...and in New Zealand (and perhaps the surrounding seas?) we have some of the coldest weather in 50 years. Summer this year was on a Wednesday, about 2pm.....
2007 -- Buckle your safety belts! by William Dembski on January 1st, 2007
Happy New Year to all UD regulars. I expect 2007 to be a bang-up year for ID. Here are three things in particular I'm looking forward to in the coming year:
1. A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish -- stay tuned.)
2. The publication of Michael Behe's book with Free Press: THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION.
3. The publication of the sequel to OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE, authored by Jonathan Wells and me and titled THE DESIGN OF LIFE: DISCOVERING SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.
P.S. I would also say that I'm looking forward to debating Barbara Forrest, but I'm giving 5 to 1 odds that she won't even start negotiations for such an event, much less show. Since she has charged me of cowardice (see here), it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I've appointed DaveScot to negotiate details of the debate (take it away Dave!).
What a stupid load of rubbish. Does the nitwit who wrote this actually know what "creationist pseudoscience" is? Oh, the broad-brush dismissal of all who disagree with the priesthood of Darwin.
You want to see what these guys had on their website?"
Now I realise that these hard-core atheists have no logical right to claim that real rights and wrong actually exist, and animals -- which is what they believe we are -- play all these sex games, so their worldview ***should*** find nothing wrong with this stuff. Don't agree with me? Ok...
If there are rights and wrongs, if there are absolute moral values, then there must exist a moral law.
If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver.
That moral law giver is of course God who will judge this world and all sin and filth like this.
You're not disagreeing with me are you? You're not going to tell me I'm wrong and you are right are you? You aren't going to push your morality onto me are you? You're not going to try and convert me to your way of thinking are you? You aren't considering evangelizing me with your atheistic philosophy are you?
I enjoy slashdot, usually, but the rabid religion-hating mobs that pool their ignorance really ruin it at time imo. These Darwinian fundies ought to try actually reading some of the opposition materials before they make broad sweeping statements that make them look like fools -- at least to those outside the Darwinian priesthood.
I see. So since I have a religious point-of-view, I am pushing a religious agenda? Well, I concede -- you are exactly right. We ALL push an agenda of some sort.
If God does not exist, there are no objective moral values. If you disagree, please name just one 4 me. So, no objective moral values means you are a totally free agent, only constrained by society.
So, what is a free agent obliged to do? Nothing. There are no obligations on him/her and they only live once, so what do we do in this situation? Live for today. This is now a postmodern world where science is no longer the savior. It has failed in this view because it has failed to satisfy the deeper needs of humans.
So while you may argue for preparing for the future, I will agree with you -- some people will do this. Others will chose not to and in the postmodern framework, there is no way to determine which is right and which is wrong. All is relative. Sure, you can plan for the future but that is just one valid option. Every other option is just as valid thus why take the hard path of science (btw I am a scientist).
"Let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die". --Quoted from The Bible in reference to the hopelessness in society 2000 years ago;-)
My guess is it is a problem of worldviews. The secular atheistic worldview says "eat, drink and live for today for tomorrow you may die". It is a "me" generation that wants everything now and sees this life as all there is. This breeds a culture hedonism rather than a culture social responsibility. Don't plan for the future -- just give me my money now! Don't do science; the money is not too good. Give me a commerce degree and loads of holidays. Maximum pleasure is good; hard work is for others. Makes sense within the secular worldview I guess.
My friend, thanks for the loooong reply. I am a physics PhD student so have a reasonable grasp of optics and natural laws I think.
You have used many 'facts' in your reply, such as "The majority of Christians accept evolution is true, that evolution as God's mechanism for creating the diverstity of life just as nuclear fusion as God's mechanism for creating sunlight for the earth."
You have provided no evidence of this. Is your statement thus scientific? In my experience, almost no Christians accept evolution as fact -- if you mean macro-evolution.
Here is an online video by agnostic Dr. David Berlinski who talks about the real facts about evolution:
You conclusions are only as good as your starting assumptions. What are the starting assumptions in this argument/discussion? Naturalism? Then crank the handle and what do you get? Surprise! Evolution. For an intelligent Christian conversation try www.str.org. Or watch a nice, reasoned, thoughtful presentation of the moral argument for God's existence online: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6184621602 289125800
You conclusions are only as good as your starting assumptions. What are the starting assumptions of the author of this thread? Naturalism? Then crank the handle and what do you get? Surprise! Evolution. For an intelligent Christian conversation try www.str.org. Or watch a nice, reasoned, thoughtful presentation of the moral argument for God's existence online: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6184621602 289125800
I'm suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199695,00.html
Those of us with room-temperature IQs are perpetually assured that there is overwhelming evidence for Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record. So, after reading the news release linked above, I asked myself, "Self, why is this big news?"
I guess I just don't get it. Why has the missing link in bird evolution just been found, when I have been assured for years that there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record that the enigma of bird evolution was already solved?
Sigh. I'm apparently too stupid to understand Darwinian logic.
Filed under: Intelligent Design -- GilDodgen @ 10:23 pm
Google needs to have their monopoly powers trimmed in the same way MS does. As it stands, there is IMO too much power in their hands -- and their hands are non-neutral as can be seen from the bias shown (do a web search) by google against certain groups who have seen google curtail their "free-speech rights".
Watch out because who knows, next they may tell you that the earth and universe are not 15000000 years old......... but young!
But then, that would break the laws used by naturalists.
(i) We know the earth/universe is 15000000 years old because science says it is
(ii) Science is right!
(iii)Therefore the earth/universe is 15000000 years old! QED/p)
Perhaps if Linux and co. were Lintelligently Designed, they would have less flaws! Or howabout... Will this be the end of Lintel Inside? Ok, they were bad;-)
*Evolution... Evolution... Evolution... if I just repeat it enough times, maybe I could start believing it. Now repeat after me... Evolution... Evolution... Evolution...
Summary:
Therefore we conclude that we really have no idea. The dates are really guesses. The brain that enabled them to eat meat is still missing. All we have is a tooth or two but that doesn't mean we cannot construct an entire picture of this creatures' friends, neighbourhood, what colors he or she preferred and what they had for breakfast. But that is science Jim;-)
I an wondering how many of the highly educated and well read atheists who troll/. have actually bothered reading any ID material. From the comments I read, it seems, not many.
Here is a link to a DVD/video that you can watch online by an agnostic (Dr. David Berlinski) who tears apart the religion of Darwinism. Perhaps a small amount of time invested in watching it would help the atheist bigotry so rampant in these comments, and inject a little reality in to the equation.
So now you can speak for Jesus? Jesus was anti-religious and anti-political. He aledgedly taught against the Church. Of course, people turn around and make his teachings and collections of stories into a "religion." *shakes head*
Wrong.
Paul obviously had problems with his mother, since he put down women so much. He also felt the need to "one-up" those who he correspondence with.
My wife (a woman) would totally dosagree with your take on this.
I suspect this is the reason we get a "supernatural" response from his writtings. The Disciples were just drinkin' buddies for the most part, but they also helped conspire against the Church of the time. Moses was wise, but I'm going to guess not the most sane person either.
I don't know what Bible you have been reading. Must be different to mine.
Many of the writtings int the Torah and Bible were written well after the events supposedly took place; as much as 500 year or more. Many of the stories are rip-offs from prior religions, redressed to fit the Church's agenda.
Nonsense. This is demonstrably false.
These are but a few reasons I quit the Christian system of behaviour. The lies, blood, and idiocracy the representatives of Christianity have brought about makes me sick. Many people can ignore these atrocities, I will not.
Christianity is a relationship, not a system of behaviour. I don't think you really understand what or who you are shooting at. Atrocities are caused by humans of both Christian and (for example) atheist persuasions. The difference is that an atheist can justify his "immoral" behaviour by claiming Darwin as his bedrock (e.g. Richard Dawkins) but a Christian cannot. It is wrong for a Christian to, for example, commit adultery. For an atheist however, it is not "wrong" since objective moral values do not exist in the atheist system. Atoms and molecules do not have a conscience or any sense of good or bad. If you want to claim atheism (sorry, I am guessing) then if you want to talk right and wrong, you are stepping on my turf. Objective right and wrong are not arrows in the atheist's quiver. Thanks for writing. Cheers;-)
Of course, it'd probably be best if fundmentalists [sic] actually talked to, say, the rabbis who wrote the whole thing down. The Orthodox rabbis I've spoken find it amazingly amusing that people take the creation story as literal truth, rather then a story about YHWH's power.
Really? Do words mean anything?
Funny how astrophysics seems to have played right in to the hands of the Bible in the last 80 years. These guys below are NOT Christians, they are scientists. And the site the quotes come from is........ Judaism Online!
"This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth... [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
- Robert Jastrow
(God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute, now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.)
"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
- George Greenstein (astronomer)
Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
Regarding Dawkin's rejection of any deity, just do a google search for "Richard Dawkins quotes".
The rest stems from that doesn't it? If you a priori reject the existence of anything outside the space-time box in which the universe exists, then only athiesm seems to make sense to me. At least Dawkins is consistent in his athiesm.
So, if for arguments sake you and I knew (say via inside knowledge) that the universe and life was created by some deity, Dawkins would reject it because of his founding assumption that there is nothing outside the box.
The big (and exciting) problem in all this is that evolution seems more and more impossible as we understand more and more about (for example) the cell. At least, that is where the ID DVD was going.
Well, yes and no. Ideally a scientist is 100% objective. But in reality you have to start with a hypothesis and then test it to see if it is true or not. BUT in the evolutionary world of people like Oxford's Richard Dawkins, their reasoning is anything but objective, and in fact commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
e.g. Dawkins begins with the belief there is no God, then finds that evolution is true because there is no God to have created. This is plainly circular!
Evolution therefore becomes a non-falsiable theory because of this logical fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
...and in New Zealand (and perhaps the surrounding seas?) we have some of the coldest weather in 50 years. Summer this year was on a Wednesday, about 2pm.....
2007 -- Buckle your safety belts!
by William Dembski on January 1st, 2007
Happy New Year to all UD regulars. I expect 2007 to be a bang-up year for ID. Here are three things in particular I'm looking forward to in the coming year:
1. A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish -- stay tuned.)
2. The publication of Michael Behe's book with Free Press: THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION.
3. The publication of the sequel to OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE, authored by Jonathan Wells and me and titled THE DESIGN OF LIFE: DISCOVERING SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.
P.S. I would also say that I'm looking forward to debating Barbara Forrest, but I'm giving 5 to 1 odds that she won't even start negotiations for such an event, much less show. Since she has charged me of cowardice (see here), it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I've appointed DaveScot to negotiate details of the debate (take it away Dave!).
http://www.uncommondescent.com/
Here is why they were de-listed...
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1830
"exposing creationist pseudoscience"
What a stupid load of rubbish. Does the nitwit who wrote this actually know what "creationist pseudoscience" is? Oh, the broad-brush dismissal of all who disagree with the priesthood of Darwin.
You want to see what these guys had on their website?"
animal porn, animal sex, beastiality, rape sex, sleeping sex, animal porn, beastiality, dog porn, horse porn, rape sex, sleeping sex, animal porn, animal sex, beastiality, dvd covers, dvd ripper, psp downloads, psp games, psp movies
Now I realise that these hard-core atheists have no logical right to claim that real rights and wrong actually exist, and animals -- which is what they believe we are -- play all these sex games, so their worldview ***should*** find nothing wrong with this stuff. Don't agree with me? Ok...
If there are rights and wrongs, if there are absolute moral values, then there must exist a moral law.
If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver.
That moral law giver is of course God who will judge this world and all sin and filth like this.
You're not disagreeing with me are you? You're not going to tell me I'm wrong and you are right are you? You aren't going to push your morality onto me are you? You're not going to try and convert me to your way of thinking are you? You aren't considering evangelizing me with your atheistic philosophy are you?
I enjoy slashdot, usually, but the rabid religion-hating mobs that pool their ignorance really ruin it at time imo. These Darwinian fundies ought to try actually reading some of the opposition materials before they make broad sweeping statements that make them look like fools -- at least to those outside the Darwinian priesthood.
I see. So since I have a religious point-of-view, I am pushing a religious agenda? Well, I concede -- you are exactly right. We ALL push an agenda of some sort.
If God does not exist, there are no objective moral values. If you disagree, please name just one 4 me. So, no objective moral values means you are a totally free agent, only constrained by society.
So, what is a free agent obliged to do? Nothing. There are no obligations on him/her and they only live once, so what do we do in this situation? Live for today. This is now a postmodern world where science is no longer the savior. It has failed in this view because it has failed to satisfy the deeper needs of humans.
So while you may argue for preparing for the future, I will agree with you -- some people will do this. Others will chose not to and in the postmodern framework, there is no way to determine which is right and which is wrong. All is relative. Sure, you can plan for the future but that is just one valid option. Every other option is just as valid thus why take the hard path of science (btw I am a scientist).
"Let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die". --Quoted from The Bible in reference to the hopelessness in society 2000 years ago ;-)
Warmest regardes.
My guess is it is a problem of worldviews. The secular atheistic worldview says "eat, drink and live for today for tomorrow you may die". It is a "me" generation that wants everything now and sees this life as all there is. This breeds a culture hedonism rather than a culture social responsibility. Don't plan for the future -- just give me my money now! Don't do science; the money is not too good. Give me a commerce degree and loads of holidays. Maximum pleasure is good; hard work is for others. Makes sense within the secular worldview I guess.
I don't visit porn sites or other dodgy sites. My wife and I both run XP with no anti-virus s/w (have for years) with no known problems.
My friend, thanks for the loooong reply. I am a physics PhD student so have a reasonable grasp of optics and natural laws I think.
. ram
If you have the time (and guts) to watch this agnostic talk evolution, you will have my admiration.
You have used many 'facts' in your reply, such as "The majority of Christians accept evolution is true, that evolution as God's mechanism for creating the diverstity of life just as nuclear fusion as God's mechanism for creating sunlight for the earth."
You have provided no evidence of this. Is your statement thus scientific? In my experience, almost no Christians accept evolution as fact -- if you mean macro-evolution.
Here is an online video by agnostic Dr. David Berlinski who talks about the real facts about evolution:
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/media/berlinski
Regards from New Zealand.
You conclusions are only as good as your starting assumptions. What are the starting assumptions in this argument/discussion? Naturalism? Then crank the handle and what do you get? Surprise! Evolution. For an intelligent Christian conversation try www.str.org. Or watch a nice, reasoned, thoughtful presentation of the moral argument for God's existence online: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6184621602 289125800
You conclusions are only as good as your starting assumptions. What are the starting assumptions of the author of this thread? Naturalism? Then crank the handle and what do you get? Surprise! Evolution. For an intelligent Christian conversation try www.str.org. Or watch a nice, reasoned, thoughtful presentation of the moral argument for God's existence online: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6184621602 289125800
I'm suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199695,00.html
Those of us with room-temperature IQs are perpetually assured that there is overwhelming evidence for Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record. So, after reading the news release linked above, I asked myself, "Self, why is this big news?"
I guess I just don't get it. Why has the missing link in bird evolution just been found, when I have been assured for years that there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record that the enigma of bird evolution was already solved?
Sigh. I'm apparently too stupid to understand Darwinian logic.
Filed under: Intelligent Design -- GilDodgen @ 10:23 pm
Tried it. Yuk, comapred to iTunes it is just ugly. C'mon Microsoft, get it right :-(
Do it. Take the mark!!!
Google needs to have their monopoly powers trimmed in the same way MS does. As it stands, there is IMO too much power in their hands -- and their hands are non-neutral as can be seen from the bias shown (do a web search) by google against certain groups who have seen google curtail their "free-speech rights".
How much did they find this time? More than a tooth I hope.
Watch out because who knows, next they may tell you that the earth and universe are not 15000000 years old ......... but young!
But then, that would break the laws used by naturalists.
(i) We know the earth/universe is 15000000 years old because science says it is
(ii) Science is right!
(iii)Therefore the earth/universe is 15000000 years old! QED/p)
Perhaps if Linux and co. were Lintelligently Designed, they would have less flaws! Or howabout ... Will this be the end of Lintel Inside? Ok, they were bad ;-)
If you dare, watch ID DVDs free online here: http://www.theapologiaproject.org/video_library.ht m
*Evolution ... Evolution ... Evolution ... if I just repeat it enough times, maybe I could start believing it. Now repeat after me ... Evolution ... Evolution ... Evolution ...
* I mean macro evolution of course.
Summary: Therefore we conclude that we really have no idea. The dates are really guesses. The brain that enabled them to eat meat is still missing. All we have is a tooth or two but that doesn't mean we cannot construct an entire picture of this creatures' friends, neighbourhood, what colors he or she preferred and what they had for breakfast. But that is science Jim ;-)
I an wondering how many of the highly educated and well read atheists who troll /. have actually bothered reading any ID material. From the comments I read, it seems, not many.
Here is a link to a DVD/video that you can watch online by an agnostic (Dr. David Berlinski) who tears apart the religion of Darwinism. Perhaps a small amount of time invested in watching it would help the atheist bigotry so rampant in these comments, and inject a little reality in to the equation.
Here is the link: http://www.theapologiaproject.org/video_library.ht m
It is the fourth movie down from the top.
So now you can speak for Jesus? Jesus was anti-religious and anti-political. He aledgedly taught against the Church. Of course, people turn around and make his teachings and collections of stories into a "religion." *shakes head*
Wrong.
Paul obviously had problems with his mother, since he put down women so much. He also felt the need to "one-up" those who he correspondence with.
My wife (a woman) would totally dosagree with your take on this.
I suspect this is the reason we get a "supernatural" response from his writtings. The Disciples were just drinkin' buddies for the most part, but they also helped conspire against the Church of the time. Moses was wise, but I'm going to guess not the most sane person either.
I don't know what Bible you have been reading. Must be different to mine.
Many of the writtings int the Torah and Bible were written well after the events supposedly took place; as much as 500 year or more. Many of the stories are rip-offs from prior religions, redressed to fit the Church's agenda.
Nonsense. This is demonstrably false.
These are but a few reasons I quit the Christian system of behaviour. The lies, blood, and idiocracy the representatives of Christianity have brought about makes me sick. Many people can ignore these atrocities, I will not.
Christianity is a relationship, not a system of behaviour. I don't think you really understand what or who you are shooting at. Atrocities are caused by humans of both Christian and (for example) atheist persuasions. The difference is that an atheist can justify his "immoral" behaviour by claiming Darwin as his bedrock (e.g. Richard Dawkins) but a Christian cannot. It is wrong for a Christian to, for example, commit adultery. For an atheist however, it is not "wrong" since objective moral values do not exist in the atheist system. Atoms and molecules do not have a conscience or any sense of good or bad. If you want to claim atheism (sorry, I am guessing) then if you want to talk right and wrong, you are stepping on my turf. Objective right and wrong are not arrows in the atheist's quiver. Thanks for writing. Cheers ;-)
I believe this Jew would disagree with you:
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/gbb.html
Certainly the greatest Jews ever did too: Jesus. The Apostle Paul. The disciples. Moses. The list goes on.
Do words mean anything?
Really? Do words mean anything?
Funny how astrophysics seems to have played right in to the hands of the Bible in the last 80 years. These guys below are NOT Christians, they are scientists. And the site the quotes come from is ........ Judaism Online!
"This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth... [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
- Robert Jastrow
(God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute, now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.)
"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
- George Greenstein (astronomer)
Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
Source: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Science_Quo tes.htm
Regarding Dawkin's rejection of any deity, just do a google search for "Richard Dawkins quotes".
The rest stems from that doesn't it? If you a priori reject the existence of anything outside the space-time box in which the universe exists, then only athiesm seems to make sense to me. At least Dawkins is consistent in his athiesm.
So, if for arguments sake you and I knew (say via inside knowledge) that the universe and life was created by some deity, Dawkins would reject it because of his founding assumption that there is nothing outside the box.
The big (and exciting) problem in all this is that evolution seems more and more impossible as we understand more and more about (for example) the cell. At least, that is where the ID DVD was going.
Well, yes and no. Ideally a scientist is 100% objective. But in reality you have to start with a hypothesis and then test it to see if it is true or not. BUT in the evolutionary world of people like Oxford's Richard Dawkins, their reasoning is anything but objective, and in fact commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
e.g. Dawkins begins with the belief there is no God, then finds that evolution is true because there is no God to have created. This is plainly circular!
Evolution therefore becomes a non-falsiable theory because of this logical fallacy.