An atheists world (2)

[lasthero]

funny that the wikipedia states some believed hoyle was an "athiest for ID"

thanks, I didn't know that I will add it to my list of athiests who support ID.

(btw- he believed some things came from space on asteroids and introduced themselves, but He also invented the steady state theory)

besides what if dawkins allowed for the possibility of aliens as apposed to ID? would you still read his works?

Richard Dawkins believes extraterrestrials created man! - YouTube

Oh, dude. You didn't. Come on.

I know the context of this, and its your worst example so far. I'll explain when I get home.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

funny that the wikipedia states some believed hoyle was an "athiest for ID"

thanks, I didn't know that I will add it to my list of athiests who support ID.

(btw- he believed some things came from space on asteroids and introduced themselves, but He also invented the steady state theory)

besides what if dawkins allowed for the possibility of aliens as apposed to ID? would you still read his works?

Isn't aliens basically the same as ID? I believe Behe once said the ID could be a time traveling biochemist. The problem with ID remains the same, there's no evidence of the existence of any designer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with the term "I.D." is that it is largely undefined. Originally it meant creationism in disguise, today it can mean that to even the first cell coming from God.

So until our creationists define I.D. I will be asking them which version they believe in. I suppose the easiest way is to find if they think we share a common ancestor with other apes. If they don't they clearly believe in the creationism in sheep's clothing version.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem with the term "I.D." is that it is largely undefined.

Which word is confusing you? intelligent or design?

 

[bhsmte]

"Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982. The 46% of Americans who today believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is little changed from the 44% who believed this 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question."

This was quoted from the site I gave.

Does this not go against what was said earlier that evolution is the supreme belief? I know nothing about "Gallup Polls", or their accuracies. I do know that Dr. Andrew Newberg is more publicized then some of the wanna be someone here.

But, it is noted that this information did not come from the Great Science Journal of Empirical wisdom.

I have seen the same data you have posted above, which shows a slight majority is on the side of evolution in the US.

The % of people who believe in evolution over creation in other parts of the world, is quite a bit higher than the US.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Which word is confusing you? intelligent or design?

For my money it's the word "design" that is the most poorly defined but the word "intelligent" is not without its issues.

 

[AV1611VET]

For my money it's the word "design" that is the most poorly defined but the word "intelligent" is not without its issues.

I'm of the opposite persuasion.

These guys are whip-smart in worldly things, but as far as theology is concerned, they don't know embedded age from omphalos, miracles from magic, or creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia.

And it gets worse from there -- much worse.

 

[lasthero]

funny that the wikipedia states some believed hoyle was an "athiest for ID"

thanks, I didn't know that I will add it to my list of athiests who support ID.

(btw- he believed some things came from space on asteroids and introduced themselves, but He also invented the steady state theory)

besides what if dawkins allowed for the possibility of aliens as apposed to ID? would you still read his works?

Richard Dawkins believes extraterrestrials created man! - YouTube

First off, I haven't read any of Dawkin's books, and I don't even care that much for the man. The greath thing about atheism is that I don't have to worship anybody blindly.

Now, for the story behind this.

Short story: Ben Stein is lying.

Long story:

Potholer54: "Golden Crocoduck nominees 2012 (Part 3)" - YouTube

If you don't feel like watching the video - you should, though; Potholer is a real funny guy, very genteel - basically, Ben Stein asked him if there were any circumstances where he could imagine that intelligent design was possiblle, and Dawkins responded with what you hear. The dishonesty comes in with how Stein edited the video - the question Stein asked was cut, so it looks like Dawkins is advocating for intelligent design by aliens. He's not. Stein gave him a hypothetical, and he answered it.

Ben Stein doesn't believe that aliens seeded life on Earth, and he's not allowing for the possibility. Ben Stein edited the video to make him look like he's taking a position he doesn't hold.

But hey, I'm sure that's not a problem for you. What does it matter if you're misrepresenting someone's position, so long as it helps your cause, right? After all, it's not like you believe you're being watched by an all-powerful, omnibenevolent diety who warned you not to bear false witness.

Oh. Wait.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm of the opposite persuasion.

These guys are whip-smart in worldly things, but as far as theology is concerned, they don't know embedded age from omphalos, miracles from magic, or creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia.

And it gets worse from there -- much worse.

Yet you have never been able to show any difference between those things yourself. In fact when it comes to magic you seem to have a mistaken idea what it is in the first place.

Hint, even though people like Penn and Teller are called "magicians" what they do is not magic.

Now as to ID and its countless definitions the fact that you are not disgusted with the dishonesty of your fellow Christians implies that you might not mind practicing some dishonesty yourself.


Scientists go out of their way to keep their profession clean. Christians don't seem to do so.

 

[EternalDragon]

The problem with the term "I.D." is that it is largely undefined. Originally it meant creationism in disguise, today it can mean that to even the first cell coming from God.

So until our creationists define I.D. I will be asking them which version they believe in. I suppose the easiest way is to find if they think we share a common ancestor with other apes. If they don't they clearly believe in the creationism in sheep's clothing version.

Basically it's the new upgrade to evolution theory. The only reason someone may not like it is that it represents possibly something supernatural.

You don't seem to have a problem with all the different varieties of the word "evolution".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Basically it's the new upgrade to evolution theory. The only reason someone may not like it is that it represents possibly something supernatural.

You don't seem to have a problem with all the different varieties of the word "evolution".

You know that is not true.

First off, there is no theory of ID. There is not even a testable hypothesis, at least not one that has not been debunked already.

So a little honesty if you can manage it E.D.. What version of ID do you believe in?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet you have never been able to show any difference between those things yourself.

Posts: 2,752,176

 

[Subduction Zone]

Posts: 2,752,176

An amazing admission. With over 2 million posts AV cannot show any difference between magic and miracles.

Thanks for the admission AV.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I'm of the opposite persuasion.

These guys are whip-smart in worldly things, but as far as theology is concerned, they don't know embedded age from omphalos, miracles from magic, or creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia.

And it gets worse from there -- much worse.

Ah well potayto potahto, we can't all master the subtlies of everything. In any case ID is usually sold as a worldly theory.

 

[CarlosTomy]

Basically it's the new upgrade to evolution theory.

That's an interesting and novel concept. It almost makes it seem like ID isn't some pandering attempt to sneak religious creationism into the curriculum in a trojan horse!

Certainly SOUNDS nicer than that.

The great thing about ID is that it is so close to be unfalsifiable as to nearly render it not even science. So I guess the FIRST hurdle the good people who want ID taught (and who, of course, aren't just trying to slip in some religion into the debate under a false flag) should do is actually develop a testable system by which to differentiate between a DESIGNED system and a SYSTEM THAT HAS ADAPTED OVER TIME TO FIT A NICHE.

Let's say I have a pile of sediment. It is all 20microns or less in diameter. Did a being from Neptune or some great intelligence armed with a microscope and a pair of extremely fine tweezers take go through and pick out all the particles BIGGER than 20microns?

Or did the material pass through a sieve?

Obviously there's "controversy" to be exploited here. Let's keep this argument open for a while.

The only reason someone may not like it is that it represents possibly something supernatural.

That is usually a VERY good thing to avoid when doing science. I mean supernatural agency kind of breaks science. Which is why we can't rely on it to explain as many things TODAY as it used to be able to explain (things like lightning and illness).

You don't seem to have a problem with all the different varieties of the word "evolution".

All those "varieties" (and by all the different varieties I'm not certain how many you are aware of, since all I can think of are gradualism and punctuated equilibrium) are all attempts to explain the data using non-supernatural and parsimonious explanations.

 

[CarlosTomy]

These guys are whip-smart in worldly things, but as far as theology is concerned, they don't know embedded age from omphalos, miracles from magic, or creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia.

And almost NONE of them can measure exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!

And it gets worse from there -- much worse.

Especially when dealing with stuff that random theologians just kind of make up to explain some random thought that entered their head!

 

[createdtoworship]

First off, I haven't read any of Dawkin's books, and I don't even care that much for the man. The greath thing about atheism is that I don't have to worship anybody blindly.

Now, for the story behind this.

Short story: Ben Stein is a lying skidmark.

Long story:

Potholer54: "Golden Crocoduck nominees 2012 (Part 3)" - YouTube

If you don't feel like watching the video - you should, though; Potholer is a real funny guy, very genteel - basically, Ben Stein asked him if there were any circumstances where he could imagine that intelligent design was possiblle, and Dawkins responded with what you hear. The dishonesty comes in with how Stein edited the video - the question Stein asked was cut, so it looks like Dawkins is advocating for intelligent design by aliens. He's not. Stein gave him a hypothetical, and he answered it.

So, no, I hate to ruin that bulge in your pants, but Ben Stein doesn't believe that aliens seeded life on Earth, and he's not allowing for the possibility. Ben Stein edited the video to make him look like he's taking a position he doesn't hold.

But hey, I'm sure that's not a problem for you. What does it matter if you're misrepresenting someone's position, so long as it helps your cause, right? After all, it's not like you believe you're being watched by an all-powerful, omnibenevolent diety who warned you not to bear false witness.

Oh. Wait.

so he said it, and your doc proves it. Right? Thats all we need to know thanks. I don't care about removing pats of the interview, as the movie is not an interview of dawkins, it's about ID. I am sure things would get edited the same way to save money the ohter way around, so thats no big thing.

needless to say I only watched 2 minutes.

 

[createdtoworship]

so you've just said that you'd have to see it, meaning that unless it fits your particular taste, it's either a quote mine, or an illegitimate source....you don't at all feel guilty of dishonesty here?

"It is extremely improbably that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Ye it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glace, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means." - Orgel, Leslie E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, Vol 271 October 1994

"Recent photochemical calculations by atmospheric researchers at Langley were presented at an international scientific conference last fall. They state that, at the time complex organic molecules (the precursors of living systems) were first formed from atmospheric gases the earth's atmosphere was not composed primarily of methane, ammonia and hydrogen as was previously supposed. Instead it was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor, all resulting from volcanic activity."

"Ultraviolet radiation on the earth from the young sun hay have been up to 100,000 times greater than today."

"How could life have formed and evolved in such a hostile environment? According to our calculation, there was virtually no ozone in the early atmosphere to protect against ultraviolet radiation levels that were much greater than they are today. It clearly should have affected the evolution of life on earth."

above from "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American meteorological society, vol. 63 (November 1982, pp 1328-1330

reposting, hopefully it will generate some discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so he said it, and your doc proves it. Right? Thats all we need to know thanks. I don't care about removing pats of the interview, as the movie is not an interview of dawkins, it's about ID. I am sure things would get edited the same way to save money the ohter way around, so thats no big thing.

needless to say I only watched 2 minutes.

Then you have no clue.

He showed that the questions you here in the movie were not the questions asked in the movie were not the questions that Dawkins was asked in real life.

Why do creationists defend their fellow creationists when they are caught in a lie?

 

[lasthero]

I don't care about removing pats of the interview, as the movie is not an interview of dawkins, it's about ID.

A) We weren't talking about the movie. We were talking about the clip in the movie.

B) You don't care? It doesn't matter to you that Stein manipulated video to make someone look like they said something they didn't say? Here's what I don't get - for all the junk you give 'evolutionists', I would never support someone who did what Stein did, even if he was on my side. Wrong is wrong is wrong is wrong. Period.

I am sure things would get edited the same way to save money the ohter way around, so thats no big thing.

Yeah. Edited to save money. Sure. Right. It would have been SO costly to put in the question that Dawkins was actually answering.