You know, St. Augustine was really down on people who felt that the Bible had to be literal; he felt they made other Christians look foolish.
Bad Post-Doc
You know, St. Augustine was really down on people who felt that the Bible had to be literal; he felt they made other Christians look foolish.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
After reviewing your post Illwill, it is obvious why the US District Courts, State Courts, and the US Supreme Court ruled that creationism and ID is a religion and it is ordered OUT and banned in public school science class, and that valid science be taught to national standards, and NOT religions.
You are welcome to disagree but you do not have any authority to act other wise.
Your science in nothing but a conspiracy theory heaped on top of conspiracy theories at best, claim making with out physical support, quantum leaps of faith that must conform to your interpretation of the bible. You have it in your mind that IF you can disprove evolution then that verifies your god and bible god no less.
The bottom line, the summation of your post is “god did it”, and you call that science.
To quote: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case
US District Court, John E. Jones III
United States District Judge18
(This is one of many court cases that ID/creationism LOST, in fact ID has last every court case, see findlaw.com)
“…we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”
“Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false.”
“It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”
When a person passes off ID religious doctrine as valid science that makes them fraudulent, deceptive and irresponsible with information. That person certainly is not being honest to themselves, must less honest to a Federal Judge and to the public at large. This kind of dishonesty will not be tolerated in our public schools, nor to be an influence to the developing minds of our youth.
For all practical purposes ID is dead, the supporters of ID/creationism failed in court, they were rebuked severely for their dishonesty in open public and is a mater of law and in support of the USA Constitution of separation of church and state. The ID religious camps are to be controlled, contained, and negated for the betterment of the general public, for the welfare of the nation, and to preserve the integrity of our youth, so they do not grow up to be fraudulent (fake and counterfeit) , as those that support ID/creationism.
In conclusion, it is obvious to me that you Illwill endorse the bible scripture:
Romans 3:7 (KJ)
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
ID/ creationism (poofing stuff into existence by the magic of the gods) is a religious doctrine. You can stand on your head to the contrary, being self-justified by any god you desire. Nevertheless, the USA Courts, from State to Federal, have ruled against you and your lie that ID is science.
Don
Established Member
This appears to be something I can try to clear up. Polystrate trees aren't a problem just because they exist. They aren't a problem because of how they are formed. They aren't a problem for anyone, unless it is claimed that the strata at the bottom of the tree is millions of years older than the strata at the top of the tree.Originally Posted by iceage
To interpret great age differences amongst strata which contain a common tree (polystrate) or other organic remnant, is highly absurd; and it's pretty in-your-face obvious that such interpretations are almost certainly in error.
Catastrophists of any stripe will not do this. Gradualists are the only ones who (at least used to) do this. Now that plenty of attention is being paid to the issue, they may have discontinued the practice.
Established Member
I can't make heads or tails of some of this. I'll do what I can.
Those "tribal identifiers" are how people saw themselves in those days. That's a short, incomplete list. Darwinism was welcomed by many to justify racism (leading to a lot more "tribal identifiers"), and it was just another world back then.
I do not agree with the axioms proposed by atheists in order that they might give the illusion of "disproving God". I don't think it is wise for anyone to take those axioms at face value.
I may be mistaken, but it looks like you're saying science is some sort of ultimate tool for researching history. I hope I'm mistaken.
I am pleased to see evidence of good faith on your part in your posts.
Order of Kilopi
[Moderator Note]Moderating threads that are now in the ATM (or CT) section but began elsewhere can be somewhat challenging.
For starters, ATM (or CT) ideas that were posted before the move are not, strictly speaking, subject to the special ATM/CT rule.
Second, the way the "[d]irect questions must be answered in a timely manner" works, in practice, should be clarified.
So, some clarifications.
Direct, pertinent questions, on the ATM ideas, as presented, must be answered in a timely fashion. For avoidance of doubt, those who have asked such questions before the thread was moved should ask them again, after the move.
"I don't know" or "I can't answer that", or similar, are perfectly OK answers.
"I don't understand the question, could you clarify please?", or similar, is a perfectly OK answer.
"It will take me some time to answer that, I expect to have an answer by {date}", or similar, is a perfectly OK answer.
How long is "timely"? A good rule of thumb is a week ... but it depends on things such as how actively the person proposing the ATM idea/making ATM claims is posting (for example).
For discussion of the rules, there is a thread devoted to just that: Rules discussion.
If you see a post which you think violates a BAUT rule, use the Report Post button (it's the red triangle with the black exclamation mark in it); do not discuss such posts in BAUT.
If you are uncertain of how the rules operate, or about whether a post you want to write may violate them, please PM a moderator or admin.
If you disagree with a moderator's action, please read rule #17.
[/Moderator Note]
Established Member
Are you saying that we should ignore the results of scientifically investigating history?
Senior Member
Lets see, ToSeek moved this thread to ATM at post #186, and I posted the following in post #188.
I was also getting ready to post that the "professor" would have about a week to answer such questions...I see that Nereid has covered that...
I might add that there is also another option to answering...that is to simply stop posting to this thread, but somehow I don't see that happening.
So there ya go, professor...your "fate" here is in your hands.
Order of Kilopi
I certainly hope he washed them...
Senior Member
Perhaps the professor could define the word "history" as it is used in his posts.
I'm not sure we define it the same way.
Established Member
Illwill,
I don’t care if you stay or leave. As long as the conversation stays civil, you do not damage the mechanics of the board, I would never vote for you to leave. If you start condemning people to hell, that is a direct threat, then you should leave.
This is the bottom line with the moderators, if they like you, you get to stay, if they don’t like you, you get banned. That being the case, and I am guest at a private board, it would be proper to act as a guest as if you were in another person’s house.
In the USA, the legal “limitations” on “speech” certainly apply to private organizations, public organizations, private message boards as this one, churches, schools (public and private), places of employment, and the USA Congress. All of these organizations can limit and direct speech as they see fitting, as long as they do not comit a “crime” in their directed speech, as advocating child pron. (Reference supplied on request, but do a fast Google search or go to findlaw.com and plug in “free speech”).
If you do not like the moderators of this board, then start your own board, and run it as you see fitting.
The moderators at this board have a rule, you must answer direct questions. So please answer.
YES OR NO: ID/creationism is totally dependant on a god of some kind.
Is a Muslim wrong for adopting the ID belief, as he has a different god than you?
If your answer is NO, then don’t you support the Muslim religion with the same validity as your Christian god? YES or NO.
How do you make a determination of what god did the creating?
YES or NO: You have to establish what god did the creating before you can determine what was created.
The Polynesians determined that life was hatched on the back of sea turtle by magic, why should a person give that idea more credence than your Christian god?
What would disprove ID to you Illwill?
I have 50 cents on top of my computer that Illwill will NOT answer these questions.
Don
Established Member
I am not. All evidence should be considered, and evaluated. We should then (we do whether or not we're consciously aware of it) assign a degree of certainty to the historical hypothesis in question.
If you consider Egyptology, it should be helpful. Keep in mind there are many types of evidence when dealing with history.
It might also be helpful to consider this problem: If you wanted to conduct an experiment to find out what happened in a neighboring town last week, how would you go about it? Assuming you come up with a way to do this, would the results be better than talking to eyewitnesses or consulting documents like diaries and newspapers? Which would carry more weight with you? With persons other than yourself?
I hope this helps.
Established Member
Illwill - Regarding your post:
To which I replied (among many other things you ignored):Originally Posted by Professor Illwill
Do you deny the compatibility of evolution with atheism? They dovetail perfectly! Evolution is externally (when viewed from the outside) much like a religion. Innumerable transitional forms are accepted on blind faith. But I haven't time to digress.
The second paragraph question [emphasis added] was not rhetorical. I would appreciate a reply.Originally posted by Jamini:
Evolution does not so much rule out religion as it simply doesn’t need it. There may have been some survival advantage to civilizations with varying theological beliefs; however there is a dichotomy between belief in a concept and the concept itself. If anything, religion – at least through the dark ages, was a huge detriment to evolution, as evidenced by all the information destroyed and suppressed. Science does of course continually prove that religion is simply wrong with such evidence as fossil records, carbon dating, etc. Most religions then in turn either re-write their own myths to accommodate the scientific discoveries or create new myths to discredit them. One of my all time favorites goes something like: “God put all those fossil records there just to fool you”. Boy, that god had quite a sense of humor! In fact the whole concept of organized religion would be laughable if not for all the lives that have been lost in the wars fought over opposing views of religious beliefs.
How is the analysis of indisputable evidence in any way congruent with a belief in mysticism?
Established Member
Discounting word of mouth folklore diluted over thousands of years of a church-dominated brainwashed society, what specific evidence are you suggesting we should be dealing with? If you are implying that Egyptian Hieroglyphs – written by ancient Egyptians who believed that writing was invented by the god Thoth, then wouldn’t that logic be close to the textbook definition of circular reasoning?
Established Member
I have written on this many times before and I do not think much, if any, reference is needed, as it is so simple, anyone with basic understanding of math can get the point.
It is said by the ID camp and creationist, that the odds are TOO great, for life to develop without a god. They then go on to do fuzzy math coming up with 10 zillion to 1 odds of life existing as it does on earth, so therefore a god must exist and in particular the bible god, and in exactly 7, 24 hour, days.
Take a deck of common playing cards. We know the names of each one, and we know the total number of the cards being 52. What are the chances of “the odds of” drawing the Queen of hearts on the first drawing? Simple, 1 out 52, if that failed, on the second drawing what are the chances of drawing the Queen of Hearts? 1 out 51, because one card has already been removed from the deck. Till finally, and highly possible, there is only one card left, and what is the odds of that card being the queen of hearts? 1 out 1 or 100%.
In order to figure the odds of anything we need to know two things, the total number Count) of items being examined, and the name (any name as long as there is no confusion) of each items examined.
If I show you a pile (stack) of 9x11 papers, and I do not give you the NUMBER of papers, or pages, but I tell you ONE of them has an X on it, what are the odds of you drawing (picking it out of the stack) the paper with the X on it? You have NO way to tell the odds. You could say great odds or small odds, but that is guessing, that is not figuring odds. If I show you a stack 9X11 papers, and I tell you there are 100 papers in this stack, but there is NO WAY to identify one paper from the other, what are the odds of you picking any one particular paper. You have no way to determine the odds as any paper you choose would the right one. The only correct answer would be 100%, because any paper you choose would be the right one.
So we go to the universe at large, what are the chances of life happening in this universe?
There is no way to tell the odds of, or the chances of life happening. We do not even know if there are other universe other than our own, we have not a clue. We do not know all there is in this universe, so it is impossible to figure the odds. Figuring the odds, chances of, is math, and not having the figures, means we cannot figure the odds.
So what are the chances of life happening in this universe? 100%, because it happened, unless some person wants to say life is NOT in this universe.
In common language in the observation of an event we say, “OH MY, what are the chances of that happening, that would not happen again in a million years!” But that is not figuring the odds, that is an excited utterance. Many look up and around and say, “This universe is so complex, life is SOOOO odd and strange, the odds are so great against it happening!” But this not figuring the odds, that is a “thrilled utterance”.
Emotional responses or expressions are NOT calculating odds.
It very well could be that life and biped creatures, more or less, as we are “COMMON” in this universe, we have NO WAY to make any such determination at this time. Life maybe common, or on this earth maybe the only life in existence, we have NO WAY to figure the odds one way or an other, not even close.
We do know life is here on earth, and with the knowledge that we have the very best we can determine is a 100% chance, in other words--- inevitability as we know at this time.
The odds of life being on this earth are 10 billion^1,000,000 power, so GOD must have created it! This makes good preacher talk from the pulpit, and the crowd yells, “Amen Brother, Preach IT!” but emotions are not proof of anything, and certainly not used in doing serious calculations of figuring the odds where precise information is needed.
We have not even seen the end of this universe, what is its dimensional space? What about other realms not even discovered? We have no idea. We cannot even guess what the odds are. The BB theory does not say much to a common person, other than something went BANG, and what was before that? UNKNOWN.
The ID/creation argument is used that life on this planet is like a bomb going off in a junk yard and then expect to find a TI-86 computer, with fully charged Ever-Ready batteries, compiled from the exploded garbage. Therefore, the odds are so great to the contrary, god-did-it, and in particular the Christian god, and not the Muslim god, for a fact.
Fact is we do not have the information to figure the odds of life happening. The analogy of a junk yard with exploded garbage does NOT fit the reality of a billion years after a super nova, nor the out come of a bock-hole in 14 billion years. Life maybe marvelous, and most strange, on this there is no argument, as that is an emotional response to our existence, but there is no way to figure the odds of life happening, other than 100% because it did.
To give the answer before the question is asked, is NOT science, never has been and never will be. That is NOT even a discovery process. That is total lunacy and even insanity and guaranteed stagnation of an inquisitive mind. That is all you have in the “god-did-it” answer, it answers everything but says nothing, no valuable information is gained, and certainly NOT calculating any odds.
Don
Established Member
Originally Posted by Professor Illwill
Do you deny the compatibility of evolution with atheism? They dovetail perfectly! Evolution is externally (when viewed from the outside) much like a religion. Innumerable transitional forms are accepted on blind faith. But I haven't time to digress.
I should add up the list of questions that you have not answered Illwill.
Why is atheism bad? As that is why you believe in the ID god.
You have digressed all over the spectrum of imposable claims, so why stop now?
Illwill, you have made this claim several times, atheist are bad. Tell me why you think so. Be sure to include why about 80% of all those in USA jails and prison say they are Christian, and believe in god.
This is a valid question, I would settle for a sort, one or two, sentence answer; as your total time spent, as proficient as you are at posting, about 2 minutes, 5 minutes at the most.
Do you, Illwill, have any idea what Torts are? Any idea at all? That can be a YES or a NO answer on your part.
I think theist, and cantankerous one at that, and the more fundamental the better, are needed on message boards. I would in no ways think you should be banned, NOT AT ALL. Just do not attack the person with fowl names and language, do not damage the mechanics of the board, do not make threats, and stay in an obscure part of the board, and let us have our fun.
Chances are the thread will die in a few days anyways on its own from lack of interest.
Don
Order of Kilopi
Actually, by my reading of the forum rules those are delving well into religious issues, not valid questions for this board. I thought that the ATM idea presented by Professor Illwill was that the earth (and probably the universe) were only a few thousand years old.
Speaking of which, now that this is in the ATM section, Professor Illwill, are you now ready to support the claims on the page you presented?
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Senior Member
That's the one I'm waiting for him to answer.
Order of Kilopi
Please define "low degree of confidence" and state what you believe this implies.
. . . based on objective evidence, math and logic. But a general question: Do you think that all these areas of science were "set up" a certain way simply to support evolution?invocation of extra dimensions and "dark" whatevers
References please., objects apparently observed at >c.
Well, the issue is if there are alternative scientific theories, as opposed to unsupported conjecture.The case against teaching alternatives seems fairly weak, given the rapidly changing face of the popular theories.
Actually, no. A scientific theory is, by definition, very well supported by objective evidence, logic, and math.As long as theories are taught as theories, and weak points aren't omitted, does it matter how popular they are?
Interesting that you would say that. I would agree - hence, my strong opposition to teaching ID or Creationism in the science classroom.I might point out that I would be opposed to teaching most philosophies as fact.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Moderator
Just two quick comments...
If evolution and atheism do dovetail, what of it? Unless you are trying to show some sort of causal relationship, this is simply a coincidental perception. To the point, evolution is not atheistic, it is non-theistic; it does not require any god, but does not prohibit the existence nor prove the non-existence of God either. (Which means they don't dovetail all that well, after all.)
Evolution is not a religion, although creationists love to make that comparison. It shows that they have no real understanding of science and how it works. Nothing in science is ever accepted on "blind faith." Everything is open - and subjected - to constant questioning and examination. If anything is accepted, it is because the questions have been satisfactorily answered and the examinations have supported the theory.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov
Moderation will be in purple.
Rules for Posting to This Board
Established Member
However the management interprets what are religious topics, is OK with me. From the greatest authority of the land, of the most credibility, ID is a religious topic. Accordingly, it should not be mentioned. I have posted sites and reference showing ID is a religion.
However, there is a gray area, where if Young Earth is argued (that needs a god), one must stay to the underline material facts, and not bring up a god. But YET, it is by the god belief the young earth argument exist. God (of any kind) is the foundation of a young earth, same with ID. Take away the god, then ID is Zippo.
I think I understand what the management wants. They want science in all its valid forms. What they do NOT want this form to be (or turn into) is a religious site. Great!
Seeing ID IS a religion, ruled a religion by the US Supreme Court that heard the evidence by some of the most credited scientist and theist, and ID is ruled as a religion, then ID should be banned at this board. For the management to recreate the wheel is beyond me.
If the door is open to ID, then it is open to the ID god and there is no getting around it. The subject is the god, as a fact, or not a fact, as that is the foundation of the ID/creation argument.
To clean up the ID mess, and it is a mess and religious, the board rules should state that unless you have material fact that a god of ID exist, (not what a god created, but the god itself) then that post regarding ID will be deleted. In addition, study and post on science as that is what we are here for, if you want a religious site then go else where, and take ID with you.
Until then, being respectful, and compliant, to all the other board rules; ID should be confronted and “forced” to give an accounting, to show the utter nonsense and stupidity of the ID argument.
As the courts of the USA have determined, ID has NO place, nor contributes to science, then that is stand this board should take. The courts ended the ID argument that was an upheaval and a very contentious mater in society. I do not see how this management can improve on the actions of the US Supreme Court for justice and setting a clear direction.
I will gladly take on the ID argument, as my time allows, however, my intent is to END the argument. If this board allows space for the ID camp, then they should allow my direct confrontation of the ID god, as there is NO separation of ID from the ID god.
In all honesty, I was attracted to this board and posted because of its science value NOT its religious innuendoes. I like this board. The people here have been great. I have learned much, just from reading, from the highly skilled scientist, science teachers, and nonprofessionals that marvel at this universe and want “to know” how things work, tested and provable. ONE teacher is worth over two books. I have been corrected in my ideas that rocket fuel was a derivative of gunpowder, and being shown the evidence I relented. I gained.
However, by what means could I stay here if I continued to take up space on rocket dynamics with ill founded and unsupported ideas that oscillate with any thought that pops into my mind? Not a chance by any standard called science.
The point being, if that door is open to ID then I am going to confront it. Trying to separate the ID/creation ideas from the god is an impossibility.
Therefore, I will wait for clear instructions from the management, and I will comply accordingly. To date, IMO, the mangament is Ok in my book.
Don
Order of Kilopi
And that it hasn't been challenged yet by a competing, better theory.
That's another trick: Science changes. It changes all the time. At one time, scientists thought that there was this "Aether" that surrounded us and the universe. Now, that theory has been discredited by better competing theories.
Nothing is rock-solid in science. Everything is questionable, as long as you can show a better theory. It's all falsifiable.
If it weren't, we'd still be sticking with Newtonian physics and not adapting anything beyond that. No, wait, we wouldn't have had Newton in the first place.
Established Member
Ha! I spit derisively upon your vote. You think I can't see what you're up to? You would never say such a thing unless you think you have an insurmountable advantage. You have duped yourself into believing that you posess a far superior intellect. You envision yourself the cat and me the mouse; you plan to play with me like a small toy. What arrogance!
How dare you assume I don't know to beware of sheep in Don's clothing! Your pride is your weakness, and you may or may not live to regret it.
See that? By combining the forms of two common threats I, Professor Illwill composed an humerous sentence that is not a threat. Can you do that? Never! I, Professor Illwill am belligerent, informative, and entertaining; while the best that you can even hope for is two out of three! Who is the predator now! Who's voting for who to stay!
And who are you to restrict my condemnations? You are henceforth condemned to the North Pole where you shall scoop reindeer droppings until Santa gets tired of looking at you.
Straw man. I, Professor Illwill, have not yet made known my opinion of the moderators of this board.
I, Professor Illwill, do not yet see my name in the rules. I, Professor Illwill, have stated what I intend to do.
No more than you yourself are.
Both of these questions are out of order. I am not here to debate my faith vs. all other world views. The question is ill-phrased. It is not commonly known, but "Allah" means "God" and is the very same word used by Christians in Middle-Eastern countries.
This is not appropriate. The answer would not further your knowledge of CS/ID. It is an important question, and I, Professor Illwill would certainly assist anyone truely seeking the answer. This is not the venue for such discussions.
[QUOTE=Dons;926725]
YES or NO: You have to establish what god did the creating before you can determine what was created.
Maybe if the person were raised by Polynesians and that is what his parents taught him? Beyond that, you should ask one who holds such beliefs. I have only your word that they exist, so it would be silly for me to advocate them at this time, would it not? Perhaps you think I "must" do so because of the way you phrased the question.
If the methods of a given ID project could be shown to be bad science, then I would readily agree that the conclusions thereof are weak, and perhaps altogether invalid.
If an ID project(or any other science project) is undertaken by someone with credibility problems, this should be taken into consideration. One wouldn't put much stock in subsequent discoveries by the Nebraska Man perpetrators, for example.
Trying to lump all ID projects together, as your question seems to imply, doesn't seem valid for purposes of rejection.
Yes, I Professor Illwill, am afraid I would appear chicken if I didn't take you up on that. [For any slow-pokes out there, that's sarcasm. I, Professor Illwill use it frequently.]
You seem to be primarily concerned here with my personal religious beliefs. That's not the topic of the thread. As I understand it, I would violate the rules here if I were to respond in detail and "preach my religion". If you are genuinely interested in Christ, you are free to PM me. If you're simply hoping for something to attack and mock, or merely trying to waste time, you may continue to hope.
Now everyone repeat after me: "Aye, Professor Illwill. Aye, Professor Illwill." Congratulations, you have just taken part in Professor Illwill's subliminal internal voice conditioning experiment.
Order of Kilopi
Dude, you sound like a Sherlock Holmes villain. Only, not as cool.
Well, two out of three at least...See that? By combining the forms of two common threats I, Professor Illwill composed an humerous sentence that is not a threat. Can you do that? Never! I, Professor Illwill am belligerent, informative, and entertaining (...)
Also, "Who's the predator now"? You do realize that this is a discussion forum, not the jungle, right?
Aren't you the one that keeps claiming that evolution is atheism, and that both are religions and are accepted on religious principles? You make it a religious issue from the get-go when you do that. Nevermind the fact that you're wrong in that observation nonetheless...You seem to be primarily concerned here with my personal religious beliefs. That's not the topic of the thread.
No thanks?Now everyone repeat after me: "Aye, Professor Illwill. Aye, Professor Illwill."
I think I'll double Don's post: I don't care if you leave or stay. I don't really vote one way or the other, though. But really, I don't care if you leave, stay, get yourself banned, or do whatever you like. It isn't because I'm a predator, it's because I'm just that apathetic to your existance, on or off the forum.
Established Member
I don't know what organizations they're affiliated with, but broadly speaking these look like ID sites.
http://www.pesanharunyahya.com/news/...a-440-302.html
http://www.islamonline.net/English/S...rticle05.shtml
http://theislamicscience.blogspot.co...darwinism.html
I stumbled upon one I liked pretty well about two weeks ago, but I didn't bookmark it and can't find it again. These will have to do.
Is this the end of ID=Christianity? I, Professor Illwill doubt it.
Established Member
I do not have a problem with contentious ideas, and I AGREE that science has changed many of its previous assumptions, in all fields. Ideas that were herald with pompous validity have been replaced with ideas of greater proofs and greater accountability.
I see no reason to elevate an ID god beyond what we know, and that is the ID gods is myth at best, deceptive and miss leading at worst, and clearly not science. When it comes to exclusivity, and consistency, the very things that science and law seeks, at the bottom of the list sits the ID god. That is why the many gods have been removed from law, much less science. There is NO dependability what so ever.
The question is the myth, or assumed god, supporting ID. What would it take for me to be persuaded to ID? Start with the repetition of prayer that gets the same results rather than NOTHING. ID is a comedy factor. How to train a pet rock--- SIT thou rock, in the name of GOD---and guess what, the rock does not move, therefore the Christian god of ID is real! OK, and this is called science? Not hardly.
History has shown a 30% success rate for leaches and blood letting as a cure for illness, but we hardly do that today, but rather donate blood as the more the better. The ID god cannot even get the results of 30% yet the myth is entertained as fact! That is totally ludicrous. That is why ID was ruled against in USA courts. What, call god as witness? So funny, might as well call Bugs Bunny.
What would it take to convince me of ID? How about a deity that just before he/she died on a cross said, HERE is the formula for soap, about 2,000 years ago. Millions of lives would be better off without a doubt. Not a chance of that happening, myths have always followed discoveries and the ID god is no different.
If people like Illwill, can stand back and bash science, pervert common deductive reasoning, and all the good it has brought to the human race, in laws, justice, and science discoveries, BUT YET, be exempt from close examination of the ID god, be exempt from criticisms of points of fact, then clearly this is not a level playing field by the management. I am restrained at the threshold, and rightly so.
NO god can be tested, by any name, faith or creed, so by default NO god can be included in science.
Don
Order of Kilopi
ID = Christianity (if held) is an opinion that comes about in the U.S (and similar countries) because that is the major religion and is the religion of those pushing ID.
In the end, the real problem is that:
ID = Religion. (Whichever)
...as the U.S. courts decided.
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Established Member
Original non-rhetorical question: "How is the analysis of indisputable evidence in any way congruent with a belief in mysticism?"
I cannot imagine any way to obtain indisputable evidence other than through Divine Revelation. Do you not equate all faith in all gods with mysticism? If one has received a Divine Revelation, how could one not have some sort of faith in something supernatural? It's inescapable.
It made more sense when it was rhetorical.
Heads up! I, Professor Illwill have an important insight for you:
Interpretation is an integral part of all communication. It is the responsibility of the party receiving any communication to attempt to interpret it to the best of his ability, and make every reasonable attempt to determine what the sending party means.
To intentionally misinterpret a thing is to perform an act of deception. Always remember this there are no exceptions, and if I get around to it, it will be important to remember this axiom.
"How is the analysis of indisputable evidence in any way congruent with a belief in mysticism?"
This is our sample. After further consideration. Given the self-evident nature of the answer to the question as stated. Given the context. Given the sender's apparent stance on the issues. It is my duty to interpret it thusly:
"How is the analysis of undisputed evidence in any way congruent with a belief in mysticism?"
I am not "putting words in anyone's mouth". I am doing my best to frame this into something with a meaningful answer. I may very well be incorrect, but I have no alternative if I am honest.
There are different methods of analysis. I cannot think of any that would have to be less valid if performed by a person who believed in mysticism. I don't see that a belief system interferes with the performance of science. It may have an impact on conclusions, naturally.
If a person is performing science correctly, the methods are the same no matter what they believe. I think I've said that before. I see no evidence that religion or lack thereof makes any difference in say... a blood test. The analysis should be the same regardless of who does it. If they do it wrong, they could lose their job.
Enough time on that one. I - I, Professor Illwill, may be mistaken as to what jamini was trying to ask.
Established Member
The point being that Illwill ignores, ID is a religious issue. Science is not a religious issue because there is no deity.
On line common dictionary:
re•li•gion
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
sci•ence
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Do you see any god in science? I don’t.
Do you see god in packing a suit case? I don’t.
Do you see an item of worship in the definition of science? I do not. Nor does the US Supreme Court see a god in science; accordingly keep god out of our public schools.
You cannot separate ID from god, any god will work, just pick one. Human history shows about 2,000 gods, or you can make up your own god, kind of mix and match, put them all in a blender and see what you get.
Here is a listing of gods to help out in homework. But this is just the major gods that were sort-of popular at one time, with a few contempary ones thrown in.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/libr...gods_index.htm
So, is it denied that god, of some kind, is essential for ID?
That is a yes or a no Illwill.
By the way, you get my 50 cense in good will, Illwill. (All in good humor as I could not resist)
In these discussions, don’t forget to breath.
Don
Established Member
Illwill wrote:
“I cannot imagine any way to obtain indisputable evidence other than through Divine Revelation.”
And then we wonder why ID is kept out of public schools! Now I have to deal with devine revelations, and when there is a conflict as the round earth v. the god reveiled flat earth, or as to how three gods can become one god, well folks, just do some good old head bashing on the floor in prayer, and see what you get.
There is more conflict of Divien Holy Spirit revealtions than Bayor has asprine, and that is just in the bible.
Can you give me a refeance for “divine relelations”, in other words does god have a web site?
Illwill you are NOT serious are you?
I am going to back off for a while. I am asking the management of this form a serious question. IF Illwill wants to continue this conversation me, I suggest we take it OFF this site, and to another board. I will name a very neutral site Illwill, (or you can) YOU will NOT be banned Illwill at the site I suggest:
Only with the management’s permission, I will post “one time only” a site that Illwill and I can continue this discussion.
I have dealt many times before with Christian fundamentalist, and I am concerned that Illwill will put me in a position where I have to start quoting the bible. It will not be nice when I quote bible scriptures as they are self explanatory, and it will not be kind, nor decent, as the bible is NOT fitting for the audience of this board, much less for a child to read.
I respect this board, it is a science board, not a religious board, so in respect to those that are here, that want to learn and teach science, I may back off.
Don
Established Member
Awwww Man. Bummer
Well now, what was the question exactly? Ah yes, someone requested evidence for a young earth as I recall.
Now most everyone's thinking they're gonna go over & divvy up the page & barrage me with nonsense, If I say "yes". Scores, perhaps hundreds of meaningless questions about moot points. Maybe a little intentional misinterpreting of what's written just for good measure. As if I, Professor Illwill, had never seen this game before!
But if I say "NO WAY", the Mods will ban me. I, Professor Illwill would seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place.
DREAM ON!
You can all organize against me. You can divvy up all the links. You still can't trap Professor Illwill!
What I said was that there does indeed exist evidence which can be interpreted as supporting a young earth. Now since you can't argue interpretation, you're going to have to find fault with the methods. Good Luck. I'm familiar with a few of the names I saw over there, and I have no small confidence in their methods.
I know of one case where the methods have been questioned. Dr. Gentry. After his discoveries became well-known, several years later some unsubstantiated claims were made that he collected his samples from the wrong place, or wrong type of rock (don't recall which). After other methods to (I'll use the polite term, just because I'm tired) "challenge" his work failed.
My word - not CS "official" anywhere I know of: Now even if these claims were true( as I'm predict many will be thrilled to accept without question), they still don't explain anything. What he found still has obvious implications no matter where it was found.
There will be no arguing conclusions.I never claimed you would accept their conclusions. Conclusions about history are outside of science. Science can only supply evidence. Historic methods take over from there. .
Furthermore, I did not and do not claim 100% perfection. Honest mistakes can happen (I shant antagonize you with samples form evolution). I did not even claim 50%. I haven't claimed specific rate. I, Professor Illwill will try to come up with an honest figure.
Meanwhile... I, Professor Illwill, do not prophesy. I predict, based upon my superior knowledge of human behavior, that we will continue to see conclusions portrayed as "unscientific".
Saved another good one: Out-of-Date. Thought I'd miss that didn't you? Think again. I, Professor Illwill do not miss very much. We all know - I do not say absolutely all, mind you - all know how time works on science. Not much challenge to go back 120 years & poke holes in all kinds of theories. Until out of date evolutionary dogma is removed from textbooks, I don't see any "room to talk".
Can't say how much longer I'll keep this up. So get organized, and get crackin'. Time's a-wastin'. Don't be discouraged. Surely people with religious beliefs can't handle scientific methods [That's more sarcasm for those who have a hard time keepin' up, real or feigned]
Posting Permissions
