Reference the Time magazine article from last November and an MSNBC article from 2003 I believe. Sorry I can't give you an exact reference.
Unfortunately I don't have ready access to those magazines. Do you have a web link with any info? In the meantime I'll just keep believing that quantum mechanics and evolution aren't deeply connected.
Sure, abiogenesis "could be" the answer, I never denied that. It seems to me it isn't the answer because it uses only natural forces to explain the beginning of life, and yet, from observable laws of nature, such as life must always come from other life, it seems natural laws rule out abiogenesis. Could I be wrong? Yes. Am I proven wrong? No.
I'm not sure what you mean by laws of nature, but you are aware that the conditions on earth prior to the formation of life were a lot different than they are now, right? That's one of the problems people are having with trying to duplicate this in the lab. I don't think you can look at the situation now and say that it "rules out" abiogenesis.
Likewise, it "could be" that a non-natural force created natural life in the first place. I think a lot of secularists would like to believe this, as long as it didn't involve 'god'. But since the main proponents of the non-natural life beginning are believers in God, we have secularists running around like hell, slandering any non-natural life beginnings.
I haven't seen secularists slandering the idea of non-natural life beginnings, but if they're out there then they are a good match for the creationists running around like hell, slandering evolution. What I have seen are secularists and christians and people from other religions arguing against the idea of ID being taught in biology classes on the basis that it isn't science.
Abiogenesis isn't proven, and I personally believe don't believe it can be.
Indeed, abiogenesis is a long way from being proven possible, but the debate isn't really over abiogenesis, it's over evolution, which has been observed and for which there is a great deal of evidence.
In any case, I appreciate your keeping things civil. More than I can say for several others that replied to my post.
This is an issue that provokes an emotional response in a lot of people, myself included. In these kinds of debates I tend to respond to incivility in kind, for better or worse. It is nice to have at least one conversation about it that doesn't degenerate into name-calling on both sides.
Cigarettes are also legal but a typical store owner can decide whether to sell them or not. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to sell it by law. Otherwise, we can sue Budweiser because it doesn't sell sake.
This is not a valid analogy. The store owner owns the store. The pharmacist does not own the pharmacy. The pharmacist is more like a store clerk who refuses to sell the store's cigarettes to adults because it violates his religious beliefs. The clerk would get fired and so should the pharmacist.
Your buddhist example is a non-sequitur, because a pharmacist's primary job is to dispense prescriptions and medicines. The morning after pill is not a prescription nor it can be considered medicine because what it's designed to treat is not an ailment.
It absolutely is a prescription. That's the whole point. Pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions and in some cases refusing to return the prescription so the person can get it filled somewhere else. And it absolutely is medicine. First of all, an unwanted pregnancy is an ailment. Secondly, in some cases the prescription is for birth control which is preventative. Are you saying that there's no such thing as preventative medicine?
Ah, but abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. Evolution is the evolving of species to form new species (macroevolution).
I know this. That's my point. Arguments that we don't know how the first life began are completely irrelevant to the subject of evolution.
You say ID and Creation do not offer an explanation; ID accepts evolution, but figures that some non-natural force created life in the first place. You correctly say this is falsifiable.
Yet the next thing you say is point out abiogenesis, which, is not only unfalsifiable (we can't repro this in a lab!) but also unnatural (life coming from non-life).
Scientists will not be able to prove that abiogenesis is the cause of life on Earth. What they are trying to show is that it could be the cause of life on Earth. They haven't demonstrated it in a lab yet but they've made a great deal of progress. We'd all be living in caves if we rejected all science that wasn't demonstrated instantly.
I can falsify abiogenesis easily: it is observable in nature that 100% of all life living today comes from other life.
I'm not sure why you would think this falsifies abiogenesis. Observing that something isn't happening now doesn't mean it never happened. Incidentally, since you're claiming that all life has to come from other life that would mean that your creator has to come from other life. Where did the creator come from?
See what you're saying? "God did it" is not natural and is not falsifiable. Here's abiogenesis, which is not natural, and is not falsifiable.
I never said anything about "natural"; don't put words in my mouth. As for falsifiable, "God did it" is definitely not falsifiable. It is possible to prove that abiogenesis is not responsible for life on Earth.
It has to do with evolution and design because people who have proposed it explicity say "we can't have design."
Show me. Provide a citation of the people who promote the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics saying that we can't have design. I've read a fair bit on quantum mechanics and have never seen this. I'm certainly not going to believe it on your say-so.
Religion is the belief in something that is inherently based on Faith. Regardless of what reference.com or anything may say.
Are you saying that when you say something is a religion you are using the word to mean something different from what it actually means? That's a poor defense.
You have to have Faith to believe that there is NO GOD. That is a leap just as having faith that there is a God. We are creatures of Faith and we use it everyday.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in any god. This is distinct from the positive belief that there is no god. It's like the difference between "not believing any of the UFO stories you've heard" and "believing that there is no life on other planets". Lacking a belief in god is no more a leap of faith than lacking a belief in Santa Claus or the Bogeyman.
When you get up in the morning you have faith the sun is still in the sky.
No, I have a reasonable expectation based on my understanding of the layout of the solar system and my knowledge that if the Earth stopped revolving around the sun my first clue wouldn't be not seeing it in the sky.
Science is a form of faith based on observable instances.. but it all comes down to theory and assumptions.
No. Science is making observations, developing testable and falsifiable theories to explain those observations, then testing the theories. Theories are never "proven", only tested with increasing accuracy. Science requires an open mind and a willingness to accept change. Faith has no place in science.
Math is based on a point that is assumed to exist.
No. Math as a system is based on axioms that are agreed upon by the participants. When I say it is true that 1+1=2, you will only agree with me if you agree on what the symbols "1", "+", "=" and "2" are. I can easily demonstrate the truth of what the equation means if I have two of something but the expression is a matter of agreement. I can also say 1+1=10 and that is equally true if we agree on a different expression of numbers (specifically, binary).
To answer your question based on your reference.com: #4: Athiesm is a Religion based on a cause, principle, AND activity pursered with zeal or consecientious devotion.
But it isn't. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god. No more, no less. I don't pursue my atheism with zeal and conscientious devotion; I can't even imagine how I would go about doing such a thing. Do you claim to pursue your lack of a belief in the Bogeyman with zeal and conscientious devotion? If so, what does that involve?
You might be thinking of Secular Humanism but you should understand that not all atheists are secular humanists.
Agnostic is the uncertainity that there may or may not be a God. That is where a lot of people live.
Agnosticism is the position that it is impossible to know with certainty whether or not a god exists. It is possible to be both agnostic and atheist, as I am. Most people who claim to be agnostic but not atheist would then claim to not believe in any god. They just don't like the word "atheist".
You didn't argue against your statement being an example of appeal to authority so I'll take it as read that you agree with me.
Well, it is standing quite well on its own merits as we see atheists fleeing to an unprovable multiple universe theory in order to avoid design. I believe that one is the gambler's falacy.
Where did you get the idea that the multiple universe theory (the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics) has anything to do with evolution vs design? It's only one of several interpretations of the observed effects of quantum mechanics, an area of science that is fairly separate from evolution.
ID has to stand on its own merits. Right now it's just a blind assertion. There's no evidence to suggest that it's true and quite a bit to suggest that it isn't: defective optical nerve attachment on the human eye, sub-optimal spinal structure that leads to lower back problems, etc. ID offers no explanations, only saying that "someone (by which they mean the christian god) designed it that way and we can't possibly hope to understand."
Oh, and FYI, the gambler's fallacy is the tendency of people to believe that a deviation from the expected norm will be corrected in the short term. For example, the person who sees red come up on the roulette wheel five times in a row and assumes that black must be "due".
You might consider anything from the universe as a whole, to a small pond of water to be "isolated". Whether or not the universe of the small pond of water was disturbed by an outside force is pure speculation.
Nonsense. It's very easy to show that small ponds are affected by outside forces. As for the universe, the entire universe is believed to be a closed system and it will therefore, according to the second law of thermodynamics (which is of course a theory not an actual law) eventually rundown. This is called the Heat Death of the Universe. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth gets energy from the sun and that decreased entropy on earth is (over)matched by increasing entropy in the sun. Entropy increases in the overall system (the universe) but parts of it can show a decrease. Nothing at all would work if this was not true.
Oh, even one contradicted law should disproove a fact, even if the earth is NOT a closed system, what about the other laws? If I'm an alleged gangster with 4 alibi, and you disproove one, cant I get off on the other 3? Is a fact, a fact if it is contradicted by another?
You mean your claims about the so-called law of biogenesis and the so-called law of kinds? Creationist drivel is not an argument against science.
Dictionary.com (Faith n.)
" Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."
Untrue. Whether its sponanious evolution, the big bang, or evolution over billions of years, the belief that non-living matter can defy mathimatical probability, and do what cannot be done in a laboritory it does indeed require faith.
Evolution is backed by quiteabitofmaterialevidence. To claim that it isn't is dishonest. I also notice that you mention mathematical probability. I bet you're one of those people who thinks that everything involved in the process is random and I'll bet you have some giant made-up number that you think describes the likelihood of evolution occuring. You probably think that events that have a low probability never happen when it's trivial to show that they do.
When new facts are discovered, knocking the foundations from under evolution, the theory simply... evolves.
People like you really don't understand science at all, do you? In any scientific endeavor, when new facts are discovered that affect parts of a theory the theory is adapted to take those facts into account. That's the whole point! Look at Newtonian physics! Newton's observations were considered so fundamental and proven that earlier scientists called them "laws". Then we got better measuring tools and discovered that they don't fit the observed behavior of subatomic particles or objects travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light. So the theory had to be changed. Now scientists don't really use the term "law" to describe new discoveries. It's all theory. Increasingly accurate theory but theory nonetheless. That creationists consider this a failing is proof of their ignorance of science.
It's the willingness, even eagerness, to not ignore reality that separates science from religion.
New evidence is discovered all the time, none of which knocks "the foundations from under evolution". The evidence for evolution is a lot stronger than the complete lack of evidence for christian creation.
I specifically said that Flew's agreement with ID doesn't make it true. Does that still make what I said an appeal to authority?
But I think it shows that ID isn't just a bunch of crap. There is some weight to their arguments.
This is the appeal to authority. Pretending that Flew's statement "shows that ID isn't just a bunch of crap." Flew's statement has no bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsehood of ID. To say anything otherwise is an appeal to authority. ID has to stand or fall on its own merits.
Incidentally, Anthony Flew has said (since his conversion to deism) that he believes that Christianity is false. Do you agree with him? If not, why are you asking people to give credence to the religious position of someone with whom you do not agree?
Atheism tends to be a psychological crutch so people can live a life without being accountable.
Why are people like you so amazingly dishonest? Atheism is not a crutch of any kind. It's simply a lack of a belief in any god. Nothing more, nothing less. Atheists have widely varying beliefs, morals and philosophical positions.
And as for not wanting to be held accountable, we're not the ones who claim to be going to a perfect afterlife no matter what we do in this one because we've accepted Jesus as our savior.
Archeologiest dig and find rocks and artifacts that SUPPORT creation.
This is an extraordinary claim. Please provide evidence.
Support is not proof, and since both schools of thought require alot of educated guessing and a little "faith", neither are worthy of being called true science.
This is false. There is no faith involved in Evolution. Scientists are only interested in the truth; if Evolution is disproved, so be it. Humanity will be better off for knowing. Creationism is exactly the opposite. Creationists are desperate to believe that their religion is true. They hold those beliefs in the face of any evidence to the contrary. Evolution and creationism are not the same.
So what? Christianity has matured - it's a peaceful religion.
Christian extremists still kill here in the U.S. And that's when they don't have the same degree of power in our society as Islamic extremists do in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and (thanks to us) Iraq. I can only imagine what Christian extremists would be like if they gained that level of power and acceptance in the U.S.
My guess is that IDists offer another theory because evolution doesn't have all the answers. Both ID and creation gives a theory that does offer the origin of species, whereas evolution, as you confirmed, does not.
ID don't offer anything even vaguely resembling a theory. Theories must be falsifiable. ID doesn't even offer an explanation -- "god did it" doesn't explain anything.
Also, you seem to think that saying that evolution doesn't provide an explanation for the origin of life is scoring some kind of point. Just so you know, the science that attempts to provide an explanation of the origin of life is called abiogenesis. Hope this helps.
But take a look at this: The tree of knowlage was supposed to be DEADLY! So why didn't they die? Evolution.
That's an interesting interpretation. A simpler one is simply that god lied. After all, he feared that Adam and Eve would also eat of the Tree of Life and become a god like him and then kick his ass.
Surely you are aware of the degree to which the Enlightenment project has sought to remove Christianity from public discourse?
Has it occurred to you that maybe it's not a movement but just people coming to the conclusion that christianity's time has come and gone? Maybe they've looked at all the hate, dishonesty, stupidity and pure evil that christianity stands for these days and have had enough? Don't be so quick to look for conspiracies.
My son, who will not say it, is held up for daily ridicule because of his religious convictions--and I have no alternative other than to keep paying for the public education that my children will not get. Surely this isn't fair?
I have no children at all. If I have to pay, so do you.
Christians wouldn't care about this at all if it weren't for the work of some misguided teachers saying something to the effect of "Look, christianity and the bible were shown to be anachronisms and blatantly false when darwin distributed his work".
This is an extraordinary claim. How about you provide some evidence of this happening.
Yup, wanting to teach pseudo-science in public schools is exactly the same as destroying ancient artifacts of another religion, beating women who refuse to wear full body coverings, murdering gays, rape victims, and non-believers.
The only difference between the two is the amount of power they held in the government. There are plenty of christians who would beat women and murder gays if they could get away with it.
The actual possibility of God existing is actually 50%, not 0%.
Please describe the precise methodology you used to determine this figure, showing the source of every number you used in your calculations.
Put your work right here ====>
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. 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.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Which of these definitions do you claim that atheism fits?
If we are getting rid of bad ideas, why not those too?
Are you kidding? Getting rid of all stupid ideas that are taught in schools would be great! Imagine how great a country we'd have if our schools put an emphasis on teaching objective facts and critical thinking instead of "self-esteem" and "everyone's a winner".
Come up with a plan to fix the schools and you've got my vote. In the meantime, let's not add to the stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
Reference the Time magazine article from last November and an MSNBC article from 2003 I believe. Sorry I can't give you an exact reference.
Unfortunately I don't have ready access to those magazines. Do you have a web link with any info? In the meantime I'll just keep believing that quantum mechanics and evolution aren't deeply connected.
Sure, abiogenesis "could be" the answer, I never denied that. It seems to me it isn't the answer because it uses only natural forces to explain the beginning of life, and yet, from observable laws of nature, such as life must always come from other life, it seems natural laws rule out abiogenesis. Could I be wrong? Yes. Am I proven wrong? No.
I'm not sure what you mean by laws of nature, but you are aware that the conditions on earth prior to the formation of life were a lot different than they are now, right? That's one of the problems people are having with trying to duplicate this in the lab. I don't think you can look at the situation now and say that it "rules out" abiogenesis.
Likewise, it "could be" that a non-natural force created natural life in the first place. I think a lot of secularists would like to believe this, as long as it didn't involve 'god'. But since the main proponents of the non-natural life beginning are believers in God, we have secularists running around like hell, slandering any non-natural life beginnings.
I haven't seen secularists slandering the idea of non-natural life beginnings, but if they're out there then they are a good match for the creationists running around like hell, slandering evolution. What I have seen are secularists and christians and people from other religions arguing against the idea of ID being taught in biology classes on the basis that it isn't science.
Abiogenesis isn't proven, and I personally believe don't believe it can be.
Indeed, abiogenesis is a long way from being proven possible, but the debate isn't really over abiogenesis, it's over evolution, which has been observed and for which there is a great deal of evidence.
In any case, I appreciate your keeping things civil. More than I can say for several others that replied to my post.
This is an issue that provokes an emotional response in a lot of people, myself included. In these kinds of debates I tend to respond to incivility in kind, for better or worse. It is nice to have at least one conversation about it that doesn't degenerate into name-calling on both sides.
Cigarettes are also legal but a typical store owner can decide whether to sell them or not. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to sell it by law. Otherwise, we can sue Budweiser because it doesn't sell sake.
This is not a valid analogy. The store owner owns the store. The pharmacist does not own the pharmacy. The pharmacist is more like a store clerk who refuses to sell the store's cigarettes to adults because it violates his religious beliefs. The clerk would get fired and so should the pharmacist.
Your buddhist example is a non-sequitur, because a pharmacist's primary job is to dispense prescriptions and medicines. The morning after pill is not a prescription nor it can be considered medicine because what it's designed to treat is not an ailment.
It absolutely is a prescription. That's the whole point. Pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions and in some cases refusing to return the prescription so the person can get it filled somewhere else. And it absolutely is medicine. First of all, an unwanted pregnancy is an ailment. Secondly, in some cases the prescription is for birth control which is preventative. Are you saying that there's no such thing as preventative medicine?
Ah, but abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. Evolution is the evolving of species to form new species (macroevolution).
I know this. That's my point. Arguments that we don't know how the first life began are completely irrelevant to the subject of evolution.
You say ID and Creation do not offer an explanation; ID accepts evolution, but figures that some non-natural force created life in the first place. You correctly say this is falsifiable.
ID does not accept evolution. ID states that life cannot evolve. According to the proponents of Intelligent Design, ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. Not that this is the core claim of evolutionary theory, but understanding evolution isn't one of ID proponents' strong points. And I do not claim that ID is falsifiable; it most definitely is NOT falsifiable, and therefore not science.
Yet the next thing you say is point out abiogenesis, which, is not only unfalsifiable (we can't repro this in a lab!) but also unnatural (life coming from non-life).
Scientists will not be able to prove that abiogenesis is the cause of life on Earth. What they are trying to show is that it could be the cause of life on Earth. They haven't demonstrated it in a lab yet but they've made a great deal of progress. We'd all be living in caves if we rejected all science that wasn't demonstrated instantly.
I can falsify abiogenesis easily: it is observable in nature that 100% of all life living today comes from other life.
I'm not sure why you would think this falsifies abiogenesis. Observing that something isn't happening now doesn't mean it never happened. Incidentally, since you're claiming that all life has to come from other life that would mean that your creator has to come from other life. Where did the creator come from?
See what you're saying? "God did it" is not natural and is not falsifiable. Here's abiogenesis, which is not natural, and is not falsifiable.
I never said anything about "natural"; don't put words in my mouth. As for falsifiable, "God did it" is definitely not falsifiable. It is possible to prove that abiogenesis is not responsible for life on Earth.
It has to do with evolution and design because people who have proposed it explicity say "we can't have design."
Show me. Provide a citation of the people who promote the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics saying that we can't have design. I've read a fair bit on quantum mechanics and have never seen this. I'm certainly not going to believe it on your say-so.
Religion is the belief in something that is inherently based on Faith. Regardless of what reference.com or anything may say.
Are you saying that when you say something is a religion you are using the word to mean something different from what it actually means? That's a poor defense.
You have to have Faith to believe that there is NO GOD. That is a leap just as having faith that there is a God. We are creatures of Faith and we use it everyday.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in any god. This is distinct from the positive belief that there is no god. It's like the difference between "not believing any of the UFO stories you've heard" and "believing that there is no life on other planets". Lacking a belief in god is no more a leap of faith than lacking a belief in Santa Claus or the Bogeyman.
When you get up in the morning you have faith the sun is still in the sky.
No, I have a reasonable expectation based on my understanding of the layout of the solar system and my knowledge that if the Earth stopped revolving around the sun my first clue wouldn't be not seeing it in the sky.
Science is a form of faith based on observable instances.. but it all comes down to theory and assumptions.
No. Science is making observations, developing testable and falsifiable theories to explain those observations, then testing the theories. Theories are never "proven", only tested with increasing accuracy. Science requires an open mind and a willingness to accept change. Faith has no place in science.
Math is based on a point that is assumed to exist.
No. Math as a system is based on axioms that are agreed upon by the participants. When I say it is true that 1+1=2, you will only agree with me if you agree on what the symbols "1", "+", "=" and "2" are. I can easily demonstrate the truth of what the equation means if I have two of something but the expression is a matter of agreement. I can also say 1+1=10 and that is equally true if we agree on a different expression of numbers (specifically, binary).
To answer your question based on your reference.com: #4: Athiesm is a Religion based on a cause, principle, AND activity pursered with zeal or consecientious devotion.
But it isn't. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god. No more, no less. I don't pursue my atheism with zeal and conscientious devotion; I can't even imagine how I would go about doing such a thing. Do you claim to pursue your lack of a belief in the Bogeyman with zeal and conscientious devotion? If so, what does that involve?
You might be thinking of Secular Humanism but you should understand that not all atheists are secular humanists.
Agnostic is the uncertainity that there may or may not be a God. That is where a lot of people live.
Agnosticism is the position that it is impossible to know with certainty whether or not a god exists. It is possible to be both agnostic and atheist, as I am. Most people who claim to be agnostic but not atheist would then claim to not believe in any god. They just don't like the word "atheist".
You didn't argue against your statement being an example of appeal to authority so I'll take it as read that you agree with me.
Well, it is standing quite well on its own merits as we see atheists fleeing to an unprovable multiple universe theory in order to avoid design. I believe that one is the gambler's falacy.
Where did you get the idea that the multiple universe theory (the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics) has anything to do with evolution vs design? It's only one of several interpretations of the observed effects of quantum mechanics, an area of science that is fairly separate from evolution.
ID has to stand on its own merits. Right now it's just a blind assertion. There's no evidence to suggest that it's true and quite a bit to suggest that it isn't: defective optical nerve attachment on the human eye, sub-optimal spinal structure that leads to lower back problems, etc. ID offers no explanations, only saying that "someone (by which they mean the christian god) designed it that way and we can't possibly hope to understand."
Oh, and FYI, the gambler's fallacy is the tendency of people to believe that a deviation from the expected norm will be corrected in the short term. For example, the person who sees red come up on the roulette wheel five times in a row and assumes that black must be "due".
You might consider anything from the universe as a whole, to a small pond of water to be "isolated". Whether or not the universe of the small pond of water was disturbed by an outside force is pure speculation.
Nonsense. It's very easy to show that small ponds are affected by outside forces. As for the universe, the entire universe is believed to be a closed system and it will therefore, according to the second law of thermodynamics (which is of course a theory not an actual law) eventually rundown. This is called the Heat Death of the Universe. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth gets energy from the sun and that decreased entropy on earth is (over)matched by increasing entropy in the sun. Entropy increases in the overall system (the universe) but parts of it can show a decrease. Nothing at all would work if this was not true.
Oh, even one contradicted law should disproove a fact, even if the earth is NOT a closed system, what about the other laws? If I'm an alleged gangster with 4 alibi, and you disproove one, cant I get off on the other 3? Is a fact, a fact if it is contradicted by another?
You mean your claims about the so-called law of biogenesis and the so-called law of kinds? Creationist drivel is not an argument against science.
Dictionary.com (Faith n.) " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."
Untrue. Whether its sponanious evolution, the big bang, or evolution over billions of years, the belief that non-living matter can defy mathimatical probability, and do what cannot be done in a laboritory it does indeed require faith.
Evolution is backed by quite a bit of material evidence. To claim that it isn't is dishonest. I also notice that you mention mathematical probability. I bet you're one of those people who thinks that everything involved in the process is random and I'll bet you have some giant made-up number that you think describes the likelihood of evolution occuring. You probably think that events that have a low probability never happen when it's trivial to show that they do.
When new facts are discovered, knocking the foundations from under evolution, the theory simply... evolves.
People like you really don't understand science at all, do you? In any scientific endeavor, when new facts are discovered that affect parts of a theory the theory is adapted to take those facts into account. That's the whole point! Look at Newtonian physics! Newton's observations were considered so fundamental and proven that earlier scientists called them "laws". Then we got better measuring tools and discovered that they don't fit the observed behavior of subatomic particles or objects travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light. So the theory had to be changed. Now scientists don't really use the term "law" to describe new discoveries. It's all theory. Increasingly accurate theory but theory nonetheless. That creationists consider this a failing is proof of their ignorance of science.
It's the willingness, even eagerness, to not ignore reality that separates science from religion.
New evidence is discovered all the time, none of which knocks "the foundations from under evolution". The evidence for evolution is a lot stronger than the complete lack of evidence for christian creation.
I specifically said that Flew's agreement with ID doesn't make it true. Does that still make what I said an appeal to authority?
But I think it shows that ID isn't just a bunch of crap. There is some weight to their arguments.
This is the appeal to authority. Pretending that Flew's statement "shows that ID isn't just a bunch of crap." Flew's statement has no bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsehood of ID. To say anything otherwise is an appeal to authority. ID has to stand or fall on its own merits.
Appeal to authority? That's pretty sad, even by ID standards.
Incidentally, Anthony Flew has said (since his conversion to deism) that he believes that Christianity is false. Do you agree with him? If not, why are you asking people to give credence to the religious position of someone with whom you do not agree?
Atheism tends to be a psychological crutch so people can live a life without being accountable.
Why are people like you so amazingly dishonest? Atheism is not a crutch of any kind. It's simply a lack of a belief in any god. Nothing more, nothing less. Atheists have widely varying beliefs, morals and philosophical positions.
And as for not wanting to be held accountable, we're not the ones who claim to be going to a perfect afterlife no matter what we do in this one because we've accepted Jesus as our savior.
the second law of thermodynamics all contradict evolution in its current state
Don't be ridiculous. The second law means that in a closed system entropy cannot decrease. The Earth is not a closed system.
Archeologiest dig and find rocks and artifacts that SUPPORT creation.
This is an extraordinary claim. Please provide evidence.
Support is not proof, and since both schools of thought require alot of educated guessing and a little "faith", neither are worthy of being called true science.
This is false. There is no faith involved in Evolution. Scientists are only interested in the truth; if Evolution is disproved, so be it. Humanity will be better off for knowing. Creationism is exactly the opposite. Creationists are desperate to believe that their religion is true. They hold those beliefs in the face of any evidence to the contrary. Evolution and creationism are not the same.
So what? Christianity has matured - it's a peaceful religion.
Christian extremists still kill here in the U.S. And that's when they don't have the same degree of power in our society as Islamic extremists do in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and (thanks to us) Iraq. I can only imagine what Christian extremists would be like if they gained that level of power and acceptance in the U.S.
Evolution is a fact? Did I miss the memo?
Yes.
(Of course, it's also a Theory which deals with the observed effects of the fact of evolution over millions of years.)
My guess is that IDists offer another theory because evolution doesn't have all the answers. Both ID and creation gives a theory that does offer the origin of species, whereas evolution, as you confirmed, does not.
ID don't offer anything even vaguely resembling a theory. Theories must be falsifiable. ID doesn't even offer an explanation -- "god did it" doesn't explain anything.
Also, you seem to think that saying that evolution doesn't provide an explanation for the origin of life is scoring some kind of point. Just so you know, the science that attempts to provide an explanation of the origin of life is called abiogenesis. Hope this helps.
But take a look at this: The tree of knowlage was supposed to be DEADLY! So why didn't they die? Evolution.
That's an interesting interpretation. A simpler one is simply that god lied. After all, he feared that Adam and Eve would also eat of the Tree of Life and become a god like him and then kick his ass.
Surely you are aware of the degree to which the Enlightenment project has sought to remove Christianity from public discourse?
Has it occurred to you that maybe it's not a movement but just people coming to the conclusion that christianity's time has come and gone? Maybe they've looked at all the hate, dishonesty, stupidity and pure evil that christianity stands for these days and have had enough? Don't be so quick to look for conspiracies.
My son, who will not say it, is held up for daily ridicule because of his religious convictions--and I have no alternative other than to keep paying for the public education that my children will not get. Surely this isn't fair?
I have no children at all. If I have to pay, so do you.
The reason we don't teach creationism is science classes is that creationism isn't science.
Hope this helps.
Christians wouldn't care about this at all if it weren't for the work of some misguided teachers saying something to the effect of "Look, christianity and the bible were shown to be anachronisms and blatantly false when darwin distributed his work".
This is an extraordinary claim. How about you provide some evidence of this happening.
Yup, wanting to teach pseudo-science in public schools is exactly the same as destroying ancient artifacts of another religion, beating women who refuse to wear full body coverings, murdering gays, rape victims, and non-believers.
The only difference between the two is the amount of power they held in the government. There are plenty of christians who would beat women and murder gays if they could get away with it.
The actual possibility of God existing is actually 50%, not 0%.
Please describe the precise methodology you used to determine this figure, showing the source of every number you used in your calculations.
Put your work right here ====>
I've never understood the ridiculous claim that atheism is a religion.
stop quote the religion of Atheism.
This is the definition of religion:
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. 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.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Which of these definitions do you claim that atheism fits?
If we are getting rid of bad ideas, why not those too?
Are you kidding? Getting rid of all stupid ideas that are taught in schools would be great! Imagine how great a country we'd have if our schools put an emphasis on teaching objective facts and critical thinking instead of "self-esteem" and "everyone's a winner".
Come up with a plan to fix the schools and you've got my vote. In the meantime, let's not add to the stupidity.