Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> This isn't the real problem. The real problem is that those who support 
> it **do not want a result that contradicts the idea that the first part 
> of the Bible is literally true**. The Vatican recently mumbled something 
> about how they believe, "god created the big bang." The answer of one of 
> the *major* proponents of the, "youngish earth, AiG, ID is real", dear 
> old Ken Ham, had to this was, roughly, "If the big bang happened, then 
> genesis would need to be wrong, or allegory, but if it was wrong, then 
> the first 'marriage' would be false, sin wouldn't be real, etc., and it 
> would fundamentally destroy everything from Christianity itself, to the 
> sanctity of heterosexual marriage. Therefor, the Pope is wrong!"

> Its the first case of actual logic I have seen from the man. Yes Ken, if 
> Genesis, which is the basis of virtually every bit of bullshit 
> moralizing, persecution, and evil your religion has, or continues, to 
> institute, was wrong, so would your entire religion. Congratulations on 
> proving you can follow logic, even if you completely fail at accepting 
> its conclusions. lol

  I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
of christianity. For example the "sanctity of marriage" (assuming there is
such a thing) doesn't become any less so if the story of creation is
allegorical.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 7-1-2011 17:02, Paul Fuller wrote:

> And yet, the uninformed masses have no problem saying that "it is
> obviously too complex to come about by chance and therefore must have
> been created".

It is clearly too complicated to have been created.

Post a reply to this message

On 7-1-2011 17:51, Invisible wrote:

> And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
> a single damned one.

So mathematics is not science?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 7-1-2011 17:51, Invisible wrote:

> > And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
> > a single damned one.

> So mathematics is not science?

  Physics is applied math, so in a way math does make predictions (or, at
the very least, it's a useful tool to make such predictions).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 8-1-2011 13:42, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 7-1-2011 17:51, Invisible wrote:
>
>>> And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
>>> a single damned one.
>
>> So mathematics is not science?
>
>    Physics is applied math, so in a way math does make predictions (or, at
> the very least, it's a useful tool to make such predictions).

The latter. BTW I don't care if Andrew thinks Maths is science or not. I 
just wanted to know.
BTW 2: I don't think I have ever made a prediction in my working life. 
That probably implies that I am not a scientist.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> That probably implies that I am not a scientist.

  Not all scientists make predictions.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 8/01/2011 3:34 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> A well-known writer once wrote "quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id
> potius credit". I think he was right.
>

That sounds like something I could believe is true - If only I knew what 
it meant.

>
> Trouble is, Behe will just claim that nobody will publish his research
> because it's "controversial". As if which scientific theories get
> accepted or rejected depends on which scientists are part of the "in
> club" or something.

Which is of course one of the signs of crackpot conspiracy theories. 
The reason you can't prove it is because the conspiracy is hiding the 
evidence!

>
> Unfortunately, there *have* actually been instances of scientists making
> genuine scientific discoveries and being laughed at by mainstream
> science for decades afterwards. Sometimes an idea is just so radical
> that nobody takes it seriously. Who an idea comes from should have no
> baring on its scientific validity, but sometimes that affects how
> willing people are to look at it. How similar a theory is to an existing
> one doesn't necessarily indicate how correct it is, but sometimes people
> act like it does.

The scientific process isn't as pure as perhaps it should be.  It is 
after all a construct of humans and subject to its share of prejudice, 
self interest and outright fraud.  Still the truth will come out and in 
much less time than through any other system going around.

The examples of initially rejected theories that are eventually accepted 
are out there.  Actually they are good illustrations that the system 
works.  Radical theories need strong evidence and should be subjected to 
assault by those who defend the accepted theories.  Don't expect to 
overturn the whole world of physics (or biology, or cosmology etc) in an 
afternoon.

Jumping to use those examples to support a new theory or ideology is a 
sign that it is weak in itself.

>
> I have no idea to what extent this problem has been solved in the modern
> era. I imagine there are probably still ideas that you would be
> hard-pressed to get people to accept, even with valid data to back it
> up. But then, I am not a scientist, so I couldn't say...
>
> Behe, of course, is just using all this as an excuse to get bibles into
> schools, as is transparently self-evident.
>

It is so transparent as to be ludicrous.  As compared to real science it 
is laughable.  Of course those who jump on board want to have it seen as 
an equal 'theory'.

>> In defence of the tree kangaroos of New Guinea and Northern Australia,
>> they quite likely are very well adapted to the same sort of niche as the
>> sloths. Live in trees, eat low nutrition leaves which need to be
>> fermented in order to extract energy, move slowly, conserve energy. If
>> it works then evolution doesn't care how stupid *you* think they look.
>> But you know that.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Actually, in general you find that low-energy habitats are populated by
> animals that move very slowly. (Take a look at the bottom of the sea,
> for example...)

Makes you wonder what life on a Kuiper Belt Object might be like.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/01/2011 11:34 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 7-1-2011 17:02, Paul Fuller wrote:
>
>> And yet, the uninformed masses have no problem saying that "it is
>> obviously too complex to come about by chance and therefore must have
>> been created".
>
> It is clearly too complicated to have been created.

That is an insight that makes sense to us.

Unfortunately once you believe in an omnipresent, all knowing, all 
powerful, arbitrary and apparently uncaring but malicious deity then 
anything is possible.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/01/2011 2:54 PM, Paul Fuller wrote:
> On 8/01/2011 3:34 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>> A well-known writer once wrote "quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id
>> potius credit". I think he was right.
>>
>
> That sounds like something I could believe is true - If only I knew what
> it meant.

Quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id potius credit. For what a man would 
like to be true, that he more readily believes.

-Bacon, Francis,Viscount St Albans

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 9/01/2011 2:20 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 2:54 PM, Paul Fuller wrote:
>> On 8/01/2011 3:34 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>
>>> A well-known writer once wrote "quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id
>>> potius credit". I think he was right.
>>>
>>
>> That sounds like something I could believe is true - If only I knew what
>> it meant.
>
> Quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id potius credit. For what a man would
> like to be true, that he more readily believes.
>
> -Bacon, Francis,Viscount St Albans
>

Thanks for that.

I never was good with irony.

Post a reply to this message