Has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible?

[Arlanbb]

The "bible" is just a story - i.e. like "Alice in Wonderland", it doesn't need disproving.

Hey Folks and you to logician ~ You guys are looking at the "bible" the wrong way. It is a collection of 66 books and most of those books are telling the history of the Hebrew nation and archaeology has found many true facts in many of the 66 books but not in all of the books. There are a few books at the beginning like Gen, Exodus etc. that have been shown through archaeology to be untrue, such as a worldwide deluge happening about 4300 years ago killing all the people and creation happening about 6000 years ago.
To say the bible is like the book "Alice in Wonderland" is just plane junk. Most of the bible is very interesting history even thought some of the stories are maybe blown out of proportion to what really happen. This happens in most old writing because the story has been told so many time it always gets bigger and more interesting. :yes:

 

[Gabethewiking]

Hey Folks and you to logician ~ You guys are looking at the "bible" the wrong way. It is a collection of 66 books and most of those books are telling the history of the Hebrew nation and archaeology has found many true facts in many of the 66 books but not in all of the books. There are a few books at the beginning like Gen, Exodus etc. that have been shown through archaeology to be untrue, such as a worldwide deluge happening about 4300 years ago killing all the people and creation happening about 6000 years ago.
To say the bible is like the book "Alice in Wonderland" is just plane junk. Most of the bible is very interesting history even thought some of the stories are maybe blown out of proportion to what really happen. This happens in most old writing because the story has been told so many time it always gets bigger and more interesting. :yes:

I think their comparison is right (not you Arlan).
The Bible may show some History, biased to the Jewish, false or correct stories, indeed. Just as Alice in Wonderland, which is set in England (before she enters Wonderland), now does this mean that the Story is True?

No, it means that the nation used by the writter does exist, but the rest if ficional and not actually related to it. Same with the Bible, there was no "jewish slavery' of the Jews in egypt, that is made up and a way for jews to feel good about themselves, no problem here, it is a book for 'its people' making them feel better about themselves and keep them in the ranks. But EGYPT exist, so therefore it must be true, right, coz they mention Egypt, and egypt exist so......

Are you starting to see?
The movie Alien is set in Space, space exist, therefore the Aliens in the movie exist, using your logic. Or are you starting to 'get' what I am saying?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think you missed the point of the article for why they gave this reference. I’ll quote the article itself (not the reference which you did) and then it will show WHY they referenced this. It’s reason for referencing this was not to be OUT OF DATE perse, but to show that humans out of all other animals on earth, are more like ape than any other kind of animal. To which I thought you would not disagree with anyway. Anyway, here is the quote from this article http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html#r1

“We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.”

Then the number 1 in the quote goes to the reference you quoted. So really it would not matter if we were closer to orangutans or apes or chimps or monkeys, whatever one we are CLOSEST to by similar look or DNA comparison, the POINT of the article is that this would be EXPECTED if there is similarities in looks, there WILL BE similarities in DNA. That was the POINT of that section of the article.

And I understand that looks are subjective. This is why I said looks are not the deciding factor in determining our relationship to primates. The "looks" of a thing is a small part of the scientific process. But no matter because the GNOME project shows that rats and humans have characteristic similarities in their DNA. Now, how much do we humans "look" like rats?

They already believed in evolution and then looked for ways to find evidence for it.

OK.....

You missed the point for why I quoted this
“There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.’”

The other side of that quote was this

“There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.”

The point was to illustrate something with DNA. But that’s ok if you missed the point, I’ll let that go.

I read it. I didn't miss it. I found it to be irrelevant.

But I would like to quote from a book I am now reading from a scientist who is the head of the human genome project, Dr Francis Collins. He says in his book called the language of God on page 4

“In 1916, researchers asked biologists, physicists, and mathematicians whether they believed in a God who actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer. About 40% answered in the affirmative. In 1997, the same survey was repeated verbatim-and to the surprise of the researchers, the percentage remained very nearly the same.”

But I agree numbers still don’t matter.

You're right it means nothing. It is without a doubt that there are plenty of scientist from various fields of study who are theist (believing in the biblical god), theist (believing in multiple gods) or even atheist. Their religious beliefs have nothing to do with the scientific method.

 

[Perfect Circle]

As for me not getting the joke I don’t see how this should dampen anything I say. What I say should be taken like anything else anyone says, it should be considered, examined and scrutinized.

No... That's just not true. Would you give the same time and consideration to rebut someone who claimed that they assassinated Lincoln as you would to anyone else?

I have strong SOLID evidence for the existence of God. Perhaps I should make a thread just on that. I have a whole list of things that back up God’s existence. Want to diverge away from this thread and I make a thread about the ‘solid evidence for God’s existence?’

Wouldn't be the first time someone has attempted it on RF... However, if you want me to join in and take it seriously, then you're going to:

A.) Stop using microsoft word or whatever to create your posts since it adds in a lot of weird tags that I have to clear out to respond to the points in your posts.

B.) Familiarize yourself with the difference between evidence and proof.

C.) Stop directly contradicting yourself in back-to-back paragraphs. (see below)

No they can’t come up with any version of god they want to...

It is true however that people can make up any god or version of god they want to...

:thud:

 

[AxisMundi]

Hey Folks and you to logician ~ You guys are looking at the "bible" the wrong way. It is a collection of 66 books and most of those books are telling the history of the Hebrew nation and archaeology has found many true facts in many of the 66 books but not in all of the books. There are a few books at the beginning like Gen, Exodus etc. that have been shown through archaeology to be untrue, such as a worldwide deluge happening about 4300 years ago killing all the people and creation happening about 6000 years ago.
To say the bible is like the book "Alice in Wonderland" is just plane junk. Most of the bible is very interesting history even thought some of the stories are maybe blown out of proportion to what really happen. This happens in most old writing because the story has been told so many time it always gets bigger and more interesting. :yes:

Any good fiction has a grain of truth within to help carry some credibility to the story in the reader's mind so that they might enjoy the fictional story better.

"Wow, I remember visiting that in London" or "Wow I remember seeing that London building on TV" has certainly helped sell the Harry Potter books.

And there is no "archeology that proves the bible" or any portion of the bible either.

 

[Jollybear]

AxisMundi

1. ID must have a creator deity involved, no other entity could be responsible for such a large and complex undertaking.

Well obviously yes. But intelligent design’s PURPOSE is NOT to get INTO WHO that deity is or what he is, it’s only to get into the fact that this universe was created and designed and we know this by the design and how stuff works, and then get into all kinds of examples how stuff works.

THAT is what intelligent design is all about and that is where the LINE is drawn. Whoever wants to get to know who or what the designer is, THAT is for another subject. < THAT is a TRUE representation of intelligent design, if you say no it&#8217;s not, your outright wrong. This is how famous intelligent design proponents represent it, and this is how I MYSELF represent it even if they did not represent it that way. So address my arguments based on what I AM SAYING, not anybody else or anybody else&#8217;s motives.

ID was pulled out of history and dusted off by YECers and other fundie Christians

So what, that is irrelevant. It don&#8217;t matter who is pushing for intelligent design, what matters is dealing with the issue and merit of their claims, not dealing with who is claiming it. As I said and correctly represented ANYBODY who believes in a God or gods can USE intelligent design.

in direct response to Edwards v Aguillard in 1989, the SCOTUS case that kicked the religious doctrine of Creationism out of public schools, where it categorically does not belong. It was developed by members of The Discovery Institute, a fundie think tank, and is pushed by the same organization and other such people.

Intelligent design belongs in the schools. It is science, it&#8217;s NOT religion. And if it is, then atheistic evolution is ALSO RELIGION. I&#8217;m going to hold you to your own standard here.

Intelligent Design is indeed Creationism, as it claims that Jehovah created everything.

You&#8217;re falsely representing intelligent design. Therefore you&#8217;re beating at straw men. Intelligent design can be used by ANY person who believes in God or gods or goddesses. Because intelligent design does not get into WHO is God or WHAT is God, it gets into the creation OF this God and the design within that creation.

True some creationists who believe in Jehovah can use intelligent design, but that is irrelevant. It don&#8217;t matter who is pushing for intelligent design, what matters is dealing with the merit of their claims, not on what they personally believe who the designer happens to be, for anybody can use intelligent design.

2. Behe's claim was that the structure was too complex not to have been designed.

And I agree with him.

You claim to read everything put before you, linked below is a lecture given by Prof. Ken Miller, the legitimate scientist who testified against ID in Dover v Kitzmiller, where the courts decided that ID was indeed religion, as it is. It is about an hour long, but very informative. Prof. Miller, a practicing Catholic, dismantles Behe's pseudosciences, Behe's book "People and Pandas", and ID in general.

No, he did not dismantle it. It&#8217;s not religion, it&#8217;s science, and even IF it was religion, then by your own standard, evolution and a 15 billion year old universe and all that this entails that would be religion just as equally, since it&#8217;s not &#8220;PROVEN&#8221;.

3. "It does not matter where it comes from, what matters is that design is in nature and how do you deal with it?" It certainly does matter, especially when A. it's a circular argument fallacy to begin with

No, you are so incorrect; it&#8217;s NOT a circular argument. How is it a circular argument to you? I really don&#8217;t see that. I am going to listen to the video you gave and respond to it and show you that it&#8217;s NOT a circular argument.

and B. who developed the current incarnation of ID. It was developed by YECers.

Again it does not matter WHO pushes for intelligent design. Behe is not a YOUNG earth creationist and neither is Stephen C meyer to my knowledge and they are intelligent design proponents. You need to stop addressing WHO is pushing for it and their personal beliefs and address the MERIT of their claims, for that is what matters.

 

[Jollybear]

4. ID is to science as carpentry is to the modern automotive industry.

Wrong, ID IS science, but it does CONNECT science TO religion. That connection is irrelevant though, for it IS science, but as one is learning that science they can draw the line and not go where that connection points them in. Do you see the obvious here? In other words as I said above, if someone wishes to know who or what the designer is, they can find out from church or personal research but they cannot find out from the science class itself that would teach ID.

ID attempts to redefine science to fit the YECer mentality and ideals, all in an effort to get religion back into public school curriculum, where it does not belong.

This is incorrect; there are old earth creationists that also use intelligent design. Also ANYONE can use it who believes in a God or gods.

Legitimate scientists, regardless of religious backgrounds, and the US courts have all publicly stated that ID is indeed religion.

Well there wrong and if they are right, then they are promoting double standards, and that is even MORE WRONG.

Plus one more thing, when I say regardless of the personal beliefs of those who push intelligent design, what matters is the merits of their claims about intelligent design. It seems you ignore that, yet expect me to accept when you say &#8220;Legitimate scientists, REGARDLESS of religious backgrounds&#8221;. So when a scientist says intelligent design should not be taught in school, for you it don&#8217;t matter what their religious background is, and you think I should accept the fact that it don&#8217;t matter what their religious background is either. But when I mention certain scientists who promote intelligent design and say it don&#8217;t matter what their religious background is (whether young or old earth creationism) for you that matters. So how about I treat you using your own standard here?

Ok, here we go, based on your own standard, it DOES matter what their religious background is for those legitimate scientists you speak of. It matters because THEY BELIEVE God created this PHYSICAL universe, thus the physical sciences deal with the physical universe God DESIGNED and CREATED. They believe that, YET they ACT like that is not the case by saying it should not be taught in school because it&#8217;s a religious issue and not a science issue. Thus they the particular scientists you agree with, ARE in fact INCONSISTENT and there religious views hold NO VALUE for their public or work life. Thus I would say what value then are there religious views at all?

I&#8217;m just dealing with you how you deal with me. So if you don&#8217;t want to go down that road of dealing with the person, rather than just dealing with the merits of their claims, then don&#8217;t tell me it matters who pushes for intelligent design.

Now I would like to respond to the video. I am going to summarize some things ken miller said and then make my attempt to rebut them using the knowledge that I know of intelligent design.

He mentions some history of intelligent design. It&#8217;s interesting knowing the history, but like any history of anything, it&#8217;s irrelevant in finding and knowing truth.

Next he says that a lot of people support intelligent design, but it&#8217;s not scientific. This implies a lot of people are stupid, and I think to imply that, THAT is stupid. This implies people are not educated about science, and that is just pure speculation at best.

He says evolution is under attack, and then says, if that is attacked; why not attack cell biology, physiology, and organic chemistry. In other words he is saying that evolution is just as concrete as cell biology, physiology and organic chemistry, and that is just FALSE to say this because macro evolution and this billions of years mentality has lots of assumptions attached to it UNLIKE cell biology, physiology and organic chemistry. He thinks by saying this, it is a means to belittle the intellect of those that attack evolution, well it won&#8217;t work.

I like how he admits though, &#8220;evolution is very SHAKY science&#8221;. Great admittance.

Next he attacks &#8220;answers in genesis&#8221; for saying evolution is the source of all kinds of evil in the world. This is irrelevant and I don&#8217;t care about what answers in genesis says on this line. I think there are some evolutionists who do good. But I do believe that atheistic evolution cannot JUSTIFY GOOD or say WHY BAD is really bad.

I like also how he admits that he LIKES the sticker on the evolutionary textbooks that says evolution is a theory, NOT A FACT.

He mentions that president bush thinks LIKE ME that intelligent design AND evolution should be both taught. Then he quotes an advisor of bush that says intelligent design is NOT science. Quoting advisors don&#8217;t help his case.

He elaborates more on the stickers on the textbooks, he mentions some stickers give warning about the shape of the earth that it&#8217;s controversial, also physics as well. He mentions these to make a point that these stickers mean nothing about truth. And he is right, they don&#8217;t mean anything about truth, they are a means to respect the opinions of other people out there. However evolution is the MOST controversial amongst them all. Also his point about the absurdity of the stickers on text books mean nothing about the first sticker concerning the warning of evolution since the first sticker has more assumptions and is more controversial.

 

[Jollybear]

He mentions he likes the first sticker about evolution, accept that he thinks it should be slightly modified; because it gives the impression that there not certain of evolution. Well that is just the point of the sticker and the sticker is right, they are not certain of it, they just THINK they are. They have no PROOF therefore they are not certain of it. Even if they did modify the sticker as he phrased it, STILL it would not show a certainty, it would just make it look more confident.

He also mentions facts and theories. Theories are explanations of facts. I agree, but his theory is not a fact, it&#8217;s assumptions about the facts. I have different &#8220;explanations ABOUT the facts&#8221;.

He mentions the judge as ruling against intelligent design as being unconstitutional and that it&#8217;s not a science issue. The problem with the judge&#8217;s ruling is that it does not violate the constitution of separation of church and state because intelligent design as I said over and over can be used by ANY religious person no matter what their beliefs in a God or god&#8217;s or even aliens for that matter. And it deals with the physical universe; therefore it is a science issue. Plus politicians violate the constitution all the time by implementing there VALUES and beliefs into politics every day. Just how do we define &#8220;church&#8221;? There can be many definitions of this; church can be defined as a value of beliefs. Every politician implements their beliefs into their politics. So the judge&#8217;s ruling is wrong. Plus as I said already, if intelligent design violates the constitution because it&#8217;s &#8220;religion&#8221; then evolution would also violate the constitution since it IS religion (set of beliefs and assumptions). So then the judge&#8217;s ruling would be inconsistent.

Now going to what he said concerning how intelligent design proponents won a victory in Kansas (cheers to the victory). He says they redefined the definition of science. The FORMER definition of science was and still is in a lot of states and I quote the main part &#8220;science is seeking NATURAL explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation and logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses and theories&#8221;. Then they redefined it to be &#8220;Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypotheses, testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena&#8221;

Basically the difference is this, the first definition seeks ONLY a natural explanation, and the second definition seeks a more adequate explanation. Now that simply means this: the second definition does not necessarily RULE OUT ALL natural explanations, but it refuses to seek ONLY natural explanations. Therefore the second definition is TRULY OPEN MINDED to find the REAL TRUTH, the REAL explanation for what they observe. To seek ONLY a natural explanation is a BIAS AGAINST the supernatural, and that is a CLOSED MIND, and that is NOT being a TRUTH SEEKER! (Emphases added). If you&#8217;re not a truth seeker, you&#8217;re a bias seeker.

Then he explains the second definition in short. He says they want to open it up to the supernatural implying that this is the ONLY reason they do it. THIS is a FALSE representation of their motivation, and there actual work. They are not seeking ONLY a SUPERNATURAL explanation; they are seeking the ACTUAL explanation. Now that may be natural, it may be supernatural, depending from case to case. That is what it means and I know this because I read intelligent design stuff. So, he falsely represented them when he said &#8220;in short it means&#8221;.

Then he says that a supernatural explanation may be right, but it&#8217;s not science since it&#8217;s not testable. Well first off, if it&#8217;s not testable, neither is naturalism testable either then, since it has the assumptions from the fare off past attached to it. Also it IS testable; you can test to see if there is design in the universe.

Next he brings up ERRELEVENT STUFF about an intelligent design advocate who defines theory as very broad, to include even astrology. Ok, so what? That has nothing to do with intelligent design, I am not defending an intelligent design advocate, I am defending intelligent design itself. So this point he makes is irrelevant. I don&#8217;t care about astrology; I care about intelligent design right now. Personally I don&#8217;t see how astrology can fit physical sciences, I DO however see very CLEARLY how intelligent design FITS physical science. If someone who believes in astrology can SHOW how it can fit into physical sciences, THEN Michael Behe the advocate would make a good point in making the word theory be very broad. But I don&#8217;t care about astrology at least for my purposes in this debate.

Next he mentions that there IS lots of transitional links, he says paleontologists argue over it all the time. Again this just shows there are things in the same family, variations. There are creature&#8217;s like that alive today, living things that are variations and they look similar.

 

[Jollybear]

Next he mentions a walking whale and transitions with whales. First off, I am trying to attack his arguments against intelligent design, not macro evolution. There are some people who believe in macro evolution who happen to believe in intelligent design. So dealing with this whale thing is irrelevant for my purpose in defending intelligent design. BUT I will deal with it anyway since I disagree with macro evolution. First I want to show the actual bones of the transitions for the sake of clarity. http://www.csus.edu/indiv/l/lancasterw/bio168/LABS%20BIO168-03/Lab%2015-Cetacea%20BIO168-04_files/image010.jpg now here is the quote from this article http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution and the quote is

&#8220;Evolutionists predict the presence of billions of transitional life forms that have existed in earth&#8217;s history. Despite the presence of 250,000 fossil species, clear transitional forms, which would bolster evolutionary theory, are virtually absent. The situation of transitional forms is glaringly obvious in the case of whales and other marine mammals. The gap in transitional forms was supposedly filled by a partial fossil specimen named Pakicetus inachus. Even though the fossil was only a fraction of the skull and a few teeth, the media and scientists portrayed it as a whale-like transitional form. The fact that it was found in a deposit that was likely from a river area puts the interpretation of Pakicetus in doubt. (More complete specimens have been found that show Pakicetus as a dog-like land animal.)
Fossils of Ambulocetus natans were later discovered, and this creature was considered to be a walking whale. Despite the lack of a pelvic girdle (a partial pelvis was found in later specimens), Ambulocetus is described as having walked on land much as sea lions do and swimming with a combined motion much as otters and seals do. Why a whale would have hooves on its rear feet and be living near the seashore are questions that are not answered by the fossils.
The deposits containing Ambulocetus were found 400 feet higher than where Pakicetus was found, but both are supposedly 52 million years old. Pakicetus is called the oldest whale (cetacean), but Ambulocetus is supposed to display transitional features as land animals turned into whales. Based on teeth alone, several other wolf-like carnivores (mesonychids) are thought to be ancestors as well. The exact arrangement of these groups is disputed, and some consider the mesonychids to be a branch separate from whales.
This interpretation of scant fossil evidence is very imaginative and totally necessary to support the notion that whales evolved from land animals. Such imaginative claims of evolutionary history have been claimed in the past only to be shown false. Further evidence will certainly change the current thinking in drastic ways.&#8221;

Next he mentions genetic similarities between humans and chimps and then concludes that means we have a common ancestor. Then he says in the court case, intelligent design proponents did not address this. Who cares, they have addressed it all over the web. It is addressed. Genetic similarities do not mean common ancestor but rather a common designer using common parts to build different body structures. You can use wood to build a table, but you can also use wood to build a house, common parts to built DIFFERENT things. Again similarities are not proof of common ancestor. Plus those common genetic similarities also have differences in them too. Also we have more common genetic similarities with the Chinese muntjac (a small deer found in Taiwan&#8217;s mountainous regions), which also has 46 chromosomes, same number as humans.

Also he mentions that he is catholic and believes in a designer God, but he don&#8217;t believe there is evidence of this and that it is testable. Ok, well frankly this is inconsistent, if there is a God; surely his fingerprints would be all over this universe, would it not? If there is no God, his fingerprints would be nowhere. Apparently his belief in God has no bearing for his life work. So, what good is his God? He sounds more like a deist then a roman catholic.

He says that God would be deceptive by deliberately making these similarities, thus trying to fool us. What he says is foolish, first off, God can use similar building blocks to make different stuff, even stuff that may look similar, and how is that a deception if God&#8217;s MOTIVE is NOT to be deceptive, but rather his motive is simply to create. SECONDLY God is not deceptive because he TOLD US ALREADY how he created things in the book of Genesis.

He mentions another thing brought up in the case trial, about the irreducibly complex flagellum. He explains the argument from the ID proponents by saying evolution could not have produced this because of its sheer complexity. If one part of the flagellum is missing, it won&#8217;t function, thus all parts need to be there simultaneously for it to work. Then he tries to counter this by saying all those parts could have been used for something else at one time, then he admits this is an argument, but not evidence. To this I say, sure but that would mean God would use those parts to build something else. Just like I could rip wood off my table and use it to build something else.

Also he says you can take away parts from the flagellum and it can still function. Well that&#8217;s true, but you cannot take away VITAL parts. It&#8217;s equivalent to saying, if you chop my finger off I can still function, but if you rip my heart out, I WON&#8217;T be able to function. Take away VITAL parts and it will NOT function, and there are many VITAL parts. He is not telling the WHOLE story.

 

[Jollybear]

As for blood clotting, he summarizes the ID claim that if you take one protein away, it won&#8217;t clot. So he ADMITS they are right for humans, but not for some fish. Fish don&#8217;t need the two certain proteins he mentioned. Ok then&#8230;..well take away the certain proteins the fish use for clotting and it won&#8217;t work for the fish then. Then he mentions the puffer fish, 3 were taken away, and could still clot. Great, but as I said already, take away the VITAL parts and it WILL NOT FUNCTION. Which means, take away FOUR proteins for the puffer fish and it won&#8217;t clot.

Next he mentions the immune system. Saying that Behe was given books in front of the judge, saying he did not read some and then read some of the others, and then saying it was not evidence that was good enough for him to accept. Then he says Behe IGNORED the evidence by saying this. No he didn&#8217;t, the fact that he read some of it shows he did not ignore it, but that he rejected it as proof.

Next he mentions that ID thinks evolution is religion. And I agree it is, and ID is science. Now he thinks ID is religion and that evolution is science, and that if we teach them both in class, it will force kids to choose between God and science. No, he is WRONG; it will force kids to choose between God/true science and FALSE science.

He thinks that ID is religious because it implies the supernatural, religious means belief. ID is not a belief, it&#8217;s a fact.

Next he mentions some articles done by Stephen myer saying to teach the controversy, then admits it sounds neutral. Then shows it is posted on a creation website. The problem here is that he is attacking motives and not the ISSUE. Personal belief does not matter, what matters is the merit of the claim. How many times do I have to say this?

Next he mentions the older versions of ID text books. It was changed by taking out the word creationism to intelligent design. Therefore because of this change, it should not be taught in schools is basically his argument. This is foolishness, whether they call it creation or intelligent design it means the same thing. Creation does not say WHO created it, but just simply shows the fact that design is there in nature and therefore a designer or creator is there.

Now he mentions that Intelligent design does not submit to peer review. Check this article out. http://www.discovery.org/a/1621

Also he thinks that by teaching intelligent design what is at stake is that the united states could have it&#8217;s leadership in science taken away. That is wrong; you can do technology without evolution.

 

[Jollybear]

DirtyPanguin

And I understand that looks are subjective. This is why I said looks are not the deciding factor in determining our relationship to primates. The "looks" of a thing is a small part of the scientific process. But no matter because the GNOME project shows that rats and humans have characteristic similarities in their DNA. Now, how much do we humans "look" like rats?

I am glad you agree with me then.

I read it. I didn't miss it. I found it to be irrelevant.

No it&#8217;s not irrelevant. DNA is the information blueprint on how the body will look and be built and work. And when you compare the entire DNA with the others they may look similar, but a few differences, and those differences are like different words in a sentence that has the same words in the rest of the sentence or paragraph and that one different word makes the WHOLE message different. So it is very relevant.

You're right it means nothing. It is without a doubt that there are plenty of scientist from various fields of study who are theist (believing in the biblical god), theist (believing in multiple gods) or even atheist. Their religious beliefs have nothing to do with the scientific method.

Good, we agree. Although we MAY disagree on this scientific METHOD you mentioned there. I believe there is a thing called false science and true science.

 

[Jollybear]

PerfectCircle

No... That's just not true. Would you give the same time and consideration to rebut someone who claimed that they assassinated Lincoln as you would to anyone else?

Someone in 20010 saying they assassinated Lincoln is a lot different than my position I am taking in this debate on intelligent design, God and evolution. You&#8217;re comparing apples and oranges. Frankly you don&#8217;t have to take what I say seriously, that is your right and choice. BUT if you do that, I won&#8217;t take what you say seriously either. I will treat everyone by using their OWN standards.

Let me recap, you said no one can question the scientific CANON, then I said that went against the scientific method, thus a double standard. To which you came back saying you were joking, and then said by me not getting the joke you can&#8217;t take what I say seriously. Actually it&#8217;s on the contrary, by you joking; I can&#8217;t take what YOU say seriously, since by your own admittance you were not serious. If in fact I am being SERIOUS and NOT JOKING, that tells you that you can in fact take me VERY serious, but we can&#8217;t take you serious since you like to make these jokes.

Now you may say that you can&#8217;t take me serious because I THOUGHT you were serious, to which I should have KNOWN this was wrong. I did know it and that is why I said it was a double standard (did you miss that?). Next I also said that even if they have no canon (they certainly ACT like they do). And ACTION speaks LOUDER than WORDS.

Wouldn't be the first time someone has attempted it on RF... However, if you want me to join in and take it seriously, then you're going to:

A.) Stop using microsoft word or whatever to create your posts since it adds in a lot of weird tags that I have to clear out to respond to the points in your posts.

I can only do this if my posts are SHORT, if there long and take days or hours, I cannot do it. I will still have to use word perfect. It is not practical for me to respond to all these points people give me by sitting at the computer for 4 to 6 hours strait. And I certainly won&#8217;t delete all my work and then come back and do it the next day, so I am going to save it in word perfect.

B.) Familiarize yourself with the difference between evidence and proof.

I know the difference and the weight of the EVIDENCE is on my side, it is SO STRONG, that I call it AIRTIGHT. I believe the existence of God IS PROVEN.

C.) Stop directly contradicting yourself in back-to-back paragraphs. (see below)

Originally Posted by Jollybear http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ce-just-disprove-post1900372.html#post1900372
No they can&#8217;t come up with any version of god they want to...

Originally Posted by Jollybear http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ce-just-disprove-post1900372.html#post1900372
It is true however that people can make up any god or version of god they want to...

This is not a contradiction on my part, it&#8217;s a misunderstanding on YOUR part. Let me clarify what I MEANT by these two sentences.

&#8220;no they can&#8217;t come up with any version of god they want to&#8221; means they cannot come up with evidence, proof or even LOGICAL argument for any god they want to.

&#8220;it is true however that people can make up any god or version of god they want to&#8221; means they can make a CLAIM of any god they want to with their LIPS or WORDS. But they will not be able to come up with logical argument, evidence or proof for their claims. I can come up with anything with my words, such as &#8220;I can fly with my arms&#8221; you can say anything you want to, does not mean you can actually come up with support for it that is logical.

That is what I meant and I thought you would have gotten it, so I did not clarify at the time, but since you did not get it, I now clarify it.

So, I did not contradict myself and I NEVER contradict myself, NEVER, EVER. And I am going to prove it to you by a AIRTIGHT case.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So, I did not contradict myself and I NEVER contradict myself, NEVER, EVER. And I am going to prove it to you by a AIRTIGHT case.

Thinking pretty highly of yourself, aren't you?

Humility must not be one of your virtues.

 

[Commoner]

Let me recap, you said no one can question the scientific CANON, then I said that went against the scientific method, thus a double standard. To which you came back saying you were joking, and then said by me not getting the joke you can&#8217;t take what I say seriously. Actually it&#8217;s on the contrary, by you joking; I can&#8217;t take what YOU say seriously, since by your own admittance you were not serious. If in fact I am being SERIOUS and NOT JOKING, that tells you that you can in fact take me VERY serious, but we can&#8217;t take you serious since you like to make these jokes.

It was blatant sarcasm, the fact that you would take it seriously shows the level of competence you have on the subject - none. That you keep coming back to it trying to turn your very naive - or perhaps intentionally ill-disposed - misinterpretation into an attack on the credibility of the original poster serves only to underline your own lack of it. I suggest you recognize your error and move on to preserve the small chance you have left to have your case taken seriously.

 

[AxisMundi]

Well obviously yes. But intelligent design’s PURPOSE is NOT to get INTO WHO that deity is or what he is, it’s only to get into the fact that this universe was created and designed and we know this by the design and how stuff works, and then get into all kinds of examples how stuff works.

THAT is what intelligent design is all about and that is where the LINE is drawn. Whoever wants to get to know who or what the designer is, THAT is for another subject. < THAT is a TRUE representation of intelligent design, if you say no it’s not, your outright wrong. This is how famous intelligent design proponents represent it, and this is how I MYSELF represent it even if they did not represent it that way. So address my arguments based on what I AM SAYING, not anybody else or anybody else’s motives.

So what, that is irrelevant. It don’t matter who is pushing for intelligent design, what matters is dealing with the issue and merit of their claims, not dealing with who is claiming it. As I said and correctly represented ANYBODY who believes in a God or gods can USE intelligent design.

Intelligent design belongs in the schools. It is science, it’s NOT religion. And if it is, then atheistic evolution is ALSO RELIGION. I’m going to hold you to your own standard here.

You’re falsely representing intelligent design. Therefore you’re beating at straw men. Intelligent design can be used by ANY person who believes in God or gods or goddesses. Because intelligent design does not get into WHO is God or WHAT is God, it gets into the creation OF this God and the design within that creation.

True some creationists who believe in Jehovah can use intelligent design, but that is irrelevant. It don’t matter who is pushing for intelligent design, what matters is dealing with the merit of their claims, not on what they personally believe who the designer happens to be, for anybody can use intelligent design.

And I agree with him.

No, he did not dismantle it. It’s not religion, it’s science, and even IF it was religion, then by your own standard, evolution and a 15 billion year old universe and all that this entails that would be religion just as equally, since it’s not “PROVEN”.

No, you are so incorrect; it’s NOT a circular argument. How is it a circular argument to you? I really don’t see that. I am going to listen to the video you gave and respond to it and show you that it’s NOT a circular argument.

Again it does not matter WHO pushes for intelligent design. Behe is not a YOUNG earth creationist and neither is Stephen C meyer to my knowledge and they are intelligent design proponents. You need to stop addressing WHO is pushing for it and their personal beliefs and address the MERIT of their claims, for that is what matters.

Firstly, it certainly matters WHO is pushing ID, and WHAT they are pushing. YECer pseudo scientists have ZERO credibility to begin with.

ID is also religion. Merely attempting to remove God from the equation doesn't change anything. It also is certainly NOT science as it skips MOST of the Scientific Method.

And Evolution IS a matter of science as it utilizes the entire spectrum of the Scientific Method.

Sorry, but no one is buying ID as science, mainly because it certainly is NOT science.

As far as Behe and Meyer not being YECers? Do some research.

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

Thinking pretty highly of yourself, aren't you?

No, I am not speaking to highly of myself; I am only speaking TRUTHFULLY ABOUT MYSELF and in DEFENSE of myself.

Humility must not be one of your virtues.

On the contrary, humility is speaking the TRUTH, PRIDE speaks LIES.

 

[Jollybear]

Commoner

It was blatant sarcasm, the fact that you would take it seriously shows the level of competence you have on the subject - none.

There you are wrong, wrong, wrong. I have knowledge of this subject whether you believe me or not. I should know since I am ME. Now if you cannot start a debate or CONTINUE a debate with TRUST as the foundation, then just don&#8217;t respond to me, for I don&#8217;t WANT to take the time to deal with that, I have the time for it, but I don&#8217;t want to take the time for it.

That you keep coming back to it trying to turn your very naive &#8211;

Wrong again, I am not naïve about the subject, I have read a lot on the subject, true there is always more to read, don&#8217;t get me wrong.

or perhaps intentionally ill-disposed &#8211;

Wrong again, I am simply defending my position and building my case by each response I make to every response given me. If you perceive that as ill disposed, that is YOUR judgment. And frankly, it has NO BEARING to HELPING your case or dampening MY case by attacking my INTENTIONS. Ok?

How many times do I have to say that over and over and over and over and over again and again and again and again! Why don&#8217;t people GET THAT? Attacking motives does not dampen the case of the one you debate with, and it does not help your case.

Sometimes that is so frustrating that it goes on THAT MUCH.

Seriously, is that the best you got?

misinterpretation into an attack on the credibility of the original poster serves only to underline your own lack of it.

I am not attacking the credibility of the poster I am attacking his arguments ONLY. I am addressing exactly and PURELY what he says, I care VERY LITTLE of motivations.

I suggest you recognize your error and move on to preserve the small chance you have left to have your case taken seriously.

I disagree, I have not errored, I have stated only facts so far and made arguments.

Now if you don&#8217;t wish to take my case seriously, you have that right and choice, go right ahead. As for me, I will keep addressing ONLY the arguments presented to me. You can do whatever you want to, I don&#8217;t control you.

 

[Jollybear]

AxisMundi

Firstly, it certainly matters WHO is pushing ID, and WHAT they are pushing. YECer pseudo scientists have ZERO credibility to begin with.

Let me go on the objective here, WHY DOES IT MATTER WHO is pushing for intelligent design? Why does that matter MORE than the MERITS of their claims, arguments and evidence? WHY?

Second question: how does YEC have zero credibility?

Thirdly: as I said above and I&#8217;ll say it again, your promoting a double standard by saying it matters who pushes ID, for you said and I quote you &#8220;Legitimate scientists, regardless of religious backgrounds, and the US courts have all publicly stated that ID is indeed religion.&#8221; So when it comes to your case you think you&#8217;re allowed to break your own rules but I have to follow your rules? You think that is fair? I don&#8217;t think so and I won&#8217;t bow to it. And I will HOLD you to your OWN RULES. If it does not matter FOR YOUR case who says intelligent design is religion, then it does not matter in my case who says intelligent design is science! If it matters to you who says intelligent design is science, then to be consistent, it has to matter to you WHO says intelligent design is religion. You cannot say the word &#8220;regardless of religious backgrounds&#8221; otherwise your breaking your own standards! I&#8217;m not going to let you do that; I will keep reminding you of this over and over until you submit to it, or ADRESS IT.

Plus I have already stated that not all YEC use intelligent design, old earth creationists use it to. Actually believe it or not, Richard Dawkins admitted intelligent design without even wanting to. [youtube]BoncJBrrdQ8[/youtube]
YouTube - Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

ID is also religion.

Ok, that is your claim, your position, it&#8217;s not my position, my position is that it&#8217;s science. Now, we can debate those positions if you wish. But to do that, we have to get away from WHO is pushing for what and MOTIVES of people and get at the claims, arguments and evidences.

Plus even if it was religion that would only mean your unproven billions of years of cosmic and biological evolution theory is religion. Right? Answer yes or no?

Merely attempting to remove God from the equation doesn't change anything.

You&#8217;re not listening. I did not say God was REMOVED, I said he was not TAUGHT about, but only his creation is taught about, and it is pointed out that his creation is in fact a creation, or DESIGNED. It&#8217;s the design and creation that is FOCUSED upon and not the CREATOR. A creator is acknowledged, but he is not FOCUSED upon. Do you see now?

It also is certainly NOT science as it skips MOST of the Scientific Method.

What is this scientific method you&#8217;re talking about? And please don&#8217;t shoot back and say &#8220;you don&#8217;t know? Your ignorant&#8221; I don&#8217;t want to hear that, tell me what you&#8217;re talking about? Define your terms?

And Evolution IS a matter of science as it utilizes the entire spectrum of the Scientific Method.

Wrong, it has TONS of assumptions to it, assumptions are not science, I have different explanations of the facts. Plus, by me questioning evolution, I am being SCIENTIFIC because that is what science does, right? It&#8217;s SELF CRITICAL.

Sorry, but no one is buying ID as science, mainly because it certainly is NOT science.

Do you speak for everyone? No, so therefore you cannot say &#8220;no one&#8221;.

As far as Behe and Meyer not being YECers? Do some research.

You find me an article where he says he is a young earth creationist and I will believe you. But from all the speeches I have heard him Stephen C mayer speak, he spoke about the big bang and that he BELIEVED IT. That shows old earth creationism.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No it&#8217;s not irrelevant. DNA is the information blueprint on how the body will look and be built and work. And when you compare the entire DNA with the others they may look similar, but a few differences, and those differences are like different words in a sentence that has the same words in the rest of the sentence or paragraph and that one different word makes the WHOLE message different. So it is very relevant.

Well it is irrelevant. Not only are we extremely similar looking to primates but we are relatives through our genetic make up.

[youtube]x-WAHpC0Ah0[/youtube]
YouTube - Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2

Good, we agree. Although we MAY disagree on this scientific METHOD you mentioned there. I believe there is a thing called false science and true science.

Regardless. This method is used in our everyday lives. What is meant by "true science" and "false science"? Science does not deal in absolutes or "proofs". It's discoveries aren't static. The field of science is open to change and welcomes change to its discoveries.

 

[tumbleweed41]

On the contrary, humility is speaking the TRUTH, PRIDE speaks LIES.

I'm going to hold you to that.

Actually believe it or not, Richard Dawkins admitted intelligent design without even wanting to.
[youtube]BoncJBrrdQ8[/youtube]
YouTube - Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

BEN STEIN: How did it get created?

DAWKINS: By a very slow process.

BEN STEIN: Well, how did it start?

DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

BEN STEIN: And what was that?

DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?

DAWKINS: I told you, we don’t know.

...........

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.


............

And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.


This is totally in line with what Dawkins wrote in "The God Delusion", where he states that IF there was a God, there would have to be something greater than God to create Him, and something greater than that...etc, etc...



I would say that your misleading statement of Dawkins supporting the ID movement in any way is a bald faced lie.