The Lies and Arrogance of Evolutionists

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sixth

It still says nothing about the validity of intelligent design.

I think it does as its various features, including its foibles, are profoundly indicative of a certain canon of teleology, but I don’t see how this can be asserted in any objectively conclusive way.

Stalemate.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Finally

In that light, you are certainly no expert on this matter. That is, unless you are well researched and published on the matter, in which case I will defer to your expertise.

Oh? In what light? I'm not an expert in the sense that you mean, but I'm not a novice either. There's nothing terribly wrong with what I wrote.

(1) Your not-quite-right phrase was not quite right. (2) I was not sharp shooting konradv; there are some serious problems with his expression. (3) I copied and pasted the basics from an article that I authored as a matter of clarification—an article that was vetted by experts. (4) The rest of your criticisms are teleological in nature, which go to the difference between our respective worldviews. (5) And, finally, like a professional, I readily conceded that efficiency was a poor choice of words for what I was after. The latter is hardly an uncommonly serious error that any professional scientist might make but for his editor. Thanks for the edit. I am improved.

Now if only you guys would get real about the metaphysics of science and the nature of your shared bias.

 

[AVG-JOE]

(By the way, intelligent design theory proper does not address the existence or non-existence of God, and creationism is a theological construct.)

So you are saying that Nature is the Intelligent Designer!

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
- Frank Lloyd Wright

So you are saying that Nature is the Intelligent Designer!

No. Where did you get that from?

I got that from the part of your post I cited. How could you have possibly missed it. If ID does not presuppose God is the Intelligent Designer then who or what other than Nature could possibly be the Intelligent Designer?

It was quite dishonest of you to claim that ID does not address the existence of God. In ID God and only God can be the Intelligent Designer. ID has never and will never accept even the possibility that Nature is the Intelligent Designer.

The problem is that in the 10,000 years of human thinking we actually know something about, there has evolved so MANY gods to choose from. Which one is The One True God? He certainly hasn't made it clear by either miracle or war whose god is God.

Do we pick Jesus because he's relatively new but based on a much older set of stories? Do we pick Christianity because everyone around us picked that one? If that's the criteria, Islam should rule, because it's 600 years newer than Christianity, based on the same old stories that Christianity is and oh, so much more popular in terms of raw numbers of believers.

Face it kids - there's really no basis for choosing one God over another other than personal preference and the choices available and/or allowed where & when one lives.

What do your eyes tell you? If Mommas* Little Bastards actually HAD a Father,** ass-u-me-ing He wasn't uncaring or impotent, don't you think His house would see a bit less sibling rivalry and a bit more cooperation and peace than our checkered history PROVES reality to be?

The first step to realizing a bastards inheritance is to realize that you're a bastard. There's freedom there... really there is.





* Mother Earth

** God the Father

 

[AVG-JOE]

As a non-scientist that uses mostly non-scientific language to communicate, I nevertheless have quite a bit of formal science education and have enjoyed a lifelong interest in why things are the way they are and how they came to be that way. And in that process, it quite early became apparent that though Einstein came close, there is no scientific theory that can adequately explain time and space and variables that likely occur in both.

There is no scientific theory that explains how the stuff of the universe came into being or when the first elements of it came into being. There is no science technology that can more than speculate, often on faith alone, that certain things exist or behave in a certain way outside of our own limited knowledge and experience.

And there is no scientific theory that in any way refutes say an Einstein's instincts through observation that, in his mind, ruled out everything happening purely by chance or happenstance and accepted a concept of some sort of cosmic intelligence guiding the overall process. He might or might not have labeled that intelligence 'intelligent design'.

And, if....and that is a big IF......the intelligent design is via an intelligent designer, it is unlikely that we being a tiny percentage of all that exists would have the ability or capacity to fully comprehend that designer, much less all of the design.

I maintain we have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to have. And for me, that is a wonderful thing.

Yes. It's a matter of keeping the mind open to a myriad of possibilities.

On the flip side, stepping outside of science for a moment, some fundamentalist have suggested that I'm a bit of a heretic because I do not hold to the notion that Genesis is a scientific treatise, which is what their complaint amounts to, really, bless their hearts. I tell them it's a theological treatise no less inspired and that God revealed Himself to the ancients in terms that they could understand. In other words, He wasn't giving them a science lesson; He left them to their own devices on that score. That is, God leaves scientific discovery to us.

Besides, I tell them Genesis chronicles an order of speciation generally consistent with what we see and we know for a fact today that the Bible never did hold to a six- to ten-thousand-year-old Earth coupled with persons who lived anywhere from a couple hundred to several hundred years, something biblical scholars have suspected for nearly two centuries, believing that the ancients of biblical tradition actually recorded their genealogies in terms of lineages. In other words, the ancients weren't talking about one person, but many in the name of the patriarch out of whose loins the respective lineage came. Also, there are huge gaps in the genealogy. We know these things for sure today from archeological discoveries. On top of that, there's no way to know what six days of creation means in terms of actual time. The Bible simply doesn't tell us or attempt to tell us how old the universe or the world are.

But tell that to some fundamentalists and they just shake their heads.

Oh, well. LOL!

Not just religious fundamentalists though, but also the science religionists who are just as fanatical as the religious fundamentalists that the fundamental interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation allowed.

Your expertise is in the details/technical aspects of the science where my science knowledge is of a far more general nature. I do have some expertise in Biblical origins, history, and interpretation.

And like you, I come under criticism and sometimes attack from the fundamentalists who don't accept what I consider to be much more educated concepts of Bible content. But even those aren't as irrational and sometimes viscious as the science religionists who hate the Bible.

I can easily find no quarrel between most of the Bible and modern science. And I can also consider an intelligent design outside of Bible content.

Some of our friends here will have none of that though. If I argue any kind of case for I.D., then I'm a religious nut that believes all sorts of things I never knew I believed.

Yeah, I have a problem with The Bible. I also have problems with The Torah, and The Koran, and the problems I have are political. No god worth worshiping would have allowed His Name to be used the way the names of God, Jesus and Allah have been used for greed and politics in our history.

It just doesn't make logical sense to me. You want to worship a God? Fine - just don't let your worship interfere with my freedom to live and learn how I see fit. That's where I draw a line in the political sand.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Uh-huh. Cute. But of course everything in it remains pertinent. Lefty's still spouting the same nonsense today as if he owned the schools and had the right to impose his religion and morality therein by way of "politics by scientist" against the constraints of inherent rights and certain constitutional imperatives. Even if I weren't a creationist, I'd still oppose him. That's the difference between me and the pretenders of modernity.

Your Avatar tag line says you're a 'Classical Liberal' and your post/thread says you're a creationist who wants his religious view force-fed to the rest of us by government...

Does your left hand have a clue as to what your right hand is playing with?

Go away troll. You don't know what you're talking. Come back after you've read the thread, if and when.

Hmmmm... More government restrictions on my freedom of expression?

Perhaps you should shelve The Bible for a day or two and pick up a history text that actually describes 'Classical Liberalism'. I can recommend a few, if you need.

 

[edthecynic]

There is no one more viciously derisive than the atheist.

You're just jealous!

Not one man in a thousand has either strength of mind or goodness of heart to be an Atheist.
-- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

 

[Wry Catcher]

More harm and hate is generated in the name of God than in any other human endeavor.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Intelligent design,’ ‘Creationism,’ whatever label one wishes to affix, it is still religion, as noted by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987):

Louisiana had a "Creationism Act" that prevented the teaching of evolution unless it was accompanied by the teaching of biblical creationism. Neither was required to be taught, but the former could not be taught without being grouped with the latter. This was challenged by a group of parents for violating the Establishment Clause.

In a 7-2 decision, the Court invalidated Louisiana's "Creationism Act" because it violated the Establishment Clause.

The Lemon test must be used to gauge the constitutionality of the Creationism Act. The Act does not have a secular purpose. It does not advance academic freedom and restricts the abilities of teachers to teach what they deem appropriate. Louisiana offers instructional packets to assist in the teaching of creationism but not for the teaching of evolution. The Act does not require the teaching of creationism, it only asserts such an interest when evolution is taught. "The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind...The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety."


This decision found that requiring evolutionism to be taught with creation science does not further a secular purpose. Therefore, it is easily dismissed for violating the first prong of the Lemon test.

Edwards v. Aguillard - Religious Freedom Page

 

[Foxfyre]

So you are saying that Nature is the Intelligent Designer!

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
- Frank Lloyd Wright

No. Where did you get that from?

I got that from the part of your post I cited. How could you have possibly missed it. If ID does not presuppose God is the Intelligent Designer then who or what other than Nature could possibly be the Intelligent Designer?

It was quite dishonest of you to claim that ID does not address the existence of God. In ID God and only God can be the Intelligent Designer. ID has never and will never accept even the possibility that Nature is the Intelligent Designer.

The problem is that in the 10,000 years of human thinking we actually know something about, there has evolved so MANY gods to choose from. Which one is The One True God? He certainly hasn't made it clear by either miracle or war whose god is God.

Do we pick Jesus because he's relatively new but based on a much older set of stories? Do we pick Christianity because everyone around us picked that one? If that's the criteria, Islam should rule, because it's 600 years newer than Christianity, based on the same old stories that Christianity is and oh, so much more popular in terms of raw numbers of believers.

Face it kids - there's really no basis for choosing one God over another other than personal preference and the choices available and/or allowed where & when one lives.

What do your eyes tell you? If Momma's* Little Bastards actually HAD a Father**, ass-u-me-ing He wasn't uncaring or impotent, don't you think His house would see a bit less sibling rivalry and a bit more cooperation and peace than our checkered history PROVES reality to be?

The first step to realizing a bastards inheritance is to realize that you're a bastard. There's freedom there... really there is.





* Mother Earth

** God the Father

The problem with your perception here is that it doesn't matter 'which god' or how we humans choose to perceive a god or describe a god. If there IS a Creator God he is the real deal whether we understand or perceive him accurately or not and in spite of whatever we choose to label or call him. If there IS a Creator God he will not be defined nor dismissed by that which he created no matter how arrogant we might be in attempting to do so.

The argument made in the thesis of this thread, however, includes the bare truth that we mortals cannot prove that a Creator God exists even if we experience that Creator God up close and personal.

And the other side of that same argument is that science cannot use science to explain away, falsify, or even cast credible skepticism re the existence or non existence of a Creator God.

And finally, despite the determination of religious fundamentalists and science religionists to reject the concept, there needs be no Creator God in order for intelligent design to exist, and if intelligent design should include a Creator God, that god will not necessarily conform to the description of it as we find in the Bible or Qu'ran or other religious texts.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I got that from the part of your post I cited. How could you have possibly missed it. If ID does not presuppose God is the Intelligent Designer then who or what other than Nature could possibly be the Intelligent Designer?

It was quite dishonest of you to claim that ID does not address the existence of God. In ID God and only God can be the Intelligent Designer. ID has never and will never accept even the possibility that Nature is the Intelligent Designer.

The problem is that in the 10,000 years of human thinking we actually know something about, there has evolved so MANY gods to choose from. Which one is The One True God? He certainly hasn't made it clear by either miracle or war whose god is God.

Do we pick Jesus because he's relatively new but based on a much older set of stories? Do we pick Christianity because everyone around us picked that one? If that's the criteria, Islam should rule, because it's 600 years newer than Christianity, based on the same old stories that Christianity is and oh, so much more popular in terms of raw numbers of believers.

Face it kids - there's really no basis for choosing one God over another other than personal preference and the choices available and/or allowed where & when one lives.

What do your eyes tell you? If Momma's* Little Bastards actually HAD a Father**, ass-u-me-ing He wasn't uncaring or impotent, don't you think His house would see a bit less sibling rivalry and a bit more cooperation and peace than our checkered history PROVES reality to be?

The first step to realizing a bastards inheritance is to realize that you're a bastard. There's freedom there... really there is.





* Mother Earth

** God the Father

The problem with your perception here is that it doesn't matter 'which god' or how we humans choose to perceive a god or describe a god. If there IS a Creator God he is the real deal whether we understand or perceive him accurately or not and in spite of whatever we choose to label or call him. If there IS a Creator God he will not be defined nor dismissed by that which he created no matter how arrogant we might be in attempting to do so.

The argument made in the thesis of this thread, however, includes the bare truth that we mortals cannot prove that a Creator God exists even if we experience that Creator God up close and personal.

And the other side of that same argument is that science cannot use science to explain away, falsify, or even cast credible skepticism re the existence or non existence of a Creator God.

And finally, despite the determination of religious fundamentalists and science religionists to reject the concept, there needs be no Creator God in order for intelligent design to exist, and if intelligent design should include a Creator God, that god will not necessarily conform to the description of it as we find in the Bible or Qu'ran or other religious texts.

I will totally give you that, Foxfyre. I agree 100%.

I'll simply add that if God IS, I'll bet anyone a dollar that He/She is as disappointed in the "Holy Books" of humanity and how they have been used during the last 10,000 years as I am.

Based on that assumption, I can only conclude that: If God IS, He either does not care, He is impotent, or our history of suffering is EXACTLY what He wanted. Either way, The "God" of The Bible turns out to be as big a joke as the "God" of The Koran, the "Gods" of the heathens and the original "Gods" of Earth, Wind & Fire.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFl71IiZ1sk]YouTube - ‪Earth Wind And Fire - Shining Star(1975)‬‏[/ame]

Simply put, mugs like me can't lose - we can have our carnal cake and eat it too.

Or, there is NOTHING to look forward to after death and, whether it's a gift from Mom or Dad, a life spent worshiping a book and not lived with gusto and risk represents a waste.

 

[Yoda]

This article is a bit dated, but it illustrates precisely why the fight for educational freedom/choice must be won against these fascists. . . .

The Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous Implications
by Lee Salisbury / January 29th, 2008
Dissident Voice

Excerpt:

In spite of the pro-evolution 2006 verdict in Dover, PA, creationists persist seeking to influence and intimidate uninformed school boards in Ohio, Florida, and Texas. This is clearly a culture war with creationist/biblical literalists leading the anti-science, pro-creationist charge.

. . . Creation “science” rejects every fundamental precept upon which actual science functions, from empiricism to falsification. Creationists reject empiricism, the very heart of science, and instead embrace fanciful biblical legends of a ‘talking snake’ and a 6,000-year-old solar system all in a vain attempt to justify their immutable doctrinal beliefs. They are no different than the Roman Catholic clergy of 500 years ago persecuting Galileo because he declared the sun did not revolve around the earth.

. . . It is bad enough that creationist churches are freeloaders, taking advantage of the public’s good will by skirting their fair share of real estate taxes. But, worse yet, they use creationism as a rhetorical facade, as a lever through which to influence public policy. Creationists exploit the faith of well-meaning Christians (and those of other religions) to further their own purely self-serving goals at the expense of reality. Creationism is nothing more than an ancient regurgitated ideology bereft of merit, and loathsome in its intentions.​

LINK

This is an easy one. Religion has no place in science classrooms. As Evolution has no place in Sunday Mass. Evolution is a matter of the study of theory of how things in nature change. Creationism is based upon a personal faith and nothing else. Science is universal regardless of faith, religion isn't.

 

[Montrovant]

So you'd support publicly funded religious schools then?

I support universal school choice. You?

I'd like clarification on this if you don't mind. In reading your posts, it seems to me that your position would, in effect, make it impossible to teach anything in school until it had been approved by every parent sending a child there. Or, perhaps, simply the abolition of public schooling. Rather than assume I am correctly interpreting your remarks I would ask that you explain it in a bit more detail.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The problem is that in the 10,000 years of human thinking we actually know something about, there has evolved so MANY gods to choose from. Which one is The One True God? He certainly hasn't made it clear by either miracle or war whose god is God.

Do we pick Jesus because he's relatively new but based on a much older set of stories? Do we pick Christianity because everyone around us picked that one? If that's the criteria, Islam should rule, because it's 600 years newer than Christianity, based on the same old stories that Christianity is and oh, so much more popular in terms of raw numbers of believers.

Face it kids - there's really no basis for choosing one God over another other than personal preference and the choices available and/or allowed where & when one lives.

What do your eyes tell you? If Momma's* Little Bastards actually HAD a Father**, ass-u-me-ing He wasn't uncaring or impotent, don't you think His house would see a bit less sibling rivalry and a bit more cooperation and peace than our checkered history PROVES reality to be?

The first step to realizing a bastards inheritance is to realize that you're a bastard. There's freedom there... really there is.





* Mother Earth

** God the Father

The problem with your perception here is that it doesn't matter 'which god' or how we humans choose to perceive a god or describe a god. If there IS a Creator God he is the real deal whether we understand or perceive him accurately or not and in spite of whatever we choose to label or call him. If there IS a Creator God he will not be defined nor dismissed by that which he created no matter how arrogant we might be in attempting to do so.

The argument made in the thesis of this thread, however, includes the bare truth that we mortals cannot prove that a Creator God exists even if we experience that Creator God up close and personal.

And the other side of that same argument is that science cannot use science to explain away, falsify, or even cast credible skepticism re the existence or non existence of a Creator God.

And finally, despite the determination of religious fundamentalists and science religionists to reject the concept, there needs be no Creator God in order for intelligent design to exist, and if intelligent design should include a Creator God, that god will not necessarily conform to the description of it as we find in the Bible or Qu'ran or other religious texts.

I will totally give you that, Foxfyre. I agree 100%.

I'll simply add that if God IS, I'll bet anyone a dollar that He/She is as disappointed in the "Holy Books" of humanity and how they have been used during the last 10,000 years as I am.

Based on that assumption, I can only conclude that: If God IS, He either does not care, He is impotent, or our history of suffering is EXACTLY what He wanted. Either way, The "God" of The Bible turns out to be as big a joke as the "God" of The Koran, the "Gods" of the heathens and the original "Gods" of Earth, Wind & Fire.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFl71IiZ1sk]YouTube - ‪Earth Wind And Fire - Shining Star(1975)‬‏[/ame]

Simply put, mugs like me can't lose - we can have our carnal cake and eat it too.

Or, there is NOTHING to look forward to after death and, whether it's a gift from Mom or Dad, a life spent worshiping a book and not lived with gusto and risk represents a waste.

Actually, I couldn't improve on Foxfyre's summation. However, I would encourage you to seek Christ. He does live and love you. He's the real deal. I knocked on that door, and He did answer.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So you'd support publicly funded religious schools then?

I support universal school choice. You?

I'd like clarification on this if you don't mind. In reading your posts, it seems to me that your position would, in effect, make it impossible to teach anything in school until it had been approved by every parent sending a child there. Or, perhaps, simply the abolition of public schooling. Rather than assume I am correctly interpreting your remarks I would ask that you explain it in a bit more detail.

It's pretty simple, really. Folks just send their kids to the school of their choice: public, charter, private (secular or parochial). In the case of the latter the government simply issues vouchers comparable to the cost of educating the child (children) in the public option. A lot of districts in various states are already doing just that.

 

[edthecynic]

The problem is that in the 10,000 years of human thinking we actually know something about, there has evolved so MANY gods to choose from. Which one is The One True God? He certainly hasn't made it clear by either miracle or war whose god is God.

Do we pick Jesus because he's relatively new but based on a much older set of stories? Do we pick Christianity because everyone around us picked that one? If that's the criteria, Islam should rule, because it's 600 years newer than Christianity, based on the same old stories that Christianity is and oh, so much more popular in terms of raw numbers of believers.

Face it kids - there's really no basis for choosing one God over another other than personal preference and the choices available and/or allowed where & when one lives.

What do your eyes tell you? If Momma's* Little Bastards actually HAD a Father**, ass-u-me-ing He wasn't uncaring or impotent, don't you think His house would see a bit less sibling rivalry and a bit more cooperation and peace than our checkered history PROVES reality to be?

The first step to realizing a bastards inheritance is to realize that you're a bastard. There's freedom there... really there is.





* Mother Earth

** God the Father

The problem with your perception here is that it doesn't matter 'which god' or how we humans choose to perceive a god or describe a god. If there IS a Creator God he is the real deal whether we understand or perceive him accurately or not and in spite of whatever we choose to label or call him. If there IS a Creator God he will not be defined nor dismissed by that which he created no matter how arrogant we might be in attempting to do so.

The argument made in the thesis of this thread, however, includes the bare truth that we mortals cannot prove that a Creator God exists even if we experience that Creator God up close and personal.

And the other side of that same argument is that science cannot use science to explain away, falsify, or even cast credible skepticism re the existence or non existence of a Creator God.

And finally, despite the determination of religious fundamentalists and science religionists to reject the concept, there needs be no Creator God in order for intelligent design to exist, and if intelligent design should include a Creator God, that god will not necessarily conform to the description of it as we find in the Bible or Qu'ran or other religious texts.

I will totally give you that, Foxfyre. I agree 100%.

I'll simply add that if God IS, I'll bet anyone a dollar that He/She is as disappointed in the "Holy Books" of humanity and how they have been used during the last 10,000 years as I am.

Based on that assumption, I can only conclude that: If God IS, He either does not care, He is impotent, or our history of suffering is EXACTLY what He wanted. Either way, The "God" of The Bible turns out to be as big a joke as the "God" of The Koran, the "Gods" of the heathens and the original "Gods" of Earth, Wind & Fire.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFl71IiZ1sk"]YouTube - ‪Earth Wind And Fire - Shining Star(1975)‬‏[/ame]

Simply put, mugs like me can't lose - we can have our carnal cake and eat it too.

Or, there is NOTHING to look forward to after death and, whether it's a gift from Mom or Dad, a life spent worshiping a book and not lived with gusto and risk represents a waste.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus (341–270 B.C.)

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is that in the 10,000 years of human thinking we actually know something about, there has evolved so MANY gods to choose from. Which one is The One True God? He certainly hasn't made it clear by either miracle or war whose god is God.

Do we pick Jesus because he's relatively new but based on a much older set of stories? Do we pick Christianity because everyone around us picked that one? If that's the criteria, Islam should rule, because it's 600 years newer than Christianity, based on the same old stories that Christianity is and oh, so much more popular in terms of raw numbers of believers.

Face it kids - there's really no basis for choosing one God over another other than personal preference and the choices available and/or allowed where & when one lives.

What do your eyes tell you? If Momma's* Little Bastards actually HAD a Father**, ass-u-me-ing He wasn't uncaring or impotent, don't you think His house would see a bit less sibling rivalry and a bit more cooperation and peace than our checkered history PROVES reality to be?

The first step to realizing a bastards inheritance is to realize that you're a bastard. There's freedom there... really there is.





* Mother Earth

** God the Father

The problem with your perception here is that it doesn't matter 'which god' or how we humans choose to perceive a god or describe a god. If there IS a Creator God he is the real deal whether we understand or perceive him accurately or not and in spite of whatever we choose to label or call him. If there IS a Creator God he will not be defined nor dismissed by that which he created no matter how arrogant we might be in attempting to do so.

The argument made in the thesis of this thread, however, includes the bare truth that we mortals cannot prove that a Creator God exists even if we experience that Creator God up close and personal.

And the other side of that same argument is that science cannot use science to explain away, falsify, or even cast credible skepticism re the existence or non existence of a Creator God.

And finally, despite the determination of religious fundamentalists and science religionists to reject the concept, there needs be no Creator God in order for intelligent design to exist, and if intelligent design should include a Creator God, that god will not necessarily conform to the description of it as we find in the Bible or Qu'ran or other religious texts.

I will totally give you that, Foxfyre. I agree 100%.

I'll simply add that if God IS, I'll bet anyone a dollar that He/She is as disappointed in the "Holy Books" of humanity and how they have been used during the last 10,000 years as I am.

Based on that assumption, I can only conclude that: If God IS, He either does not care, He is impotent, or our history of suffering is EXACTLY what He wanted. Either way, The "God" of The Bible turns out to be as big a joke as the "God" of The Koran, the "Gods" of the heathens and the original "Gods" of Earth, Wind & Fire.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFl71IiZ1sk]YouTube - ‪Earth Wind And Fire - Shining Star(1975)‬‏[/ame]

Simply put, mugs like me can't lose - we can have our carnal cake and eat it too.

Or, there is NOTHING to look forward to after death and, whether it's a gift from Mom or Dad, a life spent worshiping a book and not lived with gusto and risk represents a waste.

But mugs like you can learn just like mugs like me learned that the fundamentalist view of the Bible is deeply flawed. I have concluded that we have none of the original manuscripts because the one I called God knew that those manuscripts would be worshipped like idols. But in the hands of a dedicated and competent scholar willing to look at the larger picture, the Bible becomes a magnificent collection of literature including law, history, allegory, metaphor, poetry, imagery, wisdom slogans, prophecy, and the deepest and most anguished experiences of people trying to get through life then as we sometimes endure trying to get through life now.

I think a Creator God who created all of this and all of us certainly does care for many reasons but not the least of which is our ability to appreciate the wonder and beauty of the universe and our ability to love and care and appreciate even people, creatures, other forms of life we never will know or that which we will never experience. Without that I am quite sure that we would have utilized our capacity to destroy everything by now. And we have messed things up royally quite a bit and I think a Creator God had to allow that in order for us to experience freedom and love which, for most of us, is all that makes life worth living.

But that is if one recognizes and accepts a Creator God.

There is also the school that all that exists is itself a living thing that controls all or part of all that has been, is, or will be. Or that some undefinable or unexplainable intelligence--an intelligence that is not necessarily a personal God such as the God of the Bible--is guiding the process.

It is that possibility that both the religious fundamentalists and the science religionists so strongly reject because it requires an open mind to conceive of such a possibility.

 

[geauxtohell]

Second


I wrote:

Amino acids don't have codons of any kind. Strands of mRNA do. Amino acids are the substance of the information contained in codons.

You wrote:

That's not quite right. mRNAs have codons and tRNA have the complimentary anti-codons that match up with those, to include the start codons, and each tRNA has a single specific anti-codon to match up to the mRNA. Attached to that tRNA is the protein that corresponds to the codon, to include start codons which always carry methionine. When the mRNA binds to the small ribosome, the large ribosomal sub-unit binds on top of that complex, and transcription begins, one amino acid/codon at a time.

But I don't have problem with this. I agree . . . except with the phrase "not quite right" and calling amino acids codons. Once again, the latter is nonstandard and confusing. What I said was quite right, and what you said is merely another layer of complexity on top of it. I barely touched on tRNA because konradv’s statement focused on mRNA and amino acids. Saying that amino acids do not have codons is not the same thing as saying that they do not correspond to them or are not an aspect of their composition. For this very reason, I repeatedly emphasized the phrase coded for/coding for, a more scientifically accurate expression than that used by konradv.

You were mostly right.

I just figured if we were going to act like sharpshooting douchebags over a bunch of minutiae or slam posters for not quoting a cell biology text ver batum, you were fair game too.

 

[geauxtohell]

Fourth

Nor did you really point out any error Konrad had made, you just attempted to sharp shoot him by writing a more complicated explanation.

Nonsense. I did not merely add a layer of complexity on top of a discernibly compatible statement. With regard to its scientific aspect, his challenge is poorly expressed and confusing. With respect to its philosophical aspect, it is unimaginative, that is to say, dogmatic and presumptuous.

My criticism goes to the very core of his statement, not merely to its incompleteness. It criticizes language that is technically incorrect, albeit, not in an insignificant way, for it confuses the distinction between the components of organic information and the components of organic infrastructure, and the nature of the relationship between them. Further, one-to-one correspondence in this case is not an absolute prerequisite of design, and the sort of randomness that does obtain within the actual system does not suggest the absence of a designer at all. It's not even close in the sense that he means. A certain degree of randomness and overlapping complexity can be a very effective means of producing versatility within the parameters of a designed system.

konradv has been putting this challenge up all over the board, expecting people to decipher it and then declaring victory. Talk about sharp shooting. . . .

No. Your criticism was intended to try and make someone look like they were ignorant on something they are not because they didn't type out a textbook.

It's silly and asinine. Perhaps it's amature night at the Apollo.

It also does nothing to support the real issue at stake, whether I.D. is a valid scientific theory or not.

No one is arguing the mechanisms of cell biology here.

Finally, I don't think the textbook facts of the natural sciences argue for or against a designer. That is too large of a logical leap to make either way. My only point is that you can't insert the supernatural into the scientific method.

It's a simple procedural argument that you refuse to acknowledge.

Regardless, whether you acknowledge it or not, the rest of the world - to include the scientific community and the courts - does.

Throwing a fit because others simply won't concede your points when you can't support your own arguments is telling of just how intellectually bankrupt your arguments are.

Don't think you are going to throw off people who know better with rhetorical slight of hand.

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

 

[geauxtohell]

I think it does as its various features, including its foibles, are profoundly indicative of a certain canon of teleology, but I don’t see how this can be asserted in any objectively conclusive way.

I think IEDs are to blame for the increased incidence of PTSD among returning veterans, as they are an effective psychological weapon.

I can't prove that. What a person "thinks" when it comes to science means jack and squat other than being a nice place to start originating a theory and experiment to support it.

What you think about this instance is so large that you couldn't even begin to design a study to support it. People who have tried (i.e. Behe's "Irreducible Complexity") have been made to look like fools (by lawyers, and not scientists, no less).

Stalemate.

You wish. If this were chess, you would have to make a move before you can call stalemate. I am still waiting for that to happen in regards to this thread.

 

[edthecynic]

The problem with your perception here is that it doesn't matter 'which god' or how we humans choose to perceive a god or describe a god. If there IS a Creator God he is the real deal whether we understand or perceive him accurately or not and in spite of whatever we choose to label or call him. If there IS a Creator God he will not be defined nor dismissed by that which he created no matter how arrogant we might be in attempting to do so.

The argument made in the thesis of this thread, however, includes the bare truth that we mortals cannot prove that a Creator God exists even if we experience that Creator God up close and personal.

And the other side of that same argument is that science cannot use science to explain away, falsify, or even cast credible skepticism re the existence or non existence of a Creator God.

And finally, despite the determination of religious fundamentalists and science religionists to reject the concept, there needs be no Creator God in order for intelligent design to exist, and if intelligent design should include a Creator God, that god will not necessarily conform to the description of it as we find in the Bible or Qu'ran or other religious texts.

I will totally give you that, Foxfyre. I agree 100%.

I'll simply add that if God IS, I'll bet anyone a dollar that He/She is as disappointed in the "Holy Books" of humanity and how they have been used during the last 10,000 years as I am.

Based on that assumption, I can only conclude that: If God IS, He either does not care, He is impotent, or our history of suffering is EXACTLY what He wanted. Either way, The "God" of The Bible turns out to be as big a joke as the "God" of The Koran, the "Gods" of the heathens and the original "Gods" of Earth, Wind & Fire.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFl71IiZ1sk"]YouTube - ‪Earth Wind And Fire - Shining Star(1975)‬‏[/ame]

Simply put, mugs like me can't lose - we can have our carnal cake and eat it too.

Or, there is NOTHING to look forward to after death and, whether it's a gift from Mom or Dad, a life spent worshiping a book and not lived with gusto and risk represents a waste.

But mugs like you can learn just like mugs like me learned that the fundamentalist view of the Bible is deeply flawed. I have concluded that we have none of the original manuscripts because the one I called God knew that those manuscripts would be worshipped like idols. But in the hands of a dedicated and competent scholar willing to look at the larger picture, the Bible becomes a magnificent collection of literature including law, history, allegory, metaphor, poetry, imagery, wisdom slogans, prophecy, and the deepest and most anguished experiences of people trying to get through life then as we sometimes endure trying to get through life now.

I think a Creator God who created all of this and all of us certainly does care for many reasons but not the least of which is our ability to appreciate the wonder and beauty of the universe and our ability to love and care and appreciate even people, creatures, other forms of life we never will know or that which we will never experience. Without that I am quite sure that we would have utilized our capacity to destroy everything by now. And we have messed things up royally quite a bit and I think a Creator God had to allow that in order for us to experience freedom and love which, for most of us, is all that makes life worth living.

But that is if one recognizes and accepts a Creator God.

There is also the school that all that exists is itself a living thing that controls all or part of all that has been, is, or will be. Or that some undefinable or unexplainable intelligence--an intelligence that is not necessarily a personal God such as the God of the Bible--is guiding the process.

It is that possibility that both the religious fundamentalists and the science religionists so strongly reject because it requires an open mind to conceive of such a possibility.

The problem is you see wonder and beauty in the universe that does not exist. The universe is not some smooth-running well-designed precision clock. It is a hodgepodge of random collisions and explosions. A perpetual commotion machine, if you will. If a designer designed it that way, it surely is a reflection of the insanity or incompetence of the designer.