If we thought we were ever under attack, we certainly are now!

Daisy,

The sun rises in the East. I don't know what you are saying when you say that, but all I am saying is that the sun appears over the eastern horizon at daybreak and disappers below the western horizon at days end. And this is obvious. Just because all the rest was dicovered later does not mean that it was not obvious to the ancients where to look for the Sun at day break and where to look for it at day's end. Now can we drop it?

"Actually not, Bunyon. The scientist is not designing the DNA, in my example, he is replicating the natural process."-----------------------------------------------------------------

In that case, I have know Idea why you thought this fact would give any weight to your argument.

"On the other hand, we have seen cars being assembled by workers - have we ever seen DNA being assembled by a supernatural Designer?"------------------------------------------------------

But you never saw a primitive European paint a horse on a cave wall, but you never doubted that this "design" was put there by an intellegent being.

"How is it obvious that DNA was "designed by an intelligence"? Can such a thing be tested one way or another? If so, what would the test be?"---------------------------------------------------

Again, of all the things that were tested and studied about E. Island, no one ever bothered to form a hypothisis about wheather it was made by inteligent human hands. We don't need to test the obvious. And when you say, "the Europeans asked the natives, "Who made these?"." you prove the point. They asked "who". Because it is obvious a " who" did it.

"Science tests what can be tested, measures what can be measured. God cannot be measured or tested."------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is, in fact, a scientest who studied what criteria made things obviously designed like paintings and Statues, DNA met all the criteria. DNA had a designer, it did not and could not occur by random chemical interactions.
The whole theory of ID is comming from scientest, not clergy!

 

Bunyon,

When you brought this sun into the thread you stated, "Do you have to conduct and experiment to determine that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. That as always been OBVIOUS to mankind even before the scientific method! ".

Fudge all you want now, that is how you put it - it's still there on page 1.

The answer is yes! the scientific menthod was necessary to show that the sun does NOT rise in the west, but that the earth rotates on its axis giving the illusion of the sun rising. Do you admit that the scientific method was needed to determine this? It was NOT obvious or even accepted for some time (obvious parallels here). Indeed, heliocentrism was considered heresy when the theory was first published - Galileo was condemned by the Inquisition for teaching it.

I expect this thread will close long before you admit that the scientific method disproved the "obvious".

It's hard to explain to someone who believes the sun actually rises.

I've painted on walls myself, much to Ma's dismay and my later regret. You've never seen a primitive European yet you seem to believe they existed. Why is that?

Since natural mineral deposits which streak some cave walls were also designed by the Designer who designs everything, how do you distinguish between the cave paintings and mineral streaks which formed over time as to what was and was not designed by intelligence?

First, you don't really know what hypotheses were and were not formed by different people.

Second, hypotheses are based on evidence and observation, then tested.

Third, and most obvious, you didn't answer my questions: "How is it obvious that DNA was "designed by an intelligence"? Can such a thing be tested one way or another? If so, what would the test be?"

Really? Which scientist? What was his specialty? What criteria did he use? Did he use the scientific method?

Chemical reactions are not random. The conditions which occur which cause the reactons may be random, but the reactions themselves are not - identical conditions incur identical reactions.

You could argue that the laws of chemistry were themselves designed - how would you test that? What could you possibly use as a control? How would that meaningful to the study of chemistry?

Ok, the Intellegent Designer designed everything, including evolution and the rotation of the earth. Does that mean there is no nature or natural causes for anything?

That's partly true!

 

"When you brought this sun into the thread you stated, "Do you have to conduct and experiment to determine that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. That as always been OBVIOUS to mankind even before the scientific method! ". ----------------------------------------------------

We all know what is meant by the sun rises in the East and the information it conveys is accurate as a matter of perspective. Do you think anyone who uses the pharse uses it improperly not realizing the Earth rotates. No one who hears it or says it is ignorant of the nature of our solar system. The fact the the earth orbits and rotates is not obvious, I never suggested that was, so this is a red hearring on your part. If an ancient told his son which horizen to watch at surise it would prove to be accrate information. And you are right I will not discuss it farther. As I have explained it to you several times, you are only proving a trouble maker now.
But you are deparate to avoid the obvious.

 

Both gravity and evolution have been observed and are accepted as "Fact", but then you have the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution to explain the observed facts. The ToG is less developed than the ToE.

See the the Wedge Document (linkie) wherein the ID proponents discuss their strategy for introducing religion into the classroom via ID - this is the smoking gun for those who accuse IDists of dishonesty.

Yes, you are correct that there are many honest IDists - but the leaders of the movement and the Discovery Institute (home of ID) have not been honest.

Gravity is not well-understood, btw. In science, no evidence is considered absolute and conclusions are conditional leaving open the possibility that new, contradictory evidence will be discovered or that a better explanation will be found.

Some truth...<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html" target="_blank">
Here (linkie)</a> you can read the all transcripts for yourself of the recent Dover trial. Here (linkie) is a news article about how Behe equated astrology with ID as being equivalent in scientific value. Many people see that as going off the deep end.

I don't know anything about the book review, sorry.

 

The context in which you first said it (which you are trying to fudge now, for shame) was in opposition to the scientific method - which you said was not needed to explain the "obvious". You were egregiously wrong and simply can't admit it. That is not to your credit.

That's not what I said, Bunyon. I said that I doubt you'll admit your error. I don't know if you'll keep trying to pretend that you didn't use a laughably bad example by changing the terms and providing a new, different context...I sort of suspect that you will keep at it.

Prove me wrong. I double-dog dare you.

Trouble to your bad argument, yeah.

Speaking of desparate avoidance - why have you answered none of my questions? Hmm?

The questions that interests me the most are: in what way does ID qualify as science? and: If ID were true, what direction should research take that it would not have taken otherwise?

***perhaps we should take this to the hidden science forum****

 

Which case is that?

The rude taunt is not "idiot", but "IDiot" - a pun of sorts (not nice).

You're right that science is basically agnostic; however, scientists need not be. If you read Dr. Kenneth Miller's testimony in the Dover transcripts, you'll see that he is able to reconcile his religion with his science. Perhaps you would do well to study some of the Christian evolutionists' arguments.

 

ID answers every question exactly the same, predetermined way, "The Designer designed it that like that", so no further research is possible or necessary. </font>[/QUOTE] Really? Is that what archeologists do when they discover buried structures? Are they satisfied with just "the designer did it that way"?

Has anyone argued otherwise?</font>[/QUOTE] Yes. Naturalism as a presupposition usually blinds someone to the notion that they have made any presuppositions at all. Carl Segan used to say something on the order that the cosmos is all there is, ever was, or ever will be. He made the cosmos "I Am that I Am".

What does? </font>[/QUOTE] Naturalism, supernaturalism, and spiritualism are all philosophical presuppositions from which we derive our worldviews... and all require faith since they cannot be proven.

Trying to call what science is dishonest? Are you saying that calling science science is dishonest? If so, that is an odd argument. </font>[/QUOTE] Calling naturalism science or "science" limited by naturalism science is dishonest.

Science is simply the organized pursuit of what is true. It is no more necessary to assume naturalism for the science of origins than it is to assume it for the science of forensics. In fact, forensics are totally useless if you start with a presupposition of naturalism. It is only useful if you look for signs of non-natural cause.

 

I think the issue is alot more basic than just the mechanics of evolution or creationism.

Evolution is premised upon a philosophy, naturalism. Naturalism is contrary to the God declared by scripture. Scripture declares supernaturalism as the "true" philosophy on basically every page.

Darwin and many of his contemporaries weren't all that shy about what they were attempting. They made the assumption first that God didn't directly create the world as most people then thought then set out to devise a means to explain the natural world while remaining true to that premise.

The biggest mistake Christians have made is letting evolutionists get away with their philosophical assumptions unchallenged. If one assumes supernaturalism, evolution is not the obvious choice that it is to someone who assumes naturalism.

Spiritualism laughs at both knowing that nature isn't real anyway...

 

"The context in which you first said it (which you are trying to fudge now, for shame) was in opposition to the scientific method - which you said was not needed to explain the "obvious". You were egregiously wrong and simply can't admit it. That is not to your credit."------------------------------------------------------------
Daisy,


You explained your point several times, I explined several times. Let me rephrase so as to make you happy. You don't need to conduct an experiment to realize the sun will appear over the Eastern Horizon each morning. This is true for us and also for the ancients. Now please don't drag this out farther. You have made your point several times, I have disagreed and explained what I meant for you several times, and now you resort to base accusations. I have always appreciated your passion and willingness to be straight forward, although I always disagree with you, but now you are offending me. So I'll ask you, nicely, to drop it along with the accusations.

Science is not alway about the experimental sceintific mehthod. It is sometime simply reporting what you observe.

 

But that wasn't the question. The question was if anyone denied that the criteria of science is manmade....as opposed to divinely inspired.

Hmm, can't find what Sagan actually said? Or did he say anything similar? What were his exact words? That is very sloppy arguing to maintain that someone once said something like.... [whatever].

Only if you've redefined "science" to suit your purposes.

By your definition, Bible-reading classes qualify as "science". Well, that is certainly a minority opinion.

Oh, see, you misunderstand what natural means - probably deliberately. If that is a deliberate misunderstanding, then you're either being dishonest or humorous. I can only hope that that was meant as humor.

In a way, that is true - science is premised on observation, making predictions based on the observations and testing, always testing - if you can call that a philosophy.

Yes, but science is not philosophy; it is more limited than that.

Oh.

You don't know anything about Darwin then if you can argue that. That is simply contrary to fact and history.

That is what divides science from religion. Science is far more limited in scope.

Then why bother with science at all?

[ November 30, 2005, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Daisy ]

 

Yet, you continue to deny the validity of my point. You specified that the scientific method was not necessary to tell that the sun rises in the East - but it was necessary to figure out that the sun doesn't rise - in other words, the scientific method was necessary to explain the "obvious".

Your explaination that you didn't mean what you said is bogus.

Why would your changing the meaning of what you said so you can continue to deny my point make me happy? Your admission that my point is valid is what would make me happy.

Base (I don't think so) but in no way baseless. Why don't you simply admit the truth - that the scientific method was necessary to figure out that the sun doesn't rise and quit denying what you stated on Page 1? Admit it and I'll drop it. Deny it and I will continue to refute it.

Thank you.

I'm sorry my insistence on the truth offends you.

I believe you said you weren't going to say anything more on this topic, yet here you go again.

It is within your own capacity to "drop it" yourself. Don't expect me to do it for you. You've already stated that you weren't going to continue on this, yet....your credibility suffers from this contradiction between word and action. Don't blame the me for pointing out the obvious.

And making sense of what you observe by relating it to what is known. Without putting it all together all you would have is a random collection of facts - someone** said you may as well collect stamps as facts if you don't try to explain them (the facts, not the stamps).


**I'll find the actual citation on request. My rendition is really clumbsy.

 

I am sorry thay you would kick a dead horse like this. Your point is not what you say it is just because you drive it into the ground. I would like for you to leave me alone.

 

Oh, that's alright. I'd missed your post previously. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

Right, my point is what I say it is because it is, after all, my point - but that was a nice pun.

Hey, you had addressed your post specifically to me by name - "Daisy, " was the opening word of your post. It would've been rude NOT to reply.

 

"would've been rude"------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you past that point a long time ago.

 

By pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument?

 

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

God did not create a being that would later become man. He finished man on the sixth day. I really don't see how a professed Christian could deny this.

As far as all the college talk going on....

Romans 12:16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Science is man-made. And man is dumb in the ways of our Lord.

 

Yes, it is. So are antibiotics and CAT scan machines. They're useful in this life and irrelevent in the next.

I dunno, Bro - seems a lot of yakking going on to me.

 

Animals are not ashamed of their nekkidness, ergo, no souls in critters.