ones do, after investigating certain aspects of the alternative view. Many ID scientists, previous to becoming such, had a more secularist viewpoint on the interpretaion of what is observed. Henry Morris, founder of ICR is one example.

[swansont]

You gave a context from which my quote came? I must've missed it. Which post did you give it? What exactly in the context from which the quote came diminishes from the message of the quote, relative to my point?

 

Gould = Punctuated Equilibria

[Hellbender]

Wrong! My contention has always been that secularist scientists have been indoctrinated on their theories throughout their education from primary grades on up.

Why is this you think?

There is no deliberate conspiracy. They are sincere in what they practice and believe. Since no alternative ID viewpoint has been allowed as consideration in any phase of their education' date=' they have simply not considered another viewpoint, for the most part.[/quote']

Why is this you think?

ID special creationist scientists often interpret what is observed differently than the more secularist ones do, after investigating certain aspects of the alternative view.

Yeah, a real scientist will usually ponder what the observation can tell them. Your "special creation scientists" will just say "god did it."

Many ID scientists, previous to becoming such, had a more secularist viewpoint on the interpretaion of what is observed. Henry Morris, founder of ICR is one example.

Try to replace "secularist" in your head as "objective scientific".

[buzsaw]

Why is this you think?

 

Why is this you think?

 

Why? Because that's all they know. Why is it all they know? Because it's all they've been exposed to and taught throughout their youth. A lot of it is also because their creationist pastors and mentors are ignorant of the subject and unable to apprise them on alternative thought in this regard.

 

Yeah' date=' a real scientist will usually ponder what the observation can tell them. Your "special creation scientists" will just say "god did it."[/quote']

 

Not so. Morris's ICR, for example has a good video out on the Grand Canyon and the alternative interpretation of the strata and all that is observed there. There is also a video out on Mt St Hellens and how a canyon can be created in a very short time. There's other stuff out there by creationists explaining alternative interpretations of what is observed relative to how it came to be.

 

Try to replace "secularist" in your head as "objective scientific".

 

Imo, there's objective science often being presented on both sides of the debate. This is not to say that some creationists make fools of themselves at times in their weak arguments. Both sides have them also.

[ydoaPs]

challenge: objective creationist science doesn't exist

[CPL.Luke]

a creationist has the luxury of saying that god instantly created everything, he created it over 6 days, or he's just omnipotent and created it to look like it was old to fool us simple minded humans.

 

A geologist only has to actually figure out how long it would take a geological formation to come into existance based on the forces acting on it, then they have to check that to see if it matches the age of the canyon.

[swansont]

Not so. Morris's ICR' date=' for example has a good video out on the Grand Canyon and the alternative interpretation of the strata and all that is observed there. There is also a video out on Mt St Hellens and how a canyon can be created in a very short time. There's other stuff out there by creationists explaining alternative interpretations of what is observed relative to how it came to be.

[/quote']

 

 

But that's part of the shell-game. The canyons formed on Mt St. Helens bear only a superficial resemblance to the Grand Canyon. The devil, as it were, is in the details.

[Hellbender]

A lot of it is also because their creationist pastors and mentors are ignorant of the subject and unable to apprise them on alternative thought in this regard.

Now you show your true colors. Why the hell would a high school student go to a pastor to learn science? Why do you think they teach evolution is school in the first place?

There's other stuff out there by creationists explaining alternative interpretations of what is observed relative to how it came to be.

And they explain it as? See on one side there is scientists saying that natural processes are responsible for the phenomena they observe. They learn from it, and it broadens our understanding of the world. Creationists aren't follwong the scientific method. They are looking at things and saying "oh there's god's handiwork, oh theres some more" which is subjective. Mainstream scientists don't say whether or not a god or gods are responsible for their observations. For all they know, everything you see that seems natural could be the work of the supernatural. But there is no way this can be proven, much less detected or measured; hence assumptions like these fall under the realm of metaphysics, which is not part of science.

Imo, there's objective science often being presented on both sides of the debate.

As I have stated above, this is not the case. When religious beliefs (and don't fool yourself, ID is still religion-based) try to masquerade as science, it is the paragon of subjectivity.

This is not to say that some creationists make fools of themselves at times in their weak arguments. Both sides have them also.

Which side continuously brings up the same arguments that have been refuted in books published as long as 30 years ago, or which one side often refuses to address points made by their opponents that make them uncomfortable? For that matter, which side never gets the freaking point?

[buzsaw]

a creationist has the luxury of saying that god instantly created everything, he created it over 6 days, or he's just omnipotent and created it to look like it was old to fool us simple minded humans.

 

The Biblical record doesn't say God instantly created the universe, or even our planet, for that matter. It simply says that when the heavens and the earth were created, he did it. Nor does it give the length of days one through four of Genesis one, because it says the sun, moon and and an undetermined number of stars were created on day four. One of the functions of the sun and moon were to determin the length of days seasons years, etc, so before the sun and moon were finished being created, the length of the evenings and the mornings were likely undetermined and are unknown to man. When he did create things he spent some time doing it, exerting work to do it and it all came forth from something already existing according to the record, satisfying the scientific thermodynamic laws of the universe. It says everything comes from omnipotent God who has infinite energy and exists by him. Nobody can comprehend nor explain how this works, but neither can secularist minded scientists explain everything about what they teach and believe, nor can they prove much of what they believe to be scientifically correct.

 

A geologist only has to actually figure out how long it would take a geological formation to come into existance based on the forces acting on it, then they have to check that to see if it matches the age of the canyon.

 

Yes, and if you check out how the scientists of ICR (Institute for Creation Research) you'll see that they use the geological formation of the canyon for their argument in the video which they have produced. The video is good, imo, and can be purchased from ICR. I have a copy, but it's been a while since I viewed it, so I don't remember all the details of their argument. Likely it's somewhere on their website.

[ydoaPs]

The Biblical record doesn't say God instantly created the universe, or even our planet, for that matter. It simply says that when the heavens and the earth were created, he did it. Nor does it give the length of days one through four of Genesis one, because it says the sun, moon and and an undetermined number of stars were created on day four. One of the functions of the sun and moon were to determin the length of days seasons years, etc, so before the sun and moon were finished being created, the length of the evenings and the mornings were likely undetermined and are unknown to man. When he did create things he spent some time doing it, exerting work to do it and it all came forth from something already existing according to the record, satisfying the scientific thermodynamic laws of the universe. It says everything comes from omnipotent God who has infinite energy and exists by him. Nobody can comprehend nor explain how this works, but neither can secularist minded scientists explain everything about what they teach and believe, nor can they prove much of what they believe to be scientifically correct.

exactly what he was talking about.

[buzsaw]

exactly what he was talking about.

 

Exactly? I believe you need to reread him more carefully.

[Hellbender]

I see buzsaw glossed over all the major points in my last post. What a surprise. This is my face right now . I'm as surprised as I was when OJ Simpson was acquitted. Seriously.

[buzsaw]

Now you show your true colors. Why the hell would a high school student go to a pastor to learn science? Why do you think they teach evolution is school in the first place?

 

Often in churches I've been in, videos, visiting speakers, etc apprise parishoners on creation science. Creationist pastors also should be able to direct youth and others to sources of learning about creation science. After all, it's in the Bible and if I were a pastor, I'd feel a responsibility to my parish to speak appologetically for the scriptural record, be it creation or whatever. Since kids don't get this anywhere else, I think it's the responsibility of the church leaders to become apprised and apprise their parishoners on creation science that has been done.

 

And they explain it as? See on one side there is scientists saying that natural processes are responsible for the phenomena they observe. They learn from it, and it broadens our understanding of the world. Creationists aren't follwong the scientific method. They are looking at things and saying "oh there's god's handiwork, oh theres some more" which is subjective. Mainstream scientists don't say whether or not a god or gods are responsible for their observations. For all they know, everything you see that seems natural could be the work of the supernatural. But there is no way this can be proven, much less detected or measured; hence assumptions like these fall under the realm of metaphysics, which is not part of science.

 

Creationists from ICR and other organizations do science and archeology for their arguments. You're not being fair here. Yes there's those who don't but some do.

 

As I have stated above, this is not the case. When religious beliefs (and don't fool yourself, ID is still religion-based) try to masquerade as science, it is the paragon of subjectivity.

 

I suppose it all boils down to whether God and a higher dimension of existence does exist in the universe that secularist scientists ignore. I happen to believe there is plenty of evidence that there is, such as the fulfilled Biblical prophecies, verified by history.

 

Which side continuously brings up the same arguments that have been refuted in books published as long as 30 years ago, or which one side often refuses to address points made by their opponents that make them uncomfortable? For that matter, which side never gets the freaking point?

 

Some on both sides do some of this.

[buzsaw]

I see buzsaw glossed over all the major points in my last post. What a surprise. This is my face right now . I'm as surprised as I was when OJ Simpson was acquitted. Seriously.

 

Likely, Hellbender, that if I, buzsaw, creationist, equated you to OJ Simpson, brutal murderer, I'd end up with another 10 points or more against me, and imo, you deserve 10 points for this terribly meanspirited personal attack against another board member.

[buzsaw]

But that's part of the shell-game. The canyons formed on Mt St. Helens bear only a superficial resemblance to the Grand Canyon. The devil, as it were, is in the details.

 

But there's a whole lot of difference in a global flood and a volcano. The point Mt St Hellens makes is that this miniature model shows how quickly a canyon can be cut with sedimentary layers. According to the ICR video and hypothesis, there would have been a body of water hundreds or thousands of time larger than the lake at Mt St Hellens which may have created the Grand Canyon.

[swansont]

But there's a whole lot of difference in a global flood and a volcano. The point Mt St Hellens makes is that this miniature model shows how quickly a canyon can be cut with sedimentary layers. According to the ICR video and hypothesis, there would have been a body of water hundreds or thousands of time larger than the lake at Mt St Hellens which may have created the Grand Canyon.

 

Yes, there is a big difference. And a large body of water can be a small volume over a long period of time, or a large volume all at once. So you have to look at other evidence, like the shape of the canyon itself, and the details of the strata. The similarities are superficial, as I said.

 

The strata are different - volcanic ash vs. many different types of layers, including metamorphic rock, basalt, sandstone and limestone. Layers in the Grand Canyon have footprints in them - kinda tough to do if they were laid down in a flood.

 

The canyons have a different shape - 45 degree sides vs. vertical (in places), and the slope along the water path is different - the volcano is much steeper. The Grand Canyon meanders, which is indicative of lower volume of water over a long period of time, while the Mt St Helens canyon is relatively straight.

 

Methinks the video sins by omission, but I'm not willing to be so soon parted from my money for something so likely to be crap, so I can't say for sure.

 

---

 

It's funny that the "they have similarities, so they must be the same" argument is used here (and oh, so badly), while it is rejected when comparing, say, chimps and humans.

[Hellbender]

Likely, Hellbender, that if I, buzsaw, creationist, equated you to OJ Simpson, brutal murderer, I'd end up with another 10 points or more against me, and imo, you deserve 10 points for this terribly meanspirited personal attack against another board member.

LOL I wasn't equating you to him! I was saying (sarcastically) that my surprise was akin to....oh nevermind.

[Hellbender]

Often in churches I've been in, videos, visiting speakers, etc apprise parishoners on creation science. Creationist pastors also should be able to direct youth and others to sources of learning about creation science.

My real question was why do you think that they don't teach creationism in schools? Why should one have to go to a church official to learn about supposed science? You see where I'm going here?

Creationists from ICR and other organizations do science and archeology for their arguments. You're not being fair here. Yes there's those who don't but some do.

Yeah, but they are frequently dishonest. If they come out with evidence that may not fit the bible, they usually ad hoc the crap out of it. You see doing science is to help better understand the world, and hopefull apply what we find to better humanity as a whole. Trying to do science for the sake of proving dogma is not doing science.

I suppose it all boils down to whether God and a higher dimension of existence does exist in the universe that secularist scientists ignore. I happen to believe there is plenty of evidence that there is, such as the fulfilled Biblical prophecies, verified by history.

Some scientists, (stop calling them "secularists". You know, I know and I know that you know that all scientists aren't atheists. You just think that scientists who don't run around with a bible, trying to find data that prove it true, are all athiests. Shame on them them for doing their jobs properly.) likely believe in some metaphysics, but by definition, it can't be detected or measured, hence it is ignored when they are trying to do good science.

Some on both sides do some of this.

Really? Wow, that convinced me.

[Phi for All]

Likely, Hellbender, that if I, buzsaw, creationist, equated you to OJ Simpson, brutal murderer, I'd end up with another 10 points or more against me, and imo, you deserve 10 points for this terribly meanspirited personal attack against another board member.

You will note, upon rereading his post, that he does NOT equate you with OJ, but rather his level of surprise in both instances. A roundabout insult, I'll grant you, but deftly done and leaves the ad hominem fallacy questionable.

 

We try to avoid direct insults here, as they lead to off-topic fighting. I may not approve of Hellbender's choice of tactics and his rancorous tone when dealing with creationist issues, but I must bow to his subtlety in this instance.

 

I will say, Hellbender, that your impatience and frustration is showing, and you are allowing it to influence your posting. Please carry on and don't let this post derail the discussion.

[Hellbender]

I will say, Hellbender, that your impatience and frustration is showing, and you are allowing it to influence your posting. Please carry on and don't let this post derail the discussion.

I am sorry, usually I am pretty easy going, but members like buzsaw and herme3 get me frustrated pretty quick. I'll stop posting in this thread, as I don't want to earn myself a warning.

[buzsaw]

My real question was why do you think that they don't teach creationism in schools? Why should one have to go to a church official to learn about supposed science? You see where I'm going here?

 

For the first century of our nation's history, creation was taught in the public schools. The science of it was not taught, largely because it was not known at that time. Christians were not involved much in archeology and the science of creationism. The more secularist minded people have gradually taken over school cirriculum and by the time creationists got their act together, it was not allowed.

 

Some scientists, (stop calling them "secularists". You know, I know and I know that you know that all scientists aren't atheists. You just think that scientists who don't run around with a bible, trying to find data that prove it true, are all athiests. Shame on them them for doing their jobs properly.) likely believe in some metaphysics, but by definition, it can't be detected or measured, hence it is ignored when they are trying to do good science.

 

Hellbender, you need to read more carefully before being so meanspirited and critical. This is what I said. Please read it slowly and carefully.

"I suppose it all boils down to whether God and a higher dimension of existence does exist in the universe that secularist scientists ignore."

 

Please note that my statement did not say that all scientists were secular, now, did it? It simply designated secularist scientists as the scientists who ignore the possibility of a more intelligent dimension of existence in the universe than mankind. By now, you should remember that I've, on occasion, designated between the more secular minded scientists and those who recognize a higher intelligence in the universe, understanding that the former are by far the majority, controlling the scholastic agenda.

 

I know you said you were quitting the thread, but imo, your above statements needed a response.

[ydoaPs]

For the first century of our nation's history, creation was taught in the public schools. The science of it was not taught, largely because it was not known at that time. Christians were not involved much in archeology and the science of creationism. The more secularist minded people have gradually taken over school cirriculum and by the time creationists got their act together, it was not allowed.

creationists have their act togather?

[swansont]

Please note that my statement did not say that all scientists were secular' date=' now, did it? It simply designated secularist scientists as the scientists who ignore the possibility of a more intelligent dimension of existence in the universe than mankind. By now, you should remember that I've, on occasion, designated between the more secular minded scientists and those who recognize a [i']higher[/i] intelligence in the universe, understanding that the former are by far the majority, controlling the scholastic agenda.

 

Science is agnostic, ergo by your definition, they have to be secular, so "secular scientist" redundant. If there is no evidence of a higher intelligence, one cannot assume it; to do so is to violate the scientific method, and thus not be a scientist.