I think the person may have meant "hypothesis" and "theory"; the differences in these two fit his claim. It would seem that Laws refer to general principles of nature; while theories refer to specific phenomena. But I know of no definition that would relegate one or the other inferior. BTW, Please delete the comment below me; I don't want to be near it. IMHO, you look like G*d, since we were all created in his image. I am sorry to remind you that esteeming humanity is a "religious" princicple.
Agree with most of it, but not that "theories refer to specific phenomena." Theories and laws both generalize a bunch of observations. Both of them are "models," but they're modeling different things. Maybe an analogy would be Theory is to law as dynamics is to kinematics. Kinematics describes the motion (of a particle for example). Dynamics describes the forces acting on the particle that cause the motion.
Good, thx. I know that hypothesis isn't as strong as theory until well tested, and that's what I was getting at; All the theories and laws I could pick out of my limited science background, as I said, "seem[ed]" to fit the specific and general, respectively. But now that I think about it, the "general theory" of relativity... At any rate, I should have looked it up before identifying an indeterminate with the qualifier, "it would seem that." Thanks again.
No problem. This is not obvious stuff, really. Merriam Webster says hypothesis, theory, and law are synomyms. It then goes onto to state the distinctions, but I suspect those would be lost on the casual reader.
"Do you have any scientific reason to believe that mankind came into existence as a fully developed organism independent of macroevolution?Why Darwinists Reject Intelligent Design" . Please watch this video and make your comments there because it addressesYou atheist keep putting up the same old tired arguments of Thor, Odin, space elephants, unicorns fairies, etc. Can't you come up with anything more original than that. It is so immature, and a ridiculous comparison
The video is not about God(s) or atheism. It's about the difference between a law and a theory. OTOH, I don't see that xian deity is any more supported than fairies and the like.
I didn't ask if ID was science. I asked if Intelligent design is a theory. I'm not mad, but I know that ID is religion. I would hate for anyone to think that I implied ID has any validity. I was only wondering if it had any properties that could label it as a theory. I should have been more specific. Can you take my name out of the video description?. You can say "someone asked." I'm always sending you PM's and asking you for favors, so hate to bother you on what appears to be a trivial matter.
Brainmold, you seem to have a strong desire to label me as a certain religion I guess because you feel that you can use that label to discredit me. This is a typical tactic that I see mainly coming from the left. You can't have an honest disagreement with anyone on the left because they simply dismiss you as bigot, racist, homophobe, religious zealot, xenophobe, sexist, etc. Its seems these labels always come out in a feeble attempt to excuse themselves from coming up with a logical response.
Now it is obvious. You are rightwinger with all the trappings. Stick a fork in this guy. I wont call you any of those names. Your religion did not discredit you. Your dishonesty is what brought shame to you. It is fun to watch you hide your beliefs while secretly promoting them. ID IS RELIGION. By the way, I'm a moderate registered as a republican. As far as logic is concerned you can only replace a theory if you have a better one. You aready admitted that you are irrational for your beliefs.
In closing, criticism of an accepted theory does nothing to lend support or validity to a competing theory. The theory has to stand on it's own merits. Even if we were created, science cannot validate it. Not only that but the evidence "appears" to indicate otherwise. Our conclusions are based on things that are apparent, and not necessarily true. If any scientist comes up with any evidence of a designer besides just pointing out things that appear desinged, I hope scientists will review it.
"ID threatens to undermine our search for rational and natural causes by using...."
Son, this is where you show tht you just don't understand sceince, at least before the left wing radicals got a hold of it. I am not threatened by the teaching of TOE in schools why should you be threatened by ID? There are concerns to be discussed with both and so what is wrong with discussing them both openly? The issue will rest if we let science do what its supposed to do, without suppression of ideas.
Postulating that something comes from nothing is irrational as it violates The of Law of Conservation of Matter. The other alternative, postulating that something has always existed is irrational because there is ABSOLUTELY NO empirical evidence for anything being without a beginning and an ending. Which irrationality do you subscribe to?
A God who created the 1st law does not have to be subject to it, only the creation itself is subject to it. I agree that postulating God exists is beyond scientific proof but why is the idea of a creator beyond science. There is no basis but ones personal preference to say this. If science is going to theorize about the origin of the universe then we have to either say that it happened without cause or something caused it to happen. Neither position is provable.
I have been polite so please do not call me son. I am 44 years old. If I offend you let me know and I will attempt to correct it or clarify my postion.
Yes you have been polite. Sorry to call you son, I thought you were younger by the immaturity and fear in your comments. But you never addressed my question so I will state again: I am not threatened by the teaching of TOE in schools why should you be threatened by ID? There are concerns to be discussed with both and so what is wrong with discussing them both openly? The issue will rest if we let science do what its supposed to do, without suppression of ideas.
Dickwad, you have replaced one insult with another. I have changed my mind about ID in science. It must be exposed. I invite ID into the clasroom and labratories so it can be destroyed. The worst thing you can do to religion is to allow it to be scrutinzied by mainstream science without fear of offending or crossing ethical boundaries. Part of ID is to point out shortcomings of TOE. TOE in return can criticize creation theory. ID will get annihilated.
There once was a time when people did not know the difference between supernatural and natural phenomena. Science sought to find the truth. As natural explanations accumulated, supernatural causes were abandoned. It became apparent that medicine worked better than exorcisms, prayer, and animal sacrifice. superstition is not required. We realized that Gods wrath could be averted by washing your hands, or avoiding certain plants.
Leftwing? Obviously you have personal reasons for rejecting TOE. I admit that I too have personal reasons for accepting TOE. However, from a scientific point of view it is more logical to accept the evidence of TOE than to accept a 2000 year old claim of Adam and eve, talking serpents, magic trees, Samson's golden hair, Jonah and the whale, Baalams talking donkey etc...etc..
I realize that you did not bring up the bible, but the political statement was telling. You are conservative Christian. Given enough rope most ID supporters will expose themselves. ID is religion. That is not say that there are not atheist with conservative views. But the conclusion is fair.
You don't have to be a Christian to see that there is a left and right wing in this country. Why is it so important to you to establish my religion. I can separate religion from science, why can't you? There is no point in arguing about the existence or non-existence of a creator. Why can't anyone address the problems with evolution that I have expressed. I really am open to listening.
I get great comfort from watching you dance around denying God's new convenant, the Holy spirtit, Jesus, and his body and blood sacrifice, and his miracles through omission. You are the one who asked if we wanted to talk theology. I took that offer. You are being called to witness. Is Jesus the savior? Peter denied him three times. What is more important. Your testimony, or science?
If you want to start a different thread to talk theology I would be happy to do that. I was trying to stay focused on the problems with macroevolution here which you refuse to do. I can only conclude that you have nothing to counter my assertion that there is no empirical evidence for any random process leading to any increase in information.
"Creator" is one aspect of "God." Even if one disingenuously says, "Well, It could be an *alien*!" Then applying the same principle, one is really saying that a higher creator must have created the alien, etc. Invoking a "creator" is theology.
"Creator" is one aspect of "God." Even if one disingenuously says, "Well, It could be an *alien*!" Then applying the same principle, one is really saying that a higher creator must have created the alien"
I agree. It's too bad Richard Dawkins stated that its possible that alien life could have "seeded" life here on earth, apparently not thinking about where the aliens must have come from. Idiot.
"It's too bad Richard Dawkins stated that its possible that alien life could have "seeded" life here on earth, apparently not thinking about where the aliens must have come from. Idiot."
To find out why Richard Dawkins said that go to expelledexposed(dot)com.
"Invoking a "creator" is theology." I agree that invoking any CHARACTERIZATION of the nature of a creator or the mechanisms by which such a being operates is theology but looking for evidence of intelligence in nature is not theology. Please view my video "Why Darwinists Reject Intelligent Design". I hope we can get clarity on this issue.
Again, its not making a prediction about HOW a designer would do anything. Its about asking the question: "Is there EVIDENCE that intelligence is behind the phenomena in question or does the evidence suggest that random processes could be responsible. Asking if there is evidence of intelligence does not speculate on the mechanism by which the intelligence operates.
"Creator" is one aspect of "God." Even if one disingenuously says, "Well, It could be an *alien*!" Then applying the same principle, one is really saying that a higher creator must have created the alien, etc. Invoking a "creator" is theology.
The alien must have been created...or did he evolve? LOL
I don't reject all of TOE only the mechanism which is provided to explain macroevolution. Its nothing personal, but simply scientific. There is no empirical evidence to support it. I am not putting up any explanation to compete with it, just saying that there are things about it that seem impossible to accomplish. I don't know why you have to bring in religious alternatives. I don't think you have to promote any religion to believe that the universe was created by a higher power.
Please show me where I have proposed a higher power to replace macroevolution. We have been talking about two different issues. The origin of the universe and evolution. I believe the universe was created, I have said that. However this has nothing to do with the scientific objections to macroevolution. We don't have to talk about a creator or ID or anything else at all, lets just focus on the problems with macroevolution then, but I NEVER recommended anything to replace it.
"I cannot deny that I believe that the universe has order to it, which to me, suggest the high probability of intelligent design."
The earth, and life on it is part of the universe. If you cannot offer a better theory than TOE there is no point debating against TOE. Science uses the best theory until it is modified or replaced. And now that you have proved yourself to be slippery, I will once again begin rephrasing questions until I get my answers.
Yes I do but before I get to that I would like to ask you this question: Do you think it would be best for society to euthanize all genetically deformed, physically and mentally handicapped, mentally insane, AIDS infected and drug addicts?
NO, because their existence brings joy into our lives. We bring joy into their lives. We love them. They love us. Many of them want to live. They are our brothers and sisters. There is also hope for cures and new treatments. Serving the handi-capped is a selfish act. It pleases us. To kill them would cause grief. Call it a destructive pattern of instincts. Any trait, whether constructive or negative can be passed down to the next generation as long as they can reproduce. Please procede.
I did not ask you if the existence of the genetically inferior brings joy to your life. I am asking you if it would be better for humanity as a whole if their were euthanized. Of course they bring joy to people on an individual basis, this does not mean its the best thing for the evolution of humanity. So I will ask you again, would it be best for the long term viability of the human species for them to be euthanized? Please don't give me emotional arguments, lets stick with the biological.
Emotion is a biological factor. Joy is required to sustain us. Bilogical emotion cannot be separated from biology. It is built in to our psyche. but I will answer the question. NO it would not be better if they were euthanized. It was set a bad precedent. It would be impossible to determine exactly what constitues a justification for extermination. Nobody would be safe. As for long term viability, handi-capped people are less likely to reproduce, and there is a breaking point of survivability.
Surely bad genetics can cause us harm in the long term. But it would be a crime to inflict this conclusion on society. I will not play God. I do not know enough about the universe to do so. I only have a lack of belief in gods. This does not give me authority or the ability to judge whether people are unfit or not. I do not know the ramifications of placing myself in a seat of authority to determine life and death of individuals. this type of thinking can place us all in danger.
We listen to our instincts to protect each other. That is logical. We accept that it is irrational and inefficient. This is answer is doomed to be an emotional appeal. I accept it if you call me illogical. I choose illogic in this case. Avoiding grief is beneficial to our health and well being. I embrace my counter evolutionist behavior. It please me to do so. It is logical to please myself. I like it. I accept the consequences for it.
OK, thanks for your honesty. My point was that if you follow Darwinist theory through to its logical end, as applied to humanity, the conclusion is that it is beneficial to society to eliminate or abandon the genetically inferior. The animal kingdom does it all the time, its is simply survival of the fittest and what is best for society AS A WHOLE even though admittedly a few individuals who are related to the inferior will suffer emotional pain.
And since human beings are just another animal species, the only logical conclusion from an atheistic Darwinist point of view is that it is not only OK but in fact NECESSARY that the genetically inferior be eliminated in the best interest of humanity. Since there is no creator to be accountable to and humans are just animals there is no reason to be concerned about the fate of the inferior. And yet we are concerned, even if we have no relationships with any of the genetically inferior. Hmm...
I imagine that in extreme cases weak people are left behind, even in a theistic society. Imagine your town being invaded by thousands of troops under orders to shoot every living thing like in the old testament stories. The resulting chaos would cause alot of sick people to be unprotected and abandoned.
"Imagine your town being invaded by thousands of troops under orders to shoot every living thing like in the old testament stories. The resulting chaos would cause alot of sick people to be unprotected and abandoned."
What!? I'm sorry, I don't understand what this even means or how it is relevant to the point I made. You really have an axe to grind with religion don't you? It seems at every corner you want to get a dig in about religion and I have never made any religious arguments at all.
It's in line with our discussion on animals being left behind. I was stating that in humanity abandonment does happen under extreme circumstances. I do have an axe to grind with religion. I am trying to instigate religious argument. Shall we end our discussion on theology? I know you originally wanted a science debate. I cannot separate design from religion. It is a common practice to worship the designer. I challenge you to admit that you worship the designer.
Also You seem to be having trouble making up your mind as to whether you are want to present ID. I asked, "Do you have any scientific reason to believe that mankind came into existence as a fully developed organism independent of macroevolution? You said yes but then became distracted by the topic of Darwinism. Before that you said, "Please show me where I have proposed a higher power to replace macroevolution." What are you proposing? It sounds like theology.
This is where YOU don't understand science. The last time theology was mixed with science, knowledge was repressed. Giodano Bruno was convicted of heresey for postulating that life may exist on other planets. He was gagged and then burned to death. Galileo was forced to recant his position that jupiter having four moons and died under house arrest. It wasn't until 1978 that the Galileo recieved his posthumous pardon and apology. Those are two examples. I have more if you require them.
"There are concerns to be discussed with both and so what is wrong with discussing them both openly?"
In can be discussed in a classroom, but in a theology class. To be in a science class it will have to pass peer review like any other theory. Science does not make exceptions due to appeals of emotion or personal belief. We can Thank Ben Stein for forever associating ID with God, politics, creationism and religion.
I never said I was a creationist. Why do you guys have to start labeling someone anytime they see problems with TOE. As I explained before, my problems are not with natural selection and the empirical evidence for microevolution but with macroevolution. If you will check all my postings you will not find even a hint of any religious argument. By the way, I am still waiting for a single reference demonstrating empirical evidence that a random process can produce an increase in information.
Regarding increase in information - that's the other video I'm thinking of making, partly because I see it as a non-argument and partly because I think it probably be good to actually get a few direct references. I would like to make sure I don't increase the confusion before I do this.
Many people deny the religious nature of their objections in certain places. If you are truly not a creationist, I apologize. So far, you're making the same arguments they do.
My objections to macroevolution are based on what my scietific experience has taught me. I am open to changing my position if I see good empirical evidence that leads me there. I think part of problem were having is in basic communication because of the "evolution" of scientific terms that have come about mainly from biologists. So if we can get past the semantic problems I am very interested to hear what you have to say about the information problem.
The ideal gas law is absolute though, in that it does unfailingly apply to an ideal gas. Now granted, in reality there is no such thing as an ideal gas, its just a tool to describe the behavior of a gas in the absence of real world effects such as Van Der Waals forces, etc. I know you know what I am talking about. What the law describes is the relationship between pressure, volume and the number of moles of an ideal gas, IF such an animal existed. Please explain to me the relevance of VP.
You and I both know that the term "creationist" has a certain connotation associated with it that atheists like to use to label and dismiss anyone who has concerns about TOE. I want to have a serious conversation about just the science. What does my opinion about whether or not the universe was created have to do with us having a conversation about the scientific validity of macroevolution?
Before begging a duel with swords, I like to ask my opponent if he brought a gun. Pardon me for using the word creationist. It was in response to you using that word. Let me rephrase the question. Are you an ID proponent? Do you deny that you you were intelligently designed?
Brain, Ken Miller is in the broadest terms a creationist. He believes in a creator god, but he is very clear to distinguish his religious opinions from his scientific opinions.
I have rephrased the question. If eodoc feels that my question falls outside of scientific discourse, and is irrelevant to legitmate, honest debate regarding alternative theories to our currently accepted model, then surely eodoc and I can agree that ID is not a science and thus, it will not be presented as an alternative to our present model. I can then set my prejudices aside and drop religion as relevent subject matter, and continue the debate focusing only on peer reviewed study only.
I also am aware of the claim that some ID proponents are creationists, but not all creationists are ID proponents. If that is the case in this matter, and as an ID proponent his definition of designer is unclear meaning it does not define a designer or designers as having God like properties I will agree to keep religion out of it. However, he will be required to present evidence of his alien designers. Pointing out unanswered questions in science will not be sufficient.
I cannot deny that I believe that the universe has order to it, which to me, suggest the high probability of intelligent design. But this has nothing to do with my objection to macroevolutionary theory. I am open to learning if there are new experiments or findings that I don't know about that could be convincing but as of right now I find nothing overly compelling about the empirical evidence which would lead me to believe that natural selection over time can accomplish what is claimed.
Yes I have looked and every time someone gives me a reference it turns out that the person either does not really understand the word "empirical" or else they completely neglect that the empirical evidence they cite involves significant leaps of faith to get the conclusion they want to draw from the evidence. To me abiogenesis has to be part of TOE, and of course this violates the Law of Biogenesis. I wish you could see that this is the whole reason for the line being drawn after the 1st life.
It is only in recent years have a heard macroevolutions make this separation. When I was an undergrad in the eighties, the evolution of the first organism was taught as a part of evolutionary theory citing the Miller experiment as the strongest evidence. Today most have abandoned citing this experiment much like many creationists have abandondoned the 2nd Law arguments. So they redefine where TOE starts and say that abiogenesis is a separate field of study. I am sorry, I just can't accept.
Just because biologist get together and state that abiogenesis is not relevant to TOE does not mean that it is the scientific thing to do, or even ethical for that matter. The theory is incomplete if it cannot account for the first living organism because without the first organism there can be no second. Perhaps my offense at this arbitrary line drawing has to do with me being older than you (I don't know) and you are just used to it always being that way and so have never questioned it.
Abiogenesis is relevant to TOE. However, TOE doesn't depend on abiogenesis. If some "intelligent magic" (i.e. God) created the first life, TOE still holds.
There are 2 different things called LoB. One of them is just an assertion. Evolution does not include abiogenesis. That is not the whole reason for drawing the line. We don't have sufficient understanding of the chemistry to understand how the first life formed.
In fairness, when I rewatch your video, it 'sounds' an awful lot like you're saying you're a creationist. If that was a mistaken impression, I apologize, but it sounds like you're saying "Those other creationists are wrong to not throw out the thermodynamics argument, but ..."
Not all creationist use those arguments. When I said OTHER I was referring to the ones who don't while still acknowledging that there are those who do. But I must admit, I find the creation story just as believable as the idea the natural selection over time can lead to macroevolution. Hopefully this emphasizes how unbelievable the ME claim is to me, based on empirical evidence. But none of this is germane to the evidence. Do you want to talk science or theology?
I wouldn't mind doing both. Because you have admitted that you believe there is a high probality of an intelligent designer. If this is true, all aspects of existence would fall under science and theology, giving you the benefit of the doubt (allowing ID in) theology questions are fair game. For you God or ID is the truth with matter, energy, and life as evidence. No? I imagine that you only wanted to leave theology out because of prejudice.
And by your own logic Excluding the designer in discussions on creation is equal to excluding abiogenesis in discussions on evolution.Without the designer "design theory". The same standars apply.
Ok. For my first question, is there any observation of phenomena or property of life, energy, or matter that would lead you to believe that this intelligent designer has has communicated to us in writing? This is relevant to the field of knowledge in that any writings may contain scientific data or insight to our orgins in part or in whole.
Here is the problem. In order for ther to be a creator of the universe (time and space) then that creator would have to exist outside of that time and space, correct? It would not be possible for beings who exist in 3 dimensional space to comprehend anything about a creator who exists outside that space. This is also why there can be no proof of a creator because any proofs that we could provide would be confined to 3 dimensional space. We cannot comprehend space beyond x,y,z coordinates.
Obviously if there is a creator of the universe there is no reason to believe the creator would be subject to the laws of his own creation. Any intelligence that could create time and space is outside of time and space and can move through it just as easily as you flip through the pages of a book. It would be impossible for us to observe such a creator directly at least in the full manifestation. All we can hope to see is a shadow of such a being.
To give a simple illustration, imagine if you could create a world of living two-dimensional beings drawn on a sheet of paper in X and Y coordinates. Since they can only look in the x and y directions they could never see you directly because they cannot see into the Z coordinate but they would be able to see your 2-dimensional shadow into their world. That is how I picture God or a Creator or whatever term you want to use. We can see God's "shadow" in many aspects of science.
These "shadows" are evidence but we could never see such a being directly or empirically prove existence using laws that only work within 3-dimensional space. Why would we expect to be able to do so?
No one will ever be able to empirically prove the existence of a creator to you but by the same token you cannot disprove the existence of such a being. You cannot use laws of our 3-dimensional existence to disprove a being who is not limited to our time and space. All you can do is take a leap of faith in either direction, but you have to remember that whichever choice you make it is faith nonetheless.
All of humanity has a need for irrational beliefs and we will find a way to satisfy that need one way or another. A believer's irrationality is in his belief in a God that is not provable or directly observable. For the atheist, his irrationality is in his unprovable assertment that it is impossible for such a being to exist because "if its not in my material world it cannot be possible."
"No one will ever be able to empirically prove the existence of a creator to you but by the same token you cannot disprove the existence of such a being."
There are an infinite number of things that can be imagined that cannot be disproven. The inability to disprove something does not serve as evidence for its existence...Unless of course it can be tested, which it cannot, and therefore makes it's a moot point. You can't disprove Horus, or Thor.
"For the atheist, his irrationality is in his unprovable assertment that it is impossible for such a being to exist"
Gods are possbile. That is not compelling enough to put faith into it let alone the threat from Abrahmic religion of burning for eternity for rejecting these irrational concepts. It is illogical, and without merit or evidence, therfeore it must be rejected. that is how scientific thought plays out. That is, if you care about scientific integrity.
"... It is illogical, and without merit or evidence, therfeore it must be rejected. that is how scientific thought plays out. That is, if you care about scientific integrity."
Please explain why you feel that an ordered creation is not evidence of a creator but that it is evidence that it came from nothing? I am sorry, I don't see the logic in that.
I never said, "it came fom nothing." In addition, scientists do not say, "It came from nothing. However, I agree that things that have been created have creators. But order is a matter of perception. On PBS Nova, a scientist provided a monkey with art supplies. It was taught to play with them. The images seemed to reflect signs of order and creativity. It was presented as art to a respected art critic who proceded to explain the various complexity and skill of the brush strokes, and influences.
"There are an infinite number of things that can be imagined that cannot be disproven. The inability to disprove something does not serve as evidence for its existence."
I never said it was evidence. My point was you have faith just as a believer has faith.
You can admit that at least some creators have been imagined. I thought you said that ordered things provide evidence for creators. That comment was addressing the moot point that god cannot be disproven, just as Thor, Odin, and space elephants cannot be disproven.
You atheist keep putting up the same old tired arguments of Thor, Odin, space elephants, unicorns fairies, etc. Can't you come up with anything more original than that. It is so immature, and a ridiculous comparison. No body is proposing that any of these things has created the universe so why would we look for evidence of them? And if someone did say one of these was the creator then doesn't just become another name for creator? Its as ridicoulous the 2nd law argument from a creationist.
The analogy is used because they cannot be proven or disproven. That's why the argument is old. It's common sense. You mock Thor? Thor was a much revered god of the ancient Germanic peoples. He is no less credible than a universe creator. You seem to think that someone propsing something is cause for investigation as to it's validity. That burden rests on the person making the claim.
I wasn't aware that Germanic peoples ever postulated that Thor created the universe. Please show me where that is the case. If they did believe this then Thor is just another name for the creator that I am talking about, in that this creator is the first cause. Call it whatever you want, I am not saying anything to support or denounce any religion, just the idea of a creator. Science cannot investigate the nature of the creator, only the evidence that there is intelligence to the universe.
It doens't matter if people claimed Thor made the universe. You seem to think that the superpowers attritbuted to a diety is somehow significant as to whether or not claims regarding them should be addressed. All Gods are on equal footing. They don't get extra prestige for creating universes. You God is on par with goblins.
"It doens't matter if people claimed Thor made the universe."
It matters in the context of this argument because I am proposing that there is EVIDENCE of a creator, not who or what the creator is, it matters not what you want to call the creator. You are missing my point completely. I just made a video entitled "Why Darwinists Reject Intelligent Design" . Please watch this video and make your comments there because it addresses why ID is not religion.
Sources of design (gods) are not found, and cannot ever be found, but the building blocks of life can be found throughout the universe. Desingers are commonly worshipped. They are quite popular in religions.
Forgive me if I post this twice, my comment did not show up. Nor you, or any other scientist is required to disprove them. Science does not attempt to prove or disprove God or Gods.
Having faith that that the sun will rise tomorrow is more logical that having faith that Jesus is coming back. One is based on faith alone. The other is based on past performance of the sun. Science has faith that water can be frozen. If there is any doubt an experiment can be performed. Any doubt in Gods cannot be remedied by experiments. God is out.
It's an oxymoron. As far as we know all things that exist do so in within the fabric of space and time. Logically, (based on a lack of knwoledge of things outside space and time) nothing exists outside of space and time. Creators are said to exist outside of space and time. Therefore it is logical to conclude they do not exist. That does disprove gods or space elephants but it is reasonable to dismiss them due to their lack of any measurable properties.
Searching for natural explanations of our orgins within space and time is the logical choice. Looking for design is sentimental and superstituos in nature. If you look for desing you will find design. Some people even find the face of Jesus on a cinnamon roll.
TOE is rational. ID threatens to undermine our search for rational and natural causes by using an emotional appeal and politics, instead of peer reviewed science to get a foothold on science. They use nothing more than criticism of TOE to support ID. If Science in turn analyzes ID as an equal it will be destoyed in a day. The only way ID can survive is by suppressing real data regarding TOE. TOE may even be banished. Religion exists to search out supernatural explanations. Isnt that good enough?
It's not just logical. It's what science is capable of doing. Science is not capable of recognizing the supernatural. It can't distinguish "god did it" from "we haven't figured this out yet."
I agree that science is not capable of recognizing the supernatural. But if there is creator to the universe then the creation process is part of the natural simply by the fact that it happened and could have been physically observed even though the creator could not be observed. Science cannot handle the concept of something coming from nothing either but somehow this idea is considered scientific (Big Bang).
If the creation were observed it would be indistinguishable from "we don't know." The Big Bang does not assert that something came from nothing. Virtual Particles, now are a different beast, but those are limited in time.
TYPO. I meant to say: That DOESN'T disprove gods or space elephants but it is reasonable to dismiss them due to their lack of any measurable properties.
"What does my opinion about whether or not the universe was created have to do with us having a conversation about the scientific validity of macroevolution?"
You are offering creation as an alternative theory! LOL
In other words, you do not have a better theory to replace TOE. The only thing you have to offer is criticsim of TOE. You could just as easily point out the shortcomings of graviational theory, but that would not serve you.
So what your saying is that if a scientist does not have a theory to completely replace another theory then he should not bring up any point which contradicts the existing theory?
He can talk all day, but without a suitable alternative, the theory holds. ID only offers things that look designed. With evolution we has fossils, viruses, germs, and DNA. We can apply the knowledge of change and adaptation to find cures illnesses, make drugs, breed animals and crops etc. With ID the best we can do is mimic nature to find solutions to certain problems. We already do that anyway. Observing complexity is as far as it goes. We are not going to find god. It's the end of the line.
Good explanations, TFF. Creationists love to run with invalid extensions like "law of biogenesis". The generalization "life cannot come from non-life" is just an intentional(?) misrepresentation of the biogenetic principle (stating in its context that a wisp of damp hay will not generate fully formed bacteria or mice).
I've heard that same argument on numerous occasions! BTW, I'm not making this stuff up. Almost every example I gave is easily confirmed. And the general distinction between law and theory is explained at NAS site.
Actually he has left lots of comments on both pages. I will keep an eye on that thread to see if you address him. No obligation of course! LOL I would really love to see someone of your caliber throw some jabs at this creationist. As a laymen I am not given any credibility or benefit of doubt from my opponent "BillboTex the alleged scientist."
Amazing, simply amazing. It can't be possible that an actual scientist would not drink in all that encompasses TOE. I can show you my degree if you like. We can even have thermodynamics duel if you like as well. I actually had to derive the thermodynamic equations from scratch when I was in school. Unlike you engineering hacks who just plug and chug with no appreciation for the fundamentals.
Neither he nor I were referring to you. There's some other fellow who's been insulting him on another channel. I have taken you on your word at your degree and haven't questioned it.
Knowing the difference between a law and a theory is not fundamental to just TOE.
OK, sorry for over reacting. I thought it was directed at me. I do know the difference between a formal theory and a formal law. I think part of our communication problem is generational. I am 40 years old, I was taught as an undergraduate at Indiana University that laws do start out as theories, but not in the formal sense of a scientific THEORY but in the general sense of the word theory. Can you see where the confusion lies?
BillboTex says, "The theory ALWAYS precedes the Law. Multiple modifications and adjustments of an incomplete theory (such as the Theory of Evolution), hopfully result in creation of the law (unless the theory was so flawed that no real law can come from it). In that case the theory must be tossed out and a new theory must be used to try to reach the law. Evolution has been a theory since its inception. About time it is dropped for another theory which actually supports the evidence?"
This was the comment from Billbotex: "Ladies and gentlemen here from Brainmold you see the classical argument against public education. Our current system of public education actually PRODUCES brain mold as Brainmold's remarks show. ALL scientific laws become so by starting as theories and through experimental observations they are constantly revised until they meet the standard to become scientific LAWS. Brainmold is another example of some 13 year old trying to define the field of Science."
"ALL scientific laws become so by starting as theories and through experimental observations they are constantly revised until they meet the standard to become scientific LAWS."
I would not go so far as to say he does not know what he is talking about. All scientific laws do start out as "theories", at least in the loose sense of the word theory. In other words, scientists postulate an idea that they think might be a law (ie. they theorize what might be a law) but its not immediately accepted by all of science as law until it has a great body of evidence to demonstrate that what is postulated has never been violated and in their best estimation, never will be violated.
Our debate had deteriorated into semantics and adhominem attack. He presented his credentials as a scientist as an argument from authority. When challenged to use strict scientific language and terminology in his defintions of theory, fact, and law, he continued to use laymen language and insisted they were scientifically accurate/literate. It was a bizarre effort to add credibility to his original arguement against TOE. He claimed victory and credited it to my education from public schooling.
"In a sense I think a theory can become a fact; that is, it can become so solid that it is insane to deny it".
I'm sorry I meant "fact" as it applies to "proof" in the strict scientific defintion of what constitutes absolute proof. I would not allow this person to speak in laymens terms. I was being anal because he kept implying that he is a scientist and understands strict scientific language, and that I must be 13 years old! LOL. In your opinion should I concede this arguement with him?
"In your opinion should I concede this arguement with him?"
No. Even laws are not necessarily absolutely true. Proof is not a requirement for scientific theories - or of laws. Scientific law does not equate to absolute truth.
In a sense I think a theory can become a fact; that is, it can become so solid that it is insane to deny it - like Germ Theory of Disease. But it's not going to become a law, because a law is qualitatively different. Creationists are often very loose when interpreting what constitutes a 'scientist', to include medical technicians, vets, engineers, philosophers, etc.
I recently got into a debate in a comment section of a video with a character that claimed that theories can become laws, and that theories can become facts. I tried endlessly to explain it to this person. He thought I was an idiot and a victim of public schooling! He also denied my postition that, in scientifc language, "proof" only exists in mathematics. He said that he was a scientist in the field of medical research. He asked all creationists to read my comments to show how stupid I am!
The users name is Billbotex and we debated on the second page of the comments section on the video titled, "Expelled - The Movie - Super Trailer". The video was produced by a user named, getexpelled.
biological population change is that considered a law?
spark300c 3 years ago
"... biological population change ..."
I don't know what you mean. What about biological population change?
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
I think the person may have meant "hypothesis" and "theory"; the differences in these two fit his claim. It would seem that Laws refer to general principles of nature; while theories refer to specific phenomena. But I know of no definition that would relegate one or the other inferior. BTW, Please delete the comment below me; I don't want to be near it. IMHO, you look like G*d, since we were all created in his image. I am sorry to remind you that esteeming humanity is a "religious" princicple.
USCohen 3 years ago
Agree with most of it, but not that "theories refer to specific phenomena." Theories and laws both generalize a bunch of observations. Both of them are "models," but they're modeling different things. Maybe an analogy would be Theory is to law as dynamics is to kinematics. Kinematics describes the motion (of a particle for example). Dynamics describes the forces acting on the particle that cause the motion.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Good, thx. I know that hypothesis isn't as strong as theory until well tested, and that's what I was getting at; All the theories and laws I could pick out of my limited science background, as I said, "seem[ed]" to fit the specific and general, respectively. But now that I think about it, the "general theory" of relativity... At any rate, I should have looked it up before identifying an indeterminate with the qualifier, "it would seem that." Thanks again.
USCohen 3 years ago
No problem. This is not obvious stuff, really. Merriam Webster says hypothesis, theory, and law are synomyms. It then goes onto to state the distinctions, but I suspect those would be lost on the casual reader.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
"Do you have any scientific reason to believe that mankind came into existence as a fully developed organism independent of macroevolution?Why Darwinists Reject Intelligent Design" . Please watch this video and make your comments there because it addressesYou atheist keep putting up the same old tired arguments of Thor, Odin, space elephants, unicorns fairies, etc. Can't you come up with anything more original than that. It is so immature, and a ridiculous comparison
mensa39 3 years ago
The video is not about God(s) or atheism. It's about the difference between a law and a theory. OTOH, I don't see that xian deity is any more supported than fairies and the like.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
I didn't ask if ID was science. I asked if Intelligent design is a theory. I'm not mad, but I know that ID is religion. I would hate for anyone to think that I implied ID has any validity. I was only wondering if it had any properties that could label it as a theory. I should have been more specific. Can you take my name out of the video description?. You can say "someone asked." I'm always sending you PM's and asking you for favors, so hate to bother you on what appears to be a trivial matter.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Brainmold, you seem to have a strong desire to label me as a certain religion I guess because you feel that you can use that label to discredit me. This is a typical tactic that I see mainly coming from the left. You can't have an honest disagreement with anyone on the left because they simply dismiss you as bigot, racist, homophobe, religious zealot, xenophobe, sexist, etc. Its seems these labels always come out in a feeble attempt to excuse themselves from coming up with a logical response.
eodoc 3 years ago
Now it is obvious. You are rightwinger with all the trappings. Stick a fork in this guy. I wont call you any of those names. Your religion did not discredit you. Your dishonesty is what brought shame to you. It is fun to watch you hide your beliefs while secretly promoting them. ID IS RELIGION. By the way, I'm a moderate registered as a republican. As far as logic is concerned you can only replace a theory if you have a better one. You aready admitted that you are irrational for your beliefs.
Brainmold 3 years ago
In closing, criticism of an accepted theory does nothing to lend support or validity to a competing theory. The theory has to stand on it's own merits. Even if we were created, science cannot validate it. Not only that but the evidence "appears" to indicate otherwise. Our conclusions are based on things that are apparent, and not necessarily true. If any scientist comes up with any evidence of a designer besides just pointing out things that appear desinged, I hope scientists will review it.
Brainmold 3 years ago
"ID threatens to undermine our search for rational and natural causes by using...."
Son, this is where you show tht you just don't understand sceince, at least before the left wing radicals got a hold of it. I am not threatened by the teaching of TOE in schools why should you be threatened by ID? There are concerns to be discussed with both and so what is wrong with discussing them both openly? The issue will rest if we let science do what its supposed to do, without suppression of ideas.
eodoc 3 years ago
Nothing to do with left wing radicalism. ID is irrational. It is not science.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Postulating that something comes from nothing is irrational as it violates The of Law of Conservation of Matter. The other alternative, postulating that something has always existed is irrational because there is ABSOLUTELY NO empirical evidence for anything being without a beginning and an ending. Which irrationality do you subscribe to?
eodoc 3 years ago
Postulating that God exists is beyond the scope of science. A 'god' violating the 1st law is still a violation of the first law.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
A God who created the 1st law does not have to be subject to it, only the creation itself is subject to it. I agree that postulating God exists is beyond scientific proof but why is the idea of a creator beyond science. There is no basis but ones personal preference to say this. If science is going to theorize about the origin of the universe then we have to either say that it happened without cause or something caused it to happen. Neither position is provable.
eodoc 3 years ago
I have been polite so please do not call me son. I am 44 years old. If I offend you let me know and I will attempt to correct it or clarify my postion.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Yes you have been polite. Sorry to call you son, I thought you were younger by the immaturity and fear in your comments. But you never addressed my question so I will state again: I am not threatened by the teaching of TOE in schools why should you be threatened by ID? There are concerns to be discussed with both and so what is wrong with discussing them both openly? The issue will rest if we let science do what its supposed to do, without suppression of ideas.
eodoc 3 years ago
Dickwad, you have replaced one insult with another. I have changed my mind about ID in science. It must be exposed. I invite ID into the clasroom and labratories so it can be destroyed. The worst thing you can do to religion is to allow it to be scrutinzied by mainstream science without fear of offending or crossing ethical boundaries. Part of ID is to point out shortcomings of TOE. TOE in return can criticize creation theory. ID will get annihilated.
Brainmold 3 years ago
There once was a time when people did not know the difference between supernatural and natural phenomena. Science sought to find the truth. As natural explanations accumulated, supernatural causes were abandoned. It became apparent that medicine worked better than exorcisms, prayer, and animal sacrifice. superstition is not required. We realized that Gods wrath could be averted by washing your hands, or avoiding certain plants.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Leftwing? Obviously you have personal reasons for rejecting TOE. I admit that I too have personal reasons for accepting TOE. However, from a scientific point of view it is more logical to accept the evidence of TOE than to accept a 2000 year old claim of Adam and eve, talking serpents, magic trees, Samson's golden hair, Jonah and the whale, Baalams talking donkey etc...etc..
Brainmold 3 years ago
I realize that you did not bring up the bible, but the political statement was telling. You are conservative Christian. Given enough rope most ID supporters will expose themselves. ID is religion. That is not say that there are not atheist with conservative views. But the conclusion is fair.
Brainmold 3 years ago
You don't have to be a Christian to see that there is a left and right wing in this country. Why is it so important to you to establish my religion. I can separate religion from science, why can't you? There is no point in arguing about the existence or non-existence of a creator. Why can't anyone address the problems with evolution that I have expressed. I really am open to listening.
eodoc 3 years ago
I get great comfort from watching you dance around denying God's new convenant, the Holy spirtit, Jesus, and his body and blood sacrifice, and his miracles through omission. You are the one who asked if we wanted to talk theology. I took that offer. You are being called to witness. Is Jesus the savior? Peter denied him three times. What is more important. Your testimony, or science?
Brainmold 3 years ago
If you want to start a different thread to talk theology I would be happy to do that. I was trying to stay focused on the problems with macroevolution here which you refuse to do. I can only conclude that you have nothing to counter my assertion that there is no empirical evidence for any random process leading to any increase in information.
eodoc 3 years ago
"Creator" is one aspect of "God." Even if one disingenuously says, "Well, It could be an *alien*!" Then applying the same principle, one is really saying that a higher creator must have created the alien, etc. Invoking a "creator" is theology.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
"Creator" is one aspect of "God." Even if one disingenuously says, "Well, It could be an *alien*!" Then applying the same principle, one is really saying that a higher creator must have created the alien"
I agree. It's too bad Richard Dawkins stated that its possible that alien life could have "seeded" life here on earth, apparently not thinking about where the aliens must have come from. Idiot.
eodoc 3 years ago
"It's too bad Richard Dawkins stated that its possible that alien life could have "seeded" life here on earth, apparently not thinking about where the aliens must have come from. Idiot."
To find out why Richard Dawkins said that go to expelledexposed(dot)com.
Brainmold 3 years ago
"Invoking a "creator" is theology." I agree that invoking any CHARACTERIZATION of the nature of a creator or the mechanisms by which such a being operates is theology but looking for evidence of intelligence in nature is not theology. Please view my video "Why Darwinists Reject Intelligent Design". I hope we can get clarity on this issue.
eodoc 3 years ago
Making any prediction about how a "designer" might influence Nature is theology. Will watch it. A bit busy at the moment.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Again, its not making a prediction about HOW a designer would do anything. Its about asking the question: "Is there EVIDENCE that intelligence is behind the phenomena in question or does the evidence suggest that random processes could be responsible. Asking if there is evidence of intelligence does not speculate on the mechanism by which the intelligence operates.
eodoc 3 years ago
"Creator" is one aspect of "God." Even if one disingenuously says, "Well, It could be an *alien*!" Then applying the same principle, one is really saying that a higher creator must have created the alien, etc. Invoking a "creator" is theology.
The alien must have been created...or did he evolve? LOL
Brainmold 3 years ago
If science does not have that answer then neither do I. Theists often place God in the gaps of knowledge. I will do some research into this question.
Brainmold 3 years ago
I don't reject all of TOE only the mechanism which is provided to explain macroevolution. Its nothing personal, but simply scientific. There is no empirical evidence to support it. I am not putting up any explanation to compete with it, just saying that there are things about it that seem impossible to accomplish. I don't know why you have to bring in religious alternatives. I don't think you have to promote any religion to believe that the universe was created by a higher power.
eodoc 3 years ago
"I am not putting up any explanation to compete with it, just saying that there are things about it that seem impossible to accomplish."
You are being dishonest again. You have propsed a higher power to replace macroevolution.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Please show me where I have proposed a higher power to replace macroevolution. We have been talking about two different issues. The origin of the universe and evolution. I believe the universe was created, I have said that. However this has nothing to do with the scientific objections to macroevolution. We don't have to talk about a creator or ID or anything else at all, lets just focus on the problems with macroevolution then, but I NEVER recommended anything to replace it.
eodoc 3 years ago
"I cannot deny that I believe that the universe has order to it, which to me, suggest the high probability of intelligent design."
The earth, and life on it is part of the universe. If you cannot offer a better theory than TOE there is no point debating against TOE. Science uses the best theory until it is modified or replaced. And now that you have proved yourself to be slippery, I will once again begin rephrasing questions until I get my answers.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Do you have any scientific reason to believe that mankind came into existence as a fully developed organism independent of macroevolution?
Brainmold 3 years ago
Yes I do but before I get to that I would like to ask you this question: Do you think it would be best for society to euthanize all genetically deformed, physically and mentally handicapped, mentally insane, AIDS infected and drug addicts?
eodoc 3 years ago
NO, because their existence brings joy into our lives. We bring joy into their lives. We love them. They love us. Many of them want to live. They are our brothers and sisters. There is also hope for cures and new treatments. Serving the handi-capped is a selfish act. It pleases us. To kill them would cause grief. Call it a destructive pattern of instincts. Any trait, whether constructive or negative can be passed down to the next generation as long as they can reproduce. Please procede.
Brainmold 3 years ago
I did not ask you if the existence of the genetically inferior brings joy to your life. I am asking you if it would be better for humanity as a whole if their were euthanized. Of course they bring joy to people on an individual basis, this does not mean its the best thing for the evolution of humanity. So I will ask you again, would it be best for the long term viability of the human species for them to be euthanized? Please don't give me emotional arguments, lets stick with the biological.
eodoc 3 years ago
Give me a minute to reply. BRB.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Emotion is a biological factor. Joy is required to sustain us. Bilogical emotion cannot be separated from biology. It is built in to our psyche. but I will answer the question. NO it would not be better if they were euthanized. It was set a bad precedent. It would be impossible to determine exactly what constitues a justification for extermination. Nobody would be safe. As for long term viability, handi-capped people are less likely to reproduce, and there is a breaking point of survivability.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Surely bad genetics can cause us harm in the long term. But it would be a crime to inflict this conclusion on society. I will not play God. I do not know enough about the universe to do so. I only have a lack of belief in gods. This does not give me authority or the ability to judge whether people are unfit or not. I do not know the ramifications of placing myself in a seat of authority to determine life and death of individuals. this type of thinking can place us all in danger.
Brainmold 3 years ago
It would cause more harm than good.
Brainmold 3 years ago
We listen to our instincts to protect each other. That is logical. We accept that it is irrational and inefficient. This is answer is doomed to be an emotional appeal. I accept it if you call me illogical. I choose illogic in this case. Avoiding grief is beneficial to our health and well being. I embrace my counter evolutionist behavior. It please me to do so. It is logical to please myself. I like it. I accept the consequences for it.
Brainmold 3 years ago
OK, thanks for your honesty. My point was that if you follow Darwinist theory through to its logical end, as applied to humanity, the conclusion is that it is beneficial to society to eliminate or abandon the genetically inferior. The animal kingdom does it all the time, its is simply survival of the fittest and what is best for society AS A WHOLE even though admittedly a few individuals who are related to the inferior will suffer emotional pain.
eodoc 3 years ago
And since human beings are just another animal species, the only logical conclusion from an atheistic Darwinist point of view is that it is not only OK but in fact NECESSARY that the genetically inferior be eliminated in the best interest of humanity. Since there is no creator to be accountable to and humans are just animals there is no reason to be concerned about the fate of the inferior. And yet we are concerned, even if we have no relationships with any of the genetically inferior. Hmm...
eodoc 3 years ago
I imagine that in extreme cases weak people are left behind, even in a theistic society. Imagine your town being invaded by thousands of troops under orders to shoot every living thing like in the old testament stories. The resulting chaos would cause alot of sick people to be unprotected and abandoned.
Brainmold 3 years ago
"Imagine your town being invaded by thousands of troops under orders to shoot every living thing like in the old testament stories. The resulting chaos would cause alot of sick people to be unprotected and abandoned."
What!? I'm sorry, I don't understand what this even means or how it is relevant to the point I made. You really have an axe to grind with religion don't you? It seems at every corner you want to get a dig in about religion and I have never made any religious arguments at all.
eodoc 3 years ago
It's in line with our discussion on animals being left behind. I was stating that in humanity abandonment does happen under extreme circumstances. I do have an axe to grind with religion. I am trying to instigate religious argument. Shall we end our discussion on theology? I know you originally wanted a science debate. I cannot separate design from religion. It is a common practice to worship the designer. I challenge you to admit that you worship the designer.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Also You seem to be having trouble making up your mind as to whether you are want to present ID. I asked, "Do you have any scientific reason to believe that mankind came into existence as a fully developed organism independent of macroevolution? You said yes but then became distracted by the topic of Darwinism. Before that you said, "Please show me where I have proposed a higher power to replace macroevolution." What are you proposing? It sounds like theology.
Brainmold 3 years ago
This is where YOU don't understand science. The last time theology was mixed with science, knowledge was repressed. Giodano Bruno was convicted of heresey for postulating that life may exist on other planets. He was gagged and then burned to death. Galileo was forced to recant his position that jupiter having four moons and died under house arrest. It wasn't until 1978 that the Galileo recieved his posthumous pardon and apology. Those are two examples. I have more if you require them.
Brainmold 3 years ago
"There are concerns to be discussed with both and so what is wrong with discussing them both openly?"
In can be discussed in a classroom, but in a theology class. To be in a science class it will have to pass peer review like any other theory. Science does not make exceptions due to appeals of emotion or personal belief. We can Thank Ben Stein for forever associating ID with God, politics, creationism and religion.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Very interesting.
sandieblack 3 years ago
I never said I was a creationist. Why do you guys have to start labeling someone anytime they see problems with TOE. As I explained before, my problems are not with natural selection and the empirical evidence for microevolution but with macroevolution. If you will check all my postings you will not find even a hint of any religious argument. By the way, I am still waiting for a single reference demonstrating empirical evidence that a random process can produce an increase in information.
eodoc 3 years ago
Regarding increase in information - that's the other video I'm thinking of making, partly because I see it as a non-argument and partly because I think it probably be good to actually get a few direct references. I would like to make sure I don't increase the confusion before I do this.
Many people deny the religious nature of their objections in certain places. If you are truly not a creationist, I apologize. So far, you're making the same arguments they do.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
My objections to macroevolution are based on what my scietific experience has taught me. I am open to changing my position if I see good empirical evidence that leads me there. I think part of problem were having is in basic communication because of the "evolution" of scientific terms that have come about mainly from biologists. So if we can get past the semantic problems I am very interested to hear what you have to say about the information problem.
eodoc 3 years ago
Biologists didn't develop ideal gas law or show that virtual particles would not violate 1st law. "Law" has never meant "absolute truth."
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
The ideal gas law is absolute though, in that it does unfailingly apply to an ideal gas. Now granted, in reality there is no such thing as an ideal gas, its just a tool to describe the behavior of a gas in the absence of real world effects such as Van Der Waals forces, etc. I know you know what I am talking about. What the law describes is the relationship between pressure, volume and the number of moles of an ideal gas, IF such an animal existed. Please explain to me the relevance of VP.
eodoc 3 years ago
We have no empirical basis for talking about "idea gases" as they are a very useful fiction.
Regarding VP, check out link in sidebar.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
I'm considering a vid on information. I don't care so much about my presentation, but I do want to avoid adding to the confusion.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
You say that you are not a creationist. Do you deny that we were created?
Brainmold 3 years ago
You and I both know that the term "creationist" has a certain connotation associated with it that atheists like to use to label and dismiss anyone who has concerns about TOE. I want to have a serious conversation about just the science. What does my opinion about whether or not the universe was created have to do with us having a conversation about the scientific validity of macroevolution?
eodoc 3 years ago
Before begging a duel with swords, I like to ask my opponent if he brought a gun. Pardon me for using the word creationist. It was in response to you using that word. Let me rephrase the question. Are you an ID proponent? Do you deny that you you were intelligently designed?
Brainmold 3 years ago
Brain, Ken Miller is in the broadest terms a creationist. He believes in a creator god, but he is very clear to distinguish his religious opinions from his scientific opinions.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
I have rephrased the question. If eodoc feels that my question falls outside of scientific discourse, and is irrelevant to legitmate, honest debate regarding alternative theories to our currently accepted model, then surely eodoc and I can agree that ID is not a science and thus, it will not be presented as an alternative to our present model. I can then set my prejudices aside and drop religion as relevent subject matter, and continue the debate focusing only on peer reviewed study only.
Brainmold 3 years ago
I also am aware of the claim that some ID proponents are creationists, but not all creationists are ID proponents. If that is the case in this matter, and as an ID proponent his definition of designer is unclear meaning it does not define a designer or designers as having God like properties I will agree to keep religion out of it. However, he will be required to present evidence of his alien designers. Pointing out unanswered questions in science will not be sufficient.
Brainmold 3 years ago
I cannot deny that I believe that the universe has order to it, which to me, suggest the high probability of intelligent design. But this has nothing to do with my objection to macroevolutionary theory. I am open to learning if there are new experiments or findings that I don't know about that could be convincing but as of right now I find nothing overly compelling about the empirical evidence which would lead me to believe that natural selection over time can accomplish what is claimed.
eodoc 3 years ago
"I find nothing overly compelling"
Have you actually looked?
"I find nothing overly compelling"
Are you aware of any natural law that evolution violates.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Yes I have looked and every time someone gives me a reference it turns out that the person either does not really understand the word "empirical" or else they completely neglect that the empirical evidence they cite involves significant leaps of faith to get the conclusion they want to draw from the evidence. To me abiogenesis has to be part of TOE, and of course this violates the Law of Biogenesis. I wish you could see that this is the whole reason for the line being drawn after the 1st life.
eodoc 3 years ago
It is only in recent years have a heard macroevolutions make this separation. When I was an undergrad in the eighties, the evolution of the first organism was taught as a part of evolutionary theory citing the Miller experiment as the strongest evidence. Today most have abandoned citing this experiment much like many creationists have abandondoned the 2nd Law arguments. So they redefine where TOE starts and say that abiogenesis is a separate field of study. I am sorry, I just can't accept.
eodoc 3 years ago
Just because biologist get together and state that abiogenesis is not relevant to TOE does not mean that it is the scientific thing to do, or even ethical for that matter. The theory is incomplete if it cannot account for the first living organism because without the first organism there can be no second. Perhaps my offense at this arbitrary line drawing has to do with me being older than you (I don't know) and you are just used to it always being that way and so have never questioned it.
eodoc 3 years ago
Abiogenesis is relevant to TOE. However, TOE doesn't depend on abiogenesis. If some "intelligent magic" (i.e. God) created the first life, TOE still holds.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
I will add this answer to my arsenal. I really like it.
Brainmold 3 years ago
TOE explains origin of species. It doesn't explain where the first life comes from. They are related, but clearly different things.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
There are 2 different things called LoB. One of them is just an assertion. Evolution does not include abiogenesis. That is not the whole reason for drawing the line. We don't have sufficient understanding of the chemistry to understand how the first life formed.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
In fairness, when I rewatch your video, it 'sounds' an awful lot like you're saying you're a creationist. If that was a mistaken impression, I apologize, but it sounds like you're saying "Those other creationists are wrong to not throw out the thermodynamics argument, but ..."
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Not all creationist use those arguments. When I said OTHER I was referring to the ones who don't while still acknowledging that there are those who do. But I must admit, I find the creation story just as believable as the idea the natural selection over time can lead to macroevolution. Hopefully this emphasizes how unbelievable the ME claim is to me, based on empirical evidence. But none of this is germane to the evidence. Do you want to talk science or theology?
eodoc 3 years ago
I wouldn't mind doing both. Because you have admitted that you believe there is a high probality of an intelligent designer. If this is true, all aspects of existence would fall under science and theology, giving you the benefit of the doubt (allowing ID in) theology questions are fair game. For you God or ID is the truth with matter, energy, and life as evidence. No? I imagine that you only wanted to leave theology out because of prejudice.
Brainmold 3 years ago
And by your own logic Excluding the designer in discussions on creation is equal to excluding abiogenesis in discussions on evolution.Without the designer "design theory". The same standars apply.
Brainmold 3 years ago
I typed that out wrong. I meant to say that without a designer, design theory falls apart.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Ok. For my first question, is there any observation of phenomena or property of life, energy, or matter that would lead you to believe that this intelligent designer has has communicated to us in writing? This is relevant to the field of knowledge in that any writings may contain scientific data or insight to our orgins in part or in whole.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Here is the problem. In order for ther to be a creator of the universe (time and space) then that creator would have to exist outside of that time and space, correct? It would not be possible for beings who exist in 3 dimensional space to comprehend anything about a creator who exists outside that space. This is also why there can be no proof of a creator because any proofs that we could provide would be confined to 3 dimensional space. We cannot comprehend space beyond x,y,z coordinates.
eodoc 3 years ago
Obviously if there is a creator of the universe there is no reason to believe the creator would be subject to the laws of his own creation. Any intelligence that could create time and space is outside of time and space and can move through it just as easily as you flip through the pages of a book. It would be impossible for us to observe such a creator directly at least in the full manifestation. All we can hope to see is a shadow of such a being.
eodoc 3 years ago
To give a simple illustration, imagine if you could create a world of living two-dimensional beings drawn on a sheet of paper in X and Y coordinates. Since they can only look in the x and y directions they could never see you directly because they cannot see into the Z coordinate but they would be able to see your 2-dimensional shadow into their world. That is how I picture God or a Creator or whatever term you want to use. We can see God's "shadow" in many aspects of science.
eodoc 3 years ago
These "shadows" are evidence but we could never see such a being directly or empirically prove existence using laws that only work within 3-dimensional space. Why would we expect to be able to do so?
eodoc 3 years ago
No one will ever be able to empirically prove the existence of a creator to you but by the same token you cannot disprove the existence of such a being. You cannot use laws of our 3-dimensional existence to disprove a being who is not limited to our time and space. All you can do is take a leap of faith in either direction, but you have to remember that whichever choice you make it is faith nonetheless.
eodoc 3 years ago
All of humanity has a need for irrational beliefs and we will find a way to satisfy that need one way or another. A believer's irrationality is in his belief in a God that is not provable or directly observable. For the atheist, his irrationality is in his unprovable assertment that it is impossible for such a being to exist because "if its not in my material world it cannot be possible."
eodoc 3 years ago
"For the atheist, his irrationality is in his unprovable assertment that it is impossible for such a being to exist"
That isn't the general position of the atheist.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
"No one will ever be able to empirically prove the existence of a creator to you but by the same token you cannot disprove the existence of such a being."
There are an infinite number of things that can be imagined that cannot be disproven. The inability to disprove something does not serve as evidence for its existence...Unless of course it can be tested, which it cannot, and therefore makes it's a moot point. You can't disprove Horus, or Thor.
Brainmold 3 years ago
"For the atheist, his irrationality is in his unprovable assertment that it is impossible for such a being to exist"
Gods are possbile. That is not compelling enough to put faith into it let alone the threat from Abrahmic religion of burning for eternity for rejecting these irrational concepts. It is illogical, and without merit or evidence, therfeore it must be rejected. that is how scientific thought plays out. That is, if you care about scientific integrity.
Brainmold 3 years ago
"... It is illogical, and without merit or evidence, therfeore it must be rejected. that is how scientific thought plays out. That is, if you care about scientific integrity."
Please explain why you feel that an ordered creation is not evidence of a creator but that it is evidence that it came from nothing? I am sorry, I don't see the logic in that.
eodoc 3 years ago
I never said, "it came fom nothing." In addition, scientists do not say, "It came from nothing. However, I agree that things that have been created have creators. But order is a matter of perception. On PBS Nova, a scientist provided a monkey with art supplies. It was taught to play with them. The images seemed to reflect signs of order and creativity. It was presented as art to a respected art critic who proceded to explain the various complexity and skill of the brush strokes, and influences.
Brainmold 3 years ago
"There are an infinite number of things that can be imagined that cannot be disproven. The inability to disprove something does not serve as evidence for its existence."
I never said it was evidence. My point was you have faith just as a believer has faith.
eodoc 3 years ago
You can admit that at least some creators have been imagined. I thought you said that ordered things provide evidence for creators. That comment was addressing the moot point that god cannot be disproven, just as Thor, Odin, and space elephants cannot be disproven.
Brainmold 3 years ago
You atheist keep putting up the same old tired arguments of Thor, Odin, space elephants, unicorns fairies, etc. Can't you come up with anything more original than that. It is so immature, and a ridiculous comparison. No body is proposing that any of these things has created the universe so why would we look for evidence of them? And if someone did say one of these was the creator then doesn't just become another name for creator? Its as ridicoulous the 2nd law argument from a creationist.
eodoc 3 years ago
The analogy is used because they cannot be proven or disproven. That's why the argument is old. It's common sense. You mock Thor? Thor was a much revered god of the ancient Germanic peoples. He is no less credible than a universe creator. You seem to think that someone propsing something is cause for investigation as to it's validity. That burden rests on the person making the claim.
Brainmold 3 years ago
I wasn't aware that Germanic peoples ever postulated that Thor created the universe. Please show me where that is the case. If they did believe this then Thor is just another name for the creator that I am talking about, in that this creator is the first cause. Call it whatever you want, I am not saying anything to support or denounce any religion, just the idea of a creator. Science cannot investigate the nature of the creator, only the evidence that there is intelligence to the universe.
eodoc 3 years ago
It doens't matter if people claimed Thor made the universe. You seem to think that the superpowers attritbuted to a diety is somehow significant as to whether or not claims regarding them should be addressed. All Gods are on equal footing. They don't get extra prestige for creating universes. You God is on par with goblins.
Brainmold 3 years ago
"It doens't matter if people claimed Thor made the universe."
It matters in the context of this argument because I am proposing that there is EVIDENCE of a creator, not who or what the creator is, it matters not what you want to call the creator. You are missing my point completely. I just made a video entitled "Why Darwinists Reject Intelligent Design" . Please watch this video and make your comments there because it addresses why ID is not religion.
eodoc 3 years ago
Sources of design (gods) are not found, and cannot ever be found, but the building blocks of life can be found throughout the universe. Desingers are commonly worshipped. They are quite popular in religions.
Brainmold 3 years ago
"You can't disprove Horus, or Thor." Why would I want to disprove them? You keep hitting me with these non sequiturs.
eodoc 3 years ago
Forgive me if I post this twice, my comment did not show up. Nor you, or any other scientist is required to disprove them. Science does not attempt to prove or disprove God or Gods.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Having faith that that the sun will rise tomorrow is more logical that having faith that Jesus is coming back. One is based on faith alone. The other is based on past performance of the sun. Science has faith that water can be frozen. If there is any doubt an experiment can be performed. Any doubt in Gods cannot be remedied by experiments. God is out.
Brainmold 3 years ago
It's an oxymoron. As far as we know all things that exist do so in within the fabric of space and time. Logically, (based on a lack of knwoledge of things outside space and time) nothing exists outside of space and time. Creators are said to exist outside of space and time. Therefore it is logical to conclude they do not exist. That does disprove gods or space elephants but it is reasonable to dismiss them due to their lack of any measurable properties.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Searching for natural explanations of our orgins within space and time is the logical choice. Looking for design is sentimental and superstituos in nature. If you look for desing you will find design. Some people even find the face of Jesus on a cinnamon roll.
Brainmold 3 years ago
TOE is rational. ID threatens to undermine our search for rational and natural causes by using an emotional appeal and politics, instead of peer reviewed science to get a foothold on science. They use nothing more than criticism of TOE to support ID. If Science in turn analyzes ID as an equal it will be destoyed in a day. The only way ID can survive is by suppressing real data regarding TOE. TOE may even be banished. Religion exists to search out supernatural explanations. Isnt that good enough?
Brainmold 3 years ago
It's not just logical. It's what science is capable of doing. Science is not capable of recognizing the supernatural. It can't distinguish "god did it" from "we haven't figured this out yet."
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
I agree that science is not capable of recognizing the supernatural. But if there is creator to the universe then the creation process is part of the natural simply by the fact that it happened and could have been physically observed even though the creator could not be observed. Science cannot handle the concept of something coming from nothing either but somehow this idea is considered scientific (Big Bang).
eodoc 3 years ago
If the creation were observed it would be indistinguishable from "we don't know." The Big Bang does not assert that something came from nothing. Virtual Particles, now are a different beast, but those are limited in time.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
TYPO. I meant to say: That DOESN'T disprove gods or space elephants but it is reasonable to dismiss them due to their lack of any measurable properties.
Brainmold 3 years ago
"What does my opinion about whether or not the universe was created have to do with us having a conversation about the scientific validity of macroevolution?"
You are offering creation as an alternative theory! LOL
Brainmold 3 years ago
"You are offering creation as an alternative theory! LOL"
You are the one who is not being honest, I never said any such thing.
eodoc 3 years ago
In other words, you do not have a better theory to replace TOE. The only thing you have to offer is criticsim of TOE. You could just as easily point out the shortcomings of graviational theory, but that would not serve you.
Brainmold 3 years ago
So what your saying is that if a scientist does not have a theory to completely replace another theory then he should not bring up any point which contradicts the existing theory?
eodoc 3 years ago
He can talk all day, but without a suitable alternative, the theory holds. ID only offers things that look designed. With evolution we has fossils, viruses, germs, and DNA. We can apply the knowledge of change and adaptation to find cures illnesses, make drugs, breed animals and crops etc. With ID the best we can do is mimic nature to find solutions to certain problems. We already do that anyway. Observing complexity is as far as it goes. We are not going to find god. It's the end of the line.
Brainmold 3 years ago
Good explanations, TFF. Creationists love to run with invalid extensions like "law of biogenesis". The generalization "life cannot come from non-life" is just an intentional(?) misrepresentation of the biogenetic principle (stating in its context that a wisp of damp hay will not generate fully formed bacteria or mice).
ftom2006 3 years ago
I've heard that same argument on numerous occasions! BTW, I'm not making this stuff up. Almost every example I gave is easily confirmed. And the general distinction between law and theory is explained at NAS site.
tx,
tff
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Actually he has left lots of comments on both pages. I will keep an eye on that thread to see if you address him. No obligation of course! LOL I would really love to see someone of your caliber throw some jabs at this creationist. As a laymen I am not given any credibility or benefit of doubt from my opponent "BillboTex the alleged scientist."
Brainmold 3 years ago
Brainmold, please direct him to
watch?v=XTaiP04UlxE
It seems doubtful that he's an actual scientist.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
That's your video right? I did that already!
Brainmold 3 years ago
Amazing, simply amazing. It can't be possible that an actual scientist would not drink in all that encompasses TOE. I can show you my degree if you like. We can even have thermodynamics duel if you like as well. I actually had to derive the thermodynamic equations from scratch when I was in school. Unlike you engineering hacks who just plug and chug with no appreciation for the fundamentals.
eodoc 3 years ago
Are you a theist?
Brainmold 3 years ago
Neither he nor I were referring to you. There's some other fellow who's been insulting him on another channel. I have taken you on your word at your degree and haven't questioned it.
Knowing the difference between a law and a theory is not fundamental to just TOE.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
OK, sorry for over reacting. I thought it was directed at me. I do know the difference between a formal theory and a formal law. I think part of our communication problem is generational. I am 40 years old, I was taught as an undergraduate at Indiana University that laws do start out as theories, but not in the formal sense of a scientific THEORY but in the general sense of the word theory. Can you see where the confusion lies?
eodoc 3 years ago
BillboTex says, "The theory ALWAYS precedes the Law. Multiple modifications and adjustments of an incomplete theory (such as the Theory of Evolution), hopfully result in creation of the law (unless the theory was so flawed that no real law can come from it). In that case the theory must be tossed out and a new theory must be used to try to reach the law. Evolution has been a theory since its inception. About time it is dropped for another theory which actually supports the evidence?"
Brainmold 3 years ago
This was the comment from Billbotex: "Ladies and gentlemen here from Brainmold you see the classical argument against public education. Our current system of public education actually PRODUCES brain mold as Brainmold's remarks show. ALL scientific laws become so by starting as theories and through experimental observations they are constantly revised until they meet the standard to become scientific LAWS. Brainmold is another example of some 13 year old trying to define the field of Science."
Brainmold 3 years ago
"ALL scientific laws become so by starting as theories and through experimental observations they are constantly revised until they meet the standard to become scientific LAWS."
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
I would not go so far as to say he does not know what he is talking about. All scientific laws do start out as "theories", at least in the loose sense of the word theory. In other words, scientists postulate an idea that they think might be a law (ie. they theorize what might be a law) but its not immediately accepted by all of science as law until it has a great body of evidence to demonstrate that what is postulated has never been violated and in their best estimation, never will be violated.
eodoc 3 years ago
Our debate had deteriorated into semantics and adhominem attack. He presented his credentials as a scientist as an argument from authority. When challenged to use strict scientific language and terminology in his defintions of theory, fact, and law, he continued to use laymen language and insisted they were scientifically accurate/literate. It was a bizarre effort to add credibility to his original arguement against TOE. He claimed victory and credited it to my education from public schooling.
Brainmold 3 years ago
"In a sense I think a theory can become a fact; that is, it can become so solid that it is insane to deny it".
I'm sorry I meant "fact" as it applies to "proof" in the strict scientific defintion of what constitutes absolute proof. I would not allow this person to speak in laymens terms. I was being anal because he kept implying that he is a scientist and understands strict scientific language, and that I must be 13 years old! LOL. In your opinion should I concede this arguement with him?
Brainmold 3 years ago
"In your opinion should I concede this arguement with him?"
No. Even laws are not necessarily absolutely true. Proof is not a requirement for scientific theories - or of laws. Scientific law does not equate to absolute truth.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
That is, "No!" as in you shouldn't concede. If you've conveyed the facts correctly, he's wrong.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
In a sense I think a theory can become a fact; that is, it can become so solid that it is insane to deny it - like Germ Theory of Disease. But it's not going to become a law, because a law is qualitatively different. Creationists are often very loose when interpreting what constitutes a 'scientist', to include medical technicians, vets, engineers, philosophers, etc.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
I recently got into a debate in a comment section of a video with a character that claimed that theories can become laws, and that theories can become facts. I tried endlessly to explain it to this person. He thought I was an idiot and a victim of public schooling! He also denied my postition that, in scientifc language, "proof" only exists in mathematics. He said that he was a scientist in the field of medical research. He asked all creationists to read my comments to show how stupid I am!
Brainmold 3 years ago
The users name is Billbotex and we debated on the second page of the comments section on the video titled, "Expelled - The Movie - Super Trailer". The video was produced by a user named, getexpelled.
Brainmold 3 years ago
I think I might already by commenting on that thread.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago