CDZ Questions About Creation

[Boss]

The practice of Science is asking questions, not drawing conclusions or giving up asking questions. Those are the two things Science is NOT.

Hang on there. Science most certainly draws conclusions. Specifically it draws conclusions that issue rationally and directly from the answers it receives from the questions it asks.

Hang on nothing... SCIENCE can't draw conclusions. SCIENCE is a practice. HUMANS draw conclusions... sometimes they use Science to do so.... but Science has no way of forming or articulating a conclusion... only people can do that.

Science is the practice of examination. Whenever you have used Science to form a conclusion, the instant you've established the conclusion you stopped practicing Science and began the adoption of faith in your conclusion. Science has finished it's work... you're now practicing faith-based belief in your conclusion.

Fine...scientists.

Well having the title "scientist" doesn't make you immune from practicing faith instead of science.

 

[Syriusly]

So the limit to your 'creationism' theory is that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history?

As I pointed out in the OP, the aim here is to have an adult conversation based on mutual respect and civility, not to insult those who have a different viewpoint. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, ridicule, and name calling, please be courteous enough to not post anything.

And where did I do any of those things? This is but one of the questions I have asked- and you have yet to actually answer with anything but the most vague response.

Is you Creationism theory that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history?

If not- what is your Creationist theory?

If you can't answer that question- why start the thread?

So the limit to your 'creationism' theory is that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history?

Your comment is antagonistic, and your general tone is one of confrontation and condescension. I'm not going to be drawn into a flame war with you. If you can't communicate like an adult, I won't waste my time on you. Either change your attitude or expect to be ignored.

Likewise.

Seriously have you actually answered a single question in any of these three threads like an adult?

I have asked serious questions in this thread- and you have not answered one of them.

Why did you even start this thread if you aren't going to bother actually answering 'questions about creation'?

Once again- Is the limit to your 'creationism' theory is that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history?

I answered your first question. You didn't like the answer so you responded with sarcasm and condescension. I'm done with you. Bye.

Not a surprise.

I have yet to see anyone who is pro-Creationism who wants to engage in an honest discussion.

You can't even abide by the very thread you started.

My question again:

Once again- Is the limit to your 'creationism' theory is that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history

Is there anyone in this thread who is actually willing to answer 'questions about Creationism?

 

[Elvis Obama]

I didn't say science does that, I said I do that, personally. Science doesn't rule out subjects to study, but neither do they study that which offers nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation.

Oh but YES Science DOES do that. We've already been through the examples. The Multiverse Theory... there is nothing we can do but speculate. It's being studied in the realm of theoretic quantum physics. Black holes... again, all we can do is speculate because we can't see inside a black hole. Predictions are made based on speculation. At the sub-atomic level... we cannot observe nature's most fundamental elements, they refuse to allow it. We speculated about a Higgs boson until we eventually discovered it.

Any scientific hypothesis is a speculation until there is scientific evidence to support it. The vast majority of scientific discovery is the result of speculative hypothesis which evidence was found to support. When you say idiotic things like "nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation" you dismiss science altogether. It's as if you believe the only thing science is good for is to examine what is already proven. Thank god most scientists don't subscribe to your ignorance.

My ignorance, huh? That's not in keeping with the CDZ rules, so please get a grip on yourself.

It's a simple procedure, which I have already described. Publish. That's that. It is absurd to think that theories which have been published and rejected should be argued on a forum board. What do think that will accomplish? Do you think you will make "converts"?

My conclusion is that you are not an honest broker. You have a poorly hidden agenda which you refuse to acknowledge.What do you think you will win?

I wish I could calm the existential terror which motivates you. I cannot. You must recognize that for yourself. The notion of a "magic man in the sky" is a comforting lie the human race has been telling itself for a very long time now. The effectiveness of that lie has worn off for many, and those still mired in their conspiracy of agreement find that fact frightening. It's nothing more than another in a long line of atrocities committed in order to bolster a mutually held religious delusion. Like all such atrocities, it must be fought against. Religion in public school classrooms is poison.

 

[Boss]

Once again- Is the limit to your 'creationism' theory is that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history

The "poofed into existence" meme is used to denigrate and ridicule. But actually, it is the secular argument which explains the origin of life having simply "poofed" into existence. In fact, our entire physical universe, including properties of physics itself, literally "poofed" into existence... we call it the Big Bang.

There are various competing secular theories on origin of life, (evolution is not one of them.) These theories are called "Abiogenesis" and most of them posit that at some "single point of time in history" inorganic material became organic and life "poofed" into existence.

So it seems to me a bit smarmy and condescending to pop off about things "poofing into existence" when any viewpoint you can rationally have will involve some degree of poofing into existence at some point. There is no way to avoid this.

 

[Boss]

I didn't say science does that, I said I do that, personally. Science doesn't rule out subjects to study, but neither do they study that which offers nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation.

Oh but YES Science DOES do that. We've already been through the examples. The Multiverse Theory... there is nothing we can do but speculate. It's being studied in the realm of theoretic quantum physics. Black holes... again, all we can do is speculate because we can't see inside a black hole. Predictions are made based on speculation. At the sub-atomic level... we cannot observe nature's most fundamental elements, they refuse to allow it. We speculated about a Higgs boson until we eventually discovered it.

Any scientific hypothesis is a speculation until there is scientific evidence to support it. The vast majority of scientific discovery is the result of speculative hypothesis which evidence was found to support. When you say idiotic things like "nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation" you dismiss science altogether. It's as if you believe the only thing science is good for is to examine what is already proven. Thank god most scientists don't subscribe to your ignorance.

My ignorance, huh? That's not in keeping with the CDZ rules, so please get a grip on yourself.

It's a simple procedure, which I have already described. Publish. That's that. It is absurd to think that theories which have been published and rejected should be argued on a forum board. What do think that will accomplish? Do you think you will make "converts"?

My conclusion is that you are not an honest broker. You have a poorly hidden agenda which you refuse to acknowledge.What do you think you will win?

I wish I could calm the existential terror which motivates you. I cannot. You must recognize that for yourself. The notion of a "magic man in the sky" is a comforting lie the human race has been telling itself for a very long time now. The effectiveness of that lie has worn off for many, and those still mired in their conspiracy of agreement find that fact frightening. It's nothing more than another in a long line of atrocities committed in order to bolster a mutually held religious delusion. Like all such atrocities, it must be fought against. Religion in public school classrooms is poison.

I'm sorry, I wasn't flaming you, I was using the word "ignorance" in the generic context. I'm sure you are a smart person but you have an ignorance with regard to how science works. You want to conflate your philosophical opinion with science and science simply doesn't give a damn about philosophy... it can't, else it becomes a philosophy as well. As a matter of fact, the majority of scientific discovery flew in the face of philosophy and/or conventional wisdom.

Likewise, "publishing" has nothing to do with validity of science. That can be your opinion but it's a philosophical opinion and science doesn't care. Isaac Newton presented the Theory of Light and Color to the Royal Academy and it was soundly rejected by Robert Hooke. That did not mean that his theory was invalid, indeed, it was exactly right. Ignaz Semmelweis was a doctor who presented the notion that surgeons should wash their hands between digging in cadavers and operating on live patients... they locked him away as a mad man. Twenty years later, they realized he was absolutely correct. When Louis Pasteur proposed that microorganisms were in milk and foods we eat and this is what made people ill sometimes...they nearly ran the man out of France over it. Crazy talk they said... I can almost hear someone of the time chortling about his notion of "magic men in milk" and shaking their heads in disbelief.

Now as for "my agenda" there's really not one. I don't believe in a magic man in the sky. Religions arose from humans who are spiritual creatures. We make a connection with something greater than self and we've been doing this for as long as we're aware of humans existing. But we cannot exploit science to support that belief OR reject it. Science stands alone on it's own merits. Science doesn't dismiss the possibility of God just the same as it doesn't dismiss ANY possibility. Science can only predict probability of possibilities. Possibilities are infinite.

 

[320 Years of History]

I didn't say science does that, I said I do that, personally. Science doesn't rule out subjects to study, but neither do they study that which offers nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation.

Oh but YES Science DOES do that. We've already been through the examples. The Multiverse Theory... there is nothing we can do but speculate. It's being studied in the realm of theoretic quantum physics. Black holes... again, all we can do is speculate because we can't see inside a black hole. Predictions are made based on speculation. At the sub-atomic level... we cannot observe nature's most fundamental elements, they refuse to allow it. We speculated about a Higgs boson until we eventually discovered it.

Any scientific hypothesis is a speculation until there is scientific evidence to support it. The vast majority of scientific discovery is the result of speculative hypothesis which evidence was found to support. When you say idiotic things like "nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation" you dismiss science altogether. It's as if you believe the only thing science is good for is to examine what is already proven. Thank god most scientists don't subscribe to your ignorance.

My ignorance, huh? That's not in keeping with the CDZ rules, so please get a grip on yourself.

It's a simple procedure, which I have already described. Publish. That's that. It is absurd to think that theories which have been published and rejected should be argued on a forum board. What do think that will accomplish? Do you think you will make "converts"?

My conclusion is that you are not an honest broker. You have a poorly hidden agenda which you refuse to acknowledge.What do you think you will win?

I wish I could calm the existential terror which motivates you. I cannot. You must recognize that for yourself. The notion of a "magic man in the sky" is a comforting lie the human race has been telling itself for a very long time now. The effectiveness of that lie has worn off for many, and those still mired in their conspiracy of agreement find that fact frightening. It's nothing more than another in a long line of atrocities committed in order to bolster a mutually held religious delusion. Like all such atrocities, it must be fought against. Religion in public school classrooms is poison.

I'm sorry, I wasn't flaming you, I was using the word "ignorance" in the generic context. I'm sure you are a smart person but you have an ignorance with regard to how science works. You want to conflate your philosophical opinion with science and science simply doesn't give a damn about philosophy... it can't, else it becomes a philosophy as well. As a matter of fact, the majority of scientific discovery flew in the face of philosophy and/or conventional wisdom.

Likewise, "publishing" has nothing to do with validity of science. That can be your opinion but it's a philosophical opinion and science doesn't care. Isaac Newton presented the Theory of Light and Color to the Royal Academy and it was soundly rejected by Robert Hooke. That did not mean that his theory was invalid, indeed, it was exactly right. Ignaz Semmelweis was a doctor who presented the notion that surgeons should wash their hands between digging in cadavers and operating on live patients... they locked him away as a mad man. Twenty years later, they realized he was absolutely correct. When Louis Pasteur proposed that microorganisms were in milk and foods we eat and this is what made people ill sometimes...they nearly ran the man out of France over it. Crazy talk they said... I can almost hear someone of the time chortling about his notion of "magic men in milk" and shaking their heads in disbelief.

Now as for "my agenda" there's really not one. I don't believe in a magic man in the sky. Religions arose from humans who are spiritual creatures. We make a connection with something greater than self and we've been doing this for as long as we're aware of humans existing. But we cannot exploit science to support that belief OR reject it. Science stands alone on it's own merits. Science doesn't dismiss the possibility of God just the same as it doesn't dismiss ANY possibility. Science can only predict probability of possibilities. Possibilities are infinite.

I think I understand the central theme of your remarks, and I agree with them in the main.

Red:
I happen to think the remarks in red draw a mighty fine line, moreover, one which, to my mind, should be dotted/dashed rather than solid. It seems to me that the folks whom we today call theoretical physicists, for example, would have in Newton's or Plato's day been called philosophers, thus their ideas, philosophy. Today's experimental physicists, on the other hand, would have then as today been considered scientists.

 

[Boss]

I didn't say science does that, I said I do that, personally. Science doesn't rule out subjects to study, but neither do they study that which offers nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation.

Oh but YES Science DOES do that. We've already been through the examples. The Multiverse Theory... there is nothing we can do but speculate. It's being studied in the realm of theoretic quantum physics. Black holes... again, all we can do is speculate because we can't see inside a black hole. Predictions are made based on speculation. At the sub-atomic level... we cannot observe nature's most fundamental elements, they refuse to allow it. We speculated about a Higgs boson until we eventually discovered it.

Any scientific hypothesis is a speculation until there is scientific evidence to support it. The vast majority of scientific discovery is the result of speculative hypothesis which evidence was found to support. When you say idiotic things like "nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation" you dismiss science altogether. It's as if you believe the only thing science is good for is to examine what is already proven. Thank god most scientists don't subscribe to your ignorance.

My ignorance, huh? That's not in keeping with the CDZ rules, so please get a grip on yourself.

It's a simple procedure, which I have already described. Publish. That's that. It is absurd to think that theories which have been published and rejected should be argued on a forum board. What do think that will accomplish? Do you think you will make "converts"?

My conclusion is that you are not an honest broker. You have a poorly hidden agenda which you refuse to acknowledge.What do you think you will win?

I wish I could calm the existential terror which motivates you. I cannot. You must recognize that for yourself. The notion of a "magic man in the sky" is a comforting lie the human race has been telling itself for a very long time now. The effectiveness of that lie has worn off for many, and those still mired in their conspiracy of agreement find that fact frightening. It's nothing more than another in a long line of atrocities committed in order to bolster a mutually held religious delusion. Like all such atrocities, it must be fought against. Religion in public school classrooms is poison.

I'm sorry, I wasn't flaming you, I was using the word "ignorance" in the generic context. I'm sure you are a smart person but you have an ignorance with regard to how science works. You want to conflate your philosophical opinion with science and science simply doesn't give a damn about philosophy... it can't, else it becomes a philosophy as well. As a matter of fact, the majority of scientific discovery flew in the face of philosophy and/or conventional wisdom.

Likewise, "publishing" has nothing to do with validity of science. That can be your opinion but it's a philosophical opinion and science doesn't care. Isaac Newton presented the Theory of Light and Color to the Royal Academy and it was soundly rejected by Robert Hooke. That did not mean that his theory was invalid, indeed, it was exactly right. Ignaz Semmelweis was a doctor who presented the notion that surgeons should wash their hands between digging in cadavers and operating on live patients... they locked him away as a mad man. Twenty years later, they realized he was absolutely correct. When Louis Pasteur proposed that microorganisms were in milk and foods we eat and this is what made people ill sometimes...they nearly ran the man out of France over it. Crazy talk they said... I can almost hear someone of the time chortling about his notion of "magic men in milk" and shaking their heads in disbelief.

Now as for "my agenda" there's really not one. I don't believe in a magic man in the sky. Religions arose from humans who are spiritual creatures. We make a connection with something greater than self and we've been doing this for as long as we're aware of humans existing. But we cannot exploit science to support that belief OR reject it. Science stands alone on it's own merits. Science doesn't dismiss the possibility of God just the same as it doesn't dismiss ANY possibility. Science can only predict probability of possibilities. Possibilities are infinite.

I think I understand the central theme of your remarks, and I agree with them in the main.

Red:
I happen to think the remarks in red draw a mighty fine line, moreover, one which, to my mind, should be dotted/dashed rather than solid. It seems to me that the folks whom we today call theoretical physicists, for example, would have in Newton's or Plato's day been called philosophers, thus their ideas, philosophy. Today's experimental physicists, on the other hand, would have then as today been considered scientists.

Well, I would argue that back in Newton's day, there was no "Science" per say. It was ALL considered philosophy... aka: "Natural Philosophy" And it encompassed things that were both scientific and non-scientific. It's actually one of the things Newton brought to the table, the Scientific Method.... the aspects of Science that we know and understand today.

That said, Newton did not dismiss things based on what was considered valid in terms of others. He continued to explore possibilities even when they didn't comport with conventional wisdom of the time. In that regard, he was actually the first "theoretical physicist".

To the layman, the term "theoretical physics" may sound ambiguous in terms of science... like, maybe it's not as good as REAL science... it's only speculative... theoretical... but that is a misnomer. The discipline of theoretical physics is just as valid in science as any other discipline, it simply involves mathematics to a larger degree on things we cannot actually observe due to physical constraints. It predicted black holes... they were discovered. It predicted the Higgs boson... it was discovered. It predicted dark energy and dark matter.... and it was discovered.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

It is also an opportunity for those who believe in Intelligent Design to express that belief and the reason(s) for it. Anyone can ask and anyone can answer but please keep in mind that the aim here is to have an adult conversation based on mutual respect and civility, not to insult those with a different viewpoint. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, ridicule, and name calling, please be courteous enough to not post anything.

May I say that I'm very glad that you put (God) in parenthesis above. I'd never have known what you meant by "a higher power" if you hadn't explained it.

That said.....my question is.....why would anyone believe in something that has never been proven to them to such a degree that faith is no longer required?

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, I would argue that back in Newton's day, there was no "Science" per say. It was ALL considered philosophy... aka: "Natural Philosophy" And it encompassed things that were both scientific and non-scientific. It's actually one of the things Newton brought to the table, the Scientific Method.... the aspects of Science that we know and understand today.

That said, Newton did not dismiss things based on what was considered valid in terms of others. He continued to explore possibilities even when they didn't comport with conventional wisdom of the time. In that regard, he was actually the first "theoretical physicist".

To the layman, the term "theoretical physics" may sound ambiguous in terms of science... like, maybe it's not as good as REAL science... it's only speculative... theoretical... but that is a misnomer. The discipline of theoretical physics is just as valid in science as any other discipline, it simply involves mathematics to a larger degree on things we cannot actually observe due to physical constraints. It predicted black holes... they were discovered. It predicted the Higgs boson... it was discovered. It predicted dark energy and dark matter.... and it was discovered.

I agree, and I can tell from your various posts in this thread that you do too. That it's clear to me we both recognize theoretical physicists as legit scientists is why I used them as an example...to highlight the distinction between thinking about things versus testing to validate or disprove the thoughts (one's own or others').

You and I don't really disagree on the central points you've been making. We disagree a little on the language of how we're expressing our ideas, but that's it as far as I can tell. It seems to me we have the same basic understanding of history and approaches, and we do not differ on them.

 

[S.J.]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

It is also an opportunity for those who believe in Intelligent Design to express that belief and the reason(s) for it. Anyone can ask and anyone can answer but please keep in mind that the aim here is to have an adult conversation based on mutual respect and civility, not to insult those with a different viewpoint. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, ridicule, and name calling, please be courteous enough to not post anything.

May I say that I'm very glad that you put (God) in parenthesis above. I'd never have known what you meant by "a higher power" if you hadn't explained it.

That said.....my question is.....why would anyone believe in something that has never been proven to them to such a degree that faith is no longer required?

I have no interest in discussing anything with you. You've never posted anything other than flaming and insults in any thread you've participated in.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I didn't say science does that, I said I do that, personally. Science doesn't rule out subjects to study, but neither do they study that which offers nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation.

Oh but YES Science DOES do that. We've already been through the examples. The Multiverse Theory... there is nothing we can do but speculate. It's being studied in the realm of theoretic quantum physics. Black holes... again, all we can do is speculate because we can't see inside a black hole. Predictions are made based on speculation. At the sub-atomic level... we cannot observe nature's most fundamental elements, they refuse to allow it. We speculated about a Higgs boson until we eventually discovered it.

Any scientific hypothesis is a speculation until there is scientific evidence to support it. The vast majority of scientific discovery is the result of speculative hypothesis which evidence was found to support. When you say idiotic things like "nothing but the opportunity for pure speculation" you dismiss science altogether. It's as if you believe the only thing science is good for is to examine what is already proven. Thank god most scientists don't subscribe to your ignorance.

My ignorance, huh? That's not in keeping with the CDZ rules, so please get a grip on yourself.

It's a simple procedure, which I have already described. Publish. That's that. It is absurd to think that theories which have been published and rejected should be argued on a forum board. What do think that will accomplish? Do you think you will make "converts"?

My conclusion is that you are not an honest broker. You have a poorly hidden agenda which you refuse to acknowledge.What do you think you will win?

I wish I could calm the existential terror which motivates you. I cannot. You must recognize that for yourself. The notion of a "magic man in the sky" is a comforting lie the human race has been telling itself for a very long time now. The effectiveness of that lie has worn off for many, and those still mired in their conspiracy of agreement find that fact frightening. It's nothing more than another in a long line of atrocities committed in order to bolster a mutually held religious delusion. Like all such atrocities, it must be fought against. Religion in public school classrooms is poison.

I'm sorry, I wasn't flaming you, I was using the word "ignorance" in the generic context. I'm sure you are a smart person but you have an ignorance with regard to how science works. You want to conflate your philosophical opinion with science and science simply doesn't give a damn about philosophy... it can't, else it becomes a philosophy as well. As a matter of fact, the majority of scientific discovery flew in the face of philosophy and/or conventional wisdom.

Likewise, "publishing" has nothing to do with validity of science. That can be your opinion but it's a philosophical opinion and science doesn't care. Isaac Newton presented the Theory of Light and Color to the Royal Academy and it was soundly rejected by Robert Hooke. That did not mean that his theory was invalid, indeed, it was exactly right. Ignaz Semmelweis was a doctor who presented the notion that surgeons should wash their hands between digging in cadavers and operating on live patients... they locked him away as a mad man. Twenty years later, they realized he was absolutely correct. When Louis Pasteur proposed that microorganisms were in milk and foods we eat and this is what made people ill sometimes...they nearly ran the man out of France over it. Crazy talk they said... I can almost hear someone of the time chortling about his notion of "magic men in milk" and shaking their heads in disbelief.

Now as for "my agenda" there's really not one. I don't believe in a magic man in the sky. Religions arose from humans who are spiritual creatures. We make a connection with something greater than self and we've been doing this for as long as we're aware of humans existing. But we cannot exploit science to support that belief OR reject it. Science stands alone on it's own merits. Science doesn't dismiss the possibility of God just the same as it doesn't dismiss ANY possibility. Science can only predict probability of possibilities. Possibilities are infinite.

First of all I never suggested that science dismisses possibilities. Second of all, publishing does not make something science, peer review does. Is peer review perfect? Of course not.

Maybe someday ID will be accepted as science, and boy, won't our faces be red. Until then, it isn't science. Until then, it shouldn't be in the classroom.

You claim you have no agenda. I don't accept that. I think you want ID in the classroom. I think that is your agenda.

 

[Boss]

First of all I never suggested that science dismisses possibilities. Second of all, publishing does not make something science, peer review does. Is peer review perfect? Of course not.

Maybe someday ID will be accepted as science, and boy, won't our faces be red. Until then, it isn't science. Until then, it shouldn't be in the classroom.

You claim you have no agenda. I don't accept that. I think you want ID in the classroom. I think that is your agenda.

Uhm yes, you DID suggest your "science philosophy" bullshit.

Logical positivism rejects all questions which are not subject to logical or empirical verification.

Second... You most certainly DID try to say (twice) that "publishing" is what made something valid science. NOW... you are changing that to "peer review" but you're STILL WRONG!

No one has left it up to you to decide what Science is. You can have your opinion but your opinion can be wrong, and in this case, it's totally wrong. Science is the pursuit of understanding regarding the natural physical universe. However, science can also sometimes delve into things that seem outside the natural physical universe and I can give you several examples. The question of what happened before the Big Bang... before space, time and physics existed. What is happening inside a black hole, where laws of physics break down. What is happening at the subatomic level where things seemingly defy physics of the natural world.

Recently, we have discovered that everything we know and understand about physics and physical nature is only a small fraction of what makes up our universe. Dark energy and dark matter represents about 96% of our universe and we have no idea what it is. We can't interact with it in our physical world.

As for ID being taught in schools (I did not bring this up), I prefer to err on the side of MORE knowledge than LESS when it comes to education. I don't believe in "THAT shouldn't be taught" when it comes to education... I want it ALL to be taught. With ID, there has to be great care and responsibility taken to avoid religious implication but that can certainly be done. There is no need for a religious component to study ID. In fact, I would be strongly opposed to any mention of religious beliefs with regard to the ID theory being taught. I don't agree that it should be "taught alongside evolution" because it's not a competing theory with evolution, it is a competing theory with abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.

And before you say it's not science because it can't be observed, tested or measured... At the subatomic level, we have discovered our most fundamental elements can't be measured. Particles behave as particles when they are observed and as waves when they are not. They can be in two places (or more) at the same time, or seemingly nowhere. They can also seemingly go back in time and change their state depending on the test we do. This sounds bizarre and impossible but it is proven science. The double-slit experiment... the observer effect... wavefunction collapse... go look those terms up.

This revelation has caused credible and noted scientists to hypothesize that we may be part of a computer simulation designed by a more advanced civilization. Mathematics, which drives quantum mechanics, predicts that we have as many as 11 dimensions... we only experience 4 of them in our perception of reality. So we MUST be careful about what we dismiss as "impossible" when it comes to understanding our universe and the greater cosmos. You don't have some kind of special brain that knows truth where everyone else doesn't. That is your human hubris showing and it's actually the ANTITHESIS of Science. It is an arrogance and vulgarity when it comes to scientific study.

 

[Elvis Obama]

First of all I never suggested that science dismisses possibilities. Second of all, publishing does not make something science, peer review does. Is peer review perfect? Of course not.

Maybe someday ID will be accepted as science, and boy, won't our faces be red. Until then, it isn't science. Until then, it shouldn't be in the classroom.

You claim you have no agenda. I don't accept that. I think you want ID in the classroom. I think that is your agenda.

Uhm yes, you DID suggest your "science philosophy" bullshit.

Logical positivism rejects all questions which are not subject to logical or empirical verification.

Second... You most certainly DID try to say (twice) that "publishing" is what made something valid science. NOW... you are changing that to "peer review" but you're STILL WRONG!

No one has left it up to you to decide what Science is. You can have your opinion but your opinion can be wrong, and in this case, it's totally wrong. Science is the pursuit of understanding regarding the natural physical universe. However, science can also sometimes delve into things that seem outside the natural physical universe and I can give you several examples. The question of what happened before the Big Bang... before space, time and physics existed. What is happening inside a black hole, where laws of physics break down. What is happening at the subatomic level where things seemingly defy physics of the natural world.

Recently, we have discovered that everything we know and understand about physics and physical nature is only a small fraction of what makes up our universe. Dark energy and dark matter represents about 96% of our universe and we have no idea what it is. We can't interact with it in our physical world.

As for ID being taught in schools (I did not bring this up), I prefer to err on the side of MORE knowledge than LESS when it comes to education. I don't believe in "THAT shouldn't be taught" when it comes to education... I want it ALL to be taught. With ID, there has to be great care and responsibility taken to avoid religious implication but that can certainly be done. There is no need for a religious component to study ID. In fact, I would be strongly opposed to any mention of religious beliefs with regard to the ID theory being taught. I don't agree that it should be "taught alongside evolution" because it's not a competing theory with evolution, it is a competing theory with abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.

And before you say it's not science because it can't be observed, tested or measured... At the subatomic level, we have discovered our most fundamental elements can't be measured. Particles behave as particles when they are observed and as waves when they are not. They can be in two places (or more) at the same time, or seemingly nowhere. They can also seemingly go back in time and change their state depending on the test we do. This sounds bizarre and impossible but it is proven science. The double-slit experiment... the observer effect... wavefunction collapse... go look those terms up.

This revelation has caused credible and noted scientists to hypothesize that we may be part of a computer simulation designed by a more advanced civilization. Mathematics, which drives quantum mechanics, predicts that we have as many as 11 dimensions... we only experience 4 of them in our perception of reality. So we MUST be careful about what we dismiss as "impossible" when it comes to understanding our universe and the greater cosmos. You don't have some kind of special brain that knows truth where everyone else doesn't. That is your human hubris showing and it's actually the ANTITHESIS of Science. It is an arrogance and vulgarity when it comes to scientific study.

Yeah, publish, peer review, whatever. You have yet to make one valid point. Papers are published. Going from scientist to scientist and explaining the theory personally is a bit awkward. Is the peer review process perfect? No. Is there an alternative? No. Your opinion is NOT an acceptable substitute.

ID isn't science. It was published, reviewed and has been rejected, rightly or wrongly. Period. The rest of this is worthless. The process of acceptance has nothing to do with what you think or I think. Should a scientist prove the existence of God to the satisfaction of the scientific community, it will be considered newsworthy. When you read about it, please let us know.

Again, you are refusing to admit your real motive. You want ID in the classroom. The rest of this is silly window dressing. ID is a fraud. It is a proven fraud. Existentially terrified religious fanatics have forced it into some of our classrooms, and want to force it into all of them. They will be fought and I hope they will be defeated.

Do you, or do you not, wish to see ID taught in public schools?

 

[Boss]

Do you, or do you not, wish to see ID taught in public schools?

This thread isn't about teaching ID in public school. As I said, I prefer to err on the side of teaching MORE rather than LESS. I don't subscribe to "We cant teach THIS but not THAT!" I had rather teach it ALL and leave it to students to decide what they believe. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to also teach that theories aren't conclusive facts and peer review doesn't mean they are or aren't?

That said, I have heard versions of ID articulated that I wouldn't want taught in public school because it's theocratic. However, the raw theory that life could be the result of intelligent design, does not necessitate theocracy or religion. Life as we understand it could be the result of advanced alien civilization we can't even comprehend. Or something from one of the 7 other dimensions we can't relate to? Peer reviews or not, the question is unanswered.

 

[320 Years of History]

Do you, or do you not, wish to see ID taught in public schools?

This thread isn't about teaching ID in public school. As I said, I prefer to err on the side of teaching MORE rather than LESS. I don't subscribe to "We cant teach THIS but not THAT!" I had rather teach it ALL and leave it to students to decide what they believe. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to also teach that theories aren't conclusive facts and peer review doesn't mean they are or aren't?

That said, I have heard versions of ID articulated that I wouldn't want taught in public school because it's theocratic. However, the raw theory that life could be the result of intelligent design, does not necessitate theocracy or religion. Life as we understand it could be the result of advanced alien civilization we can't even comprehend. Or something from one of the 7 other dimensions we can't relate to? Peer reviews or not, the question is unanswered.

Just as a personal thing, I would love to be alive if/when we determine for sure that life on Earth, or at least the human component of it, was created by one or several very clearly non-deity/non-supernatural aliens. Mostly, I just want to see whether the creationists will then say, "See, we were right. We were created by an (some) intelligent being." Will they then try to make the case that the alien who created us is indeed the God of scripture? What will they say if that alien dies or died before we find out it was "him?"

Red:
Amen!!!

 

[Elvis Obama]

Do you, or do you not, wish to see ID taught in public schools?

This thread isn't about teaching ID in public school. As I said, I prefer to err on the side of teaching MORE rather than LESS. I don't subscribe to "We cant teach THIS but not THAT!" I had rather teach it ALL and leave it to students to decide what they believe. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to also teach that theories aren't conclusive facts and peer review doesn't mean they are or aren't?

That said, I have heard versions of ID articulated that I wouldn't want taught in public school because it's theocratic. However, the raw theory that life could be the result of intelligent design, does not necessitate theocracy or religion. Life as we understand it could be the result of advanced alien civilization we can't even comprehend. Or something from one of the 7 other dimensions we can't relate to? Peer reviews or not, the question is unanswered.

Of course the question is unanswered, and if I propose a theory that the universe is a piece of bubblegum that God chewed and blew into, can you disprove my theory? So what? The world has been in the business of manufacturing these crackpot theories since the dawn of time.

No, we cannot teach "everything" in schools, nor should we. We have to pick and choose. Carefully.

I repeat, you have yet to make a single valid point. Peer review is imperfect. In fact, I was taught that in school. Repeatedly. The imperfection of the peer review process does not mean there is anything better or that we should abandon it.

I do not dismiss religious insight or the truth revealed by art. I do not deny the influence that one has on the other. I do deny that religion IS art. That philosophy IS science. Perhaps someday all knowledge will merge, and we shall have insight into the universe that we do not currently possess. For now, what we have are different disciplines which for many reasons are maintained separately.

Again, this is a disingenuous discussion. You claim the thread is not about classrooms. I agree. This thread is about nothing. I asked the OP to clarify what this thread is supposed to be about and he ignored the question. As he had just made a thread about creationism, and this one is ostensibly about "creation" I asked for a clarification and none was forthcoming.

What you have posted is about ID. You believe in it. I don't care. I neither believe nor disbelieve. You can offer me nothing except your opinion. You cannot offer me scientific validity, because the gatekeepers, flawed as they are, have denied the scientific seal of approval to ID. Right now it rests in the rubbish heap with cryptozoology and Erich von Däniken's entertaining silliness. Should we include those "theories" in our public school curricula? They may be proven true, someday. We found a coelacanth, so maybe someday we'll find a chupacabra.

ID is the cynical creation of a right wing think tank, designed for the sole purpose of discrediting evolution and allowing religion to be taught alongside science as a co-equal. It failed to gain scientific acceptance and yet it is still allowed to poison our classrooms. It's a battle of rationality versus superstition, and you're on the wrong side.

 

[Boss]

Of course the question is unanswered, and if I propose a theory that the universe is a piece of bubblegum that God chewed and blew into, can you disprove my theory? So what? The world has been in the business of manufacturing these crackpot theories since the dawn of time.

Yes, but the theory that we were intelligently designed is not a crackpot theory. You wish to denigrate it as such because you don't like religion. But you not liking religion shouldn't be considered in our criteria for education. We can't really teach on the basis of what some people like and others don't like. If we start down that road, no one learns anything.

No, we cannot teach "everything" in schools, nor should we. We have to pick and choose. Carefully.

Well, on the question of how life in our universe originated, I think teaching one of the primary beliefs among humans for all the ages is appropriate to teach. We both understand the question is not answered, so we're not talking about proselytizing. So we teach the question is not answered through science and here are the prevailing theories people have. We can even include your bubble gum theory and discuss mental illness if that makes you feel better about it.

I repeat, you have yet to make a single valid point. Peer review is imperfect. In fact, I was taught that in school. Repeatedly. The imperfection of the peer review process does not mean there is anything better or that we should abandon it.

Well that's interesting because other people are agreeing with my points. I never claimed we should abandon peer review. I didn't even raise the topic of ID being taught in school.. that was YOU. I'm simply trying to respond to your allegations that I come here with some kind of agenda to push. By every indication, it seems that YOU have the agenda to push and you're very vocal about it.

I'm going to ignore the remainder of your post because this is the CDZ forum and frankly, you're starting to piss me off. I'm afraid I'm going to say something that gets me booted or banned and I don't want that. So you can go on thinking what you think and I'll think what I think and we'll have to agree to disagree.