Unintelligible Redesign

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Huh? How is an agnostic either a deist or an atheist? The whole point of agnosticism is that one doesn't know if God exists or not. There is no choice.

---

A common misconception. To KNOW something, is to be entirely assured of it. To BELIEVE it, is another thing. Atheists cannot disprove that there is a god, deists cannot prove there is a god. That is the nature of faith. I BELIEVE pink bunnies do not exist, but I do not KNOW for sure.
Agnosticism is more accurately described as "believing god cannot be proven or disproven". But there logically isn't a middle of the road. Even if someone says they aren't sure if god exists or not, would be fluxuating between "exists" and "doesn't exist", blanking it out of their mind, or considering it. It's a black and white situation, because there is no "kind of exists".

​

[This message has been edited by Xombie, 03-22-2002]

quote:

---

Our children should be taught the FACTS at school

---

Then they can't be taught science. In science, no fact, belief, or theory is unquestionably static.
Things in religion, however, seem to be.

quote:

---

schools are encouraging children to change their religious beliefs in order to accept evolution

---

That is absurd. Creationism is not the theory that god made everything. Creationism is the belief that god made everything in six consecutive days with the wave of a wand.
ONLY people who take the bible literally (FUNDAMENTALISTS) believe in creationism. If one would look at the genesis creation story for the metaphorical sumerian myth that it is, evolution fits right in.
There is nothing in evolutionary theory asserting that it is independant from god. Merely that it happened. This is why "theistic evolution" exists. The idea that evolution happened, but was dictated by god.By the way, anything that directly comes FROM a religion and is NOT soundly based in science, can NOT be taught in schools in america. It violates the first amendment. Students that are Hopi native americans would be having their rights violated as much as atheists if creationism were taught in schools.

​

[This message has been edited by Xombie, 03-22-2002]

Gravity is a religion

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Huh? How is an agnostic either a deist or an atheist? The whole point of agnosticism is that one doesn't know if God exists or not. There is no choice.

---

quote:

---

A common misconception. To KNOW something, is to be entirely assured of it. To BELIEVE it, is another thing. Atheists cannot disprove that there is a god, deists cannot prove there is a god. That is the nature of faith. I BELIEVE pink bunnies do not exist, but I do not KNOW for sure. Agnosticism is more accurately described as "believing god cannot be proven or disproven".

---

There are so many subtleties to consider that it is silly to correct me on what my own beliefs are (I am an Agnostic, and I'm not an Atheist, and I'm not a Deist).How do you classify someone who says that there is a way to determine if God exists, but we just haven't found it yet, so they are remaining Agnostic? What about the person who doesn't think that God exists but is remaining in the Skeptical tradition by saying that "we don't know", because one cannot prove a negative?

quote:

---

But there logically isn't a middle of the road.

---

Sure there is, because it is quite logical to conclude that one doesn't know if God exists or not. (Saying that we cannot know if God exists or not is a different thing) Again, how is this an illogical conclusion?

quote:

---

Even if someone says they aren't sure if god exists or not, would be fluxuating between "exists" and "doesn't exist", blanking it out of their mind, or considering it.

---

I disagree. I think that answering an unanswerable question with, "I don't know" is perfectly logical and valid.

quote:

---

It's a black and white situation, because there is no "kind of exists".

---

We aren't talking about what actually "exists", we're talking about what someone believes.One can believe, in very general terms:God exists. (Theist)God doesn't exist.(Atheist)I don't know if God exists or not.(Agnostic)

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
We aren't talking about what actually "exists", we're talking about what someone believes.

​

One can believe, in very general terms:

​

God exists. (Theist)

​

God doesn't exist.(Atheist)

​

I don't know if God exists or not.(Agnostic)

---

And of course the entirely respectable:I don't know what exist means whens applied to an eternal, omnipresent, omniscient god. (also Agnostic).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwin Storm:

As for Copernicus, and subsequnetly Galileo, it was the CHURCH that tried to supress VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORIES to DEFEND A RELIGIOUS WORLDVIEW. I am amazed at the audacity of your attempt to use copernicus as vindication of relgious dogma , when relgious dogma was the reason Copernicus and Galileo were ridiculed and persecuted. How very ironic. Peace.

---

Am I correct in thinking that the original geocentric viewpoint was postulated by Ptolemy who was neither Jew nor Christian, but Greek? His viewpoint wasn't based on the Bible or on scientific evidence. The Copernican view was in opposition to the establishment of the time which the Church had allowed itself to become caught up in. Why they attempted to defend a theory which was neither Biblical or scientific is beyond me, I'm not surprised they came out with egg on their faces! This is what happens when the Church tries to align itself with the scientific theory of the day. Trying to fit the Bible to a worldly viewpoint is a dangerous game, which is why I won't align myself with "theistic evolution" or "progressive creation" as I understand them to be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I was taught the 'creationist viewpoint' in school. It was in a
religious studies class ... not mis-represented as science.

​

The RS teacher even pointed out the evolutionary progression
of forms matching fairly closely the order given in Genesis.

​

She left US to make our own conclusions on what that meant.

​

Evolution is not a religous viewpoint at all, and it is NOT forced
upon anyone. As with ANY science teaching, it is presented as a
current theory ... and the evidence is examined (to a varying
level depending on the level of the class). I KNOW
this is the case in the UK having been through the school system
taking biology at both O and A level. Evolution wasn't even touched
upon in O level (about 15-16year olds) biology in my day, and at A level (17-18 year olds) the THEORY was explained, and supporting
evidence detailed.

​

NO science teacher I have ever been taught by, or met (and some
of my friends ARE science teachers) would ever presume to present
scientific theory as FACT. At best we have compelling evidence
FOR a theory if there are no data/observations which refute it.

​

---

Interesting. I went to a "so-called" Church of England school and was taught evolution at GCSE level - as a fact, with no mention of creationism as a viable alternative. Now that looks to me like an attempt to take the decision of what I should believe in for me. I guess that shows how different schools can be...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Again ... No its not. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory which attempts
to explain observed data. If new evidence does NOT fit the theory
the theory (or part of) will be revised or rejected.

---

This comes back to another rather large thread currently running in the Great Debate about evolution not being science. It was kicked off by the following link- http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/EvolutionIsNotScience_f.htmI am quite happy to affirm my earlier statement regarding evolution as a religious philosophy rather than true science. Surely out of the billions of fossils in existence we would have found some credible "missing link" and yet there are none. In fact, there is no credible evidence for macroevolution at all. The entire history of evolution SHOULD be in the fossil record, and yet we see NOTHING. Oops, how careless.We see variation WITHIN a species, aka microevolution, but there is nothing to suggest any transitional forms. Surely if macroevolution was a true process then we would still see it today, and yet again we don't. As for the abiogenesis thing - neither proteins or nucleic acids could have come into being without the other, as admitted by Leslie E. Orgel, in "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271. October 1994), p. 78.

​

[This message has been edited by GregP618, 03-24-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by GregP618, 03-24-2002]

quote:

---

Quote from Greg P618:
Quote from Interesting. I went to a "so-called" Church of England school and was taught evolution at GCSE level - as a fact, with no mention of creationism as a viable alternative. Now that looks to me like an attempt to take the decision of what I should believe in for me. I guess that shows how different schools can be...

---

Well, that's the point, I guess. Creationism is not a viable alternative which is part of the reason that evolution is a scientific fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Again ... No its not. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory which attempts
to explain observed data. If new evidence does NOT fit the theory
the theory (or part of) will be revised or rejected.

​

Greg: ...
I am quite happy to affirm my earlier statement regarding evolution as a religious philosophy rather than true science. Surely out of the billions of fossils in existence we would have found some credible "missing link" and yet there are none. In fact, there is no credible evidence for macroevolution at all. The entire history of evolution SHOULD be in the fossil record, and yet we see NOTHING. Oops, how careless.

---

Unless you can embellish your definition of religion a little bit more, then the belief that my Subaru will start the next time I go out to the garage is a religion also. And as far as missing links go, there are myriad of them. Perhaps you are new here, but there have been numerous examples given and precious little refutation of them has been made. There is ample evidence of evolution in the fossil record. In fact, there is no alternative explanation for the fossil record.Now, what do you mean by the "entire history of evolution should be in the fossil record?" This is a typical absolutist statement. Truly, there are bunch of defense attorneys who want your number.

quote:

---

We see variation WITHIN a species, aka microevolution, but there is nothing to suggest any transitional forms.

---

See above, or else give us a definition of "transitional."

quote:

---

Surely if macroevolution was a true process then we would still see it today, and yet again we don't.

---

Why do you say this? Where does evolutionary theory say that it should be visible at all time scales? Can you back this statement up?

quote:

---

As for the abiogenesis thing - neither proteins or nucleic acids could have come into being without the other, as admitted by Leslie E. Orgel, in "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271. October 1994), p. 78.

---

Yep, and heavier than air flight (you know, the "flight thing") was not possible until the last century. What is your point?

What features would you require in a fossil to call it a transitional?

What features would you require in a fossil to call it a transitional or "missing link"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:
Am I correct in thinking that the original geocentric viewpoint was postulated by Ptolemy who was neither Jew nor Christian, but Greek? His viewpoint wasn't based on the Bible or on scientific evidence. The Copernican view was in opposition to the establishment of the time which the Church had allowed itself to become caught up in. Why they attempted to defend a theory which was neither Biblical or scientific is beyond me, I'm not surprised they came out with egg on their faces! This is what happens when the Church tries to align itself with the scientific theory of the day. Trying to fit the Bible to a worldly viewpoint is a dangerous game, which is why I won't align myself with "theistic evolution" or "progressive creation" as I understand them to be.

​

---

You seemed to miss the whole point. Besides,I believe it was the bible that put forth the whole concept of a firmement in heaven ( a nice solid sphere which contained the heavens). Now, I doubt you hold onto that particular part of the bible as literal truth. My point is that the bible is relgious scripture and NOT a text of Scientific knowledge. As for the "ptolemy" theory, it was the most accurate theory at the time it was created. Copernicus found faults with it and came up with a better theory, which was further supported by Galileo. Scientific theory changes to reflect new data as we more accuratley describe the world around us.

I know school standards are dropping in the UK, and GCSE's
are much less comprehensive than the old O levels, but
I'm curious about about two things from your post ::1) In what way was the teaching of Evolution presented as fact
in your biology classes ?2) If you don't consider evolution to have happened then the
concept of it as fact was NOT impressed upon you, so I don't
see your problem.I know there's a whole thread on 'Evolution is Religion' here,
but it seems the basic creationist stance is 'Evilocean is
religion because it is.'If I give you a hypothesis that if I release a hammer from a great
height it will make a hole in the soft ground below.Then show you a hammer embedded in the mud at the bottom.Is it a religous belief until I see the hammer drop and embed ?Perhaps that's too simplified, but essentially Evolution is NOT
religous for one very good reason::It is presented in scientific circles as a theory of diversity of
life.Data has been accumulated that is compatible with the theory.
No data has been uncovered which is contrary to the theory.Belief doesn't even come into it. It's a matter of credibility.Ignore the bible and evolutionary theory
then look at any of the major evidences given
for evolution (even at the rudimentary levels of education).
If they don't imply progression, what do they imply ?Creationism is founded in religion for one simple reason.
Take away the bible and look at the evidence, and there is nothing
in the evidence that would lead you to conclude a single point
of creation.As the many evolution supporters on this site have shown, there
is an abundance of data which can be interpreted in a manner
compatible with evolution WITHOUT producing elaborate scenarios.
Evolutionary scenarios are simple, and that for me makes them
compelling.By contrast evidence interpreted in order to support special
creation is interpreted through extremely complex, previously
unobserved physical manifestations.As for transitionals ... take any three sequential members of the
proposed human evolutionary tree ... the middle one is a
transitional between the other two!As for missing links ... the conept only even arose out of the
misinterpretation of Darwin's work that said we evolved FROM
apes rather than that moderm man and apes have a common
ancestor.

If "wedge" means either Galileo's infinite one for a finite Darwin one there is no reason ID can not at the end of an angle of emergence created both peer-reviewable journals and outsource publications and is thus no further from the truth less absolute infinity operate faster than Derrida's claim about language relative to his use of word "computer." I did understand when ICR reported being "forced" to use computers. These are all one analysis in a synthesis that empricalism tend to say are two epistemologies by confusing ontology and FORMS of knowledge representations. OOP is changing the image let alone the sound we focus ears and eyes on. NExt soul on.

I just wanted to reply the assertion that ID is not a valid theory because it cannot be tested, or that one cannot make predictions based upon the theory of ID.I could make at least one predicion, such as: IF ID were to be true, then living things would display the evidences of design. Evidence of design could be defined as form with purpose.
(It is a simple definition, and is put thusly for sake of argument.)Teeth serve the purpose of grinding food.
Feathers serve the purpose of flight.
Colored fur provides camoflage.
Eyes serves the purpose of perception.
etc. etc. etc.The typical reply to this kind of thinking is that evolution mimicks design, but has no part of it,and does just fine without it.The only problem I have with evolution is the sheer unthinking randomness of it. The atheist takes offense to the assertion of randomness and chooses to call it natural selection, but let's be honest--natural selection is the process that determines whether a new characteristic will survive or not. The actual appearance of said characteristic is completely random, a mistake in the process of replication.Every characteristic of every species which naturally evolved on the earth is a mistake, a random glitch of genetics. That assertion to me requires a great deal of faith, which I do not have.Here's another glitch I find interesting:Sexual reproduction, for example, looks to me to be a designed process. I just can't wrap my imagination around an asexual species evolving a method of sexual reproduction. A male AND female would have to evolve the appropriate characteristics in the same generation, exist in proximity to each other, and somehow "know" how to mate. Otherwise it wouln't work.
Could male and female characteristics evolve in asexual species slowly over time, without being able to use the unfinished specialized "equipment" for thousands of generations?
How does natural selection preserve genes that are unfinished,provide no survival advantage, and will only serve an appearance of a purpose after countless generations?Again, it requires faith I don't have.At least the appearance of design certainly is not uncommon.
If you look for signs of design, you will find it, in mass.
If life were designed, we could expect it to appear complex,and we could expect to see design in ecosystems in which hundreds of creatures each play a specific part. We could predict a world where nothing is wasted. One creatures very flesh, excrement, and corpse is food to another.I could go on, but the point is this: the "predictions" are obviously true. We've known these things for a long time. But what could we test for that we don't already know?And another issue I would like to address: "If god made the universe then who made god, some kind of supergod?"Why are we jumping the gun here? If I find design in nature, then that is that. I draw conclusions based on the information I have. I don't have any information about god, so I can't make any comments about that. Conversely, I could ask where did the great Big Bang come from? Did all the matter in the universe explode from nothing? Whether a deist or an atheist, we can only explain things back in time so far, and then we hit a wall.

quote:

---

Am I correct in thinking that the original geocentric viewpoint was postulated by Ptolemy who was neither Jew nor Christian, but Greek? His viewpoint wasn't based on the Bible or on scientific evidence. The Copernican view was in opposition to the establishment of the time which the Church had allowed itself to become caught up in. Why they attempted to defend a theory which was neither Biblical or scientific is beyond me, I'm not surprised they came out with egg on their faces! This is what happens when the Church tries to align itself with the scientific theory of the day. Trying to fit the Bible to a worldly viewpoint is a dangerous game, which is why I won't align myself with "theistic evolution" or "progressive creation" as I understand them to be.

---

Aristotle was the originator of the geocentric idea. Since he was such an influential philosopher at the time, nobody disputed him. Anyway, Ptolemy was the guy who modified the geocentric model using concentric circles to account for retrograde motion. Anyway, when you talked about how the church was opposing the Copernicus idea, actually the church had approved of Galileo's book "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World", as it had received the official imprimatur of the church, and had been approved by the official Roman censor, Father Niccolo Riccardi. Anyway, the reason why the pope decided to make a fuss about it was because he was being accused of being soft on heretics, and as well had the problem of the thirty year war.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 11-05-2002]