Life's origin, outer space (maybe)

[Arlos]

Still waiting for Lyion to offer one single statement about where ID "theory" has predictive value.

Remember, boys and girls, if it can't offer predictive value, by DEFINITION it is NOT a Scientific Theory.

Well, Lyion?

-Arlos

[Lyion]

As soon as the majority of players here can soundly differentiate between Creationism and ID, I'll gladly post more comparative science between Neo Darwinism and ID.

Since nobody has a clue, it's really tough to add anything.

Speaking of predictive, are you trying to tell me darwinian evolution is predictive, Arlos? Here's a hint, a fertilized egg developing into a multi cell organism doesn't count.

The interesting thing is your argument about predictive is actually a hit against Darwinism. It's a big problem for them, since the only real advances made come from predictions based on a system design. Note, that is not random or chance.

Of course you can default to the be all end all Evolution can do anything argument, but again that leads us back to 'faith', which is what Neo Darwin is, and we have firmly established due to your completely ignoring the vast amount of points I raised here.

[10sun]

"I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of the Earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator, while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and order."

Hey guys, welcome to Deism!

[Tikker]

As soon as the majority of players here can soundly differentiate between Creationism and ID, I'll gladly post more comparative science between Neo Darwinism and ID.

Since nobody has a clue, it's really tough to add anything.

Speaking of predictive, are you trying to tell me darwinian evolution is predictive, Arlos? Here's a hint, a fertilized egg developing into a multi cell organism doesn't count.

The interesting thing is your argument about predictive is actually a hit against Darwinism. It's a big problem for them, since the only real advances made come from predictions based on a system design. Note, that is not random or chance.

Of course you can default to the be all end all Evolution can do anything argument, but again that leads us back to 'faith', which is what Neo Darwin is, and we have firmly established due to your completely ignoring the vast amount of points I raised here.

feel free to explain how believing god created the universe is NOT creationism then

[mofish]

I wonder what Jefferson wouldve said with knowledge of chaos, entropy and quantum physics.

Here is another favorite of mine from TJ :

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson, 1823.

[10sun]

I wonder what Jefferson wouldve said with knowledge of chaos, entropy and quantum physics.

Here is another favorite of mine from TJ :

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson, 1823.

I can't pretend to even know what he would have said as I have very little knowledge of chaos, entropy, and quantum physics.

All I know is that my girlfriend told me I was a Deist a long time ago and I had to ask her what the hell she was talking about because I didn't know others thought the same thing...

God was a clockmaker, he built the universe, set it in motion, and has left us.

-Adam

[Tikker]

who built god?

[brinstar]

As soon as the majority of players here can soundly differentiate between Creationism and ID, I'll gladly post more comparative science between Neo Darwinism and ID.

ok, we get it

you feel a certain way about the origin of the universe and that's fine

so does everyone else

stop assuming that those who disagree with your belief also fail to understand your belief, it's insulting

[Lyion]

Er, my response was based on people in this thread who keep misrepresenting Creationism versus Intelligent Design. For reference see Tikker and my last few responses, together.

Time to turn off your emotion chip there, Commander Data.

Tikker, I posted this before

Creationism is an a priori argument drawn from a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. In the context of a public classroom, that means the God of the Bible is the starting point and assumed ground of life's origin and the origin of the cosmos. Drawing from a literal reading of Genesis, creationists postulate a "young Earth" and six 24-hour days of creation. All empirical data are subject to and analyzed within this interpretive grid.

Intelligent design, however, is an a posteriori argument; it is the inference drawn from examination of complex structures in living organisms and the universe.

As a matter of science, intelligent design theory is much more disciplined and modest in its claims than either the theory of evolution or creationism. Intelligent design theory merely infers, but does not attempt to identify a designer. Unlike creationism and the theory of evolution, intelligent design theory does not make dogmatic religious or philosophic claims about the origin of life.

[Tikker]

DId you even bother to look at the link I posted?


you know, the one from the website you normally quote from?


the one that explained the 5825732 flavours of creationism, not just the single example you've quoted

[Lyion]

Talk. origins is a Neo Darwinist site. Not really a site I'd choose to quote often, and certainly not about I.D.

Creationism is generally accepted by the definition I gave. I.D. is generally accepted, likewise, by the other meaning I posted. Creationism is about believing the bible is science and working to support it. I.D. has nothing to do with any religion, period. A pretty large difference there.

You keep wrongly trying to say they are the same, and indeed much of what you are talking about overlaps with Evolution. Check out Theistic Evolution. Evolution and God Creating everything is not incompatible.

[Spliffs]

It's all speculation.

My personal beliefs are along the militant agnostic apathetic line.

I dont know, you dont either, and I dont care.

Seeking explanations in places where none will be given is an excercise in futility.

Does it make me odd that i could really care less, how, or why?

[Eziekial]

No, it's typical for angst rifed teenagers to act indifferent.

[10sun]

who built god?

another god.

[Donnel]

I wonder what Jefferson wouldve said with knowledge of chaos, entropy and quantum physics.

Here is another favorite of mine from TJ :

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson, 1823.

Quote the whole thing or don't quote at all.

"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823

Jefferson was saying that the stories of Jesus would be placed in the pages of fable because of the perversions of what he viewed as people not worthy of their calling.

Jefferson had strong religious beliefs and also wanted to make it very sure that in this new government that the church would be seperate. Not that the government couldn't ever mention religion, but that it would never make one religion supreme over another.

Let me make a point of clarification as well. I do not think that jefferson was a fundamentalist by any means. However, to suggest that he though of Jesus, God and all things "Christian" in nature to be Fables, is to pervert his legacy as a founding father.

[Eziekial]

Damn that man was smart.

[Tossica]

What he was saying is that modern christianity is an insult to what Jesus really spoke and stood for. I agree.

[Tikker]

Talk. origins is a Neo Darwinist site. Not really a site I'd choose to quote often, and certainly not about I.D.

Creationism is generally accepted by the definition I gave. I.D. is generally accepted, likewise, by the other meaning I posted. Creationism is about believing the bible is science and working to support it. I.D. has nothing to do with any religion, period. A pretty large difference there.

You keep wrongly trying to say they are the same, and indeed much of what you are talking about overlaps with Evolution. Check out Theistic Evolution. Evolution and God Creating everything is not incompatible.

get the big capital "C" out of creationism


I'm not speaking of creationism as a religion, but rather the belief that a supreme being created the universe

if you believe that a supreme being created the universe, you are a creationist (as opposed to a Creationist, the religion)

[Spliffs]

No, it's typical for angst rifed teenagers to act indifferent.

I am niether angst rifed, nor teenage.

I think it's more typical for social reject board trolls to make rediculous assumptions.

[mofish]

I wonder what Jefferson wouldve said with knowledge of chaos, entropy and quantum physics.

Here is another favorite of mine from TJ :

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson, 1823.

Quote the whole thing or don't quote at all.

"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823

Jefferson was saying that the stories of Jesus would be placed in the pages of fable because of the perversions of what he viewed as people not worthy of their calling.

Jefferson had strong religious beliefs and also wanted to make it very sure that in this new government that the church would be seperate. Not that the government couldn't ever mention religion, but that it would never make one religion supreme over another.

Let me make a point of clarification as well. I do not think that jefferson was a fundamentalist by any means. However, to suggest that he though of Jesus, God and all things "Christian" in nature to be Fables, is to pervert his legacy as a founding father.

Yeah thats nice and all that you added a sentence to the quote, but please tell me how the previous sentence you added changes the context of the quote I used? It doesn't. He believed the virgin birth of Jesus to be a myth. As I do.

[Ouchyfish]

heh..She couldn't explain how while Joseph was away she got knocked up. It came down to a coin toss between immaculate conception and "Someone dropped a baby off at our door" but Joseph came back too early for the latter.

[Lueyen]

The entire letter

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_adams.html

Donnels addition would make it appear that Jefferson was blaming his prediction that those specific ideas in Christianity being considered fable on those who preverted the true doctrines of Jesus.

When taken in the context of the entire letter however, it appears Jefferson is not blaming the predicted outcome on perversions of doctrine, he is saying that the ideas themselves are perversions of doctrine and the result will be their eventual classification as fabel.

I wonder what Jefferson wouldve said with knowledge of chaos, entropy and quantum physics.

From that same letter

"He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be"

So if you were trying to insinuate that this additional knowlege would have prompted him to decide that there was no God, I think that a fair argument could be made that this would not have been the case. Possible yes, probable no. But we could play what if's all day. I would agree though that his view given the additional information would have proven to be interesting.

[Eziekial]

[quote="Spliffs"][quote]No, it's typical for angst rifed teenagers to act indifferent.[/quote]

I am niether angst rifed, nor teenage.

I think it's more typical for social reject board trolls to make rediculous assumptions.[/quote]

Exactly! Here is your cookie and gold star.

[Harrison]

It doesn't mean that I do not believe in God, or Jesus, etc, it just means that I believe a religious book written by mortals couldn't ever be correct.

That's how I've always seen it.

I do not trust men with motives.

[Lueyen]

It doesn't mean that I do not believe in God, or Jesus, etc, it just means that I believe a religious book written by mortals couldn't ever be correct.

That's how I've always seen it.

I do not trust men with motives.

Most who view the bible as the word of God, and view it as absolute believe that while it was written by men, they were guided by divine insparation. They also generally believe that nothing is "lost in translation" and that God guides this also.

That is what is interesting about letter that was quoted in part earlier in this thread. Jefferson is questioning translation, and or interpretation of the translators.