RE Big Bang Preview #2 - it's coming... Intelligent design

[HPoelzig]

The moon hasn't always been its present distance from the earth, it is getting farther away every year. It only appears to be the same size as the sun because we are seeing it where it is now. That's not sign of "Intelligent Design," nor even a very close coincidence, because the moon is sometime slightly larger or slightly smaller in apparent size, not EXACTLY the same as the sun. Is this too complicated for you?

[ThisGreatAtmosphere]

..With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

[ThisGreatAtmosphere]

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy...

[ThisGreatAtmosphere]

In his Conclusion on pages 136--138 of 139 of this decision he writes: The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]

[ThisGreatAtmosphere]

"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." (page 132)

[ThisGreatAtmosphere]

"ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89)

[ThisGreatAtmosphere]

"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86--87)

[ThisGreatAtmosphere]

They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

[ThisGreatAtmosphere]

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science..

[ThisGreatAtmosphere]

...In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)

[ThisGreatAtmosphere]

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31) "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43) "Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not "teaching" ID but instead is merely "making students aware of it."

[ThisGreatAtmosphere]

Kitzmiller vs Dover School District rulings: "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24) "A significant aspect of the intelligent design movement is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity...

[MikeyFlorida]

my essay won't fit on this page, so i will send it to you in a private message... please read it all, it took me a while to write. thanks.

[MikeyFlorida]

We can compare them together- the agenda-serving, rock age-doesn't-matter creationist explanation to the scientists. these creationists don't say a single thing about the age of the material now surrounding the mountain (and even if they allege any ages, they need to provide official record of it and compare it to scientists' findings for peer review), and these creationists completely ignore the fact that there are no fossils in their "strata."

[MikeyFlorida]

. there are no volcanoes around the grand canyon so how does catastrophism account for the grand canyon? this mt st helens is just a poor example of catastrophism all around, I mean, it's process and after math is just like any other volcano. you can't find this kind of "reasoning" in scientific journals- only people who need to twist something to fit their agenda. if you can find what real scientists say about these "amazing discoveries" by this creationist website, then send me a link.

[MikeyFlorida]

. if they can prove it and publish it in a scientific jounral that would present a real problem to evolution theory. but instead of doing that they can only provide their biased agenda-serving conclusions from superficial speculation to fit their concept of what God did. so if it is mostly igneous rock, it truly does not contain even a single fossil and it truly does not have ANYTHING at all to do with evolution theory.

[MikeyFlorida]

or whatever scraps they can pick up, twist and manipulate to fit their imagination of what God did. It's important to remember that fossils are never found in igneous rock.. most of whatever is now surrounding mt st helens is just that- igneous rock from material within the volcano- lava, isn't that right?.. it erupted, after all. if these creationists can find fossils in this.. stuff that formed around the mountain, that would be mind-blowingly amazing.

[MikeyFlorida]

then I can pile up 3 layers of dog poop a foot high and call it "strata" caused by catastrophism and that wouldn't tell us anything other than how i grossly misunderstand the correct usage of geological terms and draw absurd conclusions from unfounded premises. These creationists are grossly misleading to fit their agenda. that is not okay. they throw out the haystack of physical evidence, and they throw out the important points for a few self-interpreted loose and twisted straws-

[MikeyFlorida]

any fossils in there? fossils take much longer than 28 years to form, so if they can find a single fossil in this material today it would be a spectacular find in more ways than one. This is a the aftermath of a volcano's eruption... many volcanoes erupt... this has nothing to do with evolution theory. If this eruption's consequent crater-like surrounding constitutes strata,

[MikeyFlorida]

. and you won't find any dinosaur fossils less than around 65 million years old. if you radiometrically dated the elements in this crater-like surrounding you'd find it contains exactly what came off the top of the volcano mixed with the lava... that's all it is.. doesn't contain fossils. fossils position within consistent age of strata is the significance of geology to evolution theory. what does a volcano erupting have to do with evolution theory and the age of the earth? nothing.

[MikeyFlorida]

and the lower the strata, the older the cumulative material is, and the lower the strata, the less-complex fossils you find. and fossils in rock strata from any location always complement each other's position on the evolution tree of life's descent- in other words, you won't find any fossils of modern mammals that are over 150 million years old, EVER. you won't find the more complex life-forms in the pre-cambrian explosion strata.

[MikeyFlorida]

? in the picture on the website they use an arrow pointing to the side of the volcano where a channel is formed by the lava and they label it a "canyon." is that the "canyon" you are talking about? so are ditches canyons also? if so, i can dig a "canyon" in my backyard. the importance of strata to evolution theory is it's age. that the radiometrically dated elements in any layer are always complementing of each other's age (within the same layer),

[MikeyFlorida]

this is what history always comes to.. it's a vicious cycle.. history repeats itself again.. a new very well-substantiated physical-evidence backed understanding of physical phenomena is once again thrown away by Christians for.. a misinterpretation of the Bible. and their vehicle is pure misunderstanding of virtually everything about the "other" side. How many souls will be lost this time, in the self-defeating teachings of those anti-science anti-rationale Christians. Christ is not a clown.

[MikeyFlorida]

unfortunately for those who understand science, that fantasy bizarro world actually exists, it's called Christianity in North America. What's worse though, is the most damage is not done to society, or CHristians. the most damage is done to the name of Christ. For if one who claims to represent Christ also alleges that the earth is in the shape of a square, not only do they look like fools, but they make Christ look like a clown. and they make the bible look like a bed of lies.

[MikeyFlorida]

it's a tricky situation, you see... the creationism websites run on so, so many twisted allegations, that as long as they speak in scientific terms, layman people take what they say as scientific alternatives.. there is a reason why virtually the entire scientific community does not take a single drop of creatinism seriously.. it's because with all the physical evidence going contrary to creationism, creationism can only have likelihood of truth in a fantasy bizarro world.

[MikeyFlorida]

now im sorry if this question is offensive, but can you briefly describe natural selection to me?... i assume since you reject evolution theory you also reject it's fundamental mechanism. but, do you even know what it is? second question is do you know what qualities science must have? do you know how the scientific method goes?... there's a lot of understanding necessary to.. Understand science, and evolution theory. it's not a one-liner dogmatic conclusion like creationism is.

[MikeyFlorida]

you quoted CS Lewis in your other vid.. and i agree, that man is a great light for Christ unto the world. do you realize he believed in evolution?.. and since his death we have only made staggering new discoverys in support of evolution theory, especially in biology/genetics. today creationism is still prevalent in some countries because of the lack of education.. creationism is inherently pure misunderstanding of science. the layman throws away science for a layman explanation.

[MikeyFlorida]

it was not until i learned what true science is, and what evolution theory is (and all the physical evidence for it) that i realized how absurd creationism is. it's absurd enough to make Christ look like a clown. Look into St. Augustine's approach to the Bible. Same as Billy Graham's, same as CS Lewis's, same as Sir Isaac Newton, same as Galileo. They all respect science. It's no wonder most all respected Christians in history realize the merit of science and don't throw it away for myths.

[MikeyFlorida]

oh my god.... uhh.. so the first two days in genesis 1 were 24 hours long?... even though there wasn't a sun or moon? is that right? and even though the order is different in genesis chapter 2.. it's still literal?... and we can throw out the "a day is like a thousand years to God" verse.. why?... you seem like a well-spoken guy, and i do know how you feel. if genesis was meant to be literal id also stop at nothing to hear twisted facts to my satisfaction.. it was not until i learned...

[MikeyFlorida]

i really liked your video on oprah's Jesus comments, but this video here is another heartbreaking example of how Christians in N AMerica are confused about science even 149 years after wallace and darwin founded an important scientific theory. Reflective of the Christian body's rejection of heliocentrism in the 17th century... creationism is pure confusion and misunderstanding. your little demonstration of the moon and sun have nothing to do with the big bang... you seem confused about science

[MikeyFlorida]

intelligent design is like looking at the grand canyon and saying "wow that splendor must be from God. God made it beautiful." that's great and all, but it is not science.. science tells the how of grand canyon's formation and it's geological traits and so forth.. yes, the "why" is more important and you should have faith in it, but you should keep it seperate from the "how". if you know what science is about, you would know intelligent design is not science.

[truth4U2C]

WOW Mikey, I'm so glad you mentioned The Grand Canyon, did you know since 1980 when Mount Saint Helens blow up, and canyons formed in days not Millions on years That most all scienist's have changed how they think it fromed? it was a flood. Please check out The 7 Wonders of Mt. St. Helens...

[MikeyFlorida]

if this "most all scienist's have changed how they think it fromed?" is true... if this allegation is true, then you should be able to provide me an article from a scientific journal. can you provide that? see, creationism wouldn't be so atrocious if it didn't run on deceit. you can tell they deceive when they allege beliefs that the other side (scientists) do not actually hold.. the assertions creationism websites make almost NEVER line up with scientists.. that is how you can recognize lies

[truth4U2C]

Wow Mikey your very Passionate about this subject, did you at least go to the link I sent you? are you going to open up your mind and aleast check out the information...a good scients would at least look at the evidents. or do you know that all Creationist are liars... and yes Creation sites would see the evidents as differant then evolutionary scientists, but that doesn't make their findings lies...It would seem like a lie to you if you considered all scienists to be perfect in all they do...

[MikeyFlorida]

yes, I did. what significance does it have to evolution theory? Did these creationists try to date any of the material and scientifically analyze it? It seems they just describe how it looks like. dating is important and significant to geology. they didn't address the age of the err "strata" or so they call it. not at all. also, where's the canyon?

[MikeyFlorida]

the problem with ID is that ID proponents try to pass it off as science... it makes a few good points, but belongs in church/religion. it is not science. they aren't willing to accept that. furthermore, the entirety of intelligent design is ridiculous, as it's allegations for why evolution did not happen are equally absurd as young earth creationists'. And I thought ID people believe in the big bang??... you do understand the evidence for the big bang, right?

[truth4U2C]

"belongs in church/religion" This works against the pursuit of truth...Stopping thought because it crosses over a line made up by human Securlist is ridiculous. Sure big could simply mean God Spoke and Bang it Happen....the fact that the Universe had a begining in not in Question, and does work better for the creation cause..

[MikeyFlorida]

uhh.. the intelligent design... whatever it is.. is NOT a theory because it is NOT science. Intelligent Design would be a good thing to discuss if it wasn't made for the sole purpose of trying to make evolution theory out to be false.. all evidence points to evolution theory, and you can believe it was intelligently designed if you want, but the "how" is explained through real science.. not more dogma.

[truth4U2C]

Sure ID Lacks a big theory (story) to make it work with science better, but that's the problem with departmentizing thought...The story is given to us in the Bible via "Genesis"

If we spring board off scripture and observe the world around us, it does support Creation as told in Genesis...

[truth4U2C]

(3.8 centimeters per year) I don't think with the naked eye we would could see the difference any why. do you?

[truth4U2C]

Yes, and once again, the details you just shared works fine with the biblically world veiw based on us being a fallen creation, on the other hand these facts, which will over time be bad for life on earth works against the evolutionary veiw of things getting bettter over time.

[Ghostrider616]

The orbit of the moon is increasing by about 3.8 centimeters a year. So it appeared larger in the past and was not as perfectly aligned with the sun.

As it moves further away, it will continue to appear smaller and will again not be perfectly aligned.

As the sun burns off it's hydrogen, it's size and temporature increases. In the past, sun was smaller and cooler and it will continue to warm increase in size. This messes with the alignement as well.

Is this an intellegent design?

[truth4U2C]

"It was a rapi expansion of time and space" OK fine re-word it all you want. Did this rapi expansion of time and space, just by luck place the moon in the perfect spot? as shown in Rabid apes vid, because the triangles line up perfectly, we now can know the Diamiter of the sun. Wow All by chance...THINK it is so highly improbable the we could be so lucky. This is one of thousands if not millions of perfectly placed elements that have to be in place in order for there to be life on this planet.

[busymartian]

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. It was a rapi expansion of time and space. The term Big Bang was only coined as a shorthand joke. If you comment on something, you really need to do your homework.

[socksy]

Order != Design

Laws of Physics = Order

:)

[truth4U2C]

Law, Cool! a set of rules the govern...Which came first Laws of Physics or Order?

[socksy]

Inconclusive evidence. :) Also depends on your definition of order...

But seeing things in an order does mean something intelligent put them there. For instance, if I saw a collection of objects that were on the floor, do I claim that there's an intelligent designer keeping them there (FSM! ;)) or that the law of gravity made them fell?

Things orbit, thank the laws of physics for that. Thank God for making them, if you like, but I would argue that the God Hypotheses has been ruled out by now.