Link (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/reduciblecomplexity/)
More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science
By Brandon Keim August 27, 2009 | 1:43 pm | Categories: Biology

Intricate cellular components are often cited as evidence of intelligent design. They couldn’t have evolved, I.D. proponents say, because they can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts. They are irreducibly complex, so they must have been intentionally designed, as is, by an intelligent entity.

But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.

The pieces “were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function,” said Sebastian Poggio, a postdoctoral cell biologist at Yale University and co-author of the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Mitochondria are descended from free-living bacteria, which several billion years ago were swallowed by complex cells. The mitochondria soon became central to the cells’ function.

Link (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/reduciblecomplexity/)

Mitochondria are descended from free-living bacteria, which several billion years ago were swallowed by complex cells.



Can you advise us if it was 2 billion or 3 billion. Several could be 3 or maybe 4 possibly 5. Petty details. What's a billion years here or there....:killingme

Can you advise us if it was 2 billion or 3 billion. Several could be 3 or maybe 4 possibly 5. Petty details. What's a billion years here or there....:killingme

Would you rather it said 5-6,000 years?

:confused:

How could ID be proven wrong? Because, if it could, that would imply that it is a science, capable of being proven wrong, per Nuck's words (http://forums.somd.com/3935145-post458.html):

Just because Darwin may have been wrong, that has nothing to do with Intelligent Design being right.

This is Science, and the scientific theory at work. You have to accept that a theory could be disprovable in order to be valid. In other words you have to be objective.

Unlike Intelligent Design, which by its nature, doesnt allow for there to be any other answerSo, nuck, what it is, a scientific theory, capable of being proven wrong, or not?

:confused:

How could ID be proven wrong? Because, if it could, that would imply that it is a science, capable of being proven wrong, per Nuck's words (http://forums.somd.com/3935145-post458.html):

So, nuck, what it is, a scientific theory, capable of being proven wrong, or not?

Just as with anything else thats posted on the boards, you show your lack of comprehension.

Per my words (http://forums.somd.com/3935145-post458.html)

Just because Darwin may have been wrong, that has nothing to do with Intelligent Design being right.

This is Science, and the scientific theory at work. You have to accept that a theory could be disprovable in order to be valid. In other words you have to be objective.

Unlike Intelligent Design, which by its nature, doesnt allow for there to be any other answer
The Bolded section is the pertinent part, this is the first rule of a Scientific Theory. The rule does not state that other, objective, scientists can/will disprove it, but that the theory starts out with the possibility of being invalid.

When Creationists, recreate Genesis and call it another name (Intelligent Design) they fail the first rule of the scientific process.

Unless that is, your claiming the Creationists are willing to accept the Genesis accounts in the Bible as being wrong.

Just as with anything else thats posted on the boards, you show your lack of comprehension.

Per my words (http://forums.somd.com/3935145-post458.html)

The Bolded section is the pertinent part, this is the first rule of a Scientific Theory. The rule does not state that other, objective, scientists can/will disprove it, but that the theory starts out with the possibility of being invalid.
So, a theory being able to be disproved makes it a scientific theory.

I agreeWhen Creationists, recreate Genesis and call it another name (Intelligent Design) they fail the first rule of the scientific process.

Unless that is, your claiming the Creationists are willing to accept the Genesis accounts in the Bible as being wrong.Creationists have nothing to do with ID.

So, a theory being able to be disproved makes it a scientific theory.
And you continue with your cirucluar reasoning of what the Scientific Theory is.

That is not what I stated, nor what the definition of the process is. But continue showing your ignorance about it.
I agreeCreationists have nothing to do with ID.

Per the definition Creationism is Intelligent Design. But continue to point to a Creationist sight for your incorrect definition.

You can believe in Intelligent Design and not Creationism. Because your belief, religion, whatever doesnt follow Genesis (Creationism).

If you believe in Creationism, you inherrently believe in Intelligent Design, since (Per Genesis) God (Intelligent) created (Design) everything.

Per the definition Creationism is Intelligent Design.The definition of ID specifically refutes Creationism.

The definition of ID specifically refutes Creationism.
:killingme

You might want to look up definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition), specifically (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specifically) and refutes (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refutes) before you try and use them again (incorrectly).

Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligent%20design)

Main Entry: intelligent design
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
Genesis' God is the desigining intelligence
Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism)

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: \-shə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1880
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b

— cre·a·tion·ist \-shə-nist\ noun or adjective


You can believe in Intelligent Design and not be a Creationist. Because your belief, faith, religion doesnt follow Genesis.

If you are a Creationist you believe in Intelligent Design. Because you believe, per Genesis, God (Intelligent) created (Designed) everything.

Simple concepts, not sure why you're struggling.

Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligent%20design)

Main Entry: intelligent design
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
Genesis' God is the desigining intelligence A Creationist sees this, but this is not what the theory of ID says. You're, not surprisingly, confused on what ID actually is, much like you're confused on what evolution actually states.
[INDENT]Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism)Is intelligent design based on the Bible? (http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php)
No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Plato and Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.

Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism? (http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php)
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Dr. Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Dr. John West's piece "Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same" in Research News & Opportunities

In reality, there are a variety of reasons why ID should not be confused with creationism: (http://www.discovery.org/a/1329)
1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.

Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.

2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation…." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.

4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.

Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)

Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.
I could go on, but, seriously, why? You just don't get it.

I could go on, but, seriously, why? You just don't get it.
Right, because i rely upon the dictionary to define words, and you would rather base your definition on Creationists (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute) looking to repackage their belief in Genesis as a pseudo scientific theory.

:killingme

Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligent%20design)

Main Entry: intelligent design
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
Genesis' God is the desigining intelligence
Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism)

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: \-shə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1880
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b

— cre·a·tion·ist \-shə-nist\ noun or adjective


You can believe in Intelligent Design and not be a Creationist. Because your belief, faith, religion doesnt follow Genesis.

If you are a Creationist you believe in Intelligent Design. Because you believe, per Genesis, God (Intelligent) created (Designed) everything.

Simple concepts, not sure why you're struggling.

Right, because i rely upon the dictionary to define words, and you would rather base your definition on Creationists (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute) looking to repackage their belief in Genesis as a pseudo scientific theory.


You have to wonder, if a "scientific" organization is legit, and their study and methods follow the Scientific Process, why do they have to go through so much subterfuge to hide their roots as Creationists?

:shrug:

The Discovery Institute is "conservative Christian think tank, structured as a non-profit educational foundation." I'm sure they follow the first scientific principle, that all theories are Falsible (ie they can be wrong).

In '96, the institute was created through money provided by the MacLellan Foundation and Roberta and Howard Ahmanson; the latter are billionaires. The latter provided $750,000 over 3 years to the institute, and the MacLellan Foundation gave a smaller grant.

Upon closer inspection of the benefactors, the MacLellan Foundation "supports organizations 'committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ.'" You can see this on their own web page (http://www.maclellan.net/about/home.asp). And, according to this article (http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2004-03-23/article/18523?headline=Local-Activists-Face-Off-in-Creationism-Debate&status=301), the Ahmansons are Christian Reconstructionists, people who favor overhauling all laws and replacing them with biblical laws.

Its not that Evolutionists are against Creationism/Intelligent Design, its they are not Scientific Theories. You dont have to believe me, you can ask President Bush's Science Advisor (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html?_r=1)

Face it, the people primarily supporting ID, are openly Christian. In fact, most ID proponents are evangelical Protestants. It appears that ID is creationism in disguise.

So once again, if its legitimate why do they have to hide it?

Right, because i rely upon the dictionary to define words, and you would rather base your definition on Creationists (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute) looking to repackage their belief in Genesis as a pseudo scientific theory.

:killingme

Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligent%20design)

Main Entry: intelligent design
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
Genesis' God is the desigining intelligence
Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism)

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: \-shə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1880
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b

— cre·a·tion·ist \-shə-nist\ noun or adjective


You can believe in Intelligent Design and not be a Creationist. Because your belief, faith, religion doesnt follow Genesis.

If you are a Creationist you believe in Intelligent Design. Because you believe, per Genesis, God (Intelligent) created (Designed) everything.

Simple concepts, not sure why you're struggling.


Really your rely on the dictionary for definitions? Like "kin" and "relative" :killingme:killingme

Right, because i rely upon the dictionary to define words, and you would rather base your definition on Creationists (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute) looking to repackage their belief in Genesis as a pseudo scientific theory.

:killingme

Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligent%20design)

Main Entry: intelligent design
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
Genesis' God is the desigining intelligence
Does that line about Genesis appear in M-W, or is that your interpretation?

Is there anything at all under the definition of ID that shows a belief in any particular religion?

Or, are you making stuff up again?Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism)

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: \-shə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1880
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b

— cre·a·tion·ist \-shə-nist\ noun or adjective


You can believe in Intelligent Design and not be a Creationist. Because your belief, faith, religion doesnt follow Genesis.

If you are a Creationist you believe in Intelligent Design. Because you believe, per Genesis, God (Intelligent) created (Designed) everything.

Simple concepts, not sure why you're struggling.So, by being a Creationist who, you say, believes in ID - does that mean that Creationism allows for something other than one specific God per one specific religious teaching to be the Intelligent Designer?

Because, if not, you can NOT be a Creationist and follow ID as a theory.

But, like I said, you just don't get it.

You have to wonder, if a "scientific" organization is legit, and their study and methods follow the Scientific Process, why do they have to go through so much subterfuge to hide their roots as Creationists?

:shrug:

The Discovery Institute is "conservative Christian think tank, structured as a non-profit educational foundation." I'm sure they follow the first scientific principle, that all theories are Falsible (ie they can be wrong).

In '96, the institute was created through money provided by the MacLellan Foundation and Roberta and Howard Ahmanson; the latter are billionaires. The latter provided $750,000 over 3 years to the institute, and the MacLellan Foundation gave a smaller grant.

Upon closer inspection of the benefactors, the MacLellan Foundation "supports organizations 'committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ.'" You can see this on their own web page (http://www.maclellan.net/about/home.asp). And, according to this article (http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2004-03-23/article/18523?headline=Local-Activists-Face-Off-in-Creationism-Debate&status=301), the Ahmansons are Christian Reconstructionists, people who favor overhauling all laws and replacing them with biblical laws.

Its not that Evolutionists are against Creationism/Intelligent Design, its they are not Scientific Theories. You dont have to believe me, you can ask President Bush's Science Advisor (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html?_r=1)

Face it, the people primarily supporting ID, are openly Christian. In fact, most ID proponents are evangelical Protestants. It appears that ID is creationism in disguise.

So once again, if its legitimate why do they have to hide it?Enjoying talking with yourself?

Really your rely on the dictionary for definitions? Like "kin" and "relative" :killingme:killingme

Since you brought it up, isnt it interesting the Ask the Rabbi guy, who was claimed to be the definitive source, felt the relative in the verse was not the definition but actually the edict against incest.

Oh thats right, we shouldnt talk about that thread :killingme

Since you brought it up, isnt it interesting the Ask the Rabbi guy, who was claimed to be the definitive source, felt the relative in the verse was not the definition but actually the edict against incest.

Oh thats right, we shouldnt talk about that thread :killingmeAnd, he said it clearly, conclusively said a father/daughter were included in that incest.

Enjoying talking with yourself?

Enjoy posting from Creationist sites, that repackage their Genesis beliefs, to get people to fall for voodoo science?

And, he said it clearly, conclusively said a father/daughter were included in that incest.
Your right he stated Lev 20 was talking about the Fathers daughter to bad we werent talking about Lev 20.

Your right he stated the Talmud allowed societal punishments (Beheadings) for incest when it wasnt called for in the Talmud (my argument about your Bible), he even referenced a verse about a girl wearing long hair as proof. To bad the society didnt call for beheading for Father Daughter incest, it was worse for a Father to sleep with his Daughter in law than his own daughter.

And, he said it clearly, conclusively said a father/daughter were included in that incest.

And the Rabbi said the same thing i said. Lev 18:6 was the edict against incest, it was not the definition.

To bad the society didnt call for beheading for Father Daughter incest, it was worse for a Father to sleep with his Daughter in law than his own daughter.Yet, it was still wrong to be with the daughter......

Enjoy posting from Creationist sites, that repackage their Genesis beliefs, to get people to fall for voodoo science?I'd have to do that to see if it was enjoyable.

And the Rabbi said the same thing i said. Lev 18:6 was the edict against incest, it was not the definition.And, that incest included father/daughter relations.

Yet, it was still wrong to be with the daughter......

In the society of the time. Just as it was wrong in the society of the time for a man to sleep with his Mother, Sister, Sister-in-law, and Aunt.

But we arent talking about Society, we were talking about Your Bible. The Bible that felt the Israelites had to be told that they were not to sleep with their own Mothers, Sisters, Sister-in-Laws, Aunts, Daughter-in-Laws, even though their society already covered that.

But didnt tell them they couldnt sleep with their own Daughters.

I'd have to do that to see if it was enjoyable.

Did you not post from Discovery Institute.org? I'm pretty sure that was you that put up their propaganda.

.... Oh wait, you thought since it said Discovery, and there is a science channel called Discovery, that it was a true scientific organization?

Did you not post from Intelligent Desing.org? You do understand that all of these sites:

IntelligentDesign.org
EvolutionNews.org
IDTheFuture.com
DissentFromDarwin.org
DarwinAndDesign.com
DarwinismAndID.com
IconsofEvolution.com
FromDarwinToHitler.com
PriviledgedPlanet.com
DarwinDayInAmerica.com
JudgingPBS.com
ReviewEvolution.com

Are all Discovery Institute.org sites?

You might want to do a little research on your sources before you cite them. But based on your ignorance of the Bible we wont expect it.

But for others, research the Discovery Institute and their Wedge Stragegy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) (yes its a wiki link, use it as a start) and the goal to get Creationism taught in schools packaged as Science.

In the society of the time. Just as it was wrong in the society of the time for a man to sleep with his Mother, Sister, Sister-in-law, and Aunt.

But we arent talking about Society, we were talking about Your Bible. The Bible that felt the Israelites had to be told that they were not to sleep with their own Mothers, Sisters, Sister-in-Laws, Aunts, Daughter-in-Laws, even though their society already covered that.

But didnt tell them they couldnt sleep with their own Daughters.
So, in this post, you explain that they already knew not to sleep with their daughters, as well as the rest.

Yet, even though the rabbi you referenced told you the verses did say not to sleep with their own daughters, you deny it still.

:gotcha:

Did you not post from Discovery Institute.org? I'm pretty sure that was you that put up their propaganda.Yes, I did.

Is it your contention that the site I posted from, with long, detailed explainations of how ID is not Creationism, not from Genesis, is actually a Creationism site? That, they denounce Creationism as some sort of ploy to get you to believe in Creationism.

The logic is weak within you, still.

Yes, I did.

Is it your contention that the site I posted from, with long, detailed explainations of how ID is not Creationism, not from Genesis, is actually a Creationism site? That, they denounce Creationism as some sort of ploy to get you to believe in Creationism.

The logic is weak within you, still.

No its my contention that you are unwilling to research information for yourself, and your willing to avoid and ignore information that refutes your position.

You've been given source information to start with, whether or not you follow up on it, is up to you.

Yes, I did.

Is it your contention that the site I posted from, with long, detailed explainations of how ID is not Creationism, not from Genesis, is actually a Creationism site? That, they denounce Creationism as some sort of ploy to get you to believe in Creationism.

The logic is weak within you, still.

Its my contention that an organization that has the goal of replacing "Evolution with an idea of science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (thats a quote from Discovery Institutes Wedge Document btw)

Is not going to be willing to overlook Genesis to further true Science.

Yes, I did.

Is it your contention that the site I posted from, with long, detailed explainations of how ID is not Creationism, not from Genesis, is actually a Creationism site? That, they denounce Creationism as some sort of ploy to get you to believe in Creationism.

The logic is weak within you, still.

It is my contention that David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, admits the truth behind the Genesis repackage.
List (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200512210814.asp)

Writing about the Dover ruling that threw Creationism/Intelligent Design out due to not being Science.
there is no coherent reconciliation between God and Darwin. Attempts to show how we can have both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out of either God or Darwin.

And this, I think, is why some Darwin advocates dislike religion. It's why they fight it with such passion: Because negating religion is the reason behind their belief system. To their credit, they recognize a truth that others prefer not to see. That is: One may choose Darwin or one may choose God.
Its God or Science, there is no reconcilliation between the 2.

It is my contention that David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, admits the truth behind the Genesis repackage.
List (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200512210814.asp)

Writing about the Dover ruling that threw Creationism/Intelligent Design out due to not being Science.

Its God or Science, there is no reconcilliation between the 2.So, one person's view of a theory defines it. I see. :loser:

So, one person's view of a theory defines it. I see. :loser:

Thats why the information wasnt for you, it was for others who actually want to find out the agenda of the Discovery Institute

Thats why the information wasnt for you, it was for others who actually want to find out the agenda of the Discovery Institute
OH, well, that's easy:Mission Statement

Discovery Institute's mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the Institute's own publications and Internet website ( Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org) ).

Current projects explore the fields of technology, science and culture, reform of the law, national defense, the environment and the economy, the future of democratic institutions, transportation, religion and public life, government entitlement spending, foreign affairs and cooperation within the bi-national region of "Cascadia." The efforts of Discovery fellows and staff, headquartered in Seattle, are crucially abetted by the Institute's members, board and sponsors.

How Discovery Institute Functions

Discovery Institute fellows submit their analyses and proposals for dialogue through seminars, conferences, and debates; they produce reports, articles, books, Congressional testimony, films and an interactive Internet website that helps spread the knowledge of the Institute's ideas. They also consult with elected and appointed officials, business people, academics, media and the general public to show how 21st century humanity can benefit from the principles, policies, and practices advocated by the Institute.

The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service expounded by the American Founders; free market economics domestically and internationally; the social requirement to balance personal liberty with responsibility; the spirit of voluntarism crucial to civil society; the continuing validity of American international leadership; and the potential of science and technology to promote an improved future for individuals, families and communities.

Fellows, members, board, advisors and staff of Discovery constitute a distributive public policy community, connected through cyberspace, with headquarters in Seattle and an office in Washington, D.C. Fellows are multi-disciplinary in background and approach. A research and advocacy project is selected when it is in harmony with Discovery's mission, when the Institute can make an original and significant contribution to the issue's development and when it is within the Institute's resources. Most issues selected are of national or international scope and fall in the fields of science, technology, environment and economy, international affairs, culture, defense, legal reform, religion and public life, transportation, and institutions of representative democracy, as well as bi-national cooperation in the international Cascadia region.

Financially, the institute is a non-profit educational foundation funded by philanthropic foundation grants, corporate and individual contributions and the dues of Institute members.

OH, well, that's easy:blah blah Why dont they mention their agenda to have Creationism repackaged as something else

Why didnt you reference this Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy)? Especially since the Discovery Institute doesnt dispute it?

OH, well, that's easy:why arent they upfront on their agenda?.

No comment about this?


The Discovery Institute is "conservative Christian think tank, structured as a non-profit educational foundation." I'm sure they follow the first scientific principle, that all theories are Falsible (ie they can be wrong).

In '96, the institute was created through money provided by the MacLellan Foundation and Roberta and Howard Ahmanson; the latter are billionaires. The latter provided $750,000 over 3 years to the institute, and the MacLellan Foundation gave a smaller grant.

Upon closer inspection of the benefactors, the MacLellan Foundation "supports organizations 'committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ.'" You can see this on their own web page (http://www.maclellan.net/about/home.asp). And, according to this article (http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2004-03-23/article/18523?headline=Local-Activists-Face-Off-in-Creationism-Debate&status=301), the Ahmansons are Christian Reconstructionists, people who favor overhauling all laws and replacing them with biblical laws.

Its not that Evolutionists are against Creationism/Intelligent Design, its they are not Scientific Theories. You dont have to believe me, you can ask President Bush's Science Advisor (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html?_r=1)

Face it, the people primarily supporting ID, are openly Christian. In fact, most ID proponents are evangelical Protestants. It appears that ID is creationism in disguise.

So once again, if its legitimate why do they have to hide it?

Thats why the information wasnt for you, it was for others who actually want to find out the agenda of the Discovery Institute

per nuckle. The discovery institute is hiding all it sources and agenda. Apparently not very well it took him oh about 10 minutes to go to the website and cut and paste all of the "hidden" revelations/associations that had been part of a long web of deception. The real agenda is apparently is not so ....hidden. :coffee:

per nuckle. The discovery institute is hiding all it sources and agenda. Apparently not very well it took him oh about 10 minutes to go to the website and cut and paste all of the "hidden" revelations/associations that had been part of a long web of deception. The real agenda is apparently is not so ....hidden. :coffee:
Right because you were the first person to bring up the creationist organization that repackages its Genesis belief as voodoo science.

:killingme

per nuckle. The discovery institute is hiding all it sources and agenda. Apparently not very well it took him oh about 10 minutes to go to the website and cut and paste all of the "hidden" revelations/associations that had been part of a long web of deception. The real agenda is apparently is not so ....hidden. :coffee:
Per foodcritic: I do not want to discuss nor does it matter that the Discovery Institute, who i mistakenly cited as a scientific source (because they had Discovery in their name) attempts to hide its agenda of teaching Creation. I do not want to acknowledge that they attempt to repackage Genesis as voodoo science. Per their own document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) that they freely claim as their own. Please dont realize the tactics used by Discovery Institute are no different than those employed by Michael Moore and Dan Rather, they are Commie Lib's its bad when they do it.

Why didnt you reference this Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy)?Why would I reference Wiki for something that's out there on the source? :confused:

You have a strange logic to look at things.

No comment about this?


Who's hiding what?

Why would I reference Wiki for something that's out there on the source? :confused:

You have a strange logic to look at things.

As i stated, the information wasnt for you then. You'd rather continue as a typical liberal, why bother finding out the intention for your source of information?

As i stated, the information wasnt for you then. You'd rather continue as a typical liberal, why bother finding out the intention for your source of information?
So, what's the intention of the source of your information?

So, what's the intention of the source of your information?
The intention is to inform: others who want to know and find out the intentions of the Discovery Institute.
those, who care about intellectual honesty, that could have been misled into using the Discovery Institute as a scientific source to counter evolution, and are able to realize the Bible is not Science.
The Discovery Institute, isnt interested in discovering our beginnings, its already documented in Genesis. Their intention is to refute Evolution.

But dont take my word for it, the Discovery Institute admits their intention in their own documents (that you continue to ignore). Ask Michael Medved (another Senior Fellow (http://www.discovery.org/a/4303) at the Discovery Institutue)

Link (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331212438&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)
[Post:] Speaking of your desire for this kind of particularity, you are a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute that studies and believes in Intelligent Design. How do you, as an Orthodox Jew, reconcile with this kind of generality - with the view of their being a hierarchy with a chief "designer" - while believing in and praying to a very specific God?

[Medved:] The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else.
Gee are you honest enough to admit that the above refutes your assertion about what Intelligent Design, at least in relation to the Discovery Institute, actually is?

But he continues
[Post:] The question is not whether it replaces evolution, but whether it replaces God.

[Medved:] No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn't tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random.
Before you try and excuse the above, if you read the article (even though your not interested in doing research) you will find that Medved's religion defines every aspect of his life (his words). He feels your a Religious Hypocrite if you seperate your religion from your personal and professional life (his words)

The Discovery Institute, and their definition of Intelligent Design (that you use, instead of the Dictionary definition) is only interested in refuting Evolution. It has no intention of searching for the answer, since it is already defined in the Bible.

You see proof of this practice in Foodidiots thread (http://forums.somd.com/religion/190685-intelligent-design-discovered.html). There is no evidence to support the hypothesis, there is only suposition that Cells are complex, so of course they had to be created.

Gee are you honest enough to admit that the above refutes your assertion about what Intelligent Design, at least in relation to the Discovery Institute, actually is?

For clarification, what i am talking about here is Intelligent Design in regards to the Discover Institute. Be clear, they are not using the dictionary definition of the term, when the Discovery Institute talks about Intelligent Design, they mean Creation as described in Genesis. (per their own documents and Senior Fellows).

The Discovery Institute, isnt interested in discovering our beginnings, its already documented in Genesis. Their intention is to refute Evolution. You realize there is a difference between challenge and refute, right?Gee are you honest enough to admit that the above refutes your assertion about what Intelligent Design, at least in relation to the Discovery Institute, actually is?I am, are you?

What you describe is someone who is saying that the system isn't random, it was designed - which challenges the random mutation theory of evolution.

ID does not say "this is how it happened, specifically by this mechanism". It says, "your random mutation concept is flawed, fatally, and it seems obvious that there was a hand in designing us". Not which hand, mind you, just A hand.

For clarification, what i am talking about here is Intelligent Design in regards to the Discover Institute. Be clear, they are not using the dictionary definition of the term, when the Discovery Institute talks about Intelligent Design, they mean Creation as described in Genesis. (per their own documents and Senior Fellows).So, you DO understand there is a difference :whew: I thought you were too far gone to actually get it.

You realize there is a difference between challenge and refute, right?I am, are you?

What you describe is someone who is saying that the system isn't random, it was designed - which challenges the random mutation theory of evolution.

ID does not say "this is how it happened, specifically by this mechanism". It says, "your random mutation concept is flawed, fatally, and it seems obvious that there was a hand in designing us". Not which hand, mind you, just A hand.

Intelligent Design ... "does not replace evolution with something else"

So, you DO understand there is a difference :whew: I thought you were too far gone to actually get it.

Yepp

Creationists, per the actual definition of the term (not the Discovery Institute definition), follow Intelligent Design. The God of Genesis, is the Intelligent Designer, as described by the definition (link (http://forums.somd.com/3984137-post9.html)). Unless your using your alternative.... err potential Bible again, and now claim that the description in Genesis is something other than a "designing intelligence" that created all "matter, the various forms of life, and the world"

(we know you already understand this, and instead like to abuse the board with your circular logic)

Followers of Intelligent Design, per the actual definition of the term (not the Discovery Institute definition), do not necessarilly follow Creation. Since their belief/faith/whatever does not follow Genesis.

Pretty simple concepts.

Intelligent Design ... "does not replace evolution with something else"You're starting to understand it.

Be careful, you might actually stumble upon an open mind.

You're starting to understand it.

Be careful, you might actually stumble upon an open mind.
Isnt that funny coming from you, one so intellectually dishonest, you continue to use a Creationist site as a "scientific" source. Looked up that information on the Discovery Institute yet (dont worry we didnt really have high hopes you'd be dilligent enough to research your sources)?

Be careful yourself, that was a quote from the Discovery Institute, not my own. The reason Discover Institutes version of Creation/Intelligent Design doesnt replace evolution is because the Discovery Institute has already determined Genesis explains it.

We arent holding our breath, but you might (notice the emphasis) get around to finally understanding that.

Its also interesting, and telling, that you dont comment on the Discovery Institute admitting that their Genesis belief is not a Scientific Theory, yet you continue to use them as a "scientific" source.

The Discovery Institute is not interested in determining the cause or source of life, planets, everything. Their entire contention is to refute Evolution, they are not interested in telling you their version of Evolution, why would they since its in Genesis, they are only interested in telling you how Evolution is not the answer.

Why is it the Discovery Institute felt the need to come up with the Wedge Strategy (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf) (that they freely admit is their own) which describes the agenda as
"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"
and to
"affirm the reality of God."

Still want to claim they arent Creationists? How do they plan on replacing science with Christian values and still follow theistic convictions if they arent basing it on Genesis?

Yet Discovery Institute backs away from the Creationist label, and feel the need to portray themselves as a Scientific Organization in order to do this? Why the subterfuge? and why do you continue to use them as a "scientific" source?

why do you continue to use them as a "scientific" source?I use their theory, the scientific one that you've demonstrated is capable of being refuted and tested indirectly (similarly to evolution tests). I'm not worried about the potential personal feelings of others that discuss it.

Why are you worried about the personal feelings of people who discuss this theory? Are you similarly interested in the personal feelings of every other atheist?

I use their theory, the scientific one that you've demonstrated is capable of being refuted and tested indirectly (similarly to evolution tests). I'm not worried about the potential personal feelings of others that discuss it.

Why are you worried about the personal feelings of people who discuss this theory? Are you similarly interested in the personal feelings of every other atheist?

What scientific theory? The Discovery Institute is on record for admitting that their version of Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

But continue to grasp.

Since you refuse to acknowledge what the Discovery Institute freely admits, that theirs is not a Scientific Theory, and the goal is to replace Scientific Evolution with Christian theistic principles (Genesis) we're done on the subject.

What scientific theory? The Discovery Institute is on record for admitting that their version of Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

But continue to grasp.

Since you refuse to acknowledge what the Discovery Institute freely admits, that theirs is not a Scientific Theory, and the goal is to replace Scientific Evolution with Christian theistic principles (Genesis) we're done on the subject.:shrug: It's at least as scientific as evolution. Just as testable, just as provable, just as well documented, just as well thought out.....

:shrug: It's at least as scientific as evolution. Just as testable, just as provable, just as well documented, just as well thought out.....
Sorry had to respond to your lies.

It is not the same, just because you dont have a grasp of what Evolution is, nor what the Scientific process actually is.

Dont take my word, use your own source. The Discovery Institute freely admits, their version of Intelligent Design (Creation) is not a Scientific Theory.

Dont take my word, use your own source. :lmao:

I do, that's why we disagree.

I want someone to prove to me that there is a black hole out there.

:tap:

I want someone to prove to me that there is a black hole out there.

:tap:
I think they're trying to do that in England right now. I'm suspecting they'll actually be able to start their machine up Dec 21, 2012 :lmao:

I want someone to prove to me that there is a black hole out there.

:tap:

No need to, God didnt describe one in Genesis


sorry..... that wasnt fair to you

No need to, God didnt describe one in Genesis


sorry..... that wasnt fair to you

:nuckgettingoffonhisown"wit":

I want someone to prove to me that there is a black hole out there.

:tap:

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3690822/Proof-that-Albert-Einsteins-black-holes-do-exist-claim-scientists.html)

Proof that Albert Einstein's black holes do exist, claim scientists
Astronomers believe they have come up with concrete proof for the existence of black holes.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Published: 5:19PM GMT 09 Dec 2008

Ever since Albert Einstein came up with his general theory of relativity, black holes has been central to our knowledge of the Universe.

Now experts say they have shown that the theoretical phenomenon, whose gravitational pull is thought to hold galaxies together, exist "beyond any reasonable doubt".

The team of scientists spent 16 years studying the existence of a super massive black hole thought to be at the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way.

While the black hole itself is invisible to the eye, the team proved its existence by tracking the motions of 28 stars circling around it.

Just as swirling leaves caught in a gust of wind can provide clues about air currents, so the stars' movements reveal information about forces at work at the galactic centre.

The observations show that the stars orbit a central concentration of mass four million times greater than that of the Sun, claim the team from the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, near Munich, Germany.

"Undoubtedly the most spectacular aspect of our long term study is that it has delivered what is now considered to be the best empirical evidence that super-massive black holes do really exist," said study leader Professor Reinhard Genzel.

"The stellar orbits in the galactic centre show that the central mass concentration of four million solar masses must be a black hole, beyond any reasonable doubt."

The astronomers were also able to measure with great accuracy how far the Earth is from the centre of the galaxy - a distance of 27,000 light years.

Usually the central region of the Milky Way is hard to see because the view from Earth is blocked by interstellar dust.

I want someone to prove to me that there is a black hole out there.

:tap:The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998astro.ph..1269R)

Proof that black holes exist will likely require confirmation of the existence of event horizons. The common assumption that the mere existence of large compact masses proves the case for black holes is an unwarranted extrapolation of General Relativity into a strong-field regime where it has not been adequately tested. Neither the large compact masses of galactic nuclei nor the massive compact objects of stellar mass in the x-ray binaries prove the existence of black holes. In contrast to the case for galactic nuclei, we have the necessary tools for obtaining either proof or disproof of event horizons in the x-ray binaries. Observations of kHz QPOs may decide the event horizon issue very quickly. If not, we can still obtain proof by comparing predictions of gravity theories that differ primarily by the presence or absence of an event horizon. Detailed analysis of models of x-ray binaries would then decide the issue

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3690822/Proof-that-Albert-Einsteins-black-holes-do-exist-claim-scientists.html)

Proof that Albert Einstein's black holes do exist, claim scientists
Astronomers believe they have come up with concrete proof for the existence of black holes.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Published: 5:19PM GMT 09 Dec 2008

Ever since Albert Einstein came up with his general theory of relativity, black holes has been central to our knowledge of the Universe.

Now experts say they have shown that the theoretical phenomenon, whose gravitational pull is thought to hold galaxies together, exist "beyond any reasonable doubt".

The team of scientists spent 16 years studying the existence of a super massive black hole thought to be at the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way.

While the black hole itself is invisible to the eye, the team proved its existence by tracking the motions of 28 stars circling around it.

Just as swirling leaves caught in a gust of wind can provide clues about air currents, so the stars' movements reveal information about forces at work at the galactic centre.

The observations show that the stars orbit a central concentration of mass four million times greater than that of the Sun, claim the team from the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, near Munich, Germany.

"Undoubtedly the most spectacular aspect of our long term study is that it has delivered what is now considered to be the best empirical evidence that super-massive black holes do really exist," said study leader Professor Reinhard Genzel.

"The stellar orbits in the galactic centre show that the central mass concentration of four million solar masses must be a black hole, beyond any reasonable doubt."

The astronomers were also able to measure with great accuracy how far the Earth is from the centre of the galaxy - a distance of 27,000 light years.

Usually the central region of the Milky Way is hard to see because the view from Earth is blocked by interstellar dust.

"While the black hole itself is invisible to the eye, the team proved its existence by tracking the motions of 28 stars circling around it. "

So they are invisible, and they saw 28 stars - that take billions of years to observe such phenomena as observable movement in the vastness of billions of light years – rotating around this invisible thing called a black hole, and they are convinced it’s this massive imploding star sucking everything into it.

Invisible.

God is invisible and I see millions – no billions – of people believing in Him

Yet you say God doesn’t exist and black holes do? Interesting. :coffee:

"While the black hole itself is invisible to the eye, the team proved its existence by tracking the motions of 28 stars circling around it. "

So they are invisible, and they saw 28 stars - that take billions of years to observe such phenomena as observable movement in the vastness of billions of light years – rotating around this invisible thing called a black hole, and they are convinced it’s this massive imploding star sucking everything into it.

Invisible.

God is invisible and I see millions – no billions – of people believing in Him

Yet you say God doesn’t exist and black holes do? Interesting. :coffee:

The result of the actions that the Black Hole has upon the neighboring 28 stars is not invisble, yet the love you feel for your wife/husband/child/dog is.... interesting :coffee:

The black hole is invisible to the eye, that does not mean it can not be seen. Yet gravity, air, molecules and radio waves are also invisible to the eye.... interesting :coffee:

And you equate this to an imaginary concept, that changes and is fluent depending on the particular society that is exposed to it? Interesting :coffee:

Unlike Black holes, the result of which, no matter what society is exposed to it, will have the same result

The result of the actions that the Black Hole has upon the neighboring 28 stars is not invisble, yet the love you feel for your wife/husband/child/dog is.... interesting :coffee:

The black hole is invisible to the eye, that does not mean it can not be seen. Yet gravity, air, molecules and radio waves are also invisible to the eye.... interesting :coffee:

And you equate this to an imaginary concept, that changes and is fluent depending on the particular society that is exposed to it? Interesting :coffee:

Unlike Black holes, the result of which, no matter what society is exposed to it, will have the same result

Invisible, yet you can see it? Hmmm... I'm quite certain people that believe in God say pretty much the same thing.

You call my believe in the existance of something that relies pretty much on the same principles as your belief that black holes exist as imaginary.

I demand actual physical proof. Otherwise, you "black hole" guys are nothing but a bunch of fanatical kooks trying to brainwash everyone into believing in some invisible, ficticious, imploding object billions of light years away.

Invisible, yet you can see it? Hmmm... I'm quite certain people that believe in God say pretty much the same thing.

You call my believe in the existance of something that relies pretty much on the same principles as your belief that black holes exist as imaginary.

I demand actual physical proof. Otherwise, you "black hole" guys are nothing but a bunch of fanatical kooks trying to brainwash everyone into believing in some invisible, ficticious, imploding object billions of light years away.
Does the article say they are Invisible, or does it say invisible to the eye? I'm pretty sure oxygen is inivisible to the eye, yet we know its there.

The article cites the proof used to prove the existance of the Black Holes. Can you show what physical effect God has on .... anything?

And which God would that be? There are thousands of them out there, which one of the Ominipotent, Alpha, "One Truth" Gods would we be discussing?

You were shown physical proof, you can dismiss it because it doesnt fit into your preconcieved notions of reality but you cant claim you werent given the chance to rely on something other than Faith.

Invisible, yet you can see it? Hmmm... I'm quite certain people that believe in God say pretty much the same thing.

You call my believe in the existance of something that relies pretty much on the same principles as your belief that black holes exist as imaginary.

I demand actual physical proof. Otherwise, you "black hole" guys are nothing but a bunch of fanatical kooks trying to brainwash everyone into believing in some invisible, ficticious, imploding object billions of light years away.

i know you feel the need to defend your religious beleifs, but you are usually less dishonest about your assesment of things.

wind is invisible, yet it exists and can be proven to exist through its physical and measurable effects.

Air is invisible, yet we can certainly prove it exists.

atoms and atomic particles, invisible, yet can be demonstrated to exist through scientific experiments.

what physical measures are you using to prove god's existence?

The article cites the proof used to prove the existance of the Black Holes. Can you show what physical effect God has on .... anything?

You'll have to use the same guidelines you established with Black Holes. You wanted physical proof, we'll expect the same result.

The hard part for you will be doing this without referencing your Bible.

Your Bible is invalid (in this particular experiment) since we know there are thousands of Gods, and only one of them follows your bible.

There is a possibility (in this experiment) that your God is not the one and the others are. As such you'll need to come up with something physical God has altered or had an effect on.

This will also have to be a measurable effect, like the Black Holes in the article.

You'll have to use the same guidelines you established with Black Holes. You wanted physical proof, we'll expect the same result. Interesting - you post a newspaper article and I post a NASA/Smithsonian refutation of that myth, and you ignore NASA.

Meanwhile, you're asking for someone to use the same guidelines on a scientific thought as on a godly thought - yet, when I ask you to use the same standards for evolution as you do for ID you fail open on that question, also.


Interesting :coffee:

Does the article say they are Invisible, or does it say invisible to the eye? I'm pretty sure oxygen is inivisible to the eye, yet we know its there.

The article cites the proof used to prove the existance of the Black Holes. Can you show what physical effect God has on .... anything?

And which God would that be? There are thousands of them out there, which one of the Ominipotent, Alpha, "One Truth" Gods would we be discussing?

You were shown physical proof, you can dismiss it because it doesnt fit into your preconcieved notions of reality but you cant claim you werent given the chance to rely on something other than Faith.

Can you see it? What if you had a really powerful telescope, could you see it then? Fact of the matter is, since no one can actually fly out there to a black hole and personally view it, you have to believe what science tells you that there is something out there. You are putting your faith in a bunch of people that could be full of crap. I mean, what if what they are really seeing is a big huge cosmic monster sucking up everything around it? Moving from galaxy to galaxy. We’re next!

Stephen Hawking swore when matter entered a black hole all matter was destroyed. He attempted to shatter the string theory apart and caused the largest dissention within the scientific community since Galileo said the earth revolves around the sun rather than the universe revolving around the earth. He now admits he was wrong.

There is a reason they call these things theory. They are BELIEVED to be true based on math and certain observations of objects that occurred billions of years ago. I am arguing this strictly from a semantical standpoint. I believe there are black holes. I think they are right about it. They have convinced me. There is enough evidence to convince me that many of the phenomena that occur in space, that we can’t see, are happening.

I use the same rational thinking in believing in God. You either believe things are randomly occurring in space and all this stuff fell into place out of chaos. Well, the formation of a living being is not a chaotic random occurrence. If there was a big bang, where did all that matter come from? Can stuff just materialize out of nothing? How did this simple mass of matter heat and cool and heat and cool resulting in the creation of life? Have you even consider what life is? And how is it that this chaotic random explosion of stuff result in a life that has a conscience and ability to reason and think about these things?

I can’t prove God exists anymore than you can prove black holes exist. Bottom line is you have to be convinced based on certain facts presented to you.

i know you feel the need to defend your religious beleifs, but you are usually less dishonest about your assesment of things.

wind is invisible, yet it exists and can be proven to exist through its physical and measurable effects.

Air is invisible, yet we can certainly prove it exists.

atoms and atomic particles, invisible, yet can be demonstrated to exist through scientific experiments.

what physical measures are you using to prove god's existence?

Wind is not invisible to our senses. You can feel it. Air is not invisible since you can breathe it. Atoms and particles are not invisible since we have microscopes that can view then.

What physical measures are you using to prove black holes exist? Have you personally seen one?

You want to know what physical measures I use to prove God exists?

LIFE!

Interesting - you post a newspaper article and I post a NASA/Smithsonian refutation of that myth, and you ignore NASA.

Meanwhile, you're asking for someone to use the same guidelines on a scientific thought as on a godly thought - yet, when I ask you to use the same standards for evolution as you do for ID you fail open on that question, also.


Interesting :coffee:

Interesting :coffee: you posted a 1998 article from NASA, i posted a 2008 article from a scientific organization.

Whats Interesting :coffee: is your inability to realize your information is outdate.

See thats how real science works, unlike your source the Discovery Institute which isnt interesting in discovering anything new (their words), real science continues to research and discover new information.

Wind is not invisible to our senses. You can feel it. Air is not invisible since you can breathe it. Atoms and particles are not invisible since we have microscopes that can view then.

What physical measures are you using to prove black holes exist? Have you personally seen one?

You want to know what physical measures I use to prove God exists?

LIFE!

Here is the fallacy of your argument, which God?

Wind is visible to the senses of everyone on this planet, as far as i know everyone on this planet is affected by wind (stipulating that someone concievably somewhere may not have experienced wind of some form).

Wind is Universal

Air is visible to the senses of everyone on this planet and everone on this planet relies upon Air.

Air is universal

Gravity is visible to the senses of everyone on this planet, and everyone on this planet is affected by Gravity.

Gravity is universal

Atoms and Particles interact with everyone on this planet. Not everyone knows it is occuring, but it affects everyone on this planet.

Atoms and Particles are universal

Gods, especially your God, are fluid and and subject to the society of the peopel exposed to them. Live in Asia, you'll most likely follow Buddha this is what your society follows, and ou'll stick with him until you are exposed to a different flavor. Buddists believe have an entirely different belief system than the Abrahamic religions (Christian, Jewish, Islam) Live in India, you'll most likely follow Hindu, this is what the society follows, and you'll stick with that until you are exposed to a different flavor Hindu's believe have an entirely different belief system than the Abrahamic religions (Christian, Jewish, Islam) Live in China you'll follow Tao or Shinto, this is what your society follows, and ou'll stick with him until you are exposed to a different flavor. These 2 are REALLY an entirely different belief system than the Abrahamic religions (Christian, Jewish, Islam) Live in Arabia you'll be Muslim thats just today, wont even go into the varying systems that were around in the past, that were just as valid, and were also based on where you live, not the "Truth"ness of the belief.

Unlike Air, Molecules, Wind and Gravity, which are universal God, especially your version, can not say the same thing

Here is the fallacy of your argument, which God?

Wind is visible to the senses of everyone on this planet, as far as i know everyone on this planet is affected by wind (stipulating that someone concievably somewhere may not have experienced wind of some form).

Wind is Universal

Air is visible to the senses of everyone on this planet and everone on this planet relies upon Air.

Air is universal

Gravity is visible to the senses of everyone on this planet, and everyone on this planet is affected by Gravity.

Gravity is universal

Atoms and Particles interact with everyone on this planet. Not everyone knows it is occuring, but it affects everyone on this planet.

Atoms and Particles are universal

Gods, especially your God, are fluid and and subject to the society of the peopel exposed to them. Live in Asia, you'll most likely follow Buddha this is what your society follows, and ou'll stick with him until you are exposed to a different flavor. Buddists believe have an entirely different belief system than the Abrahamic religions (Christian, Jewish, Islam) Live in India, you'll most likely follow Hindu, this is what the society follows, and you'll stick with that until you are exposed to a different flavor Hindu's believe have an entirely different belief system than the Abrahamic religions (Christian, Jewish, Islam) Live in China you'll follow Tao or Shinto, this is what your society follows, and ou'll stick with him until you are exposed to a different flavor. These 2 are REALLY an entirely different belief system than the Abrahamic religions (Christian, Jewish, Islam) Live in Arabia you'll be Muslim thats just today, wont even go into the varying systems that were around in the past, that were just as valid, and were also based on where you live, not the "Truth"ness of the belief.

Unlike Air, Molecules, Wind and Gravity, which are universal God, especially your version, can not say the same thing

I think we agree air and atoms and such exist. Although we have things (our senses, microscopes, etc...) that show us PHYSICALLY that they exist they are invisible. :shrug:

Let's get back to these black holes. Simple question...

What physical proof do YOU have that they exist?

I think we agree air and atoms and such exist. Although we have things (our senses, microscopes, etc...) that show us PHYSICALLY that they exist they are invisible. :shrug:
Invisible to the eye, yet you assume they actually exist. What physical proof do YOU (PsyOps) have they exist?
Let's get back to these black holes. Simple question...

What physical proof do YOU have that they exist?

So just so we're clear, YOU (PsyOps) can not see Gravity, Air, Atoms and Molecules exist, and are willing to throw out your skepticsm because Scientests have shown they exist.

But when Scientest show you the same pertaining to black holes YOU (PsyOps) dismiss it? :shrug:

At least one of us is consistent on what establishes proof.

Invisible to the eye, yet you assume they actually exist. What physical proof do YOU (PsyOps) have they exist?


So just so we're clear, YOU (PsyOps) can not see Gravity, Air, Atoms and Molecules exist, and are willing to throw out your skepticsm because Scientests have shown they exist.

Okay, this is getting stupid. I know gravity exists because it holds me to the earth. I know air exists because I breathe it (something you might to try to get oxygen to your brain), I know atoms and molecules exist because I saw them through a microscope. In other words, I have firsthand physical proof. Something you are claiming is required in order to prove there is a God (pick whichever one you want).

But when Scientest show you the same pertaining to black holes YOU (PsyOps) dismiss it?

At least one of us is consistent on what establishes proof.

I’ll try one more time… What actual physical proof do you have that black holes exist?

Okay, this is getting stupid. I know gravity exists because it holds me to the earth. I know air exists because I breathe it (something you might to try to get oxygen to your brain), I know atoms and molecules exist because I saw them through a microscope. In other words, I have firsthand physical proof.


In other, other words, you know they exist because you can observe the effect of these things, even if you can't see those things themselves....

I’ll try one more time… What actual physical proof do you have that black holes exist?

We know black holes exist because we can observe their effect on things, even if we can't see the singularity itself.



I'm not sure where you expect this line of logic to take you. I'd suggest you try another path.

In other, other words, you know they exist because you can observe the effect of these things, even if you can't see those things themselves....



We know black holes exist because we can observe their effect on things, even if we can't see the singularity itself.



I'm not sure where you expect this line of logic to take you. I'd suggest you try another path.


We've had our differences, but thanks. You got the idea accross much simplier (obviously) than i did.

In other, other words, you know they exist because you can observe the effect of these things, even if you can't see those things themselves....

Nope. I can feel the air. I can breathe the air. I can feel the gravity. I can see atoms and molecules under a microscope. So, I have a personal observation of these things. Not the effects of them. My senses detect them physically.

We know black holes exist because we can observe their effect on things, even if we can't see the singularity itself.

I'm not sure where you expect this line of logic to take you. I'd suggest you try another path.

How do you really know it’s a black hole? How do you know it isn’t just some giant interstellar monster with a veracious appetite for cosmic stuff? You seem to be completely missing my point, unless you just decided to jump in and haven’t been keeping up. You sort of gave me the answer I expected and once I get Nuck’s answer, I will answer you. It’s really not that hard though.

We've had our differences, but thanks. You got the idea accross much simplier (obviously) than i did.

Are you going to answer the question?

We know black holes exist because we can observe their effect on things, even if we can't see the singularity itself.


BTW... when you say "WE" you mean YOU personally observed these effects or some scientist told you so?

Are you going to answer the question?

Yes i have, matter of fact i'm pretty sure i posted an article supporting my position

Nope. I can feel the air. I can breathe the air. I can feel the gravity.

Can you feel the air in France? New Zealand? Guam?
Can you feel the gravity in Chad? Korea? Olympus Mons?

Is it your contention that these places are vacuums?


I can see atoms and molecules under a microscope. So, I have a personal observation of these things. Not the effects of them. My senses detect them physically.

Congratulations..

How about quarks? We can't see those yet. Do you deny their existence?


How do you really know it’s a black hole? How do you know it isn’t just some giant interstellar monster with a veracious appetite for cosmic stuff?

I don't know that. It might be. Although, I probably wouldn't not argue in favor of this particular hypothosis

The term "black hole" is probably technically a misnomer. It's not a "hole" per se. Without going into the details of astrophysics or the trivialities of semantics, let's just say that a Black Hole is what it is, and the fact that it may not really be black, or really a hole doesn't prove that the universe is 6000 years old, and all science is bunk.

If you would rather call it a "gravitational-anomoly-which-produces-invisible-spots-in-space phenomenon", knock yourself out. I'll stick with a smaller mouthful.

You seem to be completely missing my point,

Which is...?

BTW... when you say "WE" you mean YOU personally observed these effects or some scientist told you so?



I have personally observed the effects of black holes*.


I suppose it's POSSIBLE that the devil made the lens, and was actively playing tricks on my eyes, but I tend to think not.







*And gravity... And air... And God...

Yes i have, matter of fact i'm pretty sure i posted an article supporting my position

Okay, let me interpret your answer since you wont give me a direct one. You trust the scientist in what they are telling, even though you haven't personally observed a black hole. You put your faith in the testimony of someone else’s observations and expertise. You trust that they are just making this stuff up just to keep themselves employed.

I don’t have a problem with this. But how is this any different than people putting their faith in the testimony of archeologists, theologians, written eye witnesses and believers that span over several millennia? I don’t have any more physical proof that God exists than you have that black holes exist. Yet you chose to believe that science is right in their observations of something that is billions of light years away, and light that is likely billion of years old, base on created math that can only be measured by the limits of this earth.

As I said before, that’s why they call these things theories. That are not actually proven, but there is just enough evidence to make it believable. If I chose to not believe it’s a black hole, I chose that based on the same premises that you chose not to believe there is a God.

Fact of the matter is I am convinced scientists are not lying to us and that their research is fairly accurate. I’m certain there are these massive suction cups in space that they decided to call black holes. Fact of the matter is I am equally convinced archeologists, theologians and billions (if not trillions) of believers over the millennia are not lying to me about the existence of God.

I have personally observed the effects of black holes*.


I suppose it's POSSIBLE that the devil made the lens, and was actively playing tricks on my eyes, but I tend to think not.







*And gravity... And air... And God...

Great, you observed THE EFFECTS. Prove it's a black hole. :tap:

I've personally observed the effects of God. Funny you haven't seen them.

I don't know that. It might be. Although, I probably wouldn't not argue in favor of this particular hypothosis.

THERE! THAT'S IT! That's all you needed to say. You should have followed that up with "I simply believe in the science that concludes that's what it is"

And that, my friend, is the extent of one's faith in a God.

Great, you observed THE EFFECTS. Prove it's a black hole. :tap:

I do not have to prove it's a black hole. It's out there. You can look at it. You can probably find one from your back porch with a pair of binoculars. You may as well ask me to prove that wooden thing over there is a tree.


I've personally observed the effects of God. Funny you haven't seen them.



You obviously didn't observe the effects of me typing my last post.

THERE! THAT'S IT! That's all you needed to say. You should have followed that up with "I simply believe in the science that concludes that's what it is"

Actually, I shouldn't have followed it up with that, becase science hasn't concluded anything yet. There are several theories - but until something is "proven" they will remain theories.

That's one of the reasons science is a beautiful thing.


And that, my friend, is the extent of one's faith in a God.

Stop salivating.

First of all: You're preaching to a choir. I'm not an atheist, you don't need to go "AHA! GOTCHA" to me. I was got a while back.



That being said I never discount science, or Occam's Razor, either. Not believing that a monster exists in the center of a black hole is not a matter of faith.

Not a matter of faith.


Not believing in such a monster, until there is something to suggest there is, is simple common sense. Without anything to suggest that there IS a monster there, there is nothing to base such an assertion on.

I do not have to prove it's a black hole. It's out there. You can look at it. You can probably find one from your back porch with a pair of binoculars. You may as well ask me to prove that wooden thing over there is a tree.

Hmmm... I thought black holes were invisible.

You obviously didn't observe the effects of me typing my last post

I do apologize for missing your fine print footnote. :shrug:

Hmmm... I thought black holes were invisible.

That's the funny thing about black holes. It is precisely their invisibility that makes them visible. You can see the empty spot against a backdrop of more distant stars. You can "see" where the light of more distant stars warps into the event horizon.

Can you see the singularity itself? Nope - but you can see it's effects.

Like gravity. You can't see "gravity" but you can see stuff fall.



I do apologize for missing your fine print footnote. :shrug:


I figured that if you saw my name it would be a given that I'm not approaching from the atheist/agnostic point of view. I've never been shy about my belief.

That's the funny thing about black holes. It is precisely their invisibility that makes them visible. You can see the empty spot against a backdrop of more distant stars. You can "see" where the light of more distant stars warps into the event horizon.

Can you see the singularity itself? Nope - but you can see it's effects.

Like gravity. You can't see "gravity" but you can see stuff fall.






I figured that if you saw my name it would be a given that I'm not approaching from the atheist/agnostic point of view. I've never been shy about my belief.

I’m not arguing against the validity of black holes; I’m using black holes as an example of how the same folks that dismiss the existence of God because you can’t actually see or hear Him, even though you can see the effects of such a God, argue for the existence of such things as blacks holes based on the same premises. Folks that have never seen a black hole, actually probably never even looked through a telescope and seen the effects of a black hole simply believe they exist because science tells them they do. I could us global warming or strings (in the string theory) in the same context.

I’m not arguing against the validity of black holes; I’m using black holes as an example of how the same folks that dismiss the existence of God because you can’t actually see or hear Him, even though you can see the effects of such a God, argue for the existence of such things as blacks holes based on the same premises. Folks that have never seen a black hole, actually probably never even looked through a telescope and seen the effects of a black hole simply believe they exist because science tells them they do. I could us global warming or strings (in the string theory) in the same context.

and what were those effects you are attributing to god again?

please list the effect with its measure and how it proves the existence of YOUR GOD

I’m not arguing against the validity of black holes; I’m using black holes as an example of how the same folks that dismiss the existence of God because you can’t actually see or hear Him, even though you can see the effects of such a God, argue for the existence of such things as blacks holes based on the same premises.

See, I would argue that God is more akin to the Vortex Creating Monster you postulated earlier rather than the Black Hole itself... without evidence that there is such a monster, there's no reason to believe that it's there.



That said, I happen to believe there's enough evidence to support the existence of God - The Christian God - (although not the Vortex Monster), which is the reason I usually argue in His favor rather than against.

See, I would argue that God is more akin to the Vortex Creating Monster you postulated earlier rather than the Black Hole itself... without evidence that there is such a monster, there's no reason to believe that it's there.

My only response to this is since you can’t actually see the black hole, there is no more evidence that it is an imploded star than it is a star-eating monster. If I’m not mistaken scientists used to think that everything got sucked into it that got near it and nothing escaped, not even light. Now they have discovered that black holes actually emit some sort of energy; almost like an exhaust. Well, it’s my contention that this energy is actually monster poop or gas.

You see, as they go on they discover something different about these phenomena. Hawking admitting that matter actually doesn’t get destroyed when he argued for 30 years to the contrary. How do they really know this? Now they say there is some sort of energy released where before nothing escaped. I’m certain they will eventually conclude that this is really a star-eating monster.

My only response to this is since you can’t actually see the black hole, there is no more evidence that it is an imploded star than it is a star-eating monster. If I’m not mistaken scientists used to think that everything got sucked into it that got near it and nothing escaped, not even light. Now they have discovered that black holes actually emit some sort of energy; almost like an exhaust. Well, it’s my contention that this energy is actually monster poop or gas.

You see, as they go on they discover something different about these phenomena. Hawking admitting that matter actually doesn’t get destroyed when he argued for 30 years to the contrary. How do they really know this? Now they say there is some sort of energy released where before nothing escaped. I’m certain they will eventually conclude that this is really a star-eating monster.


when did you sell your username to this_person? i haven't seen such disengenuious BS from anyone other than him.....

and what were those effects you are attributing to god again?

please list the effect with its measure and how it proves the existence of YOUR GOD

Tell you what smartguy, you explain to me in detail the string theory and how it proves that strings even exist then I'll explain how I have come to believe in my God. Because no matter what explanation you give me mathematically or otherwise I can always say "prove it's true".

:ohwell:

when did you sell your username to this_person? i haven't seen such disengenuious BS from anyone other than him.....

Good scientific retort. :rolleyes:

Tell you what smartguy, you explain to me in detail the string theory and how it proves that strings even exist then I'll explain how I have come to believe in my God. Because no matter what explanation you give me mathematically or otherwise I can always say "prove it's true".

:ohwell:

nice diversion, now i am convinced that you sold your name to thisperson :killingme

Interesting :coffee: you posted a 1998 article from NASA, i posted a 2008 article from a scientific organization.HmmmmNo one has yet discovered a black hole for certain. (http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/blackhole_worldbook.html) To prove that a compact object is a black hole, scientists would have to measure effects that only a black hole could produce. Two such effects would be a severe bending of a light beam and an extreme slowing of timeCuriously, even though black holes are assumed to exist by everyone, including some of our best scientists, black holes have never been proven to exist. Indeed, they are predicted by theories that we know are wrong. (http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/09/15/what_does_the_new_collider_do_and_can_it_make_black_holes/)

when did you sell your username to this_person? i haven't seen such disengenuious BS from anyone other than him.....

:lmao:


What a moron!

Hmmmm

NASA
No one has yet discovered a black hole for certain. To prove that a compact object is a black hole, scientists would have to measure effects that only a black hole could produce. Two such effects would be a severe bending of a light beam and an extreme slowing of time
Hmmmmm

Good to see you havent changed m.o. on researching your sources.
To cite this article, World Book recommends the following format: McClintock, Jeffrey E. "Black hole." World Book Online Reference Center. 2004. World Book, Inc.

Dont know how your calendar works, maybe your referencing an alternative..... err potential one only available to you but 2004 (your Nasa article) occurs before 2008 (the article i posted about the discovery).

Of course you wouldnt have purposely tried to post an article that doesnt support your argument, and has been replaced with new information and discovery, with the intention you wouldnt have gotten called on it.

(similiar to posting a Creationist site as your scientific source to refute Evolution)
Hmmmm

Originally Posted by 2008 Research and Published article by Northwestern University
Curiously, even though black holes are assumed to exist by everyone, including some of our best scientists, black holes have never been proven to exist. Indeed, they are predicted by theories that we know are wrong.

Hmmmmm

Not entirely sure, but doesnt December (when the article i posted) occur after September (the article you posted)?

Of course you wouldnt have purposely tried to post an article that doesnt support your argument, and has been replaced with new information and discovery, with the intention you wouldnt have gotten called on it.

(similiar to posting a Creationist site as your scientific source to refute Evolution)

Hmmmmm

Good to see you havent changed m.o. on researching your sources.
To cite this article, World Book recommends the following format: McClintock, Jeffrey E. "Black hole." World Book Online Reference Center. 2004. World Book, Inc.

Dont know how your calendar works, maybe your referencing an alternative..... err potential one only available to you but 2004 (your Nasa article) occurs before 2008 (the article i posted about the discovery).

Of course you wouldnt have purposely tried to post an article that doesnt support your argument, and has been replaced with new information and discovery, with the intention you wouldnt have gotten called on it.

(similiar to posting a Creationist site as your scientific source to refute Evolution)

Hmmmmm

Not entirely sure, but doesnt December (when the article i posted) occur after September (the article you posted)?

Of course you wouldnt have purposely tried to post an article that doesnt support your argument, and has been replaced with new information and discovery, with the intention you wouldnt have gotten called on it.

(similiar to posting a Creationist site as your scientific source to refute Evolution)
Your articles refute the conclusions of these?

Your articles refute the conclusions of these?

Ahh its evident now. See there is a concept called time. The Bible even utililzes this concept, so your safe following it. Wont speak about your alternative..... err potential bible, since you're the only one that's seen it.

Along with the concept of time, there is a theory that items that occur in the past (of this time) can be found null when items after (the past) occur.

Lets try this and see if you understand it:
Day 1 Someone makes a post
Day 2 This_Misrepresentation makes a false allegation about what that post stated or meant
Day 3 This_Misrepresentation is called out for his lies
Day 4 Thsi_Misrepresentation references an invalid cite as proof for his false claim

Now if you were to come back later and read the thread, most people will understand that all of that occurs at different times. Just because you read it on the same day doesnt mean it all occured at the same time. As such a reasonable person accurately realizes what occurred on Day 4, happens after Day 1.

nice diversion, now i am convinced that you sold your name to thisperson :killingme

It was meant to be an exercise in futility. Neither you nor I can prove certain things we believe in the other's eyes. You just refuse to realize that certain things, devoid of actual personal physical proof, cannot be proven except through a belief they exist. It's as simple as that.

It was meant to be an exercise in futility. Neither you nor I can prove certain things we believe in the other's eyes. You just refuse to realize that certain things, devoid of actual personal physical proof, cannot be proven except through a belief they exist. It's as simple as that.
Thats the problem with your excercise. Belief in God requires Faith, by its definition no proof is required.

Faith is different than Science, in that you and I can observe the effect that Gravity, Air, Wind, Black Holes have on things. (with the aid of equipment in order to do this)

Thats the problem with your excercise. Belief in God requires Faith, by its definition no proof is required.

Faith is different than Science, in that you and I can observe the effect that Gravity, Air, Wind, Black Holes have on things. (with the aid of equipment in order to do this)

This is simply not true. You are putting your faith in someone else – scientists – to convince you that something is true, even though it may not be. You get enough people behind it and suddenly it becomes more of a reality. Global warming is a good example of that. No one is really seeing whether global warming is occurring. There really aren’t any observable effects to substantiate it. Yet, the “climate change” crowd has created a bunch of factors that they attribute to it and use that to convince people it’s true. They have put their faith in something they are convinced is true, but really can’t prove it’s true.

I’ve provided my proof that you rejected because of your refusal to see those as valid facts. I am using black holes as an example of being able to do the same thing. Yet you chose to believe, regardless of my arguments that black holes exist; even though you have never really seen one. Quarks, strings, the big bang, etc… are all examples of things we are told exist only because someone told us they do.

All of these things boil down to having a certain level of faith that you are being told the truth. What you call science in proving things that cannot be detected by our sense (just like God) I call theory; or faith in its truth. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m simply posing the argument that just as you are trying to disprove the existence of God because you believe there is no scientific proof, I can equally question the validity of so much “science” claiming certain things exist even though you can’t detect them with our senses.

This is simply not true. You are putting your faith in someone else – scientists – to convince you that something is true, even though it may not be.
Wrong Just as the scientests have observed the interaction, so can you.
You get enough people behind it and suddenly it becomes more of a reality. Global warming is a good example of that. No one is really seeing whether global warming is occurring. There really aren’t any observable effects to substantiate it. Yet, the “climate change” crowd has created a bunch of factors that they attribute to it and use that to convince people it’s true. They have put their faith in something they are convinced is true, but really can’t prove it’s true.
Global Climate Change is an example of Politics manifesting itself as a form of Religion.

You dont know or unwilling to admit, but you your example strengthens the argument for science, and the scientific theory. Global Climate Change is not science, as many on here (possibly you?) will argue when Al Gore spouts his nonsense
I’ve provided my proof that you rejected because of your refusal to see those as valid facts.
Just so we're clear, you've provided proof of what?
I am using black holes as an example of being able to do the same thing. Yet you chose to believe, regardless of my arguments that black holes exist; even though you have never really seen one.
Your example fails because the interaction of Black Holes has been observed. Even better there is no reliance upon "God works in mysterious ways" as an explanation, a layman (non scientest) can also observe the same interaction.
Quarks, strings, the big bang, etc… are all examples of things we are told exist only because someone told us they do.
Quarks, and strings have a Scientific Theory that they exist. Proving or disproving the theory doesnt negate the Scientific method, nor does it validate Creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute (who are only interested in disprovign something).

They also do not rely upon faith for their existence, Science is actively attempting to validate the scientific theory for their existence.

The Big Bang is a Catholic approved theory that has been under fire by Scientests since the Church approved its concept.
All of these things boil down to having a certain level of faith that you are being told the truth. What you call science in proving things that cannot be detected by our sense (just like God) I call theory; or faith in its truth. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m simply posing the argument that just as you are trying to disprove the existence of God because you believe there is no scientific proof, I can equally question the validity of so much “science” claiming certain things exist even though you can’t detect them with our senses.
No your trying to muddle the Scientific Theory with Faith. They are not compatible.

One relies upon a method of forwarding a hypothesis for some thing and then relying upon sound methods and procedures to disprove or prove the theory. The universality of the theory is that ANYONE can also subject the theory to the same scientific method and come up with results. These results can further prove or disprove the theory but the Method is still valid. You do not need to be a scientest to do this, anyone can observe the process, interaction and results.

Science example: Black Holes, Gravity, Wind, Air (etc.) Universally can all be observed, processed and have the scientific method applied. Anyone can do this. Even if you dont believe in it, the interaction still applies and still occurs

The other relies upon not applying the Scientific Method. Faith by its definition is the belief in something without Proof. You have to have Faith in order to follow it and unlike Scientific Method you have to have faith in order to believe in it.

Faith example: The Sun is Green - Have to believe without proof that the sun is Green. Only those with Faith will follow it, once you attempt to prove it Faith becomes invalid.

Now if you were to come back later and read the thread, most people will understand that all of that occurs at different times. So, at that later time, what your newspaper reported directly refutes what's in what I posted?

No your trying to muddle the Scientific Theory with Faith. They are not compatible.

Post is too long to reply to it all. Scientific theory requires a level of faith that the theory is true. It was long believed that the earth was flat, that the universe revolved around the earth, that all matter broke down in a black hole, when watching one of our planets they saw an object that looked like it was moving forward then moved backwards then forward again; after they studied it they realized it was the illusion of watching the first object passing the zig-zagging object giving it the illusion of zig-zagging.

Point being, when we observe things that really happened billions of years and are billions of light years away all science can do is theorize what's happening. There's no absolute proof whatsoever that a big bang happened. No one was there. They can only use observations of objects (typically object that may not even exist anymore) and math; math that is confined to what we know on this earth. We apply those physical things on this earth and assume those rules would be the same billions of light years away. Then they try to use math to go back in time assuming the math doesn't change. Astronomers have recently discovered large “Space Blobs” in parts of space where they should be much smaller. This is potentially changing how they might view the big bang. Or perhaps even show there may not have been a big bang.

Bottom line, they could be wrong about all of it: black holes, big bang, string theory, etc… You simply have to believe it’s right.

Post is too long to reply to it all. Scientific theory requires a level of faith that the theory is true. It was long believed that the earth was flat, that the universe revolved around the earth, that all matter broke down in a black hole, when watching one of our planets they saw an object that looked like it was moving forward then moved backwards then forward again; after they studied it they realized it was the illusion of watching the first object passing the zig-zagging object giving it the illusion of zig-zagging.

Point being, when we observe things that really happened billions of years and are billions of light years away all science can do is theorize what's happening. There's no absolute proof whatsoever that a big bang happened. No one was there. They can only use observations of objects (typically object that may not even exist anymore) and math; math that is confined to what we know on this earth. We apply those physical things on this earth and assume those rules would be the same billions of light years away. Then they try to use math to go back in time assuming the math doesn't change. Astronomers have recently discovered large “Space Blobs” in parts of space where they should be much smaller. This is potentially changing how they might view the big bang. Or perhaps even show there may not have been a big bang.

Bottom line, they could be wrong about all of it: black holes, big bang, string theory, etc… You simply have to believe it’s right.
No, scientists never make mistakes. They simply come to conclusions supported by the facts at the time, until such time as facts present themselves that refute the previous conclusions.

It's never a guess, an inaccurate or unfounded conclusion, etc.



Archaeoraptor

In 1999 National Geographic described this creature as the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds.

Yeah, not so much.

Turns out this "fossil" found in China was actually a forgery constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils from different speciesPiltdown Man (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/460690/Piltdown-man)

The whole thing started in 1912 when Charles Dawson claimed to find some interesting bones in a gravel pit.

A palaeontologist at the British Museum assembled the bones and believed that they represented the "missing link" between humans and apes.

40 years later scientists proved that the Piltdown man was a deliberate attempt at paleontological fraud.

Post is too long to reply to it all. Scientific theory requires a level of faith that the theory is true. It was long believed that the earth was flat, that the universe revolved around the earth, that all matter broke down in a black hole, when watching one of our planets they saw an object that looked like it was moving forward then moved backwards then forward again; after they studied it they realized it was the illusion of watching the first object passing the zig-zagging object giving it the illusion of zig-zagging.
This was the prevailing thought of western society at the time. (other societies had their own beliefs about the world, cosmos and bright lights in the skies).

Do you want to gander a guess on why Western Society, for the longest time, held these beliefs? (here's a clue, societies in the past did not all hold the world was flat, or that the cosmos revolved around the earth).

It took the intervention of an insidous factor in order to subjecate, force and change the opionions of theorists, pagan holy men and the societies at the time.
Point being, when we observe things that really happened billions of years and are billions of light years away all science can do is theorize what's happening. There's no absolute proof whatsoever that a big bang happened. No one was there. They can only use observations of objects (typically object that may not even exist anymore) and math; math that is confined to what we know on this earth. We apply those physical things on this earth and assume those rules would be the same billions of light years away. Then they try to use math to go back in time assuming the math doesn't change. Astronomers have recently discovered large “Space Blobs” in parts of space where they should be much smaller. This is potentially changing how they might view the big bang. Or perhaps even show there may not have been a big bang.
The point being, Scientific Theory does not rely upon faith. Your confusion stems on what a Scientific Theory is, verses what Faith is. One depends on the absense of Fact (Faith) the other relies upon discovering the source (Scientific Theory). They are markedly different

It was not scientests that forwarded that the Earth was Flat, the universe revolved around the earth and what the stars in the heavens were. It was another organization, that claimed their hypothesis was based on the word of God (so it could not be wrong). This organization was not interested in finding the source or discovering the truth, to them the answer was already provided (same as the Discovery Institute).

But it was scientests that refuted this organization and determined the truth, based on measurable methods, not superstition and fear.
Bottom line, they could be wrong about all of it: black holes, big bang, string theory, etc… You simply have to believe it’s right.
Its interesting you keep throwing in the Big Bang theory. I, and a growing scientific body, agree with you that its a load of bunk. Unfortunately its another example of the problems of using Religion to define Science.

No, scientists never make mistakes. They simply come to conclusions supported by the facts at the time, until such time as facts present themselves that refute the previous conclusions.

It's never a guess, an inaccurate or unfounded conclusion, etc.

The scientific process works

The scientific process works

Unless it fails.

The scientific process works
It only works as well as the intellectual honesty of the participants allows it to.

If you close your mind to possibilities because they are not what you like, it doesn't work.

If you close your mind to the possibility of being wrong, it doesn't work.

If people submit false information, it doesn't work.

Unless it fails.

"Science works in mysterious ways"

It only works as well as the intellectual honesty of the participants allows it to.

If you close your mind to possibilities because they are not what you like, it doesn't work.

If you close your mind to the possibility of being wrong, it doesn't work.

If people submit false information, it doesn't work.
:lmao:

Book mark this post, maybe you'll grasp the irony the next time you quote the Creationists over at the Discovery Instute.

:lmao:

Book mark this post, maybe you'll grasp the irony the next time you quote the Creationists over at the Discovery Instute.
The ones that specifically say their theory and Creationism are not compatible?

The ones that specifically say their theory and Creationism are not compatible?

No the ones that state their agenda is to repackage Genesis into a package similiar to Scientific Theories, while not interested in actual science, to replace Science with Christian Theistic beliefs and practices.

The ones that specifically say their theory and Creationism are not compatible?
Ya know, i wonder if you'd show the same blindness to a Liberal that quotes from Media Matters, MoveOn, or any other Liberal Organization?

Right now, you continue to show your intellectual dishonesty in regards to the Discovery Institute and their agenda of pushing Genesis to replace Science.

No the ones that state their agenda is to repackage Genesis into a package similiar to Scientific Theories, while not interested in actual science, to replace Science with Christian Theistic beliefs and practices.

That would be counter to ID.

Ya know, i wonder if you'd show the same blindness to a Liberal that quotes from Media Matters, MoveOn, or any other Liberal Organization?

Right now, you continue to show your intellectual dishonesty in regards to the Discovery Institute and their agenda of pushing Genesis to replace Science.I don't put my faith in the Discovery Institute. That's not the heart and soul of my accpetance of a more open minded view of science than just "#### happens".

I don't put my faith in the Discovery Institute. That's not the heart and soul of my accpetance of a more open minded view of science than just "#### happens".

Gotcha, your posting from them and their subsideraries shows that to be true.

That would be counter to ID.

yeah...... that would be my point :lmao:

but continue with using them as your source

Gotcha, your posting from them and their subsideraries shows that to be true.They've been my ONLY source?

Since we know that not to be true, what is your point?

"Science works in mysterious ways"

Funny!

Look, you have to know I am not arguing against science. It has certainly solved a lot of the mysteries we wanted answers to. It’s been wrong on many fronts. Once place I find particularly interesting is medical science. Eggs are bad for you, no they’re good for you, no they’re bad for you again, nope the benefits outweigh the harm. We’re talking about stuff science can touch and see firsthand and they can’t even get that right; and you expect me to trust that they have it right regarding stuff that is billions of light years away?

But I believe in the pursuit of science. I think they can find the answers. None of it will disclaim God. And that’s where I have a problem with some folks in these discussions. They want to use science as a means to disprove God. I happen to think they coexist.

They've been my ONLY source?

Since we know that not to be true, what is your point?

Your right, you havent posted just Discovery Institute source information.


You also posted Discover Institute child organization source information.

Funny!

Look, you have to know I am not arguing against science. It has certainly solved a lot of the mysteries we wanted answers to. It’s been wrong on many fronts. Once place I find particularly interesting is medical science. Eggs are bad for you, no they’re good for you, no they’re bad for you again, nope the benefits outweigh the harm. We’re talking about stuff science can touch and see firsthand and they can’t even get that right; and you expect me to trust that they have it right regarding stuff that is billions of light years away?

But I believe in the pursuit of science. I think they can find the answers. None of it will disclaim God. And that’s where I have a problem with some folks in these discussions. They want to use science as a means to disprove God. I happen to think they coexist.

Your right, some scientests attempt to disprove God.

But also, some scientests while attempting to prove a hypothesis or theory, end up refuting something attributed to God (Earth being flat for instance). This isnt an attempt to disprove God, he's jus the victim of the desire to seek knowledge.

Just as some Creationists are only interested in refuting Science.

Your right, you havent posted just Discovery Institute source information.


You also posted Discover Institute child organization source information.

And a significant amount besides that. :rolleyes:


I know you have a particular hatred for me, or you wouldn't take out your frustrations with others on me and then not apologize when proven wrong. However, you would be far better off at least attempting to be honest. Somebody may start believing you.

Your right, some scientests attempt to disprove God.

But also, some scientests while attempting to prove a hypothesis or theory, end up refuting something attributed to God (Earth being flat for instance). This isnt an attempt to disprove God, he's jus the victim of the desire to seek knowledge.

Just as some Creationists are only interested in refuting Science.The closed-minded are a problem on both sides, on this we can agree.

And a significant amount besides that. :rolleyes:


I know you have a particular hatred for me, or you wouldn't take out your frustrations with others on me and then not apologize when proven wrong. However, you would be far better off at least attempting to be honest. Somebody may start believing you.

Have you always suffered under an inflated sense of Self Worth?

Have you always suffered under an inflated sense of Self Worth?
I would have to have one to suffer from it, I guess.

Do you deny you accused me of something, had it told to you that you were wrong, and failed to apologize for the accusation, and all of the insults that went with the false accusation?

Your right, some scientests attempt to disprove God.

But also, some scientests while attempting to prove a hypothesis or theory, end up refuting something attributed to God (Earth being flat for instance). This isnt an attempt to disprove God, he's jus the victim of the desire to seek knowledge.

Just as some Creationists are only interested in refuting Science.

But aren’t you doing this here? Using science to assert your disbelief in God? Since you support the notion that one doesn’t refute the other, what are we really debating about? I’ve contended all along that both have their complete relevance on this earth in terms of explaining certain mysteries we seek answers for. You’ve contended that “religion” doesn’t particularly explain anything in our universe. It seems your contention is that only science can do this.

But aren’t you doing this here? Using science to assert your disbelief in God? Since you support the notion that one doesn’t refute the other, what are we really debating about? I’ve contended all along that both have their complete relevance on this earth in terms of explaining certain mysteries we seek answers for. You’ve contended that “religion” doesn’t particularly explain anything in our universe. It seems your contention that only science can do this.
Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. That's exactly why it's in the religious forum.

It'll be interesting to see how he twists his clear intent and your words to try and get out of this.

But aren’t you doing this here? Using science to assert your disbelief in God? Since you support the notion that one doesn’t refute the other, what are we really debating about? I’ve contended all along that both have their complete relevance on this earth in terms of explaining certain mysteries we seek answers for. You’ve contended that “religion” doesn’t particularly explain anything in our universe. It seems your contention is that only science can do this.

I have never hid my disbelief in God. And i dont know where i've stated that one (Science) does not refute the other (God).

Since some feel that the Religion forum is an appropriate place to post articles that prove the Scientific Process does indeed work, all we are doing here is discussing another article that shows this.

I have never hid my disbelief in God. And i dont know where i've stated that one (Science) does not refute the other (God).

So you’re saying one DOES refute the other?

Since some feel that the Religion forum is an appropriate place to post articles that prove the Scientific Process does indeed work, all we are doing here is discussing another article that shows this.

Well, I’m certainly not saying the scientific process doesn’t work. What I am saying is it has not provided all the answers and it’s my contention that it never will. I think there are limitations to science and math. Math can’t answer the question of infinity. I doubt it unlock the mystery of life or how the universe got here in the first place; which really leads back to the first question: infinity. But solving certain problems, the process does work. But with everything it does solve leads to another question that it has to answer; an infinite process that never ends and never comes to an absolute answer.

The other part of this is there is nothing in science that disproves the existence of God.

So you’re saying one DOES refute the other?
No I am disputing your claim :
Since you support the notion that one doesn’t refute the other
I have never claimed that and wasnt sure why you were attributing it to me
Well, I’m certainly not saying the scientific process doesn’t work. What I am saying is it has not provided all the answers and it’s my contention that it never will. I think there are limitations to science and math. Math can’t answer the question of infinity. I doubt it unlock the mystery of life or how the universe got here in the first place; which really leads back to the first question: infinity. But solving certain problems, the process does work. But with everything it does solve leads to another question that it has to answer; an infinite process that never ends and never comes to an absolute answer.
Your boring in a debate :killingme
The other part of this is there is nothing in science that disproves the existence of God.
Thats your assertion

I have never claimed that and wasnt sure why you were attributing it to me

Yes you did… right here:

I have never hid my disbelief in God. And i dont know where i've stated that one (Science) does not refute the other (God).

I think you just worded this wrong. Did you mean to say “And i dont know where i've stated that one (Science) refutes the other (God).”?

Your boring in a debate :killingme

Given that, maybe I should just be the spell-check Nazi and tell you it’s “you’re” not “your”. :buttkick:

Thats your “boring” assertion

:fixed:

Yes you did… right here:



I think you just worded this wrong. Did you mean to say “And i dont know where i've stated that one (Science) refutes the other (God).”?
Nah i worded it the way i intended.

It was me asking why you were attributing the below to me:
Since you support the notion that one doesn’t refute the other
when i have never agreed, or meant to sound as if i agreed, to any such thing.
I only stated the below in response to that:
And i dont know where i've stated that one (Science) does not refute the other (God).

Given that, maybe I should just be the spell-check Nazi and tell you it’s “you’re” not “your”. :buttkick:



:fixed:
Yeah the whol your/yer/you're is one of my crutches. Hopefully you possess the ability to over-look a simple grammar mistake in the course of discussion and debate.

Yeah the whol your/yer/you're is one of my crutches. Hopefully you possess the ability to over-look a simple grammar mistake in the course of discussion and debate.

I can't stand people that play the "I'm a better speller/grammar than you" game. We all make mistakes.................. like you'''''''re making in this debate

:lmao:

I can't stand people that play the "I'm a better speller/grammar than you" game. We all make mistakes.................. like you'''''''re making in this debate

:lmao:
Tell you what, you dont hold me responsible for a missing ' and i'll try to overlook the fact your delusional!


:duel:

Tell you what, you dont hold me responsible for a missing ' and i'll try to overlook the fact your delusional!


:duel:

You did it again! :jameo:

You're just doing it on purpose now.

You did it again! :jameo:

You're just doing it on purpose now.

that time i did in the future it will just be laziness

:killingme