in closing

Any bets he really means it?  They seldom do.

hence the bit

“[for now]“

Gaz, that first site you linked to in your last post was absolutely laughable. Generally speaking, if a website makes claims about being “scientific” yet contains the word “witnessing” (in the Christian proselytization sense) in its URL, you can be sure that the concept of science is lost on its master(s).

Edit: I meant your second to last post. You know, the one where you were linking “science-y” sites for us.

ah well, we all have our own beliefs.
I think because we are all locked into our own belief systems, and we look at the evidence we want to look at, and want to hear - which goes both ways - I think it will be stale-mate for a long time to come; no-one’s going to budge from their oppinions on what really happened.

in closing, here’s just 2 links left to show you [for now]
what Scientists have discovered over the past several decades had already been written down thousands of years before Science existed!
you can’t deny what Scientists of the past used to think, compared to now:
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scienceconfirmsthebible.shtml

and still, this is what I think of Evolution [wasn’t sure how to do the link thing] :D
http://www.worth1000.com/cache/contest/contestcache.asp?contest_id=8511&start=1&end=10&display=photoshop

btw, nice link about ‘Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories’ there. *nods*

There is a BIG difference between the philosophy of Science and the philosophy of Scientism. 

Scientism is a belief that scientific knowledge is the foundation of all knowledge and that, consequently, scientific argument should always be weighted more heavily than other forms of knowledge, particularly those which are not yet well described or justified from within the rational framework, or whose description fails to present itself in the course of a debate against a scientific argument.  As a consequence, Scientism has a habit of enbracing the dogma that Science is the only justifiable truth and treats Scientific knowledge as infallible.

Science on the other hand in its very nature is to be skeptical of itself.  Science will disprove itself and make an effort to find the truth through Empirical observations.  Science is supposed to be unbaised in its studies and everchanging.  If someone found you could travel through time by chewing a specific form of bubble gum and it was confirmed in multiple studies by many other indepedant individuals, then it would become accepted that time travel through gum was possible. 

The reason why ID has difficulty for its acceptance is that it lacks empirical observations and a large amount of credible research.  There are Christain science journals and Nature has in the past accepted higher concious theory research so there is no reason why there shouldn’t be any, if credible.  There is no strange atheist conspiricy in Science, pretty much no conspiricy period.  On a research standpoint, ID needs some work.

What ID is winning is the cultural war.  Scientists don’t typically intermingle with the public with their research.  They are like wizards in high towers, preoccupied with their work and reclusive from the greater public.  ID appeals to the general public and the lack of decent scientific background to press a claim.  It is the pushing of dogmas, between Christainity and Scientism that this battle is all about and comparably Scientism doesn’t have a hope. 

So enough with the dogma and the thought exercises.  Enough with the statements of belief systems and ideology.  That is not the Theory of Evolution.  That is the dogma of Evolution.  I personally don’t like the dogma of Evolution.  It’s messy and full of bloody holes to stand as a decent belief system.  If anything I like Buddism, they are more like atheists then many of the scientists I know.  So enough is enough, bring facts!  I am so bloody sick of seeing arguments propping up the Bible and denouncing heathens when that isn’t the issue at all.  The issue is that is evolution incorrect or not.  If so, please state how.  It will not be torn to pieces by dogma, at least not by me.  If you can’t do that, then please return to whatever cess pool of logical hell you have deviated from.  Preaching IS NOT teaching.

Thank you.  That is all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Scientism is a belief that scientific knowledge is the foundation of all knowledge and that, consequently, scientific argument should always be weighted more heavily than other forms of knowledge, particularly those which are not yet well described or justified from within the rational framework, or whose description fails to present itself in the course of a debate against a scientific argument.  As a consequence, Scientism has a habit of enbracing the dogma that Science is the only justifiable truth and treats Scientific knowledge as infallible.
Science on the other hand in its very nature is to be skeptical of itself.  Science will disprove itself and make an effort to find the truth through Empirical observations.  Science is supposed to be unbaised in its studies and everchanging.  If someone found you could travel through time by chewing a specific form of bubble gum and it was confirmed in multiple studies by many other indepedant individuals, then it would become accepted that time travel through gum was possible… ID appeals to the general public and the lack of decent scientific background to press a claim.

Ideally, science and popular culture should be two separate entities. The legitimacy of a scientific theory or a broader scientific field should be determined not by society’s attitudes towards it but by the factual evidence that supports it.

Unfortunately, science has become politicized in a culture that has become both increasingly religiously conservative and intimidated by scientific progress. There is a profound hypocrisy afoot when ID advocates condemn proponents of good science in general and evolutionists in particular for being dogmatic in their efforts to define what is and isn’t science, while at the same time adhering to a strict, scientifically unfounded, dogmatic interpretation of the Old Testament.

I think that it may be precisely because of this hypocrisy that the ID advocates are finding moderate success in the culture war. They are simultaneously encouraging everyday, religious Americans to both question academia, intellectualism, and science, and to embrace without question fundamentalist readings of the Bible.

Sadie: “Ideally, science and popular culture should be two separate entities.“

I don’t know if I’m understanding you correctly, but I’d be thrilled to see science more a part of popular culture.  Occasionally scientists become popular folk heroes - the more of that, generally, the better.  (Tesla, Einstein, Salk, & Sagan, for examples) Kids putting posters of them on their walls instead of some sports hero.

Of course that’s different from weighing scientific theories against popular acclaim, which is not good of course.

I agree with you, DOF. What I mean is that science and pop culture should not be treated as intellectual equals. The playing field between the two should not be even. Pop culture is fickle, ever subject to change (even the current trend in religious conservatism is just that, a trend). Science, on the other hand, should never be weighed solely (or even partially, in my opinion) by popular opinion or political trends.

Did anybody else spot this in the point I made about the Theory of Gravity?

that is precisely the point I’m trying to make if it’s only a theory, why do you always state it as sheer fact, as though it’s as obvious as the spots on a teenager’s face?

Have I understood this right- Gaz doesn’t believe in Gravity?  Chalk this one up to Intelligent Falling.

Gaz simply does not understand that evolution is both a theory and a fact. The same is true of gravity.

Chalk this one up to Intelligent Falling.

P.S. Shouldn’t it technically be called “Intelligent Pushing?“ 

Or really Intelligent Failing?

hey all just passing through,

here’s a link for you guys to look through here: http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/does-god-exist-scientifically-aajc-f4b6.htm

This is a first. A drive-by I-can’t-be-bothered-to-support-my-beliefs-so-here’s-a-link-you’ll-just-laugh-at comment.

Funny link, though. I was laughing so hard I had to stop after the first sentence.

Piltdown man!  Thermodynamics!!!    And you gotta read the second page on Charles Darwin. 

Hope that link doesn’t get out, or we’re done-for!

I found the DNA section most interesting.  A code with a master builder behind it, that signal without meaning isn’t a signal.  Wasn’t it said that give a thousand monkeys a typewriter and infinite time, they will create the works of shakespeare!  Plus there are protein constructs that are universal in all Eukaryotes.  This is not just evolutionary junk, this is a common mechanism of life!  MAPk anyone?  Proof that it is very possible that there is already a message for the signal, chemistry!

Hey Ichthus- I too checked out your link, and found it a bit “fishy”.  Get it- “fishy”?  Ha ha…

mmm yes, I do like my fish and chips. This whole topic is very fishy to me :p

ok then, 3 more links for you to think about and yes, I’ve seen your pretty website you like giving people.

taken from this site: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.html

1) Recent Problems in Evolution: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolprob.html

2) Someone who is NOT a Creationist but doesn’t believe in Evolution either: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

3) The Incredible Design of the Earth and Our Solar System: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html

I have often thought of putting up a spoof-creationist site with ideas so idiotic, that even a reationist could spot them as parody.  Then, I’d wait until the creationist world swallowed them hook, line, and sinker and Curt Cameron was making movies about them, and blow the whistle a’la Alan Sokal’s Social Text affair.

Except… I can’t think of anything more idiotic than the crap that passes as creationism already.  Once you reach a certain level you’re just moving chess pieces around on the chairs on the Titanic, or something like that.

I will say this, however; Michael Behe likes to use big words.  It makes him sound credible - he’s got ‘Credibleness’.  And Philip Johnson?  Fugeddaboudit!  Who else but a lawyer would see the real truth of speciation? Certainly not thousands of biologists and other scientists collecting and analyzing data from the field.

In fact, let’s just do away with science and have religious lawyers do all our inventing and discovery.  Then we’d have… Oh, wait, it’s already been done. As has, probably, my idea of spoof-creationism.

Frankly…I think that TBN gives Christians and Christianity in general a bad name…and puts a sour taste in the mouths of skeptics and believers alike.  The entire network takes faith and religion WAAAYYYY over the top!!  Especially that crazy lookin lady with the HUGE pink hair!!
Give us all a break!

Ichthus

The response to much of what I read on your links has to be ‘yeah, so?‘

Lets take the odds given for one of the universal rules to work.  The figure given is 1:10^37- Big odds.

Let’s now look at the UK lottery.  This uses a 6 from 49 format- the most common around the world for state lottos.

The chance of a particular set of 6 balls is 1 in 14,000,000 - 1:1.4 x 10^6.  After 10 draws the chance of those particular 60 balls is 2.9 x 10^71.  Doesnt matter if any one wins, the of those balls are huge.

The chance of a shuffled deck of cards being in a particular order is 8 x 10^67.

Yep the chances of this universe existining like this are so astonishinly small it makes your head hurt. But it exists- it was that pack of cards.  There may be other universes with different laws of physics- we can’t describe them, because we do not have the capacity to do so.  Read ‘Flatland’- how do you decribe a cube to a square that has no idea of a vertical?

Also we don’t know how many abortive universes existed, or if there are any others that look totally different.

‘Man fits the universe, therefore the universe was designed around man’ - turn this around: we evolved this way, as to evolve differently would have meant extinction.

Last Hussar
Such complex arguments are over the heads of most beleivers. Besides I think they turn of their brains, eyes and ears when they encounter any data or argument that weakens their position

DoF- you’re right: how can one spoof something as silly as creationism?  I guess we’ll have to be satisfied with calling Catholics “fisheaters”, or something…  Pathetic, really…

Ichthus: here’s proof for you of the conspiracy to silence the scientific truth about humans and dinosaurs living together: the chilling story of Onyate Man.  It is just as incredible, and just as devastating to atheists, as all the sites you cite.

I see we have another fan of the God and Science webpage. I often read that site when I need a good laugh as it’s pretty damned amusing.

Ichthus: here’s proof for you of the conspiracy to silence the scientific truth about humans and dinosaurs living together: the chilling story of Onyate Man.  It is just as incredible, and just as devastating to atheists, as all the sites you cite.

so why do people still believe that man and dinosaur never lived together, and why isn’t anyone else commenting on that link?

I can see that people are trying to use more and more quotes from different people, because they’re either running out of things to say, or they can’t think for themselves - I can recognise most of the quotes so far .

[ps. on an off-topic note, I thought this was quite funny: ]http://www.gameklip.com/v/719/]

Ichthus: “so why do people still believe that man and dinosaur never lived together,
and why isn’t anyone else commenting on that link?“

Oh, Ichthus…