H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Well Tim, I just looked at your public profile. It says Catholic.
SInce you won’t give yourself away, I will just have to accept the alternate method of determining the question.
- Status
SInce you won’t give yourself away, I will just have to accept the alternate method of determining the question.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
All the quasi-darwinistic groups must do is prove that all designs are reducably complex, which of course they cannot do.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Hi Steve,
Ahh yesss… the three laws of thermo
Are you also implying that general relativity evolved as a new species?
S
Steve_Andersen
Guest
Huiou Theou:
No, a theory is not a belief. It is something that is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (something which you just conceded) there is nothing to “believe”, no leap of faith. A theory must be reproducible and falsifiable.
No, if a theory is supported by the preponderance of the evidence there are no “serious” defects
and No, faith is not required for science. A Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist scholar would have wieldy varying approaches to the concept of ID and its implications. But Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist (or atheist) scientists would reach the same conclusions on an observable set of data.
No, No, and No
No, a theory is not a belief. It is something that is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (something which you just conceded) there is nothing to “believe”, no leap of faith. A theory must be reproducible and falsifiable.
No, if a theory is supported by the preponderance of the evidence there are no “serious” defects
and No, faith is not required for science. A Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist scholar would have wieldy varying approaches to the concept of ID and its implications. But Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist (or atheist) scientists would reach the same conclusions on an observable set of data.
S
Steve_Andersen
Guest
Huiou Theou:
that was “specious” not speciesHi Steve,…
Are you also implying that general relativity evolved as a new species?
I
ISABUS
Guest
"When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, ‘A shower is coming,’ and so it comes to pass. And when you see the south wind blow, you say, ‘There will be a scorching heat,’ and so it comes to pass. You hypocrites! you know how to judge the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that you do not judge this time? But why even of yourselves do you not judge what is right? " Jesus (Luke, Chap. 12. Ver.54-57)
THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
"The Academy is an independent body within the Holy See and enjoys freedom of research. Although its rebirth was the result of an initiative promoted by the Roman Pontiff and it is under the direct protection of the ruling Pope, it organises its own activities in an autonomous way in line with the goals which are set out in its statutes:
"The Pontifical Academy of Sciences has as its goal the promotion of the progress of the mathematical, physical and natural sciences, and the study of related epistemological questions and issues.1 Its deliberations and the studies it engages in, like the membership of its Academicians, are not influenced by factors of a national, political or religious character. For this reason, the Academy is a valuable source of objective scientific information which is made available to the Holy See and to the international scientific community.
“Today, the work of the Academy covers six main areas: a) fundamental science; b) the science and technology of global questions and issues; c) science in favour of the problems of the Third World; d) the ethics and politics of science; e) bioethics; and f) epistemology. The disciplines involved are sub-divided into nine fields: the disciplines of physics and related disciplines; astronomy; chemistry; the earth and environment sciences; the life sciences (botany, agronomy, zoology, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, the neurosciences, surgery); mathematics; the applied sciences; and the philosophy and history of sciences.”
bringyou.to/PAS.PDF
The Vatican’s Academians can be found on the VATICAN website! Click on this url:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/index_10121999.htm
Then click on:
List of the Academicians
My gracious, what do I see . . . Stephen W. HAWKING ! (He’s agnostic or atheist. Isn’t he?)
Who don’t I see? Michael Behe. (Maybe one day.) Why don’t ya all go down the list and find out which Vatican scientists will be deciding on ID for us. Woudn’t this be the most logical approach for us, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned?
(Off topic: There is “not a single Creationist in their ranks” and this really upsets Sungenis. . . according to this website
bringyou.to/apologetics/p63.htm
You’ve proven to be useful though. Thanks for the PDF!)
[For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be. It’s time to dream . . .the last obstacle of my day has been tossed away into the aether.]
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Steve Andersen:
One must believe that any evidence which does not agree with the theory will be explained away, or a ‘minor’ variatiton correct it.
Faith is required for science! faith in the scientific method.
If one cannot believe that a fallacy can produce truth, one cannot believe in the scientific method at all.
Just because something has happened before, does not mean it will happen again. That is a fallacy, yet science derives all of its success from just that fallacy. It’s the best tool we have, but it is fallible.
You mean: the predictions of a theory can be experimentally verified by skeptics and there are not assumptions in the theory which lie outside the experimental domain.
OK.
But none of this changes that a theory can contain a serious flaw.
A flaw which has not been discovered, or purposely overlooked.
Special relativity is a “Well tested” theory. If the restrictions are adhered to, special relativity always gives the appropriate result in all restricted circumstances. So, special relativity is more than just a theory, it is a well tested theory. Ironically, it is also equivalent to some aether interpretations – right down to the time dialation effect everyone is wowed by.
Because, under a certain condition (acceleration), a serious flaw appeared – the twin paradox – Einstein went on to create a theory which is a superset of the special theory of relativity as an attempt to remedy the flaw.
– But –
General relativity can’t fully be tested. The unassignability of the universal constant which Einstein himself regretted, is a serious flaw. Until that value is assigned, the theory will never be well tested. ( I have other problems with General relativity as well, but let’s not go there. )
A preponderance is a majority, not a totality.
One must believe that any evidence which does not agree with the theory will be explained away, or a ‘minor’ variatiton correct it.
Faith is required for science! faith in the scientific method.
If one cannot believe that a fallacy can produce truth, one cannot believe in the scientific method at all.
Just because something has happened before, does not mean it will happen again. That is a fallacy, yet science derives all of its success from just that fallacy. It’s the best tool we have, but it is fallible.
Ummm … the theory can be copied and forged?
You mean: the predictions of a theory can be experimentally verified by skeptics and there are not assumptions in the theory which lie outside the experimental domain.
OK.
But none of this changes that a theory can contain a serious flaw.
A flaw which has not been discovered, or purposely overlooked.
Special relativity is a “Well tested” theory. If the restrictions are adhered to, special relativity always gives the appropriate result in all restricted circumstances. So, special relativity is more than just a theory, it is a well tested theory. Ironically, it is also equivalent to some aether interpretations – right down to the time dialation effect everyone is wowed by.
Because, under a certain condition (acceleration), a serious flaw appeared – the twin paradox – Einstein went on to create a theory which is a superset of the special theory of relativity as an attempt to remedy the flaw.
– But –
General relativity can’t fully be tested. The unassignability of the universal constant which Einstein himself regretted, is a serious flaw. Until that value is assigned, the theory will never be well tested. ( I have other problems with General relativity as well, but let’s not go there. )
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Huiou Theou:
“Reproduceable” means other scientists can perform the experiments or study the data and get the same results.
“Falsifiable” means the proponents of the theory state conditions which, if met, would show the theory is false.
In the case of evolution, the data includes the fossil record and DNA. Other scientists are welcome to go into the fossil record and see if they can find modern plants and animals existing in very early layers. Other scientists are welcome to examine the DNA of living creatures and note the relationships. If they find different results then we have a problem with the theory.
To falsify evolution, proponents of the theory willingly admit that evolution would be proven false if it could be shown that:
You’ve just illustrated your problem – you don’t understand the language of science.
“Reproduceable” means other scientists can perform the experiments or study the data and get the same results.
“Falsifiable” means the proponents of the theory state conditions which, if met, would show the theory is false.
In the case of evolution, the data includes the fossil record and DNA. Other scientists are welcome to go into the fossil record and see if they can find modern plants and animals existing in very early layers. Other scientists are welcome to examine the DNA of living creatures and note the relationships. If they find different results then we have a problem with the theory.
To falsify evolution, proponents of the theory willingly admit that evolution would be proven false if it could be shown that:
- The earth is very young – only a few hundred thousand years old instead of billions.
- The plants and animals we have now have always existed and can be found in the most ancient fossils.
- DNA analysis no relation exist between apparently similar species.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Huiou Theou:
Peace
Tim
That’s absurd. If ID wants to be taken seriously, they have to establish their position by producing at least one example of what they claim. Reducible complexity is not, as far as I know, a component of evolution.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Huiou Theou:
You said:
By the way, if you had read all of this thread, I don’t think you would wonder what I believe.
Peace
Tim
You mean you can’t tell just by the fact that I completly deny the possibility that ID is science?
You said:
I say God cannot be part of a scientific theory. Am I, in your opinion, an athiest? Am I lying in my profile?
By the way, if you had read all of this thread, I don’t think you would wonder what I believe.
Peace
Tim
B
BibleReader
Guest
Oh, my heavens! I go away for a few months and the fundamentalists are beating the drums!
Evolution is theistic. It is not a different religion. What we call “evolution” is simply the way God does things.
Evolution has been caught in action, and not simply in the English moth case. In the Galopagos Islands, scientists studying birds there watched in astonishment as a species of bird native to the Galopagos developed long, powerful beaks necessary for survival by enabling the species to grasp and crack large thick-shelled seeds available for food during a drought. The members of the species which retained the tiny beaks died-off. It was pure natural selection.
God did this. It’s not a God-less mechanism. God arranged for species He wills to go on, on Earth, to develop different characteristics due to what look to us like randomly-occurring genetic changes. The changes frequently accommodate environmental change, and enable the genetically-amended version of the species to flourish.
God chose to do things this way. Fundamentalists who cry that God would not do things this way are telling The Boss how to run things. They have no right to do so.
Those who demand “transitional forms” in the fossil record – “missing links” – are likewise unjustifiably imposing their expectations on the fossil-forming process. With the emergence of the Nemisis Theory for fossil formation, which argues that the Solar System is really a binary star system, which features the Sun inside the Solar System and a dark brown star nicknamed Nemisis orbiting the Sun in a highly elongated orbit orbit taking it in and out of the Solar System every several million years, we have the mechanism we need to explain our odd fossil record: Once every several million years, Nemisis’ orbit brings it in through the Oort Cloud into the Solar System, dragging with it millions of rocks and snowballs from the Oort Cloud. These rocks and snowballs become meteorites and comets, which are attracted to and slam into the Sun, the planets and their moons. Thus, every body without an eroding atmosphere is covered with craters in our Solar System. On Earth, this multi-million-year-long process thus pounds our planet with killer-level meteorites only periodically. A huge meteorite pulled-in from the Oort Cloud by Nemisis is attracted to the Earth, and slams into it. The blast causes terrifying changes on the globe. The atmosphere is blasted and burned away, but life is bombarded with murderous solar radiation for only a few days – the impact blast, earthquakes and volcanoes raise an enormous worldwide dust cloud, filtering out the Sun’[s rays, plunging the world into an “instant Ice Age.” The dust cloud settles quickly, so that life on Earth is subject to extraordinarily frigid temperatures, and Sunlight unfiltered by the upper atmosphere. Even bacteria can’t stand the “double whammy” in the frigid places on Earth’s surface. So, animals killed by the cataclysm *don’t rot, because the rotting bacteria are dead. Instead, they are smothered in the dust from the dust cloud brought down by rain, and, un-rotted, can form fossils.
Because Oort Cloud meteorites are filled with the rare element Iridium, the dust cloud is heavily laced with Iridium, so that fossil layers on Earth are always filled with Iridium.
Bottom line: There are very few “transitional forms” – “missing links” – in the fossil record because fossils only form when rotting bacteria are likewise killed, during the Nemisis catastrophes occurring once every several million years.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Orogeny, If you had read all that I said, you would not be misinterpreting what I said either.
I meant, ‘the belief that God does not exist’ would impinge on whether or not one could accept a theory which presupposes God.
That is very clear. An atheist would not accept ID because it invokes God. This is clear from the definition of an atheist.
Being an atheist is a sufficient reason to reject ID.
You are correct, there was a statement that I missed where you claimed God made everything. I had read the thread, but somehow I missed that point. It was only made once, and when I requested the info, you beat around the bush severely.
The statement and question was in response to this non-seqeter.
Science is a religion to Atheists. It is a controllable religion.
As a Catholic, Tim, something which is not Science (the Catholic Church) can have a say about scientific theories inasmuch as they affect faith and morals. So it is possible for something which is NOT science to have something to say about science.
ID is not the Catholic church, but it does have something to say about the science of evolution.
I am not trying to prove God by negative gaps, nor am I insiting that everyone accept ID as a proof of God.
I do think that the argument of irreducable complexity affects some theories of evoltion – especially non-theistic ones.
God can interfere miraculously in the world.
I find it really sad that you would drag a simple misunderstanding out over this many postings. My desire in asking the question was to eliminate a possibility.
Are there examples of irreducable complexity which Dawin’s theory cannot explain? I think there are, that is one reason I posted the earlier Catholic Answers article link.
I also think there are also many perfectly valid speciations which are driven by what appears to be natural selection.
I don’t prove God by the gaps, but I do believe in miracles.
People who do not believe that anything in nature could be a miracle, but that God only works by nature, are heading directly toward pantheism or a watchmaker God.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Orogeny,
I remember my wife’s text from highschool. What a scandal when it was discovered that the jaw was FILED to fit the skull.
Took a foresic scientist to discover that as I remember.
In physics class we were taught that at non-relativistic speeds classical theories of motion are valid. Not a sticker, but oral tradition.
This is quite Ironic. How many times have the biology textbooks changed already because the scientific community discovered to their chagrin that the poster boy missing link was really a forgery.
I remember my wife’s text from highschool. What a scandal when it was discovered that the jaw was FILED to fit the skull.
Took a foresic scientist to discover that as I remember.
In physics class we were taught that at non-relativistic speeds classical theories of motion are valid. Not a sticker, but oral tradition.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Huiou Theou:
Tim
I didn’t beat around the bush, I actually answered your question before you even asked it. I continued on because I get tired of having my faith questioned every time I get involved in discussions involving science. In this case, I had already made a statement relevant to your question.
No, it’s not.
Agreed. Anyone or any organization can say anything it wants about science.
To date, as far as my limited knowledge has taken me, there has been no irreducibly complex structures found. Until then, it has no bearing on evolution.
Agreed.
You find that sad? I responded to your posts. You may have known what you meant, but I didn’t get the same meaning from reading your posts. You didn’t have to respond. I wouldn’t be sad.
As do I.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Huiou Theou:
Peace
Tim
I give up. How many?
What was that? A forensic what? Scientist? Oh, so science does work!
Peace
Tim
P
piety101
Guest
Come to think of it, my grandfather sure had a lot of hair on his chest? Seriously though, do you really believe our creator God once was swinging from a tree? Evolution denies a creator period.
Seriously though, do you really believe our creator God once was swinging from a tree? Evolution denies a creator period.
B
Brad
Guest
. Instead, they are smothered in the dust from the dust cloud brought down by rain, and, un-rotted, can form fossils.
Because Oort Cloud meteorites are filled with the rare element Iridium, the dust cloud is heavily laced with Iridium, so that fossil layers on Earth are always filled with Iridium.
Bottom line: There are very few “transitional forms” – “missing links” – in the fossil record because fossils only form when rotting bacteria are likewise killed, during the Nemisis catastrophes occurring once every several million years.
And this is more believable than the great flood?
So when you cannot substantiate a theory involving transitional fossils, you come up with another unsubstantiated theory and say, so there! That’s a very effective convincer. For school children perhaps.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
sometimes
No irreducably complex structures found,
Really?
The first DNA sequence for the basic building block of life – a protein is one.
DNA may be modified incrementally, but the generation of the first protein/sugar molecules by DNA from slime?
www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309fea3.asp
Comment on that link.
Yes it is. I have not always had the faith I do now.
I bellieved more in science than in God.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Huiou Theou:
I don’t want to start another line of discussion here, but we are not discussing how life began. I know that some on this forum say that evolution and the beginning of life are the same or at least related, but they really aren’t. The theory of evolution works just fine without any information regarding how evolving life began.
I personally believe that life started when God started it. I don’t accept that life just arose from nothing.
As a side note, while I have enjoyed the discussion, I am leaving for a weeks worth of vacation (yeah!!!), so I won’t be visiting the forum for a while. I don’t want you to think I am ignoring you!
Peace
Tim
I read the article and, to be honest, I was disapointed. I could have very well been reading from AIG. It is certainly at odds with much of what is included in the International Theological Commission document.sometimes
No irreducably complex structures found,
Really?
The first DNA sequence for the basic building block of life – a protein is one.
DNA may be modified incrementally, but the generation of the first protein/sugar molecules by DNA from slime?
www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309fea3.asp
Comment on that link.
I don’t want to start another line of discussion here, but we are not discussing how life began. I know that some on this forum say that evolution and the beginning of life are the same or at least related, but they really aren’t. The theory of evolution works just fine without any information regarding how evolving life began.
I personally believe that life started when God started it. I don’t accept that life just arose from nothing.
Well then, in your case you are right.
As a side note, while I have enjoyed the discussion, I am leaving for a weeks worth of vacation (yeah!!!), so I won’t be visiting the forum for a while. I don’t want you to think I am ignoring you!
Peace
Tim
- Status