I have a question for those who hate creationism

[percysunshine]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

Be honest with yourself. The question has no answer....well...'shit happens' works sometimes...

 

[geauxtohell]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

Be honest with yourself. The question has no answer....well...'shit happens' works sometimes...

It becomes a chicken and egg argument anyways.

Even if you want to say "God did it" then where did God come from?

"The video game say "play me."
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jvqPvDUEW8]YouTube - ‪AC/DC Who Made Who (Maximum Overdrive Version)‬‏[/ame]

 

[percysunshine]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

Be honest with yourself. The question has no answer....well...'shit happens' works sometimes...

It becomes a chicken and egg argument anyways.

Even if you want to say "God did it" then where did God come from?

"The video game say "play me."
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jvqPvDUEW8]YouTube - ‪AC/DC Who Made Who (Maximum Overdrive Version)‬‏[/ame]

The point in time when the universe was created, regardless of how or who or why, could not have supported life. It was just a big giant plasma ball....well...an extrpolated set of physics equations plasma ball.

'shit happens'

 

[geauxtohell]

Aside from the lack of science supporting ID, there is the legal issue:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

H. Conclusion
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts
of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the
Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and
moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock
assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory
is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in
general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the
theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the
existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 136 of 139

137
that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not
be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in
religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the
Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals,
who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would
time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
Policy.
With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID
have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor
do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As
stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an
alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an
activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.
Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction
on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a
constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 137 of 139

138
imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the
Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which
has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers
of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal
maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order
permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school
within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or
disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to
a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory
judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.
Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by
the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to
liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal
damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs
incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we believe in freedom of speech and thought, however, those who build and pay for the schools, short of teaching and promoting illegal acts or insurrection, should be able to teach anything they wish. There should be no legal issue.

 

[geauxtohell]

If we believe in freedom of speech and thought, however, those who build and pay for the schools, short of teaching and promoting illegal acts or insurrection, should be able to teach anything they wish. There should be no legal issue.

If you read the opinion of Judge Jones, it is a legal issue.

Judge Jones, fingered by Santorum for the job, was also quick to address the "activist judge" label he knew would be thrown his way.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we believe in freedom of speech and thought, however, those who build and pay for the schools, short of teaching and promoting illegal acts or insurrection, should be able to teach anything they wish. There should be no legal issue.

If you read the opinion of Judge Jones, it is a legal issue.

Judge Jones, fingered by Santorum for the job, was also quick to address the "activist judge" label he knew would be thrown his way.

I have read the opinion. I still say if you believe in freedom of speech and thought, those who build and pay for the schools, short of promoting illegal activity, should be able to teach anything they wish however wrong you or I may believe them to be.

 

[geauxtohell]

If we believe in freedom of speech and thought, however, those who build and pay for the schools, short of teaching and promoting illegal acts or insurrection, should be able to teach anything they wish. There should be no legal issue.

If you read the opinion of Judge Jones, it is a legal issue.

Judge Jones, fingered by Santorum for the job, was also quick to address the "activist judge" label he knew would be thrown his way.

I have read the opinion. I still say if you believe in freedom of speech and thought, those who build and pay for the schools, short of promoting illegal activity, should be able to teach anything they wish however wrong you or I may believe them to be.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, however, per numerous Supreme Court decisions (i.e. the Lemon test) creationism violates the establishment clause. Per Dover, I.D. is creationism by another name.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you read the opinion of Judge Jones, it is a legal issue.

Judge Jones, fingered by Santorum for the job, was also quick to address the "activist judge" label he knew would be thrown his way.

I have read the opinion. I still say if you believe in freedom of speech and thought, those who build and pay for the schools, short of promoting illegal activity, should be able to teach anything they wish however wrong you or I may believe them to be.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, however, per numerous Supreme Court decisions (i.e. the Lemon test) creationism violates the establishment clause. Per Dover, I.D. is creationism by another name.

The establishment clause was intended to apply to the federal government only. I am opposed to the federal government having anything to do with education or the schools other than possibly as a clearing house for shared data.

For what it's worth, I am also on record, in this thread even, as opposing teaching Creationism in the schools. But it should be the local school board's call and not the federal government or the courts.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Maybe I'm too much of a layman, but I'm still unclear just what you are saying ID theory is about.

No problem. But it seems best to take and discuss these questions one at a time.

Is it that the origin of life must be from an intelligence?

Philosophically, yes. Scientifically, not necessarily.

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing theory of biological science, states that all [biological] life comes from [biological] life. ID states, therefore, that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. Hence, ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, i.e., the construct of irreducible complexity in scientific terms as applied to that field of research. The theory is valid, falsifiable and currently stands.

Abiogenesis, regardless of the shoe shine peddled by evolutionists, is nothing more than a mere hypothesis. The Pasteurian law of biogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world stand. Hypotheses do not overthrow theories based on the calculation that the former might be true, but not just that, true against the prevailing evidence to the contrary. That's absurd, and that's what's being insinuated here.

This is the same crap that's peddled at the professional level of academia. The evolutionary establishment gets away with this not because what it's saying makes sense, but because of the political shenanigans of academic majoritism which distorts the actual state of abiogenic research and the nature of ID's scientific assertion regarding prebiotic chemistry.

P.S. I saved your post with the other questions.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Pasteur disproved "spontaneous generation". The modern notion of "abiogenesis" wasn't around at that time.

So? The modern notion is a hypothesis, and the scientifically established Pasteurian law of biogenesis, which refutes it, is not.

Pasteur's work has nothing to do with I.D.. It was just good science. It doesn't support ID anymore than any other scientific discovery.

Yeah. That's what you keep saying, but you never tell us why ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, the scientific expression of classical irreducible complexity as applied to abiogenic research and predicated on Pasteur's work, is not scientific.

All that aside, it doesn't allow ID to get around the fact that it is non-falsifiable.

The various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. That theory is falsifiable! Once again, nearly sixty years of abiogenic research necessarily concedes that it's falsifiable.

You're a brazen liar.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

Be honest with yourself. The question has no answer....well...'shit happens' works sometimes...

It becomes a chicken and egg argument anyways.

Even if you want to say "God did it" then where did God come from?

"The video game say "play me."

LOL! That's not a chicken or the egg conundrum. It's the problem of infinite regression. God by definition exists eternally. He has no beginning. He is not a creature. He was not created. He exists.

 

[Foxfyre]

To simplify MDR's excellent explanation, Pasteur demonstrated that a sterile environment is incapable of producing life. The stuff of life must be added to it in order for life to form.

His theory I don't believe has ever been successfully challenged.

 

[edthecynic]

To simplify MDR's excellent explanation, Pasteur demonstrated that a sterile environment is incapable of producing life. The stuff of life must be added to it in order for life to form.

His theory I don't believe has ever been successfully challenged.

The universe is hardly sterile!

 

[Foxfyre]

To simplify MDR's excellent explanation, Pasteur demonstrated that a sterile environment is incapable of producing life. The stuff of life must be added to it in order for life to form.

His theory I don't believe has ever been successfully challenged.

The universe is hardly sterile!

Some of it no doubt is. Some isn't. But no scientific theory exists to explain how the substance of life formed to create an unsterile environment.

 

[geauxtohell]

I have read the opinion. I still say if you believe in freedom of speech and thought, those who build and pay for the schools, short of promoting illegal activity, should be able to teach anything they wish however wrong you or I may believe them to be.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, however, per numerous Supreme Court decisions (i.e. the Lemon test) creationism violates the establishment clause. Per Dover, I.D. is creationism by another name.

The establishment clause was intended to apply to the federal government only. I am opposed to the federal government having anything to do with education or the schools other than possibly as a clearing house for shared data.

For what it's worth, I am also on record, in this thread even, as opposing teaching Creationism in the schools. But it should be the local school board's call and not the federal government or the courts.

The supremacy clause means that individual states can't act in a manner contrary to the federal laws. So, the establishment clause is the law of the land and is the legal precedence for keeping creationism out of school.

Actually, that opinion is a pretty good timeline how the courts have ruled against creationism.

 

[geauxtohell]

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing theory of biological science,

LMAO. The "prevailing theory"? If any theory can make such a heady claim, it's evolution.

Again, you overstate Pasteur's findings:

CB000: Law of Biogenesis

states that all [biological] life comes from [biological] life. ID states, therefore, that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. Hence, ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, i.e., the construct of irreducible complexity in scientific terms as applied to that field of research. The theory is valid, falsifiable and currently stands.

Irreducible complexity is not valid, falsifiable and is seen as a laughing stock. In fact, Behe is given the credit for this (flawed) notion (Darwin's Black Box) and has never been able to support it.

You claim Behe is all wrong. You have yet to produce another scientist or peer reviewed paper in support of irreducible complexity.

Abiogenesis, regardless of the shoe shine peddled by evolutionists, is nothing more than a mere hypothesis.

I have yet to see an "evolutionist" on this thread claim that any single theory of abiogenesis has a strong consensus. We have noted that it is controversial and much more esoteric then evolution.

We have also noted that it is a separate field of study from natural selection (which I.D. focuses on - natural selection and not abiogenesis).

Finally, the shaky ground of abiogenesis doesn't equate to your theory being correct. At least the study of abiogenesis extends beyond the realm of personal opinion, which is all you have.

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world stand. Hypotheses do not overthrow theories based on the calculation that the former might be true, but not just that, true against the prevailing evidence to the contrary. That's absurd, and that's what's being insinuated here.

This is the same crap that's peddled at the professional level of academia. The evolutionary establishment gets away with this not because what it's saying makes sense, but because of the political shenanigans of academic majoritism which distorts the actual state of abiogenic research and the nature of ID's scientific assertion regarding prebiotic chemistry.

P.S. I saved your post with the other questions.

Good. You haven't answered any of them.

 

[geauxtohell]

Pasteur disproved "spontaneous generation". The modern notion of "abiogenesis" wasn't around at that time.

So? The modern notion is a hypothesis, and the scientifically established Pasteurian law of biogenesis, which refutes it, is not.

Pasteur's work has nothing to do with I.D.. It was just good science. It doesn't support ID anymore than any other scientific discovery.

Yeah. That's what you keep saying, but you never tell us why ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, the scientific expression of classical irreducible complexity as applied to abiogenic research and predicated on Pasteur's work, is not scientific.

I don't recall you asking me to comment on "ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry". Once again, I will answer your questions, though you refuse to answer mine. However, this is about the 5th pseudo-theory you've tossed out. By all means, link a paper that explains exactly what ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry is and I will take a look. Don't waste my time with giving me another opinion piece.

In the meantime, here is some reading for you:

http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/3D03/OrgelRNAWorld.pdf

The various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. That theory is falsifiable! Once again, nearly sixty years of abiogenic research necessarily concedes that it's falsifiable.

How is it falsifiable? It's an opinion. Those that have tried to demonstrate this to be a quantitative statement through experimentation have failed miserably. You could link the papers, but you know I'll link the obvious rebuttals.

Furthermore, that statement is also not the crux of "Intelligent Design". Even if it were true, it merely causes problems for the current field of abiogenesis. It doesn't automatically prove I.D. to be true.

A more valid I.D. hypothesis would be your statement with the caveat "which proves that evolution is guided by an outside force".

By the way, you have still yet to show me how that force could be anything other than a supernatural power.

You're a brazen liar.

And you are an intellectual lightweight. You seem to think you can prove your theory through excessive verbage, ignoring other people's points and questions, insults, and evoking fiat.

As such, you basically show why the scientific community finds "I.D." to be a laughable fraud. You can't stand up to the scrutiny of the scintific community, therefore you attempt to advance your position through being a flim-flam artist.

As I said before, you aren't fooling anyone.

 

[geauxtohell]

Be honest with yourself. The question has no answer....well...'shit happens' works sometimes...

It becomes a chicken and egg argument anyways.

Even if you want to say "God did it" then where did God come from?

"The video game say "play me."

LOL! That's not a chicken or the egg conundrum. It's the problem of infinite regression. God by definition exists eternally. He has no beginning. He is not a creature. He was not created. He exists.

Which God and why that one?

Because your religious beliefs tell you that is true?

How do you know an intelligent designer didn't design God and put him in charge of our cosmos?

You believe what you believe as an article of faith. That is fine.

It is not a scientific argument though.

 

[edthecynic]

Be honest with yourself. The question has no answer....well...'shit happens' works sometimes...

It becomes a chicken and egg argument anyways.

Even if you want to say "God did it" then where did God come from?

"The video game say "play me."

LOL! That's not a chicken or the egg conundrum. It's the problem of infinite regression. God by definition exists eternally. He has no beginning. He is not a creature. He was not created. He exists.

So you have defined energy as God! Thank you.

Energy cannot be created and exists eternally, not by definition but by repeatable experiment!!!