Has science truly eliminated God as an intelligent cause.

[Bart007]

I dedicided it would be prudent to start a new topic since the old one was intended solely to flame scientists who happen to also be creationists.

Grumpy says. "I too do not know of any creation scientists since a scientist cannot study supernatural subjects and there is no evidence to support a supernatural creation."

OK, so atheism is your religion and your dogma includes the assumption that God does not exist. You need evolution in order to justify your adopted materialistic worldview.

However, science is a program by which we seek to understand the world around us. There are two kind of causes in this world. Natural causes and intelligent causes.

We observe Mt. St Helens blow its' top and we see nature in action and realize the blown top is the result of natural cause. We see the faces on Mt. Rushmore, and even though we may not have seen it done or know who did it, we clearly know that an intellgent cause brought this about. What seperates intelligent cause from natural cause is that intelligent places boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chance to produce a predetermined result. Thus we have a means by which to determine an intelligent cause, and if the intelligence is determined not to be that of any living creature, the evidence logically leads us elswhere, and it requires putting one's head in the sand to disqualify God from being the intelligent cause simply because your an atheist.

Grumpy says: "There are many scientist involved in the study of evolutionary sciences, it is not a matter of belief, simply acceptance of reality. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution as a fact with several valid theories explaining some of the processes involved. Faith in the existance of something is not required if evidence is readily available validating that existence, such is the case with evolution."

OK, per your statment, please provide me a few examples of the conclusive evidence you have that common ancestry solely by natural means is reality, as you so claim.


How does evolution explain the origin of the different classes of proteins? and, in particular, how did hemoglobin originate solely by natural causes?

Grumpy says: "And as a scientist I can tell you from experience you could not be more wrong about scientists not careing, they care very much indeed, more than your average person by a lot. After all nothing in biology makes any sense without evolution."

You have misunderstood, they are caring people, they care about there families, they care about their non-evolution science work, they care about civic matters, many believe in and care about God, but they just don't give a copper dam about evolution.

[Grumpy]

Bart007

I cannot say that meeting yet another representative of that vast bastion of ignorance that is the CS/BS/ID political movement is the least pleasurable, unfortunately.

Religion Without God?
In 1961, the Supreme Court ruled that there are some atheistic religions and cited among them Hinayana Buddhism, Taoism, and secular humanism.

While these religions may be athieistic they in no way represent the entire philosophy of Atheism. One can be an Atheist without subscribing to any religious belief, as I do. Jesus had a message that I believe to have been coopted by the former Jewish leaders for their own purposes, not everything attributed to him is accurate. I take my lead from Thomas Jefferson and read Jesus's teachings from the "Bible" he compiled of the sayings truly attributable to Jesus. There is no supernatural gobbledegoop included, very refreshing. And just as much the "Good News" for living together as is contained in the superstitious mumbo jumbo of all the many mistranslations that are called Bibles.

In my post to you, Grumpy, I requested some hard scientific evidence that you had indicated existed, and you provided none, which I must see as a legitimate and accurate response to my inquiry. I do not know of any either.

You requested that I waste my time educating someone whose mind is closed to that education(you), and I said I have much more important things to do because I really don't care if you ever lift yourself out of your self imposed pit of ignorance. I also said that there are mountains of info out there if you are truly interested and that your education is your responsibility, not mine.

As I have stated before you showed your ignorance, I am not going to waste MY time going back over the copious evidence already presented on these forums when it is obvious you don't want to spend YOUR time educating yourself. The old saw goes" You can lead a mule to water, but you can't make him anything but stupid".

But You did allude to the existence of tons fossil evidence that favors evolution, please feel free to enlighten us on precisely what this evidence consist, that is if you know. We'll forget you dodged my last request for evidence of your evolutionary beliefs.

All you have to do is walk into the Smithsonian hall of bones once to chase those doubts of yours away(if you are of minimum intellegence, that is), you can probably do it virtually if you wish. Google dinosaurs if your interested. See, I didn't dodge, I pointed. The rest is up to you.

And finally, I assure, there is nothing subjective about the conclusion that the four faces of US Presidents appearing on Mt. Rushmore, via the imposition of boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chance on the stone of Mt. Rushmore via an intelligent causes, is hard science. Such science is also the basis of SETI.

But that science is going to be extremely subjective because of those boundary conditions. Who sets the boundaries??? What criteria does he base them on??? Would another scientist, working independently come up with the same boundaries??? Repeatedly??? Do all scientists agree on the boundaries adopted by some??? The laws of Physics are objective and the boundaries indicating something is MAN MADE are simple and easily agreed upon by many scientists(though you aught to hear two paleoarcheologists argue about arrowheads and stone axes) but the finer the distinctions the more subjective those initial boundary conditions become and the fewer scientists agree until you get to Dumbski and Behe and Gish claiming that everything science cannot yet explain must have been designed, and that is just garbage. So, yes Subjective is the correct description when trying to discern design, especially in nature, and complexity is not a valid boundary.

Grumpy 8)

[Bart007]

Again, Grumpy, though you profusely claim the scientific evidence for Evolution is overwhelming and beyond dispute, you contiue to dodge providing any hard science evidence for Evolution (i.e. all species that ever lived share a common ancestry), sorry, but asking me to do a google search on the word 'dinosaur' is not a scientific evidence verifying evolution.

In fact, it seems you waste your time with verbose attacks on me and other creationists, time that you could have used giving an example or two of hard science that verfies your belief in evolution. You seem to be more interested in talking about religion which is best served on another forum here.

If this is all you have to offer, you might as well save time by not posting here. Being a heckler does not contribute an iota to this forum. But of course that is your choice to make. I wish you well.

"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so
far from the criteria of HARD science has become dogma can only be
explained on sociological grounds." Biologist Professor Ludwig von Bertalanffy, speaking on Darwinian evolution, as quoted by Huston Smith, 'The Post Modern Mind' (New York, Crossroads, 1982) p. 173


With respect to Atheism, evolutionary atheist and scientist Ernst Mayr claimed atheism to be a religion. He said: "The emphasis on the word science is a little bit biased. Science and religion are compatible, with one exception. All of the atheists I know are highly religious; it just doesn't mean believing in the Bible or God. Religion is the basic belief system of the person."

Thomas Jefferson's strong commitment to all of Jesus teachings waned as he got older as his life became engulfed in his own success and sin. Jesus said: Matt 6:24
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other.
NASU

[Grumpy]

Bart007

Post 12: Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, Grumpy, though you rpofucely calim the scientific evidence for Evolution is overwhelming and beyond dispute, you contiue to dodge providing any hard science evidence for Evolution (i.e. all species that ever lived share a common ancestry), sorry, but asking me to do a google search on the word 'dinosaur' is not a scientific evidence verifying evolution.

In fact, it seems you waste your time with verbose attacks on me and other creationists, time that you could have used giving an example or two of hard science that verfies your belief in evolution. You seem to be more interested in talking about religion which is best served on another forum here.

If this is all you have to offer, you might as well save time by not posting here. Being a heckler does not contribute an iota to this forum. But of course that is your choice to make. I wish you well.

I've been playing this "you show me your, I'll show you mine" game with you CS/BS adherrents long enough to know you ignore or poo poo anything I post and you never have anything to post that stands up to scrutiny. It's a waste of time and a diversionary tactic you all share.

If you are truly interested in the evidence just remove the blinders from your eyes and the truth will be staring you in the face, it's unavoidable.

It is you who are determined to call my lack of belief in all supernatural BS a religion, I just pointed out what utter blather that crap is.

Just think of me as a walking, talking BS detector that goes off every time you twist the truth or just tell lies to further your agenda. My agenda was to fight to insure ID is not taught as a science in our public schools, the fight for that may not be over but the rest is just a mopping up operation.

As to your quotes here's one of my own(Emphasis mine)

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)

And another

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)

And one more

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

What they said.

Grumpy 8)

[Pyrrhonist]

One must differentiate between micro and macro-evolution. While the former, a better name for this is perhaps "variations within species", is observable and scientific, the latter is based on suppositions and, dare I say it, "faith"?

[Grumpy]

Pyrrhonist

One must differentiate between micro and macro-evolution. While the former, a better name for this is perhaps "variations within species", is observable and scientific, the latter is based on suppositions and, dare I say it, "faith"?

Simply untrue, the only differentiation between them is in your mind. "micro" evolution is the same process as "macro" evolution. The accumulation of many small changes IS a large difference from the original organism. It is easily seen in the fossil record, it is observed daily in micro organisms and the differentation is another tactic of creationists to keep a retreat from the "no evolution" stance(because of the evidence from biology) from turning into a full scale rout(as in the complete invalidation of their assertions). Thank you W for appointing Judge Jones.

Grumpy 8)

[micatala]

Just a reminder from a moderator to please not engage in ad hominem comments or personal attacks.

You requested that I waste my time educating someone whose mind is closed to that education(you), and I said I have much more important things to do because I really don't care if you ever lift yourself out of your self imposed pit of ignorance.

As I have stated before you showed your ignorance, I am not going to waste MY time going back over the copious evidence already presented on these forums when it is obvious you don't want to spend YOUR time educating yourself. The old saw goes" You can lead a mule to water, but you can't make him anything but stupid".

I'm not saying, of course, that you should not suggest others consult the available evidence, and you are certainly not under any obligation to specifically point to it or link to it. I'm simply asking this be done without the personal references.

[bernee51]

A bit more info on atheism and its beliefs:

Religion Without God?
In 1961, the Supreme Court ruled that there are some atheistic religions and cited among them Hinayana Buddhism, Taoism, and secular humanism.

You are putting the cart before the horse somewhat. All you have demonstrated is thet some religions are atheistic. Noone disputes that. What you have failed to demonstrate is that atheism (i.e. the lackof belief in the xistence of god(s) - the only prerequisite for atheism) is a religion on its own account.

Here are some of the beliefs of secular humanism:
1. “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”
2. “Humanism believes that man is a part of the universe and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.”
3. “We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species.… No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”
4. “We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics are autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.”
5. “Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.”
6. “To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes … an individual’s right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide.” [All quotes from Humanist Manifestos I and II, ed. by Paul Kurtz (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1973).]
Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). When skeptics ask (Page 37). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

What does ny of that have to do with atheism - other than humanists being atheist.


]

[steen]

I dedicided it would be prudent to start a new topic since the old one was intended solely to flame scientists who happen to also be creationists.

Grumpy says. "I too do not know of any creation scientists since a scientist cannot study supernatural subjects and there is no evidence to support a supernatural creation."

OK, so atheism is your religion and your dogma includes the assumption that God does not exist.

Actually, that was not stated. Your conclusion is unwarranted.

You need evolution in order to justify your adopted materialistic worldview.

Hmm, I have not seen ANYBODY here act according to your claim. Your accusation is false.

However, science is a program by which we seek to understand the world around us. There are two kind of causes in this world. Natural causes and intelligent causes.

Oh, this ought to be good. I see you heading down the "I just can't believe it was natural, so it MUST be intelligently caused" argu ments of pure sophistry.

...What seperates intelligent cause from natural cause is that intelligent places boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chance to produce a predetermined result.

Not necessarily. It can be random. A drunnken fool doesn't necessarily have a plan for action, so the actions may not be predetermined, yet there is intelligence behind it. Once again, your sohpistry has yielded unwarranted claims.

Thus we have a means by which to determine an intelligent cause, and if the intelligence is determined not to be that of any living creature, the evidence logically leads us elswhere, and it requires putting one's head in the sand to disqualify God from being the intelligent cause simply because your an atheist.

As there is no way to determine the intelligence if this exists, your claim again is false. It doesn't require the exclusion of God. Rather, it would require the INCLUSION of God. Why would the intelligent force be God? You would have to justify that incclusion.

So your claim again is false, as is nearly always the case when sophistry drives the creationist argument. So I have had enough!

[steen]

Atheism is certainly a religion. It requires faith on the belief that there is no God. a = No, Theism = God!

Sophistic claptrap. Please cease embarrassing Christianity with your intolerant ignorance.

It's creed is humanism, that man is the highest authority in the world.

Hmm, I have not seen that claim voiced anywhere in the humanist literature I have read. Could you please reference that assertion?

In fact, Humanist sought, and received, recognistion from the Supreme court in the 1960's that it was a religion.

But then, you were talking about Atheists, not humanists. So why the red herring? your dishonesty, your sophistry, your red herrings are an embarrassment to my Christian Faith. Please don't post anything more under the claim of being a Christian, thanks.

Most, if not all, signers of Humanist Manifesto's I & II wer atheist.

Irrelevant.

If you believe God exist, then you believe in the supernatural. God becomes instantly the best source for the information found in the genetic make-up of each type of Creature.

False. Please don't assign other Christians any duty to view the world or reality through your sophist lenses. That is very offensive.

[steen]

Again, Grumpy, though you rpofucely calim the scientific evidence for Evolution is overwhelming and beyond dispute, you contiue to dodge providing any hard science evidence for Evolution (i.e. all species that ever lived share a common ancestry),

You must be one of the most ignorant creationist around. Evolution simply is the change in alleles in a population over generational time per changes in the population's environment.

Could you please cease your false witnessing? You are embarrassing the rest of us Christians here.

sorry, but asking me to do a google search on the word 'dinosaur' is not a scientific evidence verifying evolution.

The science has amply been evidenced over time. It was taught to you in school, unless you were homeschooled by lying fundie parents. This is as stupid as you insisting on the mathematical proof for "2+2=4." We can not possibly provide a biology education to an ignorant fundie who insists that all evidence is wrong without even knowing what the evidence is. Sorry, but we don't play that game with dishonest creationists here.

In fact, it seems you waste your time with verbose attacks on me and other creationists, time that you could have used giving an example or two of hard science that verfies your belief in evolution.

Here is one:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria of HARD science has become dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds." Biologist Professor Ludwig von Bertalanffy, speaking on Darwinian evolution, ......

And who gives a rat's ass?