| Author | Message | ||
     2734 |
quote: Blake, prove I am not sitting on a purple dragon at this very moment. If it's possible to prove a negative I'd like you to show me how you can PROVE my pet dragon 'Fred' isn't right here. -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Your response to Dave: >>>>>Take a picture of yourself showing applicable view and post it on the internet. No purple dragon, proof complete.<<<< So again... If Dave produced said pic then purple dragons are real and if he can't they are not real. Correct? Or are you asking Dave to take a pic of something that isnt there?Or just impossible to take a pic of? I gotta admit I think the chances of either are kinda on the slim side but if the chance arose I may very well tremble in awe. (Message edited by 2734 on September 15, 2011) (Message edited by 2734 on September 15, 2011) | ||
| Court |
The weak of mind can only grasp the concrete, the tangible and the visible. Only the mind that can see over the hill, the visionary mind, can experience the beauty and glory of true faith. | ||
| 2734 |
This is why faith is the crutch of some peoples mental existence or the need for the trust in faith to carry them through life because they cant fathom it on their own. Kinda like the whole footprints in the sand thing... | ||
| Sifo |
what scientist stated the existence of God? Stephen C. Meyer is one who has done much work on exactly that scientific theory. | ||
| Froggy |
Thats the million dollar question. | ||
| Notpurples2 |
"It's a turtle, for heaven's sake. It swims. That's what turtles are for." | ||
| Tankhead |
Sifo It appears Stephen C. Meyer has had his problems also. Don't know anything about the man but I found this on Wiki.. On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[26] On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[27] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[28] The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[29] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[30] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[31] Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[32] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[33] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."  34] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that: | ||
| Tankhead |
How do the devil faces show up on wiki posts? Does it have to do with not enough supporting references? Again I don't follow ID so I don't know this guys works. | ||
| Sifo |
Nothing new there in the scientific world. So rather than discuss Meyer the man, how about this question I have poised several times now. Scientific theories typically predict things. This is one of the ways that we can look at a theory and see if it really makes sense. Gravity for instance predicts that objects in space will orbit each other. If objects in space behaved differently than our theory predicts, then there is almost certainly a problem with the theory. So when it comes to the theory that the origin of life comes from random events, i.e., chance, that theory will make predictions. One of those predictions is that the information contained in DNA was assembled by chance, until it just happened upon a combination that could replicate and become life as we know it. We know that there is a very large amount of information contained in the simplest of DNA strands. It is enormously complex. We know that the information contained in DNA is unique, i.e., it isn't repetitive in nature such as fractals. We also know that it is useful information, i.e., it serves a purpose, to produce a life form. Now it's certainly conceivable that chance can produce a large quantity of information. It's also conceivable that chance can produce unique information. It's even conceivable that chance can produce useful or purposeful information. Combining all three takes a whole lot of chance though. Assuming it were even possible to have chance assemble the needed information to produce a simple life form, certainly mixed in with that large amount of unique and useful information will be a huge amount of random garbage included. That is the nature of chance happenings. What we have learned studying DNA is that there is very little useless information. In fact most of what we used to think was useless information has been found to have purposes that weren't initially realized. That trend of identifying the purpose of various parts of DNA strings continues. DNA seems to have very little if any useless information. What's more is that science typically will look for examples to point to that are similar in nature to what is being hypothesized as support for the fact that what is being proposed is know to happen similarly in other areas of nature. I'm unaware of nature ever producing large amounts of unique and useful, purposeful information that could possibly parallel what we are talking about with DNA. That leads us to believe that nature producing DNA is not typical of what nature normally does. There is however a known source of large amounts of unique, useful, purposeful information that exits in the universe. That is a parallel that scientific method should demand that we explore. That source of known large amounts of unique, useful purposeful information is of course an intelligent designer. Here we can see countless examples where intelligent designers have compiled information of all sorts, including the motorcycles we ride. So the question is: Does the large amount of unique, useful, purposeful information seen in DNA support the scientific theory of chance or intelligent design? | ||
| Tankhead |
I will look this over. I am helping my daughter with her homework. I'll check it. I am sure I won't have an answer but I will try. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Well put Court Faith is not a crutch or coping mechanism Faith is not a limitaion on your life Faith expands your life denying faith and denigrating the faith serves what purpose | ||
| Aesquire |
Oh, NO! not Countersteering!!!!! Really don't want to open that can of worms. I've had guys get very angry as they describe the actual way that pressure from their toe turns the bike. Even when I ask for the secret that I missed in 40 years of riding 2 wheelers, I just can't quite get it. Makes me feel dumb. OTOH when I use countersteering, bicycle or motorbike, it seems to work for me. I MUST be doing something with my toe I'm not noticing. It's a subject past religion and politics and into divination. Religion has a reputation for stalling scientific progress in the past whenever it conflicts with a religious view. It isn't always the case, but it has resulted in progress being stalled, even in this day and age. (Cloning and stem cells are the first that come to my mind) Partial agreement. Except...Cloning and stem cells. Start with stem cells. Very valuable research, awesome potential, and a moral issue. Adult cells, from yourself, are no problem, and have no rejection issues, usually. I don't see the moral problem there. But. Stem cells grown from human embryos have a serious potential moral issue. If obtained from fertility clinics, as left over attempts to get pregnant, One has to ask is this a potential human? Sure, it's "just" a cluster of cells, but if implanted in a womb......? The greatest fear of the admin. that first started funding stem cell research was the possibility that women would get paid to give up their eggs for profit when the end result was certain destruction. The potential baby would be "killed" breaking up a developing blastocyst for, frankly, parts. At the time the concern was moral. Slavery is bad. Selling humans is bad. ( China sells human parts, and not from volunteers. This is slavery, murder, and......bad. ) In the years since, embryonic stem cells don't seem to have as much immediate good results as adult cell research. Partly, perhaps because of restrictions, and the limited gene pool of available cells. I am of mixed emotions on Embryonic stem cells for the moral reasons stated. Cloning...... Never mind the mad scientist playing God. What are the legal rights of Clones? If Steve Jobs had himself cloned, could he then use his new, younger body for parts? Would his clone inherit? Is it moral to kill a near identical body to keep alive? That seems to be the prime consideration. Organlegging is real. It's just that clones are too expensive today. What if Warren Buffet wanted better continuation than his current kids. What if he doesn't like their spouses? How about cloning himself to "keep" his fortune? Certainly a human clone will be his own person, since the nurture will be different. Even the most elaborate attempt to re-create ones past is nearly certain to fail. I'm not that worried about that scenario. So, until we get brain transplants, so I can toss the old one in a 21 year old healthy body, the big issue with clones is the potential for slavery/abuse/murder to harvest them for parts. Current research into growing parts alone looks very promising, and looks to make the whole clone for parts thing obsolete. ( until the brain transplants happen ) My solution to most of these problems is to make a Clone legally an elder identical twin, so that the Clone inherits, and had precedence over the donor body. Do you think that would ease the problem? | ||
| Blake |
Dan, >>> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the universe had a cause and that a greater being was the most plausible one? Absolutely! I agree 100%! A "designer" works. I've tried that, but the atheists would not have any of it. They didn't seem able to discus the issue without railing against religion, god, or the bible, etc. I've been lectured that you cannot discuss anything other than naturalistic reasoning for origins without invoking religion. Court speaks truth. | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, why should what wiki said about his article reflect poorly on Meyer? It sounds like the journal didn't know what it was doing. The published a paper then retracted it for not being peer reviewed? That's a process that is in total control of the journal. In typical wiki fashion it is very difficult to get a grasp on what happened though. "The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time." The managing editor denied the journals reasons for disavowing the article! Really? Who was speaking for the journal when they gave their reasons? What were the real reasons? More importantly, what issues were found with the article? Not that any of that has any real bearing on the discussion at hand. I just find it interesting. The peer review process has been very questionable at numerous journals for a long time. It at times is a very broken system where a dissenting view can be stifled simply because it's a dissenting view. Of course those involved will claim absolute innocence. It's a bit entertaining as long as you aren't the one caught up in the middle of it. This little flap sounds pretty tame. | ||
| Blake |
Richard, >>> This is why faith is the crutch of some peoples mental existence or the need for the trust in faith to carry them through life because they cant fathom it on their own. >>> Kinda like the whole footprints in the sand thing... "Crutch" is an inaccurate characterization. Try supercharged hot rod of love and fullfillment.  I do know people like you describe. They constitute a minority of the faithful that I know. I also know some who are close to mindless unquestioning churchgoers. Neither are valid arguments against the validity of faith. In fact, if one needs a crutch and faith provides it, then exactly what is the problem with that? It certainly is not any kind of evidence against the validity of the faith. If Dave produced said pic then purple dragons are real and if he can't they are not real. Correct? No. You misread again. The pic would show that there was not a purple dragon. He didn't say anything about it being real or having to prove it is real or not, just that it was not there, not present with him sitting on it. That's all. Please let the issue die. It's a dumb one at this point. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
There was once a BW member who regularly railed against religion and stated that it was a crutch for weak people. His personal poop hit the fan and we haven't seen or heard from him. I often wonder if a "crutch" might not have helped him. | ||
| Tankhead |
Sifo I agree with you. I would imagine there is a great deal of politics within the realm of scientific articles being "allowed" to be published. As far as wiki: You say>>>>>> In typical wiki fashion it is very difficult to get a grasp on what happened though. I agree yet again. | ||
| Danger_dave |
Some can see clear into the next valley and have no religion. | ||
| Court |
Dave; You are correct. It's why I used the word religion. My faith includes religion. Many folks, as you point out, do not. I never want my life, dreams, vision or love limited to what can be seen and proven. Imagine if we only drove or rode to places we can see from where we now stand. Dreaming is a form of faith .,,,,. A belief you can aspire beyond your view. For me, religion is a part of that. For others perhaps not. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Religion is the hollow facsimile of faith. Most religion is worthy of ridicule. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If God isn't physical, how can any apparatus destined to measure, catalog, and describe the physical world hope to neatly encapsulate God? Like particle theory and wave theory, measurement the physical and the metaphysical is mutually exclusive. | ||
| Aesquire |
I have my doubts that you can use science to prove God. ( or disprove. ) That is like trying to use a microphone to smell bread. I'm not sure that the underlying assumptions of Faith and Science, or Psi and Science, or the Smell of Bread and science, actually connect that way.. The difference is, Science can describe the chemical and even hormonal interactions in the smell of bread, but cannot perfectly describe the actual smell. ( don't have a common language with laymen. Smell experts have their own specialty words... ) Science Can reproduce the smell in a spray can.... ( I can get pretty good "new car smell" } Science can use statistical review of experiments and determine that telepathy exists, ( it does, and it's nearly useless ) but not, perhaps, be able to describe the actual mechanism by how it works. Lots of experiments and data to gather on this subject before theories can be winnowed. ( but not, I fear, a lot of money to be made, so don't hold your breath ) I just don't see Science determining the nature of, or existence of God(s), except to give us fodder for arguing the subject. Statistical studies? The Unlikeliness of Reality? Beats me. Now simple observation makes me think the universe isn't random.  | ||
| Danger_dave |
I'd like to see next week's Lotto numbers. | ||
| Gregtonn |
"So, until we get brain transplants, so I can toss the old one in a 21 year old healthy body, the big issue with clones is the potential for slavery/abuse/murder to harvest them for parts. Current research into growing parts alone looks very promising, and looks to make the whole clone for parts thing obsolete. ( until the brain transplants happen )" Unfortunately the brain ages right along with the rest of the body. Often the brain remains sound longer than the body, in many cases it does not. G | ||
| Blake |
I like what Dr. Craig says, "science can establish a premise in an argument leading to the conclusion that God exists." Frank, Science via the big bang has concluded that the universe and time itself had a beginning, meaning they began to exist. Until they existed there was nothing, and that is not nothing as in a vacuous space, but nothing as in not even vacuous space. Tough to comprehend. I don't know if I do yet. Some philosophers liken it to a thought or idea becoming real. | ||
| Blake |
Danger Man, You might can do it. | ||
| Gregtonn |
"Some philosophers liken it to a thought or idea becoming real." Hmmm....Who do you suppose had that thought or idea? G | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Oh Blake, you've not yet proven my fire breathing friend Fred doesn't exist yet... were you going to get to that today? You said you could prove a negative which is supposedly impossible so I'd like to see how it's done. Back to the topic; Actually this is completely false and also rather ridiculous logic. It also demonstrates my point about how the 'god' concept stalled Newton's discoveries. Read Blake's snippet closely; " Science also holds that something cannot arise on its own from nothing. The universe arose from nothing. The universe cannot have arisen on its own. God exists. " He DIRECTLY goes from a dilemma about the origins of the universe and since he cannot explain it factually or refuses to acknowledge that something can be UNKNOWN he thus attributes what he does not understand to 'god'. See how that works? Simply put 'i dunno' = 'god' Now can you see how this nonsense harms the growth of our culture? If 'god' is the answer to everything then why ask any questions? If 'god' did everything then why worry about finding a cure for cancer? Just pray right? Thank you once again Blake for so clearly illustrating my point. As others are probably noticing the believers are withdrawing to their warm cocoon of 'god'. They have all sorts of incorrect science to misrepresent. They use these pseudo-science figures like 'Dr' Craig to give them talking points. In the end though, they know it's BS, they know they can't prove anything and whether they admit it or not they have doubts. | ||
| Blake |
The great "I Am", Yahweh. | ||
| 2734 |
>>>>>No. You misread again. The pic would show that there was not a purple dragon. He didn't say anything about it being real or having to prove it is real or not, just that it was not there, not present with him sitting on it. That's all. Please let the issue die. It's a dumb one at this point.<<<<< You cant change the fact that if it proves it's no there,and he's not sitting on it then it's proven it's not there. By proving it's there by the same method does indeed prove it's there. Keep painting yourself in that corner Also you would for sure be the minority, I somehow doubt that Dr Craig has as many people lined up to get his book as a 3rd rate televangelist has lining up to get smacked on the forehead and healed of what ails them NOR do I beleive he draws the same amount of cash for attending his debates as Tammy Faye does on any given sunday. Thusly you have proved yourself and Dr Craig superior to and elevated yourself above your fellow followers of god. You look good on that soap box. I agree the point is moot, but not for the same reasons. |
