I apologize, I edited that post to adress the topic we were talking about. Maybe you can re read it.Distances are altered, which affects the force due to gravity.
So if you don't stop you will be blocked permanently like the other user was today. .
What strange questions. If you said you were a Christian, or a Communist, or a believer in reincarnation then I would know certain things about you, because I know certain things about them. If you say your are a proponent of Intelligent Design then I know the kinds of things you believe, because the views of Intelligent Design proponents are very well known and documented, as is the fact that went down in hilarious legal flames over a decade ago and have never since recovered. If they had, I would know about it, because it would have been widely reported. It's good to see that there is a huge contrast between Intelligent Design advocates before and after the trial. Before, they were very active - publishing books, writing papers, a huge media presence, getting into debates. Then they got their chance before an independent judge and were exposed as the frauds they are (I am of course speaking of the Intelligent Design movement, not of any individual Christians on CF!) and we've heard very little from them since, which is good news for education and science both.Sir, you know what I am more than myself? You know what IDer's are more than themselves? You rely on 10 year old textbooks? Because certainly IDer's don't ever change?
Really? Please do point out any place where I have been rude to you. It's quite possible that I have, inadvertently, I assure you. I will then be happy to apologise for these.I appreciate you willing to look and debate this, but it is the insults that I don't jive with. So if you don't stop you will be blocked permanently like the other user was today. I don't appreciate your comments simply because they are typically rude.
"A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith."I am not the one recruiting on someone else's website.
It sounds quite insulting, to be honest. Perhaps you could rephrase the quote yourself if you wish to discuss it.The atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.
-Francis Thomson
Let's talk about this quote. Does it fall on deaf ears, or does it resonate?
What strange questions. If you said you were a Christian, or a Communist, or a believer in reincarnation then I would know certain things about you, because I know certain things about them. If you say your are a proponent of Intelligent Design then I know the kinds of things you believe, because the views of Intelligent Design proponents are very well known and documented, as is the fact that went down in hilarious legal flames over a decade ago and have never since recovered. If they had, I would know about it, because it would have been widely reported. It's good to see that there is a huge contrast between Intelligent Design advocates before and after the trial. Before, they were very active - publishing books, writing papers, a huge media presence, getting into debates. Then they got their chance before an independent judge and were exposed as the frauds they are (I am of course speaking of the Intelligent Design movement, not of any individual Christians on CF!) and we've heard very little from them since, which is good news for education and science both.
I think it's more likely, to be honest, that you don't really understand what Intelligent Design is, including the history of the movement and its dishonest motivations (revealed, in detail, at the trial).
I think you missed this post:Distances are altered, which affects the force due to gravity.
Anyway, all this is arbitrary because most laws are still intact even though we don't understand the details. Did the law of gravity go away becuase we did not understand general relitivity? It did not. so the law still existed (although by another name), and we understand them more and more as science progresses. But the point that we all are not floating in space right now, shows that the law is still in effect. Also, what about the law of conservation of energy?
they were simply modified, they were not entirely replaced. It was still a law of gravity, but a modified law from a new scientist, but it was still the same law of gravity. And in the future it may be modified again. The point is that it's still the same law of gravity , be it a relativistic model or a newtonian model.The point is that things that were called laws (motion, gravity) were found to be in error, and had to be replaced with something better. The only reason we're still using those old formulae from Newtonian mechanics is because they're good approximations most of the time, and they're much simpler than the full, relativistic versions. And again, the law of gravity isn't just that gravity exists. It's the formula giving the relationship between force, masses and distance.
Newton's laws held up for a long time before we started discovering errors. We can't be sure that the law of conservation of energy will hold up permanently.
they were simply modified, they were not entirely replaced. It was still a law of gravity, but a modified law from a new scientist, but it was still the same law of gravity. And in the future it may be modified again. The point is that it's still the same law of gravity , be it a relativistic model or a newtonian model.
you sly dog, you didn't tell me the newtonian model was also called a law:No. It's general relativity now, which is not referred to as a law.
I am not at all surprised by that, although I must admit, I am a bit surprised that you would admit it.where did you think I got my argument that facts cannot be proven. It started from reading and modifying the failing views of previous ID'ers. (2005 trial)
The reason they say that is because they know perfectly well that their only hope of success is to avoid the appearance of being linked to religion.But currently, they are not tied to creationism in any way. If you talk to discovery institute, it is not a christian organization.
Hehe. Of course they aren't.They are scientists from the top schools.
Evolution is one of the most solidly accepted and studied facts and theories in the whole of science. It's not up to me to debate it with you, it's up to you to explain why you think the whole scientific community is incorrect.If we were to debate evolution in a serious fashion (not just insulting and belittling), you would come of up with serious questions for me to research, and I would be forced to retreat and do study on it.
Of course you would.At that point I would normally look up various evidences for evolution on a sub site of discovery institute to find alternative peer reviews into it.
These are not things to be proud of, gradyll. But thank you for making the intellectual poverty of your approach plain for us all.Most of my views on ID are from discovery institute. I don't use ken ham and kent hovind and others. Sometimes they have good insights into things. But normally I use the scientific articles from sub sites of discovery institute.
Of course they are. Creationism has no model of its own, except for "God did it" and so the only thing they can do is attempt to point out problems with evolution. Intelligent Design is nothing but the latest attempt to do this, no different to Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, except that they pretend to be scientists.They have also pushed a curriculum called "teach the controversy" and it is talking about what I talk about, basically the weaknesses of evolution, not only the strengths.
That is 100% true.It is important to not be self deceived...
The courts, the scientific community and everybody in the world who has heard of ID and is not a proponent of it, say otherwise.In conclusion, ID is not creationism.
That's good to hear, but doesn't mean their ideas are any less transparently ridiculous.It hasn't been the same since the failed court case in 2005, where ID'ers changed their view on if intelligent design should be taught in school. discovery institute actually does not feel people are qualified to teach intelligent design and do not push for the legalization of intelligent design in public schools.
This is basically an admission that they have nothing on their side. If they could actually produce any new ideas, the science community would welcome and reward them. But of course, all they have is a warmed-over repetition of the teleological argument.You would basically have to be qualified as a top debater, to teach it. Simply because you are fighting the establishment, and 100 percent of government funded research. Which ultimately fails to produce.
I said discovery institute has researchers from top schools and you reply with a publically edited Wikipedia page where anyone can edit it without a degree. If that is your standard, then it is no wonder you believe "Evolution is one of the most solidly accepted and studied facts and theories in the whole of science." Even though you can provide not a single evidence of it. I feel that I have sufficiently refuted much of what was posted, feel free to question it.I am not at all surprised by that, although I must admit, I am a bit surprised that you would admit it.
The reason they say that is because they know perfectly well that their only hope of success is to avoid the appearance of being linked to religion.
Hehe. Of course they aren't.
Let's use wikipedia - it's a quick way of posting about the obvious:
The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative[4][5][6] non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept[7][8][9] of intelligent design (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to permit the teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science courses in place of accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.
Evolution is one of the most solidly accepted and studied facts and theories in the whole of science. It's not up to me to debate it with you, it's up to you to explain why you think the whole scientific community is incorrect.
Of course you would.
These are not things to be proud of, gradyll. But thank you for making the intellectual poverty of your approach plain for us all.
Of course they are. Creationism has no model of its own, except for "God did it" and so the only thing they can do is attempt to point out problems with evolution. Intelligent Design is nothing but the latest attempt to do this, no different to Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, except that they pretend to be scientists.
That is 100% true.
The courts, the scientific community and everybody in the world who has heard of ID and is not a proponent of it, say otherwise.
Intelligent Design is Creationism in a lab coat.
That's good to hear, but doesn't mean their ideas are any less transparently ridiculous.
This is basically an admission that they have nothing on their side. If they could actually produce any new ideas, the science community would welcome and reward them. But of course, all they have is a warmed-over repetition of the teleological argument.
I said discovery institute has researchers from top schools and you reply with a publically edited Wikipedia page where anyone can edit it without a degree. If that is your standard, then it is no wonder you believe "Evolution is one of the most solidly accepted and studied facts and theories in the whole of science." Even though you can provide not a single evidence of it. I feel that I have sufficiently refuted much of what was posted, feel free to question it.
Oh, don't worry. I wouldn't use Wikipedia for anything that is actually under debate. But it's useful when informing people of basic things they may have missed - the date of the French revolution, for example, or conversions between currencies, or capitals of countries...or the fact that Intelligent Design is a religious and political pseudoscience.I said discovery institute has researchers from top schools and you reply with a publically edited Wikipedia page where anyone can edit it without a degree.
Indeed! Poor me. All I have on my side is every reputable scientist and every school of science, and all you have on your side is Michael Behe and the Disco Institute.If that is your standard, then it is no wonder you believe "Evolution is one of the most solidly accepted and studied facts and theories in the whole of science."
Actually, the evidence for evolution is so enormous it's kind of funny to run into people asking about it. Basically, it's just about every scientist in the world, and every school of science.Even though you can provide not a single evidence of it.
Tell me, have you every seen Monty Python's Black Knight sketch?I feel that I have sufficiently refuted much of what was posted, feel free to question it.
And while you're considering cvanwey's excellent point, @gradyll , why not also ask yourself if the Discovery Institute was telling the truth when it published, privately, a document saying that its long-term aim was to destroy science as it presently stood, "to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God".And then ask yourself, what's more likely? 1. That there exists a global conspiracy among researchers across all disciplines with differing religious view points (and/or) no religious viewpoints particularly? 2. Or, that maybe, just maybe, the ones fighting evolution, whom are attempting to poke holes in it, are doing so to suit their own personal preexisting beliefs/agendas?
They rarely saw the best theistic arguments. Also, prior the 1950's the evidence for God was not as strong. But after the 1950's the discovery of DNA and all the confirmation for the BB theory plus the anthropic principle were strong evidence for the existence of God.Maybe consider that instead of everyone being conspiratorially brainwashed, they are simple unpersuaded by theistic arguments.
I am primarily referring to His existence. This was the next step after you realize He exists, then you want to find out whether He is good, and since the bible is backed up by scientific and historical evidence it is more likely to be of divine origin than any other religious book.rm: For example you write that, "...His communication to us has told us that He still exists and is perfect and good..." Do you see how this is unconvincing to those who don't already believe?
The Koran is not backed up by science and history like the bible is. Much of it was borrowed from the bible except for the moral teaching is vastly inferior to the bible as it allows for beating your wife and killing infidels.rm: People say the same thing about the Koran--I don't find that argument convincing when Muslims give it; why would it be compelling when you do?
I am not saying they are brainwashed, just that the educators dont present the strongest evidence for the theistic position and denigrate students that are theists. See all my previous posts for strong evidence for the christian God.rm: Look, the world is changing; religious thinking in the West is in decline. You are going do have to do more intellectual work to convince a growing skeptical population that there is an invisible, all knowing God who want a relationship with them. Don't just preach or convince the already convinced. Bring real, hard evidence. But, don't say we are all brainwashed just to get believers off the hook. I'm one of those brainwashed educators, by the way.
No they are assuming what we are trying to prove, if the evolution of the eye was thru many tiny steps, it would be impossible for all the steps to be functional. That is why they can't provide the steps they just assume them with just so stories.That is not how the evolutionary process works. The eye evolved through small degrees because those allele changes that helped a creature detect light increased reproduction, thereby passing on those genes on to the next generation. Here is a link:
Eye Evolution
and another:
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye
No, the number of vestigial organs is heading toward zero. This is a scientific fact, just like so-called junk DNA. See my post to R. Miller about the problem with eye evolution.Of course we find vestigial organs all over the place. That’s not controversial. But I’m not talking about vestigial organs, I’m talking about organs that never had a function but slowly developed one over generations. That’s the sort of “half eye” you’re suggesting we should find. And that’s not correct.
No, you’re just assuming the steps couldn’t be functional. Evolution requires every step to be functional, so if the eye indeed evolved, as all evidence suggests, then it evolved from a long line of functional precursors. And you’re just factually incorrect about vestigial organs, I’m afraid your sources have failed you.No, the number of vestigial organs is heading toward zero. This is a scientific fact, just like so-called junk DNA. See my post to R. Miller about the problem with eye evolution.