My question was based on your statement "And seriously, if you are gonna get money for studying Intelligent Design, then you should be reasonably able to refute it." Possibly I missunderstood, but it seemed that you were saying that ID could be refuted. I appologize if that was the case.
But I have never tried to call believing that God created the universe "science." It would be obsurd and irresponsible for me to do so. Science must be observed, documented, and tested. Hence the scientific method. But having said that, one really can't call evolution science either. It has also not been observed, documented, or tested. Nor can it be--Neither can. But the whole world points to a creator. The order and complexity are far too brilliant for random chance. I see more meaning in my life than just being the result of random chance. I know who I would be without God.
Again, I never would call Intellegent Design science. It is no more science than the hypothesis of evolution.
You are wrong. New information cannot be created by rearranging. Within a species, individual variation remains constant. For example, within a species of fish, no matter how long they breed, the result will ONLY be variations from WITHIN the original genetic make-up. No information for legs or wings or anything else can be added. Only sorting and rearranging of the original information.
Axiom 3 is the exact point of point of the assumption made. I am saying that what we call evil is the absence of God. If this is true, then your equation is rendered irrelevant. If you were to try to disprove the idea that evil is the absence of God with that equation then you would end up arguing that God created the absence of himself.
Our inabililty to escape the confines of time makes this issue impossible to solve. The current working definition of "Time" is something to the effect of, "A measurement used to denote change." Therefore we can extrapolate that in order for there to be "change" there must be something change in the first place. So time and matter are very closely linked. So whoever or whatever created matter also created time, directly or indirectly. Therefore while the creation IS bound by time, the creator is not (since he is not within his creation.) Now inherant to time is what? A beginning and an end. Our entire perspectives of the world and events are based on a linear model of time in which EVERYTHING has a beginning and an end. So you can see the problem. Since beginnings and ends are unique to time, anything outside of time does not require a beginning or end. Therefore our efforts to understand the origins of God are based on the assumption that God, as the creator of beginnings and ends, requires a beginning himself.
God did not create evil. Your equation rests on the assumption that evil IS something and not the LACK of something. Much like there is no "thing" called darkness--there is only the absence of light. Just as God is good and created all that is good, he gave us the option to reject him which would equal our definition of evil--I.E. The absence of God.
WRONG. Your suggestions to send some textbooks to Canada for the purpose of proving your idea would only compound your problem if intellegent and informed people reveiw them. The theory or eveloution as it now stands (Phylogeny) contradicts BASIC Mendel genetics. I.E. -Individual variation remains constant- In other words genetic information varies only within the existing information in a gene pool--new information cannot be added. Information can only be sorted and rearanged within the population. There has never been any example of new information being added. Now, unless you've got some proof that Mendel is wrong, you'd better reconsider sending your textbooks.
Seriously, I don't know that there has been one intellegent proponent of ID to my knowledge who has said something of the sort as it says in that article. If they have said anything similar, it was only to make the point that there are certain things which science has not been able to explain thus far. Now if Caltek can use science to explain everything in existance-whether physical or not-at that point they may have a point.
Slashdot Mirror
The Archaeopteryx bridged nothing. It's been proven to have been a real bird and not just a midpoint of evolution.
My question was based on your statement "And seriously, if you are gonna get money for studying Intelligent Design, then you should be reasonably able to refute it." Possibly I missunderstood, but it seemed that you were saying that ID could be refuted. I appologize if that was the case. But I have never tried to call believing that God created the universe "science." It would be obsurd and irresponsible for me to do so. Science must be observed, documented, and tested. Hence the scientific method. But having said that, one really can't call evolution science either. It has also not been observed, documented, or tested. Nor can it be--Neither can. But the whole world points to a creator. The order and complexity are far too brilliant for random chance. I see more meaning in my life than just being the result of random chance. I know who I would be without God. Again, I never would call Intellegent Design science. It is no more science than the hypothesis of evolution.
You are wrong. New information cannot be created by rearranging. Within a species, individual variation remains constant. For example, within a species of fish, no matter how long they breed, the result will ONLY be variations from WITHIN the original genetic make-up. No information for legs or wings or anything else can be added. Only sorting and rearranging of the original information.
Axiom 3 is the exact point of point of the assumption made. I am saying that what we call evil is the absence of God. If this is true, then your equation is rendered irrelevant. If you were to try to disprove the idea that evil is the absence of God with that equation then you would end up arguing that God created the absence of himself.
ID proponents aren't as much of a minority as you might think. As for real science, please show me how exactly it refutes ID.
Our inabililty to escape the confines of time makes this issue impossible to solve. The current working definition of "Time" is something to the effect of, "A measurement used to denote change." Therefore we can extrapolate that in order for there to be "change" there must be something change in the first place. So time and matter are very closely linked. So whoever or whatever created matter also created time, directly or indirectly. Therefore while the creation IS bound by time, the creator is not (since he is not within his creation.) Now inherant to time is what? A beginning and an end. Our entire perspectives of the world and events are based on a linear model of time in which EVERYTHING has a beginning and an end. So you can see the problem. Since beginnings and ends are unique to time, anything outside of time does not require a beginning or end. Therefore our efforts to understand the origins of God are based on the assumption that God, as the creator of beginnings and ends, requires a beginning himself.
God did not create evil. Your equation rests on the assumption that evil IS something and not the LACK of something. Much like there is no "thing" called darkness--there is only the absence of light. Just as God is good and created all that is good, he gave us the option to reject him which would equal our definition of evil--I.E. The absence of God.
WRONG. Your suggestions to send some textbooks to Canada for the purpose of proving your idea would only compound your problem if intellegent and informed people reveiw them. The theory or eveloution as it now stands (Phylogeny) contradicts BASIC Mendel genetics. I.E. -Individual variation remains constant- In other words genetic information varies only within the existing information in a gene pool--new information cannot be added. Information can only be sorted and rearanged within the population. There has never been any example of new information being added. Now, unless you've got some proof that Mendel is wrong, you'd better reconsider sending your textbooks.
Seriously, I don't know that there has been one intellegent proponent of ID to my knowledge who has said something of the sort as it says in that article. If they have said anything similar, it was only to make the point that there are certain things which science has not been able to explain thus far. Now if Caltek can use science to explain everything in existance-whether physical or not-at that point they may have a point.