Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2017 2:51 PM
355 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, herebedragons, JonF, PaulK, Porosity, RAZD (6 members, 349 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,490 Year: 21,096/21,208 Month: 1,529/2,326 Week: 865/345 Day: 103/124 Hour: 4/11

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   Points for a creator (Alaninnont and Subbie only)
subbie
Member (Idle past 203 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 31 of 65 (503873)
03-22-2009 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by alaninnont
03-21-2009 9:14 PM


The quote that you presented, in its entirety, is as follows:

Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, so that even now, ten thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.

The word life appears nowhere in that quote. In particular, what it says about a slower expansion is that the universe would have collapsed before it reached its present size. This of course says nothing about the presence of life before the universe reached its present size.

It says nothing whatsoever about planets and stars not forming if the expansion had been faster.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by alaninnont, posted 03-21-2009 9:14 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 32 of 65 (504141)
03-24-2009 8:01 PM


From dictionary.com: quote: noun, a quotation.

From merriam-webster.com: quote: noun, quotation.

If you wanna get pedantic on my ass, you better check a source first, mate.

I checked both of your sources and they said exactly what I told you. You are using it incorrectly. You can quote somebody or quote a price (verb) but the statement itself is a quotation.

I'm saying that creationist sources lie. Not always, and not exclusively. But they lie with a high enough frequency so as to rend anything they say suspect. Note carefully, I did not say automatically wrong, I said suspect. That's why I look for another, non-creationist source.

As a lawyer you would know that if you make an accusation, it must be substantiated with evidence to be credible so please clarify and back up your accusation. Do all creationist site lie? Do they lie all the time? What percentage of the time do they lie? Do non-creationist sites always tell the truth? If not, what is the ratio of truth to lies?

Perhaps this would work better if we changed things up. Why don't you tell me why you think that there is no creator?


Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by subbie, posted 03-25-2009 1:21 AM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 203 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 33 of 65 (504184)
03-25-2009 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by alaninnont
03-24-2009 8:01 PM


quote:
I checked both of your sources and they said exactly what I told you. You are using it incorrectly. You can quote somebody or quote a price (verb) but the statement itself is a quotation.

Then you didn't read far enough. From dictionary.com:

quote
   /kwoʊt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kwoht] Show IPA verb, quot⋅ed, quot⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to repeat (a passage, phrase, etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority, illustration, etc.
2. to repeat words from (a book, author, etc.).
3. to use a brief excerpt from: The composer quotes Beethoven's Fifth in his latest work.
4. to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.
5. to enclose (words) within quotation marks.
6. Commerce.
a. to state (a price).
b. to state the current price of.
–verb (used without object)
7. to make a quotation or quotations, as from a book or author.
8. (used by a speaker to indicate the beginning of a quotation.)
–noun
9. a quotation.

10. quotation mark.
—Idiom
11. quote unquote, so called; so to speak; as it were: If you're a liberal, quote unquote, they're suspicious of you.
Origin:
1350–1400; 1880–85 for def. 9; ME coten, quoten (< OF coter) < ML quotāre to divide into chapters and verses, deriv. of L quot how many
My emphasis

From Merriam-Webster:


1. 1quote (verb)
2. 2quote (noun)
3. pull quote
My emphasis

Clicking on the second definition gets to this:

2quote
Function:
noun
Date:
1888

1 : quotation

My emphasis

An honest person would admit his mistake.

quote:
As a lawyer you would know that if you make an accusation, it must be substantiated with evidence to be credible so please clarify and back up your accusation. Do all creationist site lie?

I will admit that I know one creationist who doesn't lie; Kurt Wise. If you read the link, you will see that he believes in a young Earth only because scripture tells him, and he honestly admits that the scientific evidence doesn't support his belief.

quote:
Do all creationist site lie? Do they lie all the time? What percentage of the time do they lie?

I will have to admit that I haven't read every creationist site. I will also admit that they don't lie all the time, and I cannot give you an exact percentage. However, none of that is really relevant to my point that they are unreliable.

Obviously, this is getting us rather far afield from the topic, so let's do this. You pick any creationist site you like, or as many as you like, and start a new thread with the links. I guarantee that just about any scientifically minded person here will be able to find multiple lies on that site.

quote:
Perhaps this would work better if we changed things up. Why don't you tell me why you think that there is no creator?

Because I see no evidence for one. While I fully acknowledge that there are unexplained things in the world, that's no reason to assume the existence of an unobserved creator to explain them. As I described upthread, for thousands of years, people have attributed all sorts of things they didn't understand to gods of different sorts. Virtually all of those things have been explained in naturalistic terms. The god of the gaps argument is notoriously unsatisfying.

You might cite to the fact that most people around the world believe in one god or another as a reason to believe in the existence of god. I would reply that if they all believed in an actual being, I would expect that they would all, or mostly, believe in the same one.

This cite breaks down world religions by number of adherents. None even has a majority, and the biggest religion, Christianity, is deeply divided between Catholics and Protestants, who differ considerably on important matters of doctrine, sometimes to the point of violence and death. And Protestants are rather fractured as well, between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists. The second biggest religion, Islam, is similarly divided. Hardly a compelling argument, and certainly not enough to convince me.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by alaninnont, posted 03-24-2009 8:01 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 34 of 65 (504257)
03-25-2009 8:21 PM


An honest person would admit his mistake.

I would be happy to if I thought I made one. I repeat. You used the word "quote" incorrectly in your statement.

Obviously, this is getting us rather far afield from the topic, so let's do this. You pick any creationist site you like, or as many as you like, and start a new thread with the links. I guarantee that just about any scientifically minded person here will be able to find multiple lies on that site.

I am not very computer savy and am not sure how to create a new thread with links. I have not been going on creationist sites much but the one that I do go to once in a while is http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/
Please bring my attention to any lies on this site. There are sections with scientific jargon but my post graduate studies were in microbiology so I think that's why I like his posts. His writing is about the level of Dawkins if you have read any of his stuff.

You might cite to the fact that most people around the world believe in one god or another as a reason to believe in the existence of god. I would reply that if they all believed in an actual being, I would expect that they would all, or mostly, believe in the same one.

As I said before, the validity of a point should not be determined by who or how many people believe it. My belief that the existence of a creator is more probable than not is provisional as all scientific theories are and based on the information and evidence that I have seen.

I also agree that we have been getting off topic and I have found these last few exchanges unproductive in my search for new ideas. You seem to be interested in world religions. Would you be interested in changing the discussion to one in this field? I would still like to hear your reasons for coming to the conclusion that there is no creator if you'd be willing to discuss that.


Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by subbie, posted 03-27-2009 12:43 AM alaninnont has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 203 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 35 of 65 (504315)
03-27-2009 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by alaninnont
03-25-2009 8:21 PM


quote:
As I said before, the validity of a point should not be determined by who or how many people believe it.

Yes, but in your OP you said:

quote:
11. In every culture there is a belief in spiritual beings.

That's the main reason I provided that line of argument. If you're willing to abandon your point 11, I'm happy to drop the issue.

quote:
I also agree that we have been getting off topic and I have found these last few exchanges unproductive in my search for new ideas. You seem to be interested in world religions. Would you be interested in changing the discussion to one in this field?

Not particularly.

quote:
I would still like to hear your reasons for coming to the conclusion that there is no creator if you'd be willing to discuss that.

I think I've provided my reasons at least twice in this thread. I'm not sure I can say it more plainly than I have.

Try to approach it this way. Explain to me why you don't believe in Zeus. He's the god responsible for thunder and lightning, among other things.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by alaninnont, posted 03-25-2009 8:21 PM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by alaninnont, posted 03-27-2009 5:12 PM subbie has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 36 of 65 (504359)
03-27-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by subbie
03-27-2009 12:43 AM


I think I've provided my reasons at least twice in this thread. I'm not sure I can say it more plainly than I have.

The only reason that I remember is that you see no evidence for one. Is that all? Do you see evidence that one doesn't exist? Are you saying that creationists must come up with all the evidence for their position and make sure it is so convincing that there is absolutly no doubt but you do not have to supply any evidence for your beliefs?

Try to approach it this way. Explain to me why you don't believe in Zeus. He's the god responsible for thunder and lightning, among other things.

Who said I didn't believe in him? I think there is some evidence for the possibility of multiple creators. I'm not saying that I do but I'm trying to keep an open mind and investigate all the possibilities.

How are you coming with the lie analysis of the design matrix?

Re:quote - I see my friend the English teacher on Monday nights. I am going to ask his read on the use of the word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by subbie, posted 03-27-2009 12:43 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by subbie, posted 03-27-2009 5:26 PM alaninnont has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 203 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 37 of 65 (504361)
03-27-2009 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by alaninnont
03-27-2009 5:12 PM


quote:
The only reason that I remember is that you see no evidence for one. Is that all? Do you see evidence that one doesn't exist?

I'm most curious. Exactly what would constitute evidence that a creator doesn't exist?

quote:
Are you saying that creationists must come up with all the evidence for their position and make sure it is so convincing that there is absolutly no doubt but you do not have to supply any evidence for your beliefs?

No, but providing at least some evidence would be a start, and a rather refreshing change.

quote:
Who said I didn't believe in him? I think there is some evidence for the possibility of multiple creators. I'm not saying that I do but I'm trying to keep an open mind and investigate all the possibilities.

Sorry, I assumed you were rational. My mistake.

quote:
How are you coming with the lie analysis of the design matrix?

I haven't spent much time with it. But, I wouldn't classify it as a creationist site, either.

quote:
Re:quote - I see my friend the English teacher on Monday nights. I am going to ask his read on the use of the word.

I suggest he consult a dictionary.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by alaninnont, posted 03-27-2009 5:12 PM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by alaninnont, posted 03-28-2009 9:25 AM subbie has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 38 of 65 (504435)
03-28-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by subbie
03-27-2009 5:26 PM


I'm most curious. Exactly what would constitute evidence that a creator doesn't exist?

Do you believe in the existence of the proton? No one has seen one. There is no hard empirical data that it exsits but that model of the atom best fits with what we observe in our universe. I would think that evidence for your belief system would be an explanation of the universe as we see it without any external input.

Sorry, I assumed you were rational. My mistake.

No problem. We all make them sometimes. (tic)

I haven't spent much time with it. But, I wouldn't classify it as a creationist site, either.

While there are some differences, I do in fact group IDers in with creationists for a variety of reasons.

The second quotation is yours from an earlier post. Mike Gene is an ID proponent and thus qualifies in your mind as a creationist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by subbie, posted 03-27-2009 5:26 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by subbie, posted 03-28-2009 11:49 AM alaninnont has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 203 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 39 of 65 (504445)
03-28-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by alaninnont
03-28-2009 9:25 AM


quote:
Do you believe in the existence of the proton? No one has seen one. There is no hard empirical data that it exsit....

There is in fact a great deal of hard empirical evidence that protons exist.

quote:
I would think that evidence for your belief system would be an explanation of the universe as we see it without any external input.

That would be science.

quote:
Mike Gene is an ID proponent and thus qualifies in your mind as a creationist.

I'll probably end up having to plead ignorance and stand mute as far as Mike Gene is concerned. Much of what he writes is far outside of what I'm familiar with.

It does appear that he is at least capable of understanding how science works and recognizing when ID gets it wrong. This post from a science blog discusses something that he said at another site that's now apparently shut down, where he acknowledges that the bacterial flagellum is an example of evolutionary co-option, and not evidence of intelligent design.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by alaninnont, posted 03-28-2009 9:25 AM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by alaninnont, posted 03-29-2009 7:16 PM subbie has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 40 of 65 (504490)
03-29-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by subbie
03-28-2009 11:49 AM


There is in fact a great deal of hard empirical evidence that protons exist.

That would depend on how you define hard empirical evidence. What is this evidence that you have found?

That would be science.

No. That would be atheism.

I'll probably end up having to plead ignorance and stand mute as far as Mike Gene is concerned. Much of what he writes is far outside of what I'm familiar with.

It does appear that he is at least capable of understanding how science works and recognizing when ID gets it wrong. This post from a science blog discusses something that he said at another site that's now apparently shut down, where he acknowledges that the bacterial flagellum is an example of evolutionary co-option, and not evidence of intelligent design.

Not quite right. There are two major groups of IDers. Some believe that a creator created the universe, possibly set up the right conditions for life on this planet, created the first cell or cells, and then left the world and evolution to take its own course. Others believe that the creator also tweaked evolution during its course to guide it toward a certain result. Mike Gene is in the first group. He talks a lot about front-loading. That is that the creator put into place systems and tool kits that weren't needed for the first cells but had to be in place for more evolved cells down the line. If you look back in his posts, you'll see he has some good evidence for his position. In the article you are refering to he says that new evidence has lent more support for cooption in the falgellum (not definitive mind you) which does not support his version of ID.
This was the area I was going to investigate next (how involved the creator is with evolution if at all) after I got a handle on the creator vs. no creator issue. Is this something you'd be willing to discuss? I know you don't believe in a creator but if you would treat it as an intellectual exercise, it might be very enlightening for me since you would probably be more subjective.

If not, how would you like to proceed. I get the feeling you don't want to discuss your beliefs and evidence. Do you have any feedback on my second point? Would you like to go on to my third point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by subbie, posted 03-28-2009 11:49 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 04-01-2009 12:20 AM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 42 by subbie, posted 04-01-2009 12:36 AM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 203 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 41 of 65 (504640)
04-01-2009 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by alaninnont
03-29-2009 7:16 PM


quote:
Mike Gene is in the first group. He talks a lot about front-loading.

Yes, he does talk a lot about it, doesn't he? Does he ever clearly define what he means by "front loading?" As far as I've been able to determine, he seems to be saying that all the genetic information was present from the beginning and simply unfolded from there. Is that accurate?

If so, it seems to me that he'd have to explain what kept all of that genetic information present through billions of years so that it would be there when needed. Does he ever propose any kind of program to determine whether evidence of this genetic front loading can be found? Or is he content to simply assert without any evidential basis that it might have happened? In other words, is there any way that his suggestion can be tested?

quote:
Is this something you'd be willing to discuss?

Sure. I've started the discussion with a few questions, please answer them.

quote:
If you look back in his posts, you'll see he has some good evidence for his position.

I've little inclination to look back through months and months of posts, sifting for the bits that you think are relevant. Please find them for me, then quote the relevant portions and link me to those particular posts. Thanks.

quote:
I get the feeling you don't want to discuss your beliefs and evidence.

And I get the feeling that you're not reading what I've written. I've discussed my beliefs and what I perceive to be the evidence. Perhaps the reason you believe that atheists refuse to respond to your points is that you're simply not reading (or comprehending) the responses.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by alaninnont, posted 03-29-2009 7:16 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 203 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 42 of 65 (504641)
04-01-2009 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by alaninnont
03-29-2009 7:16 PM


I wrote:
quote:
There is in fact a great deal of hard empirical evidence that protons exist.

You wrote:

quote:
That would depend on how you define hard empirical evidence. What is this evidence that you have found?

Start here. Also, this discusses how Rutherford discovered discovered the proton.

Although it's not really my field, I believe that just about everything we know about the atom and probably most or all of physics would be completely wrong if the proton didn't exist.

If this isn't sufficient to satisfy you, I'd suggest that we invite someone else to join this discussion, because I really don't think that I can make it any clearer.

You wrote:

quote:
I would think that evidence for your belief system would be an explanation of the universe as we see it without any external input.

I wrote:

quote:
That would be science.

You wrote:

quote:
No. That would be atheism.

I'm very confused. You asked me for an explanation of the universe without any external input, I replied that I considered science to be that explanation. You then, rather cryptically, seemed to call science atheism.

Perhaps we need to define terms. Atheism is a belief that there are no gods. Science is not a belief that there are no gods. Science is a method for gathering information about the real world. Science does not assume there is no god. Science simply looks for naturalistic explanations. Because most definitions of god include some element of what is commonly called the supernatural, science excludes god from the area into which it can delve. But this is far from saying there is no god.

Think of it this way. The rules of baseball describe how a certain athletic competition is to be carried out. Nowhere in the rules of baseball will you see any reference to god. However, that doesn't make baseball an atheist game. It's the same thing with science.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by alaninnont, posted 03-29-2009 7:16 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 43 of 65 (504702)
04-01-2009 7:31 PM


Yes, he does talk a lot about it, doesn't he? Does he ever clearly define what he means by "front loading?" As far as I've been able to determine, he seems to be saying that all the genetic information was present from the beginning and simply unfolded from there. Is that accurate?

If so, it seems to me that he'd have to explain what kept all of that genetic information present through billions of years so that it would be there when needed. Does he ever propose any kind of program to determine whether evidence of this genetic front loading can be found? Or is he content to simply assert without any evidential basis that it might have happened? In other words, is there any way that his suggestion can be tested?

I think that is a pretty good capsulation. I'm not really clear on the definitions. As I said, that is the area I was going to investigate next. I agree with you that is seems highly unlikely that a cell set in motion could reach a designated result after so many years. Perhaps he believes that there was no plan for a particular outcome. Let me read some of his stuff and see what he says. If this is the area we are heading into, a may take me a while responding sometimes. My methods are rather methodical. (some would say anal).

And I get the feeling that you're not reading what I've written. I've discussed my beliefs and what I perceive to be the evidence. Perhaps the reason you believe that atheists refuse to respond to your points is that you're simply not reading (or comprehending) the responses.

I've read back through the posts and your beliefs and your evidence for your beliefs is that (summarized) you don't believe in a creator because you don't see evidence for one. Is that it?

Start here. Also, this discusses how Rutherford discovered discovered the proton.

Rutherford proposed the model of the proton because it answered the questions raised be what was observed in the characteristics of the atom. I propose the model of a creator for the same reasons.

I'm very confused. You asked me for an explanation of the universe without any external input, I replied that I considered science to be that explanation. You then, rather cryptically, seemed to call science atheism.

It sounded to me like you were saying that my statement was the definition of science.

Perhaps we need to define terms. Atheism is a belief that there are no gods. Science is not a belief that there are no gods. Science is a method for gathering information about the real world. Science does not assume there is no god. Science simply looks for naturalistic explanations. Because most definitions of god include some element of what is commonly called the supernatural, science excludes god from the area into which it can delve. But this is far from saying there is no god.

I agree with the first four sentences. Science looks for explanations. Science simply looks for explanations. Science is the current set of guidelines we are using for figuring out the answers to questions. There have been other sets of guidelines before it. It stands to reason that there will be others in the future. It is a great system but not perfect as this particular raging debate demonstrates.

Think of it this way. The rules of baseball describe how a certain athletic competition is to be carried out. Nowhere in the rules of baseball will you see any reference to god.

It's interesting that an intelligent being created the rules for the game and the baseball diamond and other intelligent beings make sure that the rules are followed.

Re: the quote/quotation controversy
My friend the English teacher says that it is the difference between Canadian versus American usage. Apparently there are other words such as "practice" which is a noun and a verb in the U.S. whereas in Canada "practice" is the noun and "practise" is the verb. There are as well numerous spelling differences. I apologize for the accusation. I did not consider this possibility.


Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by subbie, posted 04-02-2009 11:15 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 203 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 44 of 65 (504782)
04-02-2009 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by alaninnont
04-01-2009 7:31 PM


quote:
I think that is a pretty good capsulation.

Glad to hear we're on the same page.

quote:
I agree with you that is seems highly unlikely that a cell set in motion could reach a designated result after so many years.

Glad to hear you see the problem.

quote:
Let me read some of his stuff and see what he says. If this is the area we are heading into, a may take me a while responding sometimes. My methods are rather methodical.

Please, feel free to take as long as you'd like. I'd much rather wait a week for a well-supported point than get a half-baked reply an hour later.

quote:
I've read back through the posts and your beliefs and your evidence for your beliefs is that (summarized) you don't believe in a creator because you don't see evidence for one. Is that it?

Pretty much.

quote:
Rutherford proposed the model of the proton because it answered the questions raised be what was observed in the characteristics of the atom. I propose the model of a creator for the same reasons

And all of physics and chemistry supports Rutherford's model. Can you point to similar support?

quote:
I agree with the first four sentences. Science looks for explanations. Science simply looks for explanations. Science is the current set of guidelines we are using for figuring out the answers to questions.

Then your statement "That is atheism" is even more cryptic.

quote:
It is a great system but not perfect as this particular raging debate demonstrates.

Not sure what "raging debate" you are referring to. But, if you mean the creationism vs. evolution debate, that doesn't demonstrate anything at all about science. Instead, it demonstrates how deeply the misunderstandings about science run in this country.

I do agree that science isn't perfect. But it's the best system humans have ever devised.

quote:
It's interesting that an intelligent being created the rules for the game and the baseball diamond and other intelligent beings make sure that the rules are followed.

Well, if you think so, who am I to argue? Of course, that has no bearing whatsoever on the present discussion. In particular, it has nothing to do with whether science is atheism.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by alaninnont, posted 04-01-2009 7:31 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 45 of 65 (504895)
04-04-2009 9:09 AM


Then your statement "That is atheism" is even more cryptic.

I am coming to some conclusions about internet communications. I have heard in studies that as high as 90 % of communication is non-verbal. I have never internalized this but am beginning to. One of the problems with internet discussions is that you only have a small amount of the communication information. You recieve a statement and you hear no funny, sarcastic, mean, inquisitive, teasing, etc. tone of voice and can see none of the minute changes in body language and expression that contribute so much to the schema. While looking through the discussions on this site, I see a lot of it as confrontational. It may or may not be but I think that humans, being competative, often jump to the conclusion that statements are attacks when many of them probably aren't. The anonymity of people on the internet probably adds to this. Whenever someone is attacked, the tendency is for them to become defensive and attack back. Therefore many of the discussions on this site deteriorate into unproductive bickering rather than an exchange of ideas.
This has nothing to do with anything. I'm just musing again. I'm a marathoner and so have A LOT of time to think during training runs.

To the task at hand. From what I understand, we are going to talk about whether the creator directed evolution or began it and left it alone. I absolutely realize and respect (serious tone) that you do not believe that there is a creator but you are doing this (appreciative tone) to provide some subjective feedback to my thought processes. I'd like to start by ignoring information from others as it can sway my opinions. I'd like to go through it in my own head first to sort out the ideas.

First, here is some information that is highly probable.
The earth is millions or billions of years old.
Simple organisms appeared earliest in earth's history according to fossils and continued in a trend toward more complex organisms.
The DNA/RNA process of replication is universal to all living things on earth.
Within a species there can be many phenotypical differences.
There are cases of similarities in physiology between species. (the digits of the hand in humans as compared to the wings or birds, etc.)
The compounds common to life on earth are proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and lipids.
There is an incredible variety of life on earth.

Do you have any comments on these?


Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by subbie, posted 04-04-2009 10:27 PM alaninnont has responded

  
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017