Challenge to Creationists/IDers

[Youwerecreated]

God was giving answers long before scientist.

You Bet.
That's why I said God is the best scientist, and knows much more that mankind.

When is he going to fix cancers like ALL? You know, childhood leukemia?

Or are we just meant to suffer?

Or who are we to question such things?

Religion has ducked these questions since the beginning.

Saying "God is the master scientist" sounds good on a superficial level, but it opens up a whole can of worms that I don't think the uber-religious can answer.

He already told us in his word,when this system of things are wiped out.

Rev 21:4 And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will there be any more pain; for the first things passed away.

 

[geauxtohell]

You Bet.
That's why I said God is the best scientist, and knows much more that mankind.

When is he going to fix cancers like ALL? You know, childhood leukemia?

Or are we just meant to suffer?

Or who are we to question such things?

Religion has ducked these questions since the beginning.

Saying "God is the master scientist" sounds good on a superficial level, but it opens up a whole can of worms that I don't think the uber-religious can answer.

He already told us in his word,when this system of things are wiped out.

Rev 21:4 And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will there be any more pain; for the first things passed away.

So we are made to suffer to prove a point?

And by logical extension, any man or woman that works to treat suffering is going against the will of God?

 

[geauxtohell]

Anytime you try to introduce the supernatural into science, be it for or against, you have automatically stepped outside the realm of science.

When Dawkin's writes his atheistic screeds to try and disprove God, there is a reason his work is not "peer reviewed". It's OPED.

In the same light, when ID proponents try and interject God into Natural Selection, they have pushed science into the field of philosophy.

If there is a God and he/she/it is all powerful, then nothing is beyond possibility.

If there is not a God, then those who want to claim a supernatural force is guiding natural processes are simply being intellectually lazy.

All this is aside the point. The point is, it is beyond the capability of man to disprove or prove the existence of God.

Therefore, God has not place in scientific methodology.

A fool can't see philosophy and faith is involved from both sides.

No, a fool mandates philosophy and faith must be involved.

Science and religion can co-exist. There doesn't need to be a conflict. It is perfectly sufficient to acknowledge that there are things that simply can't be explained by scientific venture and are outside the scope of science. It is perfectly sufficient to acknowledge that science finds answers that directly contradict the bible and that it is acceptable to cling to articles of faith to believe things that are contradicted by science (i.e. the great flood).

The problem is the fools on both sides of the issue who dishonestly try to infiltrate a simple issue to push their own faith based initiatives. On the religious side you have the Discovery Institute/Philip Johnston et al and on the atheistic side you have people like Richard Dawkins. I think Dawkins is a brilliant biologist. I think he's a total ass when he becomes a militant athiest. It's not enough for people like Dawkins to have their own belief and be comfortable with it. Instead, he attempts to convert people. He's a fundamentalist with different beliefs.

A classic example of this is what happened after Dover. After Intelligent Design was thoroughly thrashed by the scientific community.

A flush-faced Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, shook his finger at Miller during a tense panel discussion at New York University a few years ago. Christopher Hitchens, who wrote God Is Not Great, accused Miller of doing "damage to the good name of science" — and worse — in a recent on-line debate.

And Jerry Coyne, the University of Chicago biology professor who penned Why Evolution Is True, wrote a lengthy essay in The New Republic last year attempting to dismantle Miller and his intellectual ally Karl W. Giberson.

The source of their concern: Miller, a practicing Catholic, has made a very public bid in the last decade or so to square religion and science; to mix church and state, in their view. "It's an effort to reconcile a legitimate discipline," says biology professor and prominent atheist blogger PZ Myers, "with foolishness."

A true scientist, the New Atheists argue, must renounce God. Must acknowledge the fundamental incompatibility of an empirical science and a revelatory faith. Miller couldn't disagree more.

Read more: http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/98030-ken-miller-just-cant-win/#ixzz1PkatTxmo

I admire Ken Miller very much. After testifying for the plaintiffs (anti-ID) crowds at Dover, what happened?

His allies turned on him. Why? Because he refuses to be an athiest. The notion that a scientist must be an athiest is so absurd that I refuse to see how any intelligent and rational person could utter it.

Furthermore, religion is so personal and private, that it is beyond obnoxious that it would even be a matter that was reference privately.

It is patently obvious that the attacks by the athiests on Miller reflect their own insecurities of their position. Deep down they know this to be the truth: if God exists and he is all powerful than anything is possible. That means his existence can't be "logic-ed" away and the ultimate question can never be answered. You always run into a dead end.

So, both sides have their share of zealots, there are few men like Miller who are keeping both sides honest. Luckily, their voices are so loud and their viewpoints so basic and to the point that they are given more credence than those whose neurosis taint their own worldview.

This is not a complicated issue. Those that need to complicate it, are hiding something.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

God, the supernatural, whatever. It's 6 in one and 1/2 dozen in the other.

There is no point in addressing the "methodology" when the basic assumption is un-scientific.

ID does not make any assumptions. Fail. It makes three fundamental assertions. As soon as one states what those assertions actually are, we see the evolutionist's prattle for the political rhetorical that it is. Indeed, it's the very same kind of political rhetoric that is prattled by the hacks of global warming. I've told you what these assertions are; you simply cannot grasp them or will not acknowledge them.

What are the basic scientific assertions of ID? Hint: they are not what the evolutionist claims, and they are not what the average laymen thinks they are either, including those who are inclined to embrace ID theory. Ignorant of the prevailing first principles of biological science, they have been deceived as well.

geauxtohell: After Intelligent Design was thoroughly thrashed by the scientific community.

It was not thoroughly thrashed. That is a lie. What was thrashed, indeed, what was predictably thrashed, in accordance with precisely what I and many others immediately and intuitively recognized, was Behe's reckless rendition of irreducible complexity. Nothing more.

 

[geauxtohell]

But of course as you have been shown, ID scientists do not interject God. You just keep saying they do so you can call it philosophy. You never bother to address the actual substance of ID science, its actual methodology or the actual nature of its assertions.

So your point . . . well, you don't have one, do you?

God, the supernatural, whatever. It's 6 in one and 1/2 dozen in the other.

There is no point in addressing the "methodology" when the basic assumption is un-scientific.

Again, demonstrate how ID can be falsified and we can proceed.

Answer how hypothesis were created in the bible 3,500 years ago and it took modern day science to confirm the hypothesis ?

What hypothesis are you talking about?

 

[geauxtohell]

ID does not make any assumptions. Fail. It makes three fundamental assertions. As soon as one states what those assertions actually are, we see the evolutionist's prattle for the political rhetorical that it is. Indeed, it's the very same kind of political rhetoric that is prattled by the hacks of global warming. I've told you what these assertions are; you simply cannot grasp them or will not acknowledge them.

What are the basic scientific assertions of ID? Hint: they are not what the evolutionist claims, and they are not what the average laymen thinks they are either, including those who are inclined to embrace ID theory. Ignorant of the prevailing first principles of biological science, they have been deceived as well.

ID can make it's own assertions. That is not the point. The point is that science has it's own rules. ID can not fit within those rules. Therefore, ID is not a scientific theory. Call it philosophy or theology, but it isn't science.

Therefore, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

Simple.

ID doesn't get to create it's own scientific method.

Now, if you want to contend that ID falls within the scientific method, fine. However, you have to defend that statement.

You can start with something you refuse to answer: How is ID falsifiable?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you claiming that all of the thousands of university and college professors that teach evolution as fact are not biologists? They are ALL biology majors.
And your claim that all they learned is in grade school is absurd. Everyone takes Biology 101 in college and all scientists go to college.
Nice talking points that I hear everyday from the creation/ID side but there is no truth to either.

Are you saying that the millions of scientist who study geology, physics, weather, astronomy, or an of the other scientific fields are all biologists? How does it feel to be asked stupid questions that do not relate at all to what you said?

Where the fuck did I say anything that could remotely be interpreted that way? You want to know the difference between an intelligent person and a stupid one? When an intelligent person says some thing stupid they realize it, stupid one have to have it pointed out for them.

That's not what was said and you know it, unless your reading comprehension skills are abysmal.

Did you read what I said? I specifically asked him how it felt to be asked questions that have nothing to do with what he said. That means that I knew he did not say that.

Thanks for proving you don't read.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anytime you try to introduce the supernatural into science, be it for or against, you have automatically stepped outside the realm of science.

When Dawkin's writes his atheistic screeds to try and disprove God, there is a reason his work is not "peer reviewed". It's OPED.

In the same light, when ID proponents try and interject God into Natural Selection, they have pushed science into the field of philosophy.

If there is a God and he/she/it is all powerful, then nothing is beyond possibility.

If there is not a God, then those who want to claim a supernatural force is guiding natural processes are simply being intellectually lazy.

All this is aside the point. The point is, it is beyond the capability of man to disprove or prove the existence of God.

Therefore, God has not place in scientific methodology.

If God exists, and affects the real world, he is within the realm of science. You are actually reinforcing those who reject science when you argue the way you do.

Calamities of Nature - Spirits and Souls

 

[geauxtohell]

Anytime you try to introduce the supernatural into science, be it for or against, you have automatically stepped outside the realm of science.

When Dawkin's writes his atheistic screeds to try and disprove God, there is a reason his work is not "peer reviewed". It's OPED.

In the same light, when ID proponents try and interject God into Natural Selection, they have pushed science into the field of philosophy.

If there is a God and he/she/it is all powerful, then nothing is beyond possibility.

If there is not a God, then those who want to claim a supernatural force is guiding natural processes are simply being intellectually lazy.

All this is aside the point. The point is, it is beyond the capability of man to disprove or prove the existence of God.

Therefore, God has not place in scientific methodology.

If God exists, and affects the real world, he is within the real of science. You are actually reinforcing those who reject science when you argue the way you do.

Calamities of Nature - Spirits and Souls

The problem is the whole "if God exists" part of the issue. That's a non-quantifiable or falsifiable question. Therefore, it's not a question science can answer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Think what you like but there is just too much evidence to be a coincedence or an uninspired book.

101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge


Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

All that proves is that people are capable of remarkable things.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anytime you try to introduce the supernatural into science, be it for or against, you have automatically stepped outside the realm of science.

When Dawkin's writes his atheistic screeds to try and disprove God, there is a reason his work is not "peer reviewed". It's OPED.

In the same light, when ID proponents try and interject God into Natural Selection, they have pushed science into the field of philosophy.

If there is a God and he/she/it is all powerful, then nothing is beyond possibility.

If there is not a God, then those who want to claim a supernatural force is guiding natural processes are simply being intellectually lazy.

All this is aside the point. The point is, it is beyond the capability of man to disprove or prove the existence of God.

Therefore, God has not place in scientific methodology.

If God exists, and affects the real world, he is within the real of science. You are actually reinforcing those who reject science when you argue the way you do.

Calamities of Nature - Spirits and Souls

The problem is the whole "if God exists" part of the issue. That's a non-quantifiable or falsifiable question. Therefore, it's not a question science can answer.

That is, but there are other questions you can ask which are not. Scientists deal with many things that, if you looked at them one way, are non quantifiable, they just find another way of looking that allows them to quantify it. If God exists, and He affects the universe, He is quantifiable through what He does.

 

[geauxtohell]

If God exists, and affects the real world, he is within the real of science. You are actually reinforcing those who reject science when you argue the way you do.

Calamities of Nature - Spirits and Souls

The problem is the whole "if God exists" part of the issue. That's a non-quantifiable or falsifiable question. Therefore, it's not a question science can answer.

That is, but there are other questions you can ask which are not. Scientists deal with many things that, if you looked at them one way, are non quantifiable, they just find another way of looking that allows them to quantify it. If God exists, and He affects the universe, He is quantifiable through what He does.

That's a convenient side-step.

Again, the issue isn't whether or not God exists. The issue is that it is outside the scope of science to answer that question.

There is no other quantifiable way to look at the existence of God. It's an article of faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

When is he going to fix cancers like ALL? You know, childhood leukemia?

Or are we just meant to suffer?

Or who are we to question such things?

Religion has ducked these questions since the beginning.

Saying "God is the master scientist" sounds good on a superficial level, but it opens up a whole can of worms that I don't think the uber-religious can answer.

He already told us in his word,when this system of things are wiped out.

Rev 21:4 And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will there be any more pain; for the first things passed away.

So we are made to suffer to prove a point?

And by logical extension, any man or woman that works to treat suffering is going against the will of God?

Not true, the bible tells how to prevent sickness in some cases. We all eventually pay for our sins with death. Man made the choice and God letting us see this world under man's rule. So when God begins to rule again there will be no rebellion again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem is the whole "if God exists" part of the issue. That's a non-quantifiable or falsifiable question. Therefore, it's not a question science can answer.

That is, but there are other questions you can ask which are not. Scientists deal with many things that, if you looked at them one way, are non quantifiable, they just find another way of looking that allows them to quantify it. If God exists, and He affects the universe, He is quantifiable through what He does.

That's a convenient side-step.

Again, the issue isn't whether or not God exists. The issue is that it is outside the scope of science to answer that question.

There is no other quantifiable way to look at the existence of God. It's an article of faith.

That is your issue, not mine. If God exists science can deal with Him. Insisting otherwise would make me wrong because science is simply man's attempt to understand, and explain, what exists. Some scientists routinely postulate about alternate universes and many other things that are impossible, at present, to verify. Does that make them outside the realm of science?

Just because we have no idea bout how to quantify God at the present time does not mean we never will. You seem to have the same problem with the concept of faith that many others do, both believers and unbelievers. Faith is not about believing without evidence, it is about believing the evidence that is right in front of us.

 

[geauxtohell]

Not true, the bible tells how to prevent sickness in some cases.

That's being generous. The Bible was printed prior to the germ theory of disease. The notion in the bible was that God inflicted pathology upon people as wrath. Person's with leprosy, now known to be of infectious etiology, were viewed to be in disfavor with God. Saying the bible addresses disease through monogamy and kosher foods is fine, but it's not a medical textbook.

We all eventually pay for our sins with death. Man made the choice and God letting us see this world under man's rule. So when God begins to rule again there will be no rebellion again.

That's great, but you are ignoring the question. What about diseases like leukemia that affect the pediatric population (which we can assume are innocent). It's the age old question: why does a loving God allow people to suffer?

I don't believe there is a good answer to that question, nor do I believe you can provide an adequate one.

However, I think it's a little absurd to claim that God is dropping down these miraculous scientific findings on our heads.

 

[geauxtohell]

That is your issue, not mine. If God exists science can deal with Him. Insisting otherwise would make me wrong because science is simply man's attempt to understand, and explain, what exists. Some scientists routinely postulate about alternate universes and many other things that are impossible, at present, to verify. Does that make them outside the realm of science?

It's the scientific community's issue. Your personal beliefs are just that, and I have no desire to address those.

You are correct science is a man made venture, with man made rules.

For the latter, verification is not the gold standard, but there has to be a degree of quantification.

Just because we have no idea bout how to quantify God at the present time does not mean we never will.

But we don't change the rules of today based on the maybes of tomorrow.

You seem to have the same problem with the concept of faith that many others do, both believers and unbelievers. Faith is not about believing without evidence, it is about believing the evidence that is right in front of us.

I don't have a problem with faith. I just don't think faith should be part of the scientific process.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's the scientific community's issue. Your personal beliefs are just that, and I have no desire to address those.

The scientific community studies ghost, poltergeists, spirits, and even miracles, why does it, in your opinion, run away from studying God.

You are correct science is a man made venture, with man made rules.

For the latter, verification is not the gold standard, but there has to be a degree of quantification.

Never said there doesn't. Scientific studies have proven that prayer works, even if it is just a placebo effect (you have to know you are being prayed for to get the benefit.) That is quantifiable, just like may other aspects of faith. God's existence might be quantifiable too, but you want to define Him in such a way as to make that impossible.

Yet, somehow, I am the one that does not understand science.

But we don't change the rules of today based on the maybes of tomorrow.

Where have I argued that we should?

I don't have a problem with faith. I just don't think faith should be part of the scientific process.

Some scientists obviously disagree with you, which is why they study prayer and its affects.

 

[geauxtohell]

The scientific community studies ghost, poltergeists, spirits, and even miracles, why does it, in your opinion, run away from studying God.

There really isn't much "formal" study going on in those areas that includes peer review. It might be an area of interest for some people, but it's not really considered legit scientific work.

I think science doesn't study God because mankind hasn't been able to answer the fundamental question in 200 years.

Never said there doesn't. Scientific studies have proven that prayer works, even if it is just a placebo effect (you have to know you are being prayed for to get the benefit.)

Yes, but placebo effect (historically 30%) isn't limited to prayer and it's not buoyed by the fact that, in this instance, it is linked to faith. There is certainly a mind-body-spirit connection in healing.

The placebo effect taps into that. It's actually pretty interesting to read about the history of it. It started in WWII in Italy when the U.S. Army ran out of morphine. So a Dr. started giving the soldiers saline and telling them it was morphine (as he was at his wits end) and was surprised that they felt better.

That is quantifiable, just like may other aspects of faith. God's existence might be quantifiable too, but you want to define Him in such a way as to make that impossible.

Actually, no. I don't want to define God. If I felt it were possible to define God, this would be a different conversation. Again, "may" is not a persuasive argument for changing the status quo.

Yet, somehow, I am the one that does not understand science.

I never said that.

Where have I argued that we should?

See above. The second God makes himself known to us, he will cease to be supernatural. Until that time, the fundamental issue remains.

Some scientists obviously disagree with you, which is why they study prayer and its affects.

I'll grant in that instance, "faith" is being studied. That being said, there are not a ton of studies on the power of prayer and the conclusions to those studies never argued that the power of prayer validated the existence of God. The study could be recreated using "magic rocks" if the test subjects believed the magic rocks could heal them. What I meant was personal faith about the existence of God to create a "God In The Gaps" mentality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The scientific community studies ghost, poltergeists, spirits, and even miracles, why does it, in your opinion, run away from studying God.

There really isn't much "formal" study going on in those areas that includes peer review. It might be an area of interest for some people, but it's not really considered legit scientific work.

I think science doesn't study God because mankind hasn't been able to answer the fundamental question in 200 years.

Never said there doesn't. Scientific studies have proven that prayer works, even if it is just a placebo effect (you have to know you are being prayed for to get the benefit.)

Yes, but placebo effect (historically 30%) isn't limited to prayer and it's not buoyed by the fact that, in this instance, it is linked to faith. There is certainly a mind-body-spirit connection in healing.

The placebo effect taps into that. It's actually pretty interesting to read about the history of it. It started in WWII in Italy when the U.S. Army ran out of morphine. So a Dr. started giving the soldiers saline and telling them it was morphine (as he was at his wits end) and was surprised that they felt better.



Actually, no. I don't want to define God. If I felt it were possible to define God, this would be a different conversation. Again, "may" is not a persuasive argument for changing the status quo.



I never said that.

Where have I argued that we should?

See above. The second God makes himself known to us, he will cease to be supernatural. Until that time, the fundamental issue remains.

Some scientists obviously disagree with you, which is why they study prayer and its affects.

I'll grant in that instance, "faith" is being studied. That being said, there are not a ton of studies on the power of prayer and the conclusions to those studies never argued that the power of prayer validated the existence of God. The study could be recreated using "magic rocks" if the test subjects believed the magic rocks could heal them. What I meant was personal faith about the existence of God to create a "God In The Gaps" mentality.

I do not limit myself, and I do not define God. If He exists we can either understand him, or we can't. I prefer to believe we can, but I could be wrong.

Quantum effects are being observed in the macro world. We see things that, until recently, were the realm of fantasy. Scientific Amrican has an excellent article about that behind their pay wall.

Living in a Quantum World: Scientific American

Calling something supernatural is just a way of saying we don't believe it is real.

 

[geauxtohell]

The scientific community studies ghost, poltergeists, spirits, and even miracles, why does it, in your opinion, run away from studying God.

There really isn't much "formal" study going on in those areas that includes peer review. It might be an area of interest for some people, but it's not really considered legit scientific work.

I think science doesn't study God because mankind hasn't been able to answer the fundamental question in 200 years.

Yes, but placebo effect (historically 30%) isn't limited to prayer and it's not buoyed by the fact that, in this instance, it is linked to faith. There is certainly a mind-body-spirit connection in healing.

The placebo effect taps into that. It's actually pretty interesting to read about the history of it. It started in WWII in Italy when the U.S. Army ran out of morphine. So a Dr. started giving the soldiers saline and telling them it was morphine (as he was at his wits end) and was surprised that they felt better.



Actually, no. I don't want to define God. If I felt it were possible to define God, this would be a different conversation. Again, "may" is not a persuasive argument for changing the status quo.



I never said that.


See above. The second God makes himself known to us, he will cease to be supernatural. Until that time, the fundamental issue remains.

Some scientists obviously disagree with you, which is why they study prayer and its affects.

I'll grant in that instance, "faith" is being studied. That being said, there are not a ton of studies on the power of prayer and the conclusions to those studies never argued that the power of prayer validated the existence of God. The study could be recreated using "magic rocks" if the test subjects believed the magic rocks could heal them. What I meant was personal faith about the existence of God to create a "God In The Gaps" mentality.

I do not limit myself, and I do not define God. If He exists we can either understand him, or we can't. I prefer to believe we can, but I could be wrong.

Quantum effects are being observed in the macro world. We see things that, until recently, were the realm of fantasy. Scientific Amrican has an excellent article about that behind their pay wall.

Living in a Quantum World: Scientific American

Calling something supernatural is just a way of saying we don't believe it is real.

You don't have too. You can believe whatever you want. Science needs to abide by the rules it has set for itself.

Supernatural simply means outside the natural world. It doesn't imply belief or disbelief.

I believe in God, I just don't want him interjected into science.