Re: Flat Earth Theory To Be Taught In Science Classes

[justme]

>

> >It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to > >test it. > > > >All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication, > >elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as > >demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other > >scientific theories, is horseshit. > > > >It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory. > > > >Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and > >the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning. > > > >Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad > >reversa. > > > >This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to > >lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics. > > > >It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument. > > > >Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Tom Watson - WoodDorker > >tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email) > > (website) > > > so you're one of those freedom hating liberal pinko commies, eh? >

Excuse me, but the mindless response when shown to be wrong is supposed to now include the word terrorist. Didn't anyone read you the memo?

[Mike Marlow]

Fossils are indeed evidence. DNA is indeed evidence. They are however, evidence of *what*? Throughout all of the debate, there has been no "scientific" evidence provided by the "scientists" in the group which refutes the notion of an intelligent design. There has been lots of postulating and side track comments, but no real contradicting evidence. For all that is said about the merits of science holding a value in evidence, observation, etc., most of what has been said in the different threads here is little more than faith on the part of the advocates on each side. Oh yeah - and somewhat unique to the advocates of science-only, there is the requisite insult to the intelligence of anyone who might hold to a faith. You know - the ever present "ignorance" comment. For all of the condescending comments, there has yet to be anything even remotely persuading put forward by any of the advocates of either side.

I stepped a toe into these waters just out of mild interest. I had no interest in influencing the beliefs of anyone else, nor did I really have any interest in detailing what my own beliefs really are. Rather, it seemed like there might be an interesting diversion from reality in some discourse. Like all of these debates which preceded the current run of evolution -vs- anything else, there proved to be little more than presumptuous attitudes and condescending tones, all meant to make the author appear to be wiser and more educated than he really is. The truth of that matter is that if the author really were as enlightened as he/she would like to appear, there would be more of sharing of the true knowledge that they hold and less of the attitude.

Oh well, such is the nature of these debates. Hasn't changed over time, and likely never will. Now that just might be the long sought argument against evolution...

[bridger]

in order for a theory to be any use to science, it has to be testable. what sort of test do you propose to validate this theory of yours that the universe was created by an invisible super-intelligent supernatural (we can't use the word god here) being?

nothing wrong with intelligent design, but it doesn't belong in science classes. it belongs in philosophy classes or in religous studies classes.

no supporting evidence, either. in fact, nothing but a lot of talk and political string pulling to get ID stuffed into grade school curricula. no discussion in scientific fora, no open discussion, just attempts to stuff it into kids heads under the radar.

for all of your claim of neutrality, you wear your creationist flag on your shoulder.

[Mike Marlow]

No more so though, than some of the stuff that's taught in science class which isn't supportable by evidence, yet over the years has come to be taught as "fact".

But - what *is* the problem with the concept of intelligent design? Science itself does not specifically deny the possibility of inteligent design. The sciences are filled with scientists who diligently perform their tasks, honor the rules of science, add to the cumulative knowledge of mankind, and yet they believe in inteligent design. The mere concept of inteligent design seems to be a major hurdle for most of the evolution-only crowd here.

evolution -vs-

That depends on how you define the term "creationist". But - that's irrelevant. As I said, I haven't had an interest in detailing what my own beliefs are, I was only commenting on the nature of this debate. One only has to hit the google archives to disprove my observations if one feels I'm wrong.

[fredfighter]

Science itself does not specifically deny the Immaculate Conception either.

Do you REALLY wonder why not?

[World Traveler]

ID and solid data? That's unlikely. The basic philosophy behind ID is that it is an alternative to solid data -- that using data is a non-starter because they don't conform to the ID preconcept.

In addition, there is no agreed-to actual hypothesis for ID, so there is no point in trying to argue individual points. The statements on ID that I've seen include:

The universe was created 6,000 years ago. Man and dinosaurs coexisted. Noah's flood was worldwide. Noah included the dinosaurs in the complement of animals on the ark. The "Big Bang" is false because it doesn't explain what was before the Bang, . . . etc.

But -- there is fossil evidence that is more than 6,000 years old There is no fossil evidence to support the concept that man and dinosaurs existed at the same time. The "worldwide flood" has some obvious logical contradictions (e.g., when the waters receded, where did they go??) How did Noah get the dinosaurs onto the ark (the rationale, Noah sought out juvenile dinosaurs!) In comparison to the "Big Bang," which is supported by observation -- it's disingenuous to ignore that arm of science because it doesn't account for what was before the big bang, but insist on an intelligent designer, without worrying about who/what created the designer!

Intelligent design as it has been presented is incompatible with more than Darwin, it is incompatible with astronomical observations, calculations of interstellar distances, Einstein's theories of relativity, the tested relationships between time, space and energy, geology, particle theory, Brian Greene's "Arrow of Time" and almost any science that seeks to understand the world around us.

Now if someone were to come out with an ID theory which hypothesized that an intelligent designer created the precursor to the Big Bang and everything after that has been a testable consequence, there might be some converts.

But it's impossible to calibrate any current ID theory with the real world of observation of our universe. For one example, read Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos," and try to figure out how intelligent design as now described could calibrate with the variety of experiments which have gone into space, time, energy, Higgs Fields, etc.

Regards --

[Australopithecus scobis]

No, but any historian can dig up the references. The whole thing is a mistranslation of "young woman" into "virgin," and running the thing through a couple of cultures. Wackos who can't string two thoughts together have been around for a long, long time. Check out the incorporation of Teutonic culture into dogma during the latter Roman Empire. I don't remember the dates; was maybe 200 or 300 CE. Frigga got Her day, more or less.

Pity that the present day wackos can't understand literature or the concept of "allegory." They can't even get their own religion right. Sounds just like some other wackos who can't get _their_ religion right either, doesn't it?

[Australopithecus scobis]

Even better, Roger Penrose _The Road to Reality_. It covers the math you need to understand cosmology. OK, I graduated from MIT. My head almost exploded reading that book. (So I wasn't a physics major, but still.) I challenge any creationist to get past the first couple of pages. That book is tougher than MTW.

Oh, and I second the recommendation of TFOTC. Greene is an engaging author.

[George]

That would be one interpretation. Yet another would be that all known societies have explanations for the "creation" of the universe and the origin of life. Jews of the 6th century BC had a couple (yep, read Genesis), the societies with who the coexisted had others. I presume you use Jewish creation stories as a tacit acknowledgement that this nation was created by people who shared their beliefs? Or is it because you're unfamiliar with Hindu creation?

It's important to consider and teach that most all societies consider the human as the highest form of life, the one the gods love, unlike the modern types who claim a snail darter species coequal to a human. Teachings to provide perspective and background for understanding, not right, wrong, or even in final form, just like scientific investigation.

[Odinn]

Sunna - Sunna's Day - Sunday, Mani - Mani's Day - Monday, Tyr - Tyr's Day - (in Old English, Tiw, Tew or Tiu) Tuesday, Odinn (Germanic Woden)

- Woden's Day - Wednesday, Thor - Thor's Day - Thursday, and Frigga (Frigg) - Frigg's Day - Friday, all got their day. Then there's Saturn's Day - Saturday. So, 6 out of 7 days are from the Teutonic culture (brought about after the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Rome), and one from Roman.

I can't think of a single religion who's members get their religion right.

[Larry Blanchard]

And that, indeed, is the basis for most, if not all, religions. We just can't stand the thought that we're just another pile of rotting meat when we die, just like all the other animals :-).

[Mike Marlow]

That would not be an ID belief, that would be a Institute for Creation Research position. There is a big difference.

Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).

That's a fundamental Bible teaching - not unique to ID or to followers of Institute for Creation Research.

This is a fundamentalist position. Though fundamentalist are believers in ID, they do not represent ID.

ICR again - not an ID issue.

Hmmmmm. You can allow for long stretches of the imagination to accomodate a scientific theory that is too big to comprehend, but you can't allow for a world wide flood simply because you can't imagine where the water went?

ICR again - not ID.

The big bang is not supported by observation. Recent observations via Hubble have brought about new theories that conflict with big bang. No matter though - once again you are confusing ICR and fundamentalists with ID.

You obviously do not understand ID. In your attempt to discredit by any means, you've lumped several different religious beliefs under the heading of ID. You have no compelling argument.

ID does allow for exactly that. ID simply attempts to explain where it all began. Why then the issue with it?

Better yet, since you brought it up - please explain how the principal of an intelligent design conflicts with these.

[Larry Blanchard]

References, please.

[Mike Marlow]

Fair question. I've seen museum displays that positioned man and dinosaur in NYC, and Albany, NY years ago. Don't know what they display now as that was many years ago. Can't tell you where I've read about the superimposed footprints. Seems it might have been National Geographic or similar. If my memory serves me correctly (which is a big assumption sometimes...), I believe the find might have been down in Texas or in that area.

Not very convincing reference, but it's the best I can do.

[Mike Marlow]

Sorry - should have put this in my previous reply...

There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs. To my "creationist" (as I've been dubbed...) mind, there is enough circumstantial evidence for me to assume that man and dinosaur did coinhabit, since I don't give credit to coyotes and apes to be able to create those drawings.

And - while I'm at it... I did find a plethora of articles which debunked what I had read years ago about the human footprint superimposed on the dinosaur print.

[Odinn]

Taylor Trail, Turnage Trail, Ryan Trail, and Giant Trail at Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas have even been abandoned by most creationists as proof that man and dinosaur existed together

.

[Mike Marlow]

superimposed

Yeah - I discovered that as I did some google searches. I was not happy having to reply as vaguely as I did so I went looking for the story and discovered that everybody, including those who most wanted it to be true, have conceded that it was a fake.

[Odinn]

On 10/9/2005 3:46 PM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:

Not everybody has conceded it was a fake, Dr. Carl E. Baugh has been making some wild claims and is supposedly doing research at Taylor Trail again. Unfortunately, he's destroyed many of the tracks by pouring plaster into some and then using hammers and chisels to remove the casting instead of using rubber castings. A huge chunk of plaster still remains in one fo the tracks at Ryals Trail that he and some associates poured.

[Odinn]

Cave drawings don't even come close to circumstantial evidence that they existed together.

[fredfighter]

You might consider checking it out yourself.

Irrelevant IRT the Immaculate Conception of Mary by Ann.