Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would mean it wouldn't stand up in a court of law alone without solid proof of a space craft.
What are you talking about? Of course it would "stand up in a court of law." If the issue before the court were "Are disk-shaped craft performing inexplicable maneuvers in our skies?", testimony from a long series of credible observers, some of whom were multiple witnesses to the same sightings, bolstered by photographs, radar reports and physical traces, most certainly would be admissible and most certainly would establish one hell of a prima facie case. "Those disk-shaped craft are visitors from an alien civilization" would be inadmissible speculation. This is precisely the distinction I made in my post. In regard to the anecdotal evidence suggestive of an afterlife, there are several distinct bodies of such evidence, each roughly equivalent in strength to the anecdotal evidence for disk-shaped craft. All of those bodies of evidence point in the direction of the survival of consciousness after bodily death. Together, they establish what I believe to be one hell of a prima facie case.
Oh and....Michael Behe's ideas of irreducible complexity have been disproven.
People, please. TVB doesn't want to stoop to strutting his intellectual and academic credentials, but suffice it to say he didn't just fall of the turnip truck. You're not dealing with some yahoo here. Your "authoritative paper" is from the late Paul Kurtz, founder of CSICOP and the Center for Inquiry -- i.e., the Ken Ham of debunkerism. Perhaps you can obtain a letter from the Amazing Randi saying he agrees?
Unquestionably the ID movement has been wholeheartedly embraced by creationists, including me, because it inevitably points toward a creator -- but not, inevitably, toward the Christian God. This is made clear in the Discovery Institute's response to the "wedge document" and the "urban legends" (their term) that surround it: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...oad.php?id=349 The proponents of ID include world-class scientists and ID will ultimately stand or fall on its own merits, regardless of whether the proponents are Christians, deists or atheists. And, no, irreducible complexity has not been "disproven" any more than intelligent design or creationism have been "disproven."
Threads like this are like watching a "discussion" of abortion or homosexuality on television. Every network seems to think that the most useful form of debate is to have two loonies from the extremes of the spectrum try to out-scream each other. The net result is uninformative and unwatchable, except perhaps to those whose favorite sport is professional wrestling.
I think Nye won the debate as far as it goes, but he does overlook the problem of doing science through our observations today. When it comes to astronomy, it's said there was a period of cosmic inflation very early after the big bang event. We have no observation that can confirm it. All we have is if the Big Bang is true, then this period had to take place. If any creature is doing science a hundred billion years from now, or perhaps even less than 100 billion years from now, they will look out into space and come to the conclusion that the universe is eternal. Why? Simply because the universe will be so big, that even the most powerful of optics couldn't see the nearest galaxies. So historical science and observational science is a real thing. It could be that very reason that we will never know our origins. I'll be back later to discuss more.
STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity.
The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS - AAAS News Release), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity.
Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.
Once again, let's resort to that "critical thinking" that atheists prize so highly, shall we?
I PLAINLY said -- TWICE -- that the article to which I linked was simply the first one that Google generated when I searched. I PLAINLY said that the point was simply to show how easily the statement that no articles critical of the Theory of Evolution have been published in peer-reviewed journals could be shown to be false.
Now, you have shown that one of the papers referenced in that article was apparently not peer-reviewed and that the editor of the journal was axed because he was a "closet ID'er" (GASP!). Your suggestion seems to be, despite what I PLAINLY said as set forth above, that my mere linking of the article somehow constituted a full endorsement of everything in it and that I "failed to do my homework" before carelessly making said endorsement. Your point might be well-taken if it were addressed to the AUTHOR OF THE LINKED ARTICLE, about which I PLAINLY said I knew precisely nothing, but it has precisely nothing to do with me.
HOWEVER, I do find this quite a telling example of the "academic terrorism" to which I referred. Meyer and Sternberg apparently dared to challenge the gospel of the High Priests of Scientism and got their just reward, pretty much as The Structure of Scientific Revolutions would have predicted. I also find your reference to Sternberg as a "closet ID'er" quite telling.
In other words, you don't know of any compelling scientific, peer-reviewed evidence against evolution. You suggested that we find it ourselves, assuming that we haven't already looked. (We have.) So you were asked to share what you claim exists, but you cannot.
The need for the debate and the seriousness exhibited by Ham is disturbing. The very existence of YEC believers is the single most depressing fact of human existence, IMO. It belies the power of the intellect in human affairs. The number of sincere adherents is quite horrifying since it reveals so many of us hardly differ from our ignorant ancient ancestors . . . even after 2000+ years of the growth of knowledge and understanding. I am at a loss to either understand it or comprehend its cause. Very, very troubling!
I'm less troubled by it because I think it's largely illusory. I doubt whether, in their heart of hearts, most YEC's (possibly including even Ken Ham) really believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I think it's largely a reactionary movement. There is no question that Christian beliefs and values are under unprecedented assault in America, which (1) dovetails with the Christian understanding of what will occur in the last days, and (2) is making many Christians feel beleaguered and defensive. I think the YEC's are feeling backed into a corner and see the YEC movement as the ultimate stand for God. They are saying, in effect, "In your face and up your ass, I'm not just going to cling to my belief in God in the face of your challenges, I'm going to cling to a position so extreme that it is contrary to everything you believe and everything your science teaches. How do you like that?"
I don't see the YEC movement as any goofier than Scientology and lots of other strange cults and belief systems, both religious and non-religious. Many people do have a deep psychological need to cling to something in the sea of uncertainty of life and can convince themselves that they believe some pretty strange things, particularly when they have the comfort of a group whose members have convinced themselves that they believe likewise (or are pretending to believe likewise because they enjoy the group). This is particularly true when the group provides, as the YEC movement does, absolute irrefutable certainty ("The Bible is the word of God, and NOTHING can contradict it"). But as I say, I doubt that in their heart of hearts and most reflective moments, most YEC's really believe the earth is anything like 6,000 years old.
If you want a real young earth view, I have a very intelligent friend who asks how we can know that we and the universe didn't spring into existence .001 nanoseconds ago, with all of our "memories" implanted by the creator of the software that comprises the universe? Well, we can't know, and thus I guess Really Young Earth Creationism is in some sense a rational belief system. I have always tried to stay flexible and ask myself, "Where does the best evidence and my own intuition point me? What seems most likely to me to be true?"
What are you talking about? Of course it would "stand up in a court of law." If the issue before the court were "Are disk-shaped craft performing inexplicable maneuvers in our skies?", testimony from a long series of credible observers, some of whom were multiple witnesses to the same sightings, bolstered by photographs, radar reports and physical traces, most certainly would be admissible and most certainly would establish one hell of a prima facie case. "Those disk-shaped craft are visitors from an alien civilization" would be inadmissible speculation. This is precisely the distinction I made in my post. In regard to the anecdotal evidence suggestive of an afterlife, there are several distinct bodies of such evidence, each roughly equivalent in strength to the anecdotal evidence for disk-shaped craft. All of those bodies of evidence point in the direction of the survival of consciousness after bodily death. Together, they establish what I believe to be one hell of a prima facie case.
As I stated before, nobody doubts you've seen something. Nobody doubts humans exist on earth either. The doubt is that it's an alien craft. The doubt is that we got here magically.
Once the evidence came forth that your craft belonged to our military your claim would be seen as something you imagined it to be. This is the basis for all religion. Groups of people taking a guess at how we got here and where we are going. When others have proof contradicting a "guess" you can either take it or leave it for personal purposes. But, when in court, you'd have to prove it. There are plenty of conspiracy theories, but that is all they are. A group of people who still won't admit their guess is wrong, even after proof surfaces.
I.E. Bill Nye, yes, if proof was supplied I'd change my way of thinking. Ken Ham, no, I would never change my thinking and would always believe Gods word.
Proof means nothing to these people. YEC's will stand by what they've guessed, like a conspiracy, regardless of proof. It's a no win with them, they are lost to their imagination. They have that freedom.
I'll stick with science, if it's found to be wrong it has the willingness to change to what we think is right. There is freedom in science. There is no freedom in God, you are ruled and will obey. I like freedom. I like that we have rights in America and I'm not hip to some creationist getting the ball rolling on nipping my rights in the bud according to their imaginary God like being.
Last edited by PoppySead; 02-06-2014 at 07:31 AM..
As I stated before, nobody doubts you've seen something. Nobody doubts humans exist on earth either. The doubt is that it's an alien craft. The doubt is that we got here magically.
Once the evidence came forth that your craft belonged to our military your claim would be seen as something you imagined it to be. This is the basis for all religion. Groups of people taking a guess at how we got here and where we are going. When others have proof contradicting a "guess" you can either take it or leave it for personal purposes. But, when in court, you'd have to prove it. There are plenty of conspiracy theories, but that is all they are. A group of people who still won't admit their guess is wrong, even after proof surfaces.
I.E. Bill Nye, yes, if proof was supplied I'd change my way of thinking. Ken Ham, no, I would never change my thinking and would always believe Gods word.
Proof means nothing to you people. You will stand by what you've guessed, like a conspiracy, regardless of proof. It's a no win with you, you are lost to your imagination.
For Ken Ham, the truth of (his interpretation of) the Bible is axiomatic. The Bible isn't evidence, it's an axiom. It would be like asking a mathematician, "What would it take to convince you that a triangle has four sides?" Ken Ham's position is, in its own goofy way, logically consistent and irrefutable.
As I have PLAINLY pointed out, I am not saying that what I or others have seen were alien craft. If I WERE saying that, it would be a perfectly reasonable position because the observed disks were performing maneuvers 50 years ago that no known technology can perform today and that, by the known laws of physics, would generate forces that no human being could survive. I happen to be open to a variety of explanations. But the explanation that "they are all secret military craft" is essentially the Young Earth Creationism of ufology.
Creationism doesn't posit that humans got here magically. It posits that we were created by a higher intelligence. The thinking of creationists is no more "magical" (talk about an over-used buzz word!) than that of non-creationists. I wouldn't accuse the High Priests of Scientism who regard the Theory of Evolution as gospel of engaging in "magical" thinking, but I would certainly characterize their thinking as being in large measure "wishful" thinking motivated by a strong animus toward religion in general and the notion of a creator in particular.
I find your reference to "you people" somewhat telling.
People, please. TVB doesn't want to stoop to strutting his intellectual and academic credentials, but suffice it to say he didn't just fall of the turnip truck. You're not dealing with some yahoo here. Your "authoritative paper" is from the late Paul Kurtz, founder of CSICOP and the Center for Inquiry -- i.e., the Ken Ham of debunkerism. Perhaps you can obtain a letter from the Amazing Randi saying he agrees?
Unquestionably the ID movement has been wholeheartedly embraced by creationists, including me, because it inevitably points toward a creator -- but not, inevitably, toward the Christian God. This is made clear in the Discovery Institute's response to the "wedge document" and the "urban legends" (their term) that surround it: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...oad.php?id=349 The proponents of ID include world-class scientists and ID will ultimately stand or fall on its own merits, regardless of whether the proponents are Christians, deists or atheists. And, no, irreducible complexity has not been "disproven" any more than intelligent design or creationism have been "disproven."
Threads like this are like watching a "discussion" of abortion or homosexuality on television. Every network seems to think that the most useful form of debate is to have two loonies from the extremes of the spectrum try to out-scream each other. The net result is uninformative and unwatchable, except perhaps to those whose favorite sport is professional wrestling.
So basically, you still have no evidence, and still just a lot of rhetoric with some added wishful thinking thrown in. Got it.
I'm laughing at you using the (Christian Creationist) Discovery Institute to try to deflect away from their own Wedge Strategy document. At least the earlier version of "Creation Scientists" had the courage of their religious convictions. These cowardly IDers deny and hide their faith so they can pretend what they are selling is "science". All ID is, is Creationism with a very thin veneer of a few 'sciency sounding' nonsense ideas like irreducible complexity.
Last edited by Ceist; 02-06-2014 at 08:26 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
