On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:48:33 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Danwood <noreply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
<OxMZi.1855$445.525@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:08:30 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
>> Danwood <noreply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> <EVbZi.1652$2I3.1557@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:41:07 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
>>>> Danwood <noreply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>> <ViTYi.279$qv5.86@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>>>> rockymt wrote:
>>>>>> I can understand that many of you who frequent these newsgroups
expect
>>>>>> scientific proof/evidence and no less.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I deliberately removed alt atheism from the this thread. I have
learned
>>>> >from experience it's virtually impossible to communicate. They
demand
>>>>> physical proof of the existence of a non-physical being - the
creator.
>>>>> Personally, I see evidence of the "hand" of the creator in the
design
>>>>> we see all around us. From the universe, to life itself and
especially
>>>>> the reproduction process. But for most, atheist _cannot_ see design.
>>>>> But ironically some apparently do.
>>>>> Richard Dawkins, for example referred to design as "apparent"
design.
>>>>> As a corollary, I see a beaver dam as evidence of of a dam builder,
even
>>>>> though I've never seen a beaver. Similarly, I see design as evidence
of
>>>>> a designer although I never seen the designer. I reject the notion
of
>>>>> "apparent" design. Design is real, and I see design as evidence of a
>>>>> designer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it curious that unbelievers demand scientific proof of the
deity,
>>>> I don't recall such a question. I do recall that theists were asked
for
>>>> evidence and had none.
>>>>
>>> Do you accept design as evidence of a designer?
>>
>> I don't accept assertions of design as proof of design. We know that
>> natural bridges are not designed, but they fit the criteria set by the
>> "it must be designed" crowd.
>>
>I've used the beaver dam, the dam as evidence of beavers, when no
>beavers were observed. And I recognize that beavers and their dams
>are all part of nature.
And we also know _from experience_ what beaver dams look like and we
have observed them in action. There is no evidence that any gods exist
or that they have ever done anything. The analogy fails.
>>> As a youth playing
>>> HS football I broke my knee: in my later years arthritis set
>>> in I had to have a knee replacement. The doctor showed me the knee
>>> beforehand, explaining how it worked and the procedure involved in
>>> replacement. He commented that the "artificial knee was the best
>>> design that anyone had designed and a good design, but not half
>>> as good as the design your natural knee. No question that the natural
>>> knee is a designed a body part and has function.
>>
>> Of course there is a question whether is was designed, not to mention
>> the fact that human knees are defective for bipedal organisms.
>>
>Imperfect design does not discount design. I have a recall on my 2005
>automobile. There is a defect. But the defect does not mean, that my car
>was not designed. But sometimes I'm not so sure.
I've had similar frustrations with things. Still, there is no evidence
that life was designed. That is the fundamental failure of the advocates
of intelligent design: they have no evidence at all, just wishful
thinking and unsubstantiated claims.
>>> And I reject the idea
>>> that this design is "apparent" design.
>>
>> Then offer evidence for actual design. Sure, there are minor changes in
>> the length and strength of certain bones, but we share the same layout
>> as the rest of the mammals.
>>
>True, all vertebrates share a backbone. Virtually all mammals share the
>same bones in the legs, hands and fingers. This I would categorize as
>variations upon a common design. IOW different needs require different
>solutions.
But it was all bailing wire and duct tape. That isn't design, unless the
designer is MacGyver.
>>>>> yet science is _not_ in the business of proof. I quote Stephen
Hawking,
>>>>> Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is
only
>>>>> a hypothesis" you can never prove it.
>>>> But scientists do gather more and more evidence. Religious folks
don't
>>>> even try to find evidence about their god. They reiterate their
claims.
>>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with me. Because I do not appeal to religious
>>> sources for anything.
>>
>> You reject science for no reason that you are willing to admit.
>>
>I don't know what that reason could be.
Then why do you reject the evidence gathered by science?
>> That implies strongly that you, like the Discovery Institute, are
trying to
>> hide a religious motivation behind supposedly secular reasons.
>>
>I know nothing about Discovery Institute. _If_ I have religious
>views they followed my conclusions: based upon what was written,
>not by religious people, but by scientist namely scientist such
>as Martin Rees, Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, Robert Shapiro,
>Fred Hoyle, Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, Brandon Carter,
>and I attempted to read John Borrow and Frank Tipler, but this
>was difficult. But none of these scientist had religious
>motivations.
Yet you carry water for the religious zealots who reject the evidence
for evolution because it conflicts with their doctrine about creation.
Why?
>>> If I'm religious it's only because I stand
>>> convinced that there is/was some intelligent agency behind the scene
>>> and some people consider this a religious position.
>>
>> Yet you have no evidence to sup****t that proposition.
>>
>As far as I'm concerned, I've seen nothing that explains the several
>fundamental constants upon which the anthropic Principle is based.
You have confused your conclusion with your assumptions. It may be that
life as we know it needs some of the constants that we observe, but
there is no evidence that no life of any sort could exist under any
cir***stances if the constants were different. The anthropic principle,
particularly as it is commonly stated is a fundamentally flawed
argument. It proves nothing.
>That is, none explains the exactness better than the theory that they
>were designed by a super intelligence, which may be or may not be the
>Jewish - Christian God.
Which is a silly claim. It's like wondering at the perfection of the
design of our eyes because they perfectly catch light -- when the fact
is that there is an very broad spectrum that is missed completely by our
eyes but happens to be caught by other organisms.
>>> But I do not participate in organized religion. I have no need to do
so.
>>
>> So you tell us. Why are you carrying water for the groups of Christians
>> who are most opposed to learning science?
>>
>I'm carrying water for no one but myself. I doubt seriously there are any
>Christian groups who would go along with my views. If fact most
>Christians on these NGs think my views are non-Christian.
Maybe not, but you believe the lies the anti-science creationists tell,
or, at least, you make excuses for their lies. You can tell me that you
aren't a Christian, but when you are a fellow-traveller of those who
teach heterodox doctrines, I don't see any reason to consider you an
ally of knowledge.
>>>>> No matter how many times the
>>>>> results of experments agree with some theory, you can never be sure
that
>>>>> the next time the result will not contridict the theory. On the
other
>>>>> hand you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation
that
>>>>> disagrees with the predictions of the theory.. If ever a new
observation
>>>>> is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory. At
least
>>>>> that is what is supposed to happen, but you can always question the
>>>>> competence of the person who carried out the observation.
>>>> So, no evidence about gods can be found using science.
>>> I agree, since God is outside of scientific investigation. This fact
>>> in and of itself does not falsify the belief in God.
>>
>> I have no reason to accept the claim that God is outside of scientific
>> investigation.
> >
>What ever happened 14.7+ years ago has been scientifically for
>investigated. But science can _only_ determine what happened back to
>Planck Time. Whatever happened prior, is unknown and may remain unknown
>since modern laws of science breakdown. But the fact that this time
>period is outside scientific investigation demonstrates that science
>has it's limits. It certainly doesn't mean nothing happened prior
>to 10 - ^43 seconds. So it's not surprising that science cannot
>investigate the creator.
But your argument implies that the creator has nothing to do with the
universe -- a problem for those who reject evolution. It also allows the
big bang to be the creator, making the creator a meaningless
speculation.
>Could you show us why we should accept your assertion?
> >
>It's my view. And frankly, I don't care whether or not you do. I'm not
>asking you to accept anything. Since I don't know you it's meaningless
>to me one way or the other. The point is I'm no crusader.
Yet you defend the lies of the anti-science religious zealots. Why?
> >
>I
>> do accept the fact that no evidence about any god has ever been
>> discovered by science.
> >
>I'm not surprised.
>>
>>>>> I also understand how many of you
>>>>>> would perceive your 'reality' world and those who embrace the
Christian or
>>>>>> a Monotheistic faith to be in complete opposition. A lot of what
I'm
>>>>>> hearing, at a much deeper level is that it is just too painful...
>>>>>>
>>>>> I do not subscribe to the Genesis account. I think it lacks
specificity.
>>>>>> impossible for me to listen to you let alone believe in a god with
the state
>>>>>> this world is in.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I challenge the notion that the deity is a micro-manager.
>>>>> Apart from those who do not believe in God, we'd probably
>>>>>> tolerate each other, maybe even agree on other topics, such as
hobbies,
>>>>>> literature, s****ts travel etc. Maybe even come to enjoy each others
>>>>>> company( outside of this newsgroup or in person), and even like one
another.
>>>>>> Who knows. What bothers me is that most are not just disagreeing,
they're
>>>>>> offending, insulting, making those that disagree, feel unwelcome,
and
>>>>>> carrying on as though there were more than this one major
difference( like
>>>>>> people born in nations that are in political turmoil).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Theist are not welcome on atheist newsgroups. And atheist often use
the
>>>>> fact that some theist infringe in their space to justify attacks on
>>>>> Christians and other religionists.
>>>> Theists are welcome if they do not lie or insultingly attack
atheists.
>>>>
>>> This is wrong. Atheist as well as theist deserve respect from those
who
>>> do not agree.
>>
>> Lies do not ever deserve respect, no matter who tells them. People who
>> repeatedly lie deserve to be called on their behavior.
> >
>You may explain something to another person. If your explanation doesn't
>seen reasonable or logical to him, the fact that it's rejected does not
>mean the person is lying. In all due respect He simply doesn't believe
you.
Rejecting the evidence is foolish. Making a claim that is contrary to
the evidence that has been presented is lying. I don't care what excuse
they give for telling their lies. They are lying: they are repeating a
false claim that they know is false.
>Dana
>>
>>>> Read some of the theist postings in alt.atheism. Some are not
unwelcome,
>>>> some are nothing but insults and lies. Generalizing doesn't work very
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>>> Work associates (
>>>>>> for example) whom after I've come to know personally,(over a year
or so)
>>>>>> begin discussing the deeper thing, to even religion and faith in a
god.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I not presently a church goer, but when I did attend Methodist
services,
>>>>> I do not recall anyone ever claiming to _know_ anything for a fact.
>>>>> Or making any claims to know for a fact that God exist. Everything,
as I
>>>>> remember was a said to be a matter of _faith_. Is this still true?
>>>>>
>>>>> Our
>>>>>> differences surface, yet we don't stoop to degrading, offensive
language.
>>>>>> This is most likely because we've come to accept and respect one
another.
>>>>>> There is a foundation built of mutual respect.
>>>>>> beneath all this 'tit for tat' dialogue, there is something more...
much
>>>>>> more we can offer one another. It's to bad it has to be like this
so much-
>>>>>> wish it'd tone down. I know this is not a friend****p newsgroup, but
at a
>>>>>> deeper level I feel for each and everyone of you, good bad or
indifferent.
>>>>>> And I know we don't really mean those hurtful things we say.
>>>>>>
>>>>> When "Christians" say hurtful things, I question their sincerity.
This
>>>>> was not part of the teachings expressed in the Methodist Church.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dana Wood
>>>>>
>>>>>> take you all,
>>>>>> rockymt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>
>
|
