Context of this quotation?You are quick Ed. You beat me to it. StA - what are your comments?
Why was Fr Coyne sacked?Context of this quotation?
That’s my point. You really want to support a theory that could as easilyWhy is that a flaw? Science cannot venture into philosophy. Who the designer is is for philosophers to handle.
ID is simply positing that there is a designer.
Yes. See above.Is it testable?
Yes. The Noah’s arc situation is one example as is all the things Darwin wrote on in On Origin of Species. Have you read Darwin?Is it predictable?
Exactly.From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth… ~Acts 17:26
What evidence does science provide that Paul, inspired by God, is wrong?
He wasn’t.Why was Fr Coyne sacked?
Whoops… Sorry.Why is that a flaw? Science cannot venture into philosophy. Who the designer is is for philosophers to handle.
You really want to support a theory that could just as easily defend the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn as the designer of life as your God? It seems theologically unsound to do so and not fight for the whole magilla.
That is an English translation from the Greek. Does anyone know the original Greek for Acts 17:26? I can’t find it but I’m finding sources that state the word “man” is incorrect - that it can be translated as “blood” or “mouth” and I don’t know what else.Speaking generally, the only reason a more nuanced explanation exists is to show that the Church does in fact have something to say about science and that it does in fact matter to the secular world. However, “divine intervention” is not a scientific concept and will be immediately rejected ny nontheists as part of any scientific explanation.
I don’t understand for a microsecond why it is important to translate Adam as simply man. We continue to use phrases today like, “until man developed tools” to describe all of mankind. And let’s go to Romans 5:12
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
“by one man” It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
God bless,
Ed
ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς, ὁρίσας προστεταγμένους καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν,That is an English translation from the Greek. Does anyone know the original Greek for Acts 17:26? I can’t find it but I’m finding sources that state the word “man” is incorrect - that it can be translated as “blood” or “mouth” and I don’t know what else.
I think we need to go back to the Greek just to make sure there isn’t a translation problem.
I’m leaving the forum for a few days. I’ll try to find out what I can.
FOR PETE’S SAKE, WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? Some of you people here obviously don’t understand science and by that I mean that not only do you not understand scientific method, you also don’t understand the realms of phenomena where a scientific approach is appropriate.From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth… ~Acts 17:26
What evidence does science provide that Paul, inspired by God, is wrong?
Yes. Richard Lenski has been conducting an ongoing experiment since 1988. I would encourage you to read his papers. ‘But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use… Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity’ (“Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab,” New Scientist, 9 June 2008).That’s my point. You really want to support a theory that could as easily
Is evo[lution… it’s really not that hard to write out] observable?
Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debateHe wasn’t.
Has the Pink Unicorn told you of his existence?Whoops… Sorry.
You really want to support a theory that could just as easily defend the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn as the designer of life as your God? It seems theologically unsound to do so and not fight for the whole magilla.
That’s my point. In addition to not being science, it is theologically unsound.Has the Pink Unicorn told you of his existence?
But to the point - ID the science says nothing on who the designer is.
Let me repeat again - ID the science says nothing on who the designer is.
This is really important.
ID is not theology so why is it unsound?That’s my point. In addition to not being science, it is theologically unsound.
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.The *Daily Mail *is a right-wing tabloid that is essentially worthless as a news source, and is involved in numerous libel suits. If that’s as good as you’ve got Buffalo, you are welcome to it.Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debate
Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-401950/Pope-sacks-astronomer-evolution-debate.html#ixzz0neO2DX4O
Because its theological supposition is that something (i.e. god) created those structures. Aside from the fact that it begs the question because anything sufficiently advanced to create ‘irreducibly complex’ structures must itself be irreducibly complex which must therefore be designed. This leads to an infinite regress (unless it’s turtles all the way down).ID is not theology so why is it unsound?
I have never seen an actual example of irreducible complexity that cannot be explained by evolution. Further, why does the National Science Teachers Association term intelligent design ‘psuedoscience’ and was it found to not be science in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District if it is–as you suggest–science?Now to the science part -
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Code:Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
We can try this - how many more will you need?The *Daily Mail *is a right-wing tabloid that is essentially worthless as a news source, and is involved in numerous libel suits. If that’s as good as you’ve got Buffalo, you are welcome to it.
I’ll take it from George Coyne’s own mouth – I had lunch with him a few months ago – and from numerous mutual friends who know him well. He stepped down as director of the Vatican Observatory for health reasons and because at 73 he was finding the job rather arduous.
StAnastasia
I could see that coming from a mile away (or quite a few posts ago as we would say in threadspeak).I’ll take it from George Coyne’s own mouth – I had lunch with him a few months ago
Very few people who are fired tell you that they were fired. They “decided to pursue other opportunities” is another good example. I suppose the “need to spend more time with my family” would have worked except that he’s celibate.– and from numerous mutual friends who know him well. He stepped down as director of the Vatican Observatory for health reasons and because at 73 he was finding the job rather arduous.
StAnastasia
Specified Complexity together with IC is a whole 'nother ball game.Because its theological supposition is that something (i.e. god) created those structures. Aside from the fact that it begs the question because anything sufficiently advanced to create ‘irreducibly complex’ structures must itself be irreducibly complex which must therefore be designed. This leads to an infinite regress (unless it’s turtles all the way down).
I have never seen an actual example of irreducible complexity that cannot be explained by evolution. Further, why does the National Science Teachers Association term intelligent design ‘psuedoscience’ and was it found to not be science in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District if it is–as you suggest–science?