From 'Live Science':

Americans would rather hear about evolution from scientists than from judges or celebrities, according to a new survey that finds a majority agree that evolution is at work among living things.

A coalition of 17 organizations reacted today to the survey by calling on the scientific community to become more involved in promoting evolution and other aspects of science education.

The coalition, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Physics and the National Science Teachers Association, released this statement:

"The introduction of 'non-science,' such as creationism and intelligent design, into science education will undermine the fundamentals of science education. Some of these fundamentals include using the scientific method, understanding how to reach scientific consensus, and distinguishing between
scientific and nonscientific explanations of natural phenomena"....

http://www.livescience.com/history/080102-evolution-teaching.html

So 39% don't? Amazing.

So 39% don't? Amazing.

That's exactly what I thought.

The BIBLE teaches evolution through natural selection.You havent heard that yet and don't believe the effemenate one he only believes in adam and steve

yeah, natural selection through a world wide flood.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3499/Sphinx1.jpg



The Sphinx, unlike the Pyramids, is carved out of the living rock. It is 241 feet (73.5 meters) long and in parts is 65 feet (20 meters) high. It faces due east,towards the equinox. It has been suggested that it was built around the same time as the construction of the Pyramid of Khafre [Chephren; c.2555-2532 B.C.E.] (the pyramid to the left of the sphinx), but recent findings by John Anthony West suggest that there are water erosions unlike any other marks found on other Giza monuments.Unlike sand and wind erosions, which produce horizontal marks, West found that the erosion marks on the Sphinx were vertical...like those associated by water,but unlike the sand and wind marks which can be explained thanks to the destructive forces of the Sahara,where did the water marks originate?

what is living rock?
And how many other scientists agree with Mr West?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3499/Sphinx1.jpg

Rain. Giza wasn't always the desert it is now.

shhhh! Don't ruin it for him!

The BIBLE teaches evolution through natural selection.You havent heard that yet and don't believe the effemenate one he only believes in adam and steve

I believe Darwin got his ideas by studying the bible. He failed to acknowledge his sources.

Rain. .


Like the kind that lasts for forty days? Looks pretty effin deep to me.
http://www.catchpenny.org/images/sphinxe.gif

yeah, natural selection through a world wide flood.

Good un !

what is living rock?
And how many other scientists agree with Mr West?

Living Rock was an Egyptian pop group whose best known number was " my heart belongs to mummy"

Who agrees with Mr West ? Well, the writers of the OT for a start.

Like the kind that lasts for forty days? Looks pretty effin deep to me.
http://www.catchpenny.org/images/sphinxe.gif

No, the Sahara used to be lush. Rainfall was much higher then.

Here:
"But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land."
http://www.livescience.com/history/060720_sahara_rains.html

I believe Darwin got his ideas by studying the bible. He failed to acknowledge his sources.

He did acknowledge God or a creator on several occasions. oh, excse me for pointing that out. Now i'm a preacher.

I dont have time to disect every word or work associated with Darwin but he never did state that something, some force that can be associated in this realm was an impossibility. Not that i am aware of anyway, TBH it is not that important to me either.

Early on, Darwin did have faith. Later, the experience of his daughter's death, and knowledge of evolution led him to give that up. Sometimes he still paid lip service to the idea as a nod to public opinion.

I have heard that before but it is just assumption, unless you know more and are holding back.

No, the Sahara used to be lush. Rainfall was much higher then.

Here:
"But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land."
http://www.livescience.com/history/060720_sahara_rains.html

Is that to say the accepted age of the sphinx is completely wrong?

[QUOTE=John99;1804187]He did acknowledge God or a creator on several occasions. oh, excse me for pointing that out. Now i'm a preacher.

I dont have time to disect every word or work associated with Darwin but he never did state that something, some force that can be associated in this realm was an impossibility. Not that i am aware of anyway, TBH it is not that important to me either.


He also never stated that ther were no pink elephants in this realm ,. In fact he probably stated that there were not all sorts of things in this realm/

What exactly do you mean by this realm ?

Is that to say the accepted age of the sphinx is completely wrong?

Whats the accepted age ? I understand it's still debated..

^^
Darwin mentions or at least acknowledges the possibility of an external or otherwise super natural force in 'Origin of Species' several times and in other writings. It's been a long time since i read this stuff but it is common knowledge and i am inclined to believe some of his work may have been edited to be more focused and directly related to his evolution theories. That last part is just speculation and what i have read a few times.

What difference does it really make ??

Your right Enmos. It doesn't make too much of a difference.

Whats the accepted age ? I understand it's still debated..

Ah, so we can't guage the age of a statue that's still here on earth but we can tell which animals lived in what time frames millions of years ago?

Do you see a problem with that logic?

Ah, so we can't guage the age of a statue that's still here on earth but we can tell which animals lived in what time frames millions of years ago?

Do you see a problem with that logic?

No, not really.. lol
Anyway, it's kinda off topic.

what is living rock?I presume it means rock that was cut in place, like Mt. Rushmore, rather than rock that was quarried and cut into blocks. I don't think there's any way the Sphinx could stay in place if it wasn't one big piece.He did acknowledge God or a creator on several occasions. oh, excse me for pointing that out. Now i'm a preacher.No, you're just a historian.I don't have time to disect every word or work associated with Darwin but he never did state that something, some force that can be associated in this realm was an impossibility.Evolution is not inconsistent with creation. Once again, everybody, and please try to remember it this time:Evolution is the natural process by which organisms that exist in one era are slowly transformed into the somewhat different organisms of a later era. There is abundant evidence of macro-scale evolution, including many of its workings, in fossils and DNA, and on the micro scale it can be empirically observed in operation. Evolution is, therefore, an established, canonical scientific theory, meaning that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt, but not as absolutely true as a mathematical theory. In contrast with abiogenesis, evolution does not tell us how the very first lifeforms arose. Abiogenesis is a process by which non-living matter can be transformed into living matter, or at least into organic matter which is then transformed into living matter. In other words: life out of non-life. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, meaning that it has not yet been sufficiently tested to determine its probability of being true. There is no empirical evidence of the workings of abiogenesis such as fossils, DNA or field observation. Our detailed understanding of how it might work is incomplete and untested. The best evidence for abiogenesis comes from cosmology: the natural universe was once composed of matter and energy far too primitive to qualify as organic, much less living, and yet today we are surrounded by living organic matter. Therefore, at some point abiogenesis must have occurred or there would be a paradox, and the natural universe does not allow paradoxes. This is still compelling evidence, and it beats the heck out of the religionist hypothesis that says simply, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it," without ever answering the reflexive, obvious, next question, "So where did the Flying Spaghetti Monster come from, Daddy?" Nonetheless, this is not adequate evidence to elevate abiogenesis to the status of an established theory and it is not part of the canon of science.

From 'Live Science':

Americans would rather hear about evolution from scientists than from judges or celebrities, according to a new survey that finds a majority agree that evolution is at work among living things.

A coalition of 17 organizations reacted today to the survey by calling on the scientific community to become more involved in promoting evolution and other aspects of science education.

The coalition, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Physics and the National Science Teachers Association, released this statement:

"The introduction of 'non-science,' such as creationism and intelligent design, into science education will undermine the fundamentals of science education. Some of these fundamentals include using the scientific method, understanding how to reach scientific consensus, and distinguishing between
scientific and nonscientific explanations of natural phenomena"....

http://www.livescience.com/history/080102-evolution-teaching.html

Thank God for the 61%. It could certainly be worse.

Thank God for the 61%. It could certainly be worse.

Thank who?

A very important point here:

On the other side, the whole "Flying Spaghetti Monster" tool may be - in fact, must be - rejected out of hand as a non-sequitur. It is a known fallacy, having been invented specifically by, as I recall, Richard Dawkins. Ergo, it's a fake from the get-go, and most especially so since he admits that it's a fake. Not really comparable to the issue of the whole Abrahamic God thing, which is not based in an admitted fallacy for the purposes of spurious comparison.

No, not really.. lol
Anyway, it's kinda off topic.

Huh?

Thank who?

God. You may have heard of Him. :D You may of course thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster if you wish, but the latter is a known fallacy, whereas God is not so known.

^^
Darwin mentions or at least acknowledges the possibility of an external or otherwise super natural force in 'Origin of Species' several times and in other writings. It's been a long time since i read this stuff but it is common knowledge and i am inclined to believe some of his work may have been edited to be more focused and directly related to his evolution theories. That last part is just speculation and what i have read a few times.

Lip service. He knew his theory would be controversial. He later regretted bowing to religious peer pressure. I'm not speculating, it's in his letters.

Huh?

You can date the layers of the stone of the statue but you can't date when it was carved. Fossils are found in layers of rock and can be dated because of this.

It's off topic because this thread is about 61% believing in evolution, not about how old the sphinx is ;)

It's been a long time since i read this stuff but it is common knowledge and i am inclined to believe some of his work may have been edited to be more focused and directly related to his evolution theories. That last part is just speculation and what i have read a few times. Despite Darwin's writings and recounted private conversations with friends, it is possible that he held on to a secret belief in the God of his culture, without telling anyone. We know, for example, that he was considerate of his wife's theistic beliefs.

So your speculations are not absolutely deniable. Except the ones about editing - to the extent Darwin's writings were edited, all evidence points to their having been made more, rather than less, theist-friendly. The reverse is without support.

But we do know that Darwin delayed the publication of his masterwork for many years, out of reluctance - even fear (he was a shy man, and had health problems) - to face what he and everyone aware of his theories knew would be the hostility of its reception by the theists who dominated the intellectual discourse and social community of his time. Theists are well known for their vindictiveness, social meanness, and willingness to abuse the vulnerable, and Darwin had not only his own socially timid nature and poor health to consider but his wife (a theist, whom he loved) and family, who would (and did) suffer in the resulting controversy. He postponed as long as he could - a very revealing circumstance, no?

Ah, so we can't guage the age of a statue that's still here on earth but we can tell which animals lived in what time frames millions of years ago?

Do you see a problem with that logic? No. It's a simple fact of the situation. When real, physical evidence and correction by discovery is involved, rather than theologically based "logic", such situations are common.

As far as the OP, I would be curious to know what percentage of the "yes" responders belonged to the "I believe in microevolution" crowd. I would put a large sum of money against the proposition that 61% of the US public has any real understanding of evolutionary theory, and so the question should be treated as a political one, with the slippery reservations and so forth common to political polls.

Sample equivalent question: "Do you believe in the theory of quantum electrodymanics ?" "Do you believe in the Special Theory of Relativity?"
On the other side, the whole "Flying Spaghetti Monster" tool may be - in fact, must be - rejected out of hand as a non-sequitur. It is a known fallacy, having been invented specifically by, as I recall, Richard Dawkins. Ergo, it's a fake from the get-go, and most especially so since he admits that it's a fake. That doesn't matter. Dawkins is a known atheist, and would be expected to deny the influence of Divine Inspiration on any of his propositions. The Truth of the Monster does not depend on its manner of Revelation.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster should be rejected on aesthetic grounds - it's petty and messy and vague and doesn't do the job of satire even. But there is no way to reject it on physical origin or other reality based grounds - any more than proof of Paul's epilipsy would cause his writings and letters to be rejected from the Christian Bible.

A very important point here:

On the other side, the whole "Flying Spaghetti Monster" tool may be - in fact, must be - rejected out of hand as a non-sequitur. It is a known fallacy, having been invented specifically by, as I recall, Richard Dawkins. Ergo, it's a fake from the get-go, and most especially so since he admits that it's a fake. Not really comparable to the issue of the whole Abrahamic God thing, which is not based in an admitted fallacy for the purposes of spurious comparison.

I don't think that's important. In either case, they were invented.

I don't think that's important. In either case, they were invented.

Neither of us has any ability to say whether God was invented or not, but we both know for certain that the FSM was invented, so it's not at all the same thing. I think the FSM example really should be put by the by. It's just more baiting, although on a different level. Playground sort of stuff, really.

God. You may have heard of Him. :D You may of course thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster if you wish, but the latter is a known fallacy, whereas God is not so known.I didn't realize that mentioning the Flying Spaghetti Monster would generate such a furor. I should have said, "The Doozers did it." (A "Fraggle Rock" reference.)

My points were:1. Evolution does not answer the question of how life originated. Abiogenesis does that and abiogenesis has not been established. 2. Saying "God created life" is patently absurd, since God (in this hypothesis) is alive and it would be a paradox for him to have created himself.

From the point of view of valid evidence supporting them, they are identical. It's a thought experiment, a typical and sometimes valuable scientific exercise.

Darwin save us from "thought experiments".

"Thought experiment

A rigged mental contest designed to re-enforce existing memetic prejudices by intellectual slight-of-hand and the absence of properly developed counterarguments or, better yet, counterarguers."


The definition is my own, but it is a perfect definition. How do I know this? Simple. Thought experiment. ;)

Anyway, God and the FSM are not at all similar from the perspective of evidence supporting them - I excise the word "valid" since it's meaning inevitably becomes derivative in these contests. The FSM is a completely false construct dreamt up in a thought experiment (see above) while the other has a basis in sincerely held beliefs based in literature, whether you agree with the literature or not. It is time to let the Flying Spaghetti Monster fly on, and keep flying, until he exits the popular selective consciousness.

So your speculations are not absolutely deniable. Except the ones about editing - to the extent Darwin's writings were edited, all evidence points to their having been made more, rather than less, theist-friendly. The reverse is without support.

But we do know that Darwin delayed the publication of his masterwork for many years, out of reluctance - even fear (he was a shy man, and had health problems) - to face what he and everyone aware of his theories knew would be the hostility of its reception by the theists who dominated the intellectual discourse and social community of his time. Theists are well known for their vindictiveness, social meanness, and willingness to abuse the vulnerable, and Darwin had not only his own socially timid nature and poor health to consider but his wife (a theist, whom he loved) and family, who would (and did) suffer in the resulting controversy. He postponed as long as he could - a very revealing circumstance, no?

No. It's a simple fact of the situation. When real, physical evidence and correction by discovery is involved, rather than theologically based "logic", such situations are common.



I believe that the editing, if it is or was significant, was more selective and leaned toward omitting any beliefs that were\are not directly related to Evolution.

As far as the reluctance, there i believe was more of an issue of struggling with his own conclusions and the fear of ridicule but any new idea is susceptible to intense scrutiny. There were more factors than fear of theists because failure and complete disbelief would have just rendered his work insignificant and forgotten. So i think his struggles were more internal and this personal struggle is normal and exists to this day. I know that i am fairly neutral and dont claim to have a definitive answer one way or another.

Of course it is just opinion so could be wrong and may be wrong.

Personally i do not believe that Darwin was an Atheist and the evidence points to Agnostic.

Darwin save us from "thought experiments".

"Thought experiment

A rigged mental contest designed to re-enforce existing memetic prejudices by intellectual slight-of-hand and the absence of properly developed counterarguments or, better yet, counterarguers."


The definition is my own, but it is a perfect definition. How do I know this? Simple. Thought experiment. ;)

Anyway, God and the FSM are not at all similar from the perspective of evidence supporting them - I excise the word "valid" since it's meaning inevitably becomes derivative in these contests. The FSM is a completely false construct dreamt up in a thought experiment (see above) while the other has a basis in sincerely held beliefs based in literature, whether you agree with the literature or not. It is time to let the Flying Spaghetti Monster fly on, and keep flying, until he exits the popular selective consciousness.

So God as an idea has a history. So what? Scientology and Mormonism both have a history and a mythology, does that mean they are any more valid? We know the analogy of FSM and Russell's teapot are made up, but can anyone show that these made up ideas are any less valid than historical religious ideas?

You can date the layers of the stone of the statue but you can't date when it was carved. Fossils are found in layers of rock and can be dated because of this.

It's off topic because this thread is about 61% believing in evolution, not about how old the sphinx is ;)

I started a related thread here.http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79339

So God as an idea has a history. So what? Scientology and Mormonism both have a history and a mythology, does that mean they are any more valid? We know the analogy of FSM and Russell's teapot are made up, but can anyone show that these made up ideas are any less valid than historical religious ideas?

To start with, the FSM can immediately be discarded because it's a known fallacy. There's no confounding discussion at all Richard Dawkins doesn't really believe there is any such thing, and has not reported the existence of any such Monster as an actual creation - he admits from the outset that it is fallacious. There is an arguable observational history for God, and a reasonability for a Spinozan God. There is no such naturalistic accountability for the FSM which, as I mentioned earlier, flies off into the sunset to sup from Russell's Teapot, dragging Dawkins' preconceptions behind it. It would have as much bearing as me saying "Oh yeah? Well there's another god who insists that this first God is real. So there." It's completely - and this is no exaggeration - unrooted.

So the idea of God - if you insist on testing it - must rise and fall on the merits of its own evidence. I'm not familiar with Scientology or Mormonism to any great extent, but I gain a personal impression of their fallibility when I read their works - the former being based on a sci-fi novel and the latter having, I seem to recall, a passage-by-passage comparison between one of its chapters and a couple of books in the OT, which suggests special pleading or a psychological need to cover all bases. So, on that basis, I feel reasonably secure in doubting their claims. But disproving their theological ideas completely is something a bit beyond our capacity, and mine. I rest my case on an informed NOMA, as Gould generally did.

I started a related thread here.http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79339

Ok, just see this footage on the sphinx: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsofKUDXds4&feature=related

Neither of us has any ability to say whether God was invented or not, but we both know for certain that the FSM was invented, so it's not at all the same thing. You do not know for certain that the FSM was invented, rather than divinely inspired. Not even its alleged inventor knows.

You find it very easy to argue from circumstance and evidence against other people's beliefs. You do not accept from others the kinds of defensive arguments - from sincerity of belief, from number of believers, from unreasonably high standards of evidence - that you employ for your own beliefs.

As far as the reluctance, there i believe was more of an issue of struggling with his own conclusions and the fear of ridicule but any new idea is susceptible to intense scrutiny. There were more factors than fear of theists because failure and complete disbelief would have just rendered his work insignificant and forgotten. Darwin knew what he had, in his theory. He had no fear of being forgotten, or ignored, or dismissed with mild contempt and simple ridicule. He had (if correct, and he was very confident) solved one of the great problems of his age, one that was what we now call a "hot topic".

He feared the consequences - the social and personal consequences - of confronting the theists in his community with his theory.

Geoff, it doesn't matter that the fallacy of FSM is known. You can still compare the two ideas, and in so doing point out that the basis of each is flawed. You can't know that there is no God without examining the entire universe, likewise you can't know that there is no FSM without a similar examination. You cannot know there is no FSM, EVEN IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE MADE IT UP. There is a small probability that it is real, regardless of it's origin.

Therefore, when someone uses the untestibility of God as support for their view (Norsefire), know that an infinite number of ridiculous ideas are also untestable.

^^
Darwin mentions or at least acknowledges the possibility of an external or otherwise super natural force in 'Origin of Species' several times and in other writings. It's been a long time since i read this stuff but it is common knowledge and i am inclined to believe some of his work may have been edited to be more focused and directly related to his evolution theories. That last part is just speculation and what i have read a few times.

Evolutionary theory removes the need for a creator. That was clerr to Darwin, Huxley and those who came after them.

Evolutionary theory removes the need for a creator. That was clerr to Darwin, Huxley and those who came after them.

The theists just back up a bit and say the universe was still created by God. And he knew abiogenesis and evolution was going to happen inevitably.. :shrug:

You do not know for certain that the FSM was invented, rather than divinely inspired. Not even its alleged inventor knows.

You find it very easy to argue from circumstance and evidence against other people's beliefs. You do not accept from others the kinds of defensive arguments - from sincerity of belief, from number of believers, from unreasonably high standards of evidence - that you employ for your own beliefs.
Darwin knew what he had, in his theory. He had no fear of being forgotten, or ignored, or dismissed with mild contempt and simple ridicule. He had (if correct, and he was very confident) solved one of the great problems of his age, one that was what we now call a "hot topic".

He feared the consequences - the social and personal consequences - of confronting the theists in his community with his theory.

I agree. And he was influenced by Lyell who, in turn. was influenced by Hutton. It was common knowledge that Hutton faced ridicule when he attempted to show that the earth had to be more than 6. 000 years old. His well presented argument was simply dismissed. This could, in part , account for Darwin's delay in publishing of his work. It is difficult for us to imagine what it meant to stand out against the Establishment in those times. Worse, even, than teaching evolution in Kansas today.

Hutton has not received the attention he deserves; he appears to be known only to geologists.

The theists just back up a bit and say the universe was still created by God. And he knew abiogenesis and evolution was going to happen inevitably.. :shrug:

That argumnt makes sense to anyone who refuses to even consider. let alone understand, evolutionary theory.

That argumnt makes sense to anyone who refuses to even consider. let alone understand, evolutionary theory.

Well.. lol
Do you expect anything else from them ?

Well.. lol
Do you expect anything else from them ?

Based on my experience to date no. All it takes is a bible and a closed mind.

I agree with Russell who said " most people would sooner die than think; and they do "

Based on my experience to date no. All it takes is a bible and a closed mind.

I agree with Russell who said " most people would sooner die than think; and they do "

Yep, a bit crude.. but most likely close to the truth ;)

You do not know for certain that the FSM was invented, rather than divinely inspired. Not even its alleged inventor knows.

I'm willing to take his frank, spoken admission for it. I think this would be a reasonable contingency on the probability for it.

You find it very easy to argue from circumstance and evidence against other people's beliefs. You do not accept from others the kinds of defensive arguments - from sincerity of belief, from number of believers, from unreasonably high standards of evidence - that you employ for your own beliefs.

Good Lord! I had no idea. To what am I referring, when I apparently do this?

If I do ridicule unjustly, then I apologize to all those so ridiculed. Myuu may, indeed, be real. But I don't postulate so far as I recall the absence of scientific evidence for the existence of the deities and entities of other people's beliefs. I might poke fun, but I do adhere to NOMA in actual, sober reflection. In all seriousness, I would actually like some examples of such statements by me; if they could be specific to the instances above that you mention - i) sincerity of belief, ii) from number of believers, iii) from unreasonably high standards of evidence - that would be best.

Geoff, it doesn't matter that the fallacy of FSM is known. You can still compare the two ideas, and in so doing point out that the basis of each is flawed.

It certainly does matter, and I can know to a much greater interval of confidence whether or not the FSM exists, particularly as the inventor made it up. (Again, this contrasts with theists, who don't say their god is made up.) Admitting the fallacy of God would be the refutation of the theory and, thereby, the "null" hypothesis in this case -> Ho: no God. How else could the theory possibly be falsified in the practical sense? I might conclude from a genome scan that there is no QTL for the prefrontal lobe in a particular chromosomal region, and there might well be one anyway, but from the practical perspective I can't go around saying "no evidence for a QTL on Chr V...but let's pretend for a moment there was one just because". That's special pleading. We already know that the farcical FSM isn't real, because someone just made it up in front of us. But the evidence for the Abrahamic God - however strong you care to call it - must reasonably be said to be a lot stronger, even forgetting the fact that Dawkins already invented it.

To further employ the logic of its creater - a man infatuated with likelihood and Bayesian probability, or so his comments tell us - if there were some absurd FSM (the meaning of the "F" depending on time and speaker) fluttering about, it would quite a bit more unlikely that it would be denying itself than if it weren't, unless it has some kind of serious personality complex. The evidence for it is so far removed from that of the Abrahamic God - however you care to denigrate such evidence, or not - that the entire premise is unrooted from the get-go, and so the FSM - hopeless monster that it is, to paraphrase Goldschmidt - chases its own tail until it poofs away into a miasma of complete unreasonability.

Therefore, when someone uses the untestibility of God as support for their view (Norsefire), know that an infinite number of ridiculous ideas are also untestable.

The ideas have to be reasonably ridiculous before they can be described as such.

Evolutionary theory removes the need for a creator.

But doesn't obviate the existence of one. That was clear to Spinoza and Einstein.

But doesn't obviate the existence of one. That was clear to Spinoza and Einstein.

Spinoza believed god was everywhere but, as I understand him, he uses god in a metaphorical sense; that is why he had problems with the Jews and Christians of his day. Can you cite in which of his works he talks about a creator?

Einstein never spoke of the need for a creator. His remark that "god does not play dice " is often used by theists to claim that Einstein believed in god. There is no evidence that he did. Are you aware of any ?

As an atheist I will sometimes say something like " god almighty", but I am speaking figuratively.

No, but neither do I know of any works in which he described God as a carpetbagger, either. Are you aware of any?

No, but neither do I know of any works in which he described God as a carpetbagger, either. Are you aware of any?


What a weak answer. Do you make a habit of misquoting others when it suits your purpose? What are you hoping to achieve ? Are you overlooking the fact that some of us read more than the bible ?

If I said I saw the FSM, then the evidence for it and for God is the same, merely personal anecdotes.

What a weak answer.

Sayeth the king of the one-liners. I'm simply pointing out the massive firewall that exists between faith and religion under Gould's NOMA, which I consider a very fair measure. So what exactly are you attempting to achieve? Who am I misquoting, for example? Are you aware of the fact that I myself have read far more widely than the Bible? Why would reading further than the Bible necessarily have anything to do with my position? Do you not know that philosophy may fall on either side of the issue? What inner anger is motivating your responses?

And so on. I don't know why I bother giving your arguments fair treatment, when you immediately take the position of the umbraged athiest. What is the chip on your shoulder made from?

If I said I saw the FSM, then the evidence for it and for God is the same, merely personal anecdotes.

Very well; then write up the description of your no-doubt quite earnest encounter with the FSM - Dawkins' resurgent Rocinante - and call the faithful to their pasta plates in all trepid holiness. Yet, if you will permit me, I shall use my reason to divine my own path to Elysium without either needing to fawn at or explain the scales of a beast that never was, written up by a man who literally knew it wasn't.

Best regards to the both of you,

Geoff

A very important point here:

On the other side, the whole "Flying Spaghetti Monster" tool may be - in fact, must be - rejected out of hand as a non-sequitur. It is a known fallacy, having been invented specifically by, as I recall, Richard Dawkins.

Actually no it is not Dawkins. FSM is a registered religion in the US, brought about and made public after certain events (a school board voted to force the teaching of creationism instead of evolution). You can read about it here (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/).:D I actually know a few people who have been converted to the FSM. They even have the T-shirts and mugs to prove it.:p Dawkins brings it up as a means to discount religion and God as a whole... after all, theists cannot disprove the FSM, about as much as they can prove God exists. The founder of FSM has proof to back up his claims, about as much proof that theists use to claim God exists. Really quite interesting. I am considering becoming a pastafarian myself..:D

I'm willing to take his frank, spoken admission for it. I think this would be a reasonable contingency on the probability for it.

“
You find it very easy to argue from circumstance and evidence against other people's beliefs. You do not accept from others the kinds of defensive arguments - from sincerity of belief, from number of believers, from unreasonably high standards of evidence - that you employ for your own beliefs.
”
Good Lord! I had no idea. To what am I referring, when I apparently do this? A quick rereading of the above should suffice.

You are taking Dawkins's word for the source of his inspiration. Considering Dawkins's biases, that is a poor argument by your normal standards.

By the standards of the theistic argument, Dawkins's claim to ahve invented the Monster all on his own do not subtract a bit from the probability that it was a Divine Inspiration and a Revelation of the Truth - even if Dawkins is so deluded and prideful as to sincerely believe he deserves full credit.

Again: sincerity of belief, number of believers, unreasonably high standards of evidence.

Actually no it is not Dawkins. FSM is a registered religion in the US, brought about and made public after certain events (a school board voted to force the teaching of creationism instead of evolution).

Oh, yes, I know. Creationism instead of evolution? Where's this then?

The founder of FSM has proof to back up his claims, about as much proof that theists use to claim God exists. Really quite interesting. I am considering becoming a pastafarian myself..:D

:rolleyes: The exercise strikes me a bit more as a somewhat more subtle form of goading (especially since the founder, Bob Henderson, avowedly made it all up); I commend his choice of horse, if not the use he puts it to.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Quixo-panza.jpg

A quick rereading of the above should suffice.

Ah! Then those wiser and more learned than I shall not refrain from illustrating my errors. After all, no one has so far. :D

You are taking Dawkins's word for the source of his inspiration. Considering Dawkins's biases, that is a poor argument by your normal standards.

Bob Henderson in point of fact - my mistake - but actually I do him the greater justice by appealing to reasonability: he admits the falsity of his deific creation by his own standards of knowledge, and so do I.

By the standards of the theistic argument, Dawkins's claim to ahve invented the Monster all on his own do not subtract a bit from the probability that it was a Divine Inspiration and a Revelation of the Truth

Other than the creator admitting it wasn't real in the first place.

Again: sincerity of belief

Henderson admits he made it up; ergo it is bollocks.

, number of believers

A piddling of the needlessly shoulder-chipped.

, unreasonably high standards of evidence.

Amounting to a single "observation", by a man who admits its falsity.

Ahem.


This just in:

Patterson 'Bigfoot' Film Pronounced 'real' Despite Patterson's Deathbed Admission of Falsity. Says recalcitrant adept: We Knew it All Along!

Best,

Geoff

You know, aside from my being forced to needlessly fisk iceaura above, I still don't usually invoke number of believers since it would be argument from prevalence. But anyway, there it is. Criticise as ye will.

Oh, yes, I know. Creationism instead of evolution? Where's this then?


Many schools around the world Geoff, including the US. The founder of FSM started his 'religion' after a school teacher was fired for refusing to bow down to pressure and teach creationism instead of evolution.

The exercise strikes me a bit more as a somewhat more subtle form of goading (especially since the founder, Bob Henderson, avowedly made it all up); I commend his choice of horse, if not the use he puts it to.
Goading? Maybe. If you read the replies he received from the school board, some of the moderates on the school board agreed and approved of his stance. One of the religious nutters who voted to teach creationism instead of evolution advised him that it was a sin to insult God. But the founder of FSM approached his religion in much the same way that theists approach theirs. He used their arguments to give credence to the FSM. Interesting really if you think about it.:)

I particularly like the correlation between global warming and pirates myself. Damn pirates!

Many schools around the world Geoff, including the US. The founder of FSM started his 'religion' after a school teacher was fired for refusing to bow down to pressure and teach creationism instead of evolution.
Bullshit, Bells. Link, please. There has been a sputtering attempt in a few locations to get schools to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution. The only teacher I know of that has been fired was at Woods Hole Institute for refusing to personally accept evoution as a fact.
BOSTON — A Christian biologist is suing the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, claiming he was fired for refusing to accept evolution, lawyers involved in the case said Friday.

Nathaniel Abraham, an Indian national who describes him self as a “Bible- believing Christian,” said in the suit filed Monday in U. S. District Court in Boston that he was fired in 2004 because he would not accept evolution as scientific fact....
The zebrafish specialist said his civil rights were violated when he was dismissed shortly after telling his superior he did not accept evolution because he believed the Bible presented a true account of human creation....
Abraham, who was dismissed eight months after he was hired, said he was willing to do research using evolutionary concepts but that he had been required to accept Darwin’s theory of evolution as scientific fact or lose his job.http://blog.creation.org/page/2/

Many schools around the world Geoff, including the US. The founder of FSM started his 'religion' after a school teacher was fired for refusing to bow down to pressure and teach creationism instead of evolution.

Shocking and unfortunate.

Goading? Maybe. If you read the replies he received from the school board, some of the moderates on the school board agreed and approved of his stance.

It's goading if it gets dragged out in the context of religious debate, but certainly not as he first used it. (My comment above about his choice of use refers only to that subsequent to the case, I should probably have added.) Simply put: creationism is not, to my mind, suitable fare for a public school.

I particularly like the correlation between global warming and pirates myself. Damn pirates!

In that case:

Data from Berlin (Germany) show a significant correlation between the increase in the stork population around the city and the increase in deliveries outside city hospitals (out-of-hospital deliveries). However, there is no correlation between deliveries in hospital buildings (clinical deliveries) and the stork population. The decline in the number of pairs of storks in the German state of Lower Saxony between 1970 and 1985 correlated with the decrease of deliveries in that area. The nearly constant number of deliveries from 1985 to 1995 was associated with an unchanged stork population (no statistical significance). However, the relevance of the stork for the birth rate in that part of Germany remains unclear, because the number of out-of-hospital deliveries in this area is not well documented. A lack of statistical information on out-of-hospital deliveries in general is a severe handicap for further proof for the Theory of the Stork.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2003.00534.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ppe

An oldie but a goodie.

mutations in our genetic material happen ever day. Viruses mutate inorder to change for and infect targets that were previously immune. Some frogs have six legs.

Evolution is a term we give to mutations that give significant and crucial advantages. We need the benefit of foresight to see that the mutations keep the certain species surviving longer.

What is there not to believe? Evolution is only a term we apply to something we know is successful


----
http://wikichem.net

Living Rock was an Egyptian pop group whose best known number was " my heart belongs to mummy"
That would be where they got the well-known phrase: "wrapped around my heart", long since used in many a rock-song. Also why they didn't use: "wrapped around my kidneys" - it just doesn't have the same kind of rhythm to it.

Again: sincerity of belief
”
Henderson admits he made it up; ergo it is bollocks. The "ergo" is invalid. Simply because someone believes he made something up (not Dawkins, apparently, which reassures me - I had the impression that Dawkins had better aesthetic judgment, and was disappointed to accept him as inventing the FSM) is no argument against its reality as Divine Revelation. Who are you to restrict Deity in its manner of Revelation ?

The very entity being revealed - an omnipotent Deity - invalidates all such arguments against its existence. Confusion and disbelief on the part of any fallible human (this one even has a personal interest and ego involved) is simply irrelevant - unless,of course, you are calling upon the normal standards of evidence and reason regarding the real existence of actual entities (such as Bigfoot, etc). But that is not a safe harbor for any ordinary theism - - - -

Evolutionary theory removes the need for a creator.No. This is absolutely not true. Re-read my original post. Evolution does NOT tell us how the first living creatures arose. It only tells us how we developed from them.

Evolution shoots down the literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the biblical creation myth, in which all species were created in their current form in just a couple of days. But evolution does not shoot down the theory that a god created the first living things and then sat back and watched as they evolved.

No, pure abstract logic itself does that.1. God must be a living thing. 2. No thing or person can create it- or himself. Therefore God cannot have created himself. Therefore the statement, "God created the first living things," is false.We don't need evidence when we can disprove a statement through pure abstract reasoning. We may not know yet where life came from, but we KNOW that God did not create it, with the same unshakeable certainty that we KNOW 1 + 1 = 2.

Hi Fraggle,
Can you defend the premises?
1 - What characteristics of God define it as "a living thing"?

2 - This premise would be considered meaningless by most Christian theologians, I think. They'd say that God is a necessary being (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm), for which the existence is included in and identical with its very essence. That God was not created; that it is impossible for a necessary being to not exist (see Leibniz (http://www.leibniz-translations.com/necessarybeing.htm)

If God does fall under the category of "living things", then a theologian would deny "God created the first living things" as meaningless, and instead assert that "God created the first biological life on Earth."

The "ergo" is invalid. Simply because someone believes he made something up (not Dawkins, apparently, which reassures me - I had the impression that Dawkins had better aesthetic judgment, and was disappointed to accept him as inventing the FSM) is no argument against its reality as Divine Revelation. Who are you to restrict Deity in its manner of Revelation ?

Well you said there wasn't any evidence for the FSM or God; yet the evidence is clearly that there isn't an FSM, since it was deliberately made up. Questioning the evidence for something you're not sure about - God as defined in the Bible - is not at all like making up something on the spot, which you admit is false, and then demanding evidence for it. The first one at least has a sort of viable hypothesis, if one really wants to lean across the NOMA boundary.

The other is a load of tripe; but let's use a thought experiment for a moment and ask ourselves: what is the evidence surrounding the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or, more precisely, if we had a supposed god, and didn't know whether it was real or not, couldn't we reject the existence of this god if we could identify a (presumably mortal) creator for it who admits in an evidentiary fashion that it's bollocks? (I note that this would be the first step in the process of the falsification of the hypothesis for the Abrahamic God, and is a step that no atheist worth his or her salt would ignore for a moment.) Well, we certainly could reject such a possibility in that case, and we do: we're unsure about the evidence of the Abrahamic God, but we do know that the FSM was invented on the merits of the very case in which it arises.

The very entity being revealed - an omnipotent Deity - invalidates all such arguments against its existence. Confusion and disbelief on the part of any fallible human (this one even has a personal interest and ego involved) is simply irrelevant - unless,of course, you are calling upon the normal standards of evidence and reason regarding the real existence of actual entities (such as Bigfoot, etc). But that is not a safe harbor for any ordinary theism - - - -

Now you - as opposed to me - seem to be citing "you shall not put your God to the test" argument, which surprises me given our positions. If you want to declare an evidentiary process for God, then you have to examine the specifics of the cases. You can't just say "well, I think the evidence for A is bollocks, and since I could invent B that would also have no evidence then A is also bollocks". Either we're using a semi-scientific evidentiary process or not.

Now I admit that at some point the question for me is faith-based. It doesn't trump evidence in my case, but it may indeed be that it colours my judgement somewhat. But so be it: you'll not have far or long to look to find treatises about the nature of evolution taken partially on faith or impression in surpass or violation of the extant evidence. At the core, I too am human, so if there is bias then I think perhaps it is of the incidental, acceptable kinds.

Best regards,

Geoff

Ah and so the many may err as grossly as the few....

YOU! You! How do you come to be here? What is your purpose here? :mad:

Listen! Listen to me, all of you! Do not believe this woman! She is treacherous! She is devious! She is a hamster! She knows no bounds, and believes in the existence of walking garden gnomes with pointy hats, and even Nikelodeon! :bugeye: Trust not her words, for her heart is shaped on the turning wheel and she is inconstant by nature! Begone! Begone, thou harridan!


...hey, Snif. What up? :)

I'm day tripping.

Getting a bit thin over there. I'm wondering about the success of the prolitarian revolution.

Getting a bit thin over there. I'm wondering about the success of the prolitarian revolution.

shutupayourface

Eep! :eek:

*hides from icepick*

Geoff. Bloody Trotskyite.

Bullshit, Bells. Link, please. There has been a sputtering attempt in a few locations to get schools to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution. The only teacher I know of that has been fired was at Woods Hole Institute for refusing to personally accept evoution as a fact.
http://blog.creation.org/page/2/

Firstly, you do realise that ID is a form of 'creationism' right?

Secondly, public schools should not be teaching religious dogma, such as that of ID.

Thirdly, when one has to take a school board to court to teach evolution in a public school, you know something is seriously wrong.

You know what is scary? This:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v6i8g1.jpg

Source (http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i8n.htm#footnote1)

Another scary thing?

Evolutionary biology is mysteriously missing from the list of undergraduate subjects eligible for a US federal grant.
Source (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9833-us-department-of-education-overlooks-evolution.html)


Apparently that was a "mistake". Strange though, eh?

I would suggest you look up the name Chris Comer, who was forced to resign before she was fired for being critical of ID being taught in public schools in Texas. Comer was the State's Director of the Science Curriculum (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm?csp=34). The Texas Education Agency had recommended that she be fired for an email, which promoted a lecture which was critical of ID.

Former science director Chris Comer says she resigned from the Texas Education Agency to avoid being fired after officials told her she had improperly endorsed evolution. She had forwarded an e-mail announcing a speech by a prominent scholar on evolution, which the state requires schools to teach.

"For all the years I was there, I would always say the teaching of evolution is part of our science curriculum. It's not just a good idea; it's the law," Ms. Comer said last week during an interview in her Leander home. "We have teachers afraid to teach it, parents who don't want it taught and parents who do want it taught. It comes from all different angles."

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

On Oct. 26, Ms. Comer received an e-mail from the National Center for Science Education announcing a speech in Austin by Barbara Forrest, an author and scholar who has criticized the intelligent design movement for undermining science education.

Dr. Forrest also testified in a prominent federal district court case in Pennsylvania in 2005 that resulted in a ruling that struck down the Dover school district's policy of introducing intelligent design in the classroom as unconstitutional.

Ms. Comer forwarded the message to some science teachers and professors with a short message: "FYI."

An hour later, Ms. Comer says, a TEA official came to her office and showed her an e-mail from Lizzette Reynolds, another official in the agency, who said the FYI e-mail was worthy of termination or reassignment because it implied that TEA supported the speaker. Ms. Reynolds came to the TEA to run the agency's educational initiatives after working with the Bush administration.

Ms. Comer said she doesn't know who forwarded the e-mail to Ms. Reynolds.

Ms. Comer said she quickly sent out another e-mail stressing that her original message didn't express the views of the TEA.

After spending the next week out of the office, Ms. Comer said, she returned to hear that she had one day to resign or she would be fired.

Source (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/121307dnmetevolution.2af0951.html)


Lizzette Reynolds was a former deputy legislative director during George W. Bush's term as governor, and she also worked in the U.S. Department of Education.

Bells, who cares if if you want to limit yourself.

ID means what it says. Your stuck in the 1800;s.

[QUOTE=GeoffP;1804648]Sayeth the king of the one-liners. I'm simply pointing out the massive firewall that exists between faith and religion under Gould's NOMA, which I consider a very fair measure. So what exactly are you attempting to achieve? Who am I misquoting, for example? Are you aware of the fact that I myself have read far more widely than the Bible? Why would reading further than the Bible necessarily have anything to do with my position? Do you not know that philosophy may fall on either side of the issue? What inner anger is motivating your responses?

And so on. I don't know why I bother giving your arguments fair treatment, when you immediately take the position of the umbraged athiest. What is the chip on your shoulder made from?
.................................................. ........

How arrogant of you. You are projecting your own anxiety onto me. I have no chip om my shoulder. merely am intense dislike of those who would retain ignorance in preference to knowledge.

You mentioned Spinoza and Einstein and I asked for citations which you have failed to produce.I n other words you were hoping to get away with bullshit.

No I don't know that philosophy falls either side of the argument. Perhaps you can enlighten me with a philosophical argument that supports the existence of god and I will point out the flaws ,as has been done ad nauseam. So let's see what your made of ! You haven't had anything sognificant to say so far.

Well, the Creationists or other nutters appear to be here.

Firstly, ID is creationism. This was accepted in the Dover trial by a federal judge, after a certain historian of science laid out the steps from Creationism to INtelligent Design, and how the people who came up with ID were trying to get around the non-estabslishment thingy in the US. You only have to go to ID websites to find that yes, ID'ers are religious believers looking for ways of pretending they have scientific backing for believing god created everything, especially humans.

As for woods hole, the guy had decided he didn't want to do the work:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/slackjawed_creationist_surpris.php

But on Nov. 17, Hahn asked him to resign, pointing out in the letter that Abraham should have known of evolution's centrality to the project because it was evident from the job advertisement and grant proposal.

". . . You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work," Hahn wrote in the letter, which the commission provided to the Globe. "This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted."

The commission [the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination] dismissed his complaint earlier this year. The commission said Abraham was terminated because his request not to work on evolutionary aspects of the project would be challenging for Woods Hole because the research was based on evolutionary theories.

Bells, that graph was astoundingly scary. I actually didn't know undergrad boursaries in evolutionary biology weren't available in the US (did my thesis stuff in a different nation, actually).


Myles, calm yourself down. I called you on your chip, because you basically freaked out on me because I have the temerity to disagree with you. I'm sorry if that further offends you, but there it is. Think about it. You strike me very strongly as a kid a bit embittered about his perceived notions of truth and atheism. Why would I bother with debating you until you've matured a bit more?

You call my beliefs "ignorance" and accuse me of deception, without taking a moment to post Spinoza's position; I am quite aware of his philosophy and am - or was, anyway - waiting patiently for you to bring it up; in fairness to my side, why don't you present Spinoza's case, then, since you have such strong feelings on the issue? Put your money where your mouth is on Spinoza, since you feel so keenly that NOMA can be trampled by it. I assume you have heard of NOMA, of course.

Personally, I am not entirely interested in the philosophy of deism per se, and it would be ludicrous to start posting reams of philosophical arguments for one side and then the other - ad nauseam. I am merely pointing out - as I have been - that NOMA is a more acceptable interpretation of the system. If you feel I haven't had anything "sognificant" to say so far then, really, you haven't been listening. Sorry.

Best,

Geoff

Copied from an entity called "raven" who posts on Pharyngula and Pandas thumb.

I've been keeping a running tally of scientists and science supporters persecuted, beaten up, and fired by fundie creos. Well documented cases are up to 11. There are many more, most not well publicized.

Posting the list of who is really being beaten up, threatened, fired, attempted to be fired, and killed. Not surprisingly, it is scientists and science supporters by Death Cultists.
There is a serious reign of terror by Xian fundie terrorists directed against the reality based academic community, specifically acceptors of evolution. I'm keeping a running informal tally, listed below. They include death threats, firings, attempted firings, assaults, and general persecution directed against at least 11 people. The Expelled Liars have totally ignored the ugly truth of just who is persecuting who.

If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or copy the list.

I thought I'd post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution.

2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton)

1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet)

1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist)

1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian)

1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas)

1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas)

1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland)

Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski

Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists.

Death Threats Judge Jones Dover, who was put under the protection of Federal Marshalls.

Up to 11 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven't even gotten to the secondary science school teachers.

And the Liars of Expelled have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead.

Posted by: raven | April 3, 2008 9:49 AM



Now, I recall reading about many of these when they happened, and have no reason to doubt the summary.

mutations in our genetic material happen ever day. Viruses mutate inorder to change for and infect targets that were previously immune. Some frogs have six legs.

Evolution is a term we give to mutations that give significant and crucial advantages. We need the benefit of foresight to see that the mutations keep the certain species surviving longer.

What is there not to believe? Evolution is only a term we apply to something we know is successful


----
http://wikichem.net

When there was the possibilty of avian flu jumping to humans, Bush asked scientists to develop a vaccine. I'm not aware that there was an outcry from Creationists that it would be a waste of money because god had not created such a virus.

The real reason for their silence is their frightening ignorance of what evolution is all about. I say frightening because such ignoramuses can elect others of their ilk to high office.

Well, the Creationists or other nutters appear to be here.

Firstly, ID is creationism. This was accepted in the Dover trial by a federal judge, after a certain historian of science laid out the steps from Creationism to INtelligent Design, and how the people who came up with ID were trying to get around the non-estabslishment thingy in the US. You only have to go to ID websites to find that yes, ID'ers are religious believers looking for ways of pretending they have scientific backing for believing god created everything, especially humans.


Some are but you are getting confused by the term 'Creationism'. Intelligent Design as it pertains to the development of an ecosystem on a planet can mean may things.

You cannot limit exploration and learning just because of a word, thats just not a wise thing to do.

Some are but you are getting confused by the term 'Creationism'. Intelligent Design as it pertains to the development of an ecosystem on a planet can mean may things.

You cannot limit exploration and learning just because of a word, thats just not a wise thing to do.
John- this is precisely how science works. By limiting the use of words to specifics, you avoid liars, charlatans and others misusing them to make money from people.
INteligent design theory says nothing about the development of ecosystems. In fact it says nothing about the development of life.
Well, I am being a bit harsh. Make that says nothing with any real world import.

John, how would ID be "proven", within a 5% confidence interval, by anything we might do in evolutionary biology? Investigation is all well and good, but what is our range of predicted outcomes? If guided evolution is just really that much more likely than naturalistic evolution, how is one to separate out such influence from the concurrent effects of natural selection (letting alone correlated selection), drift and sheer bloody-minded stochasticity? Isn't it written that "you shall not put your God to the test"? Why are you now leaping at the same barrier that supports our mutual tolerance?

Bells, that graph was astoundingly scary. I actually didn't know undergrad boursaries in evolutionary biology weren't available in the US (did my thesis stuff in a different nation, actually).


Myles, calm yourself down. I called you on your chip, because you basically freaked out on me because I have the temerity to disagree with you. I'm sorry if that further offends you, but there it is. Think about it. You strike me very strongly as a kid a bit embittered about his perceived notions of truth and atheism. Why would I bother with debating you until you've matured a bit more?

You call my beliefs "ignorance" and accuse me of deception, without taking a moment to post Spinoza's position; I am quite aware of his philosophy and am - or was, anyway - waiting patiently for you to bring it up; in fairness to my side, why don't you present Spinoza's case, then, since you have such strong feelings on the issue? Put your money where your mouth is on Spinoza, since you feel so keenly that NOMA can be trampled by it. I assume you have heard of NOMA, of course.

Personally, I am not entirely interested in the philosophy of deism per se, and it would be ludicrous to start posting reams of philosophical arguments for one side and then the other - ad nauseam. I am merely pointing out - as I have been - that NOMA is a more acceptable interpretation of the system. If you feel I haven't had anything "sognificant" to say so far then, really, you haven't been listening. Sorry.

Best,

Geoff

I take it your thesis was on sophistry.

Look at your record. You refer to Spinoza and Einstein to support a claim. In rational debate this puts the onus on you to explain in what sense they support your argument. . You have failed to do so and resorted to veiled invective instead; that's a sure sign of a loser, as you will know if you have ever taken part in a formal debate. You then try to get off the hook by asking me to qoteSpinoza. Another no. no.


Next you argue that philosophy falls on both sides of the question. I ask you to put forward an argument that supports the esxistence of a god, telling you that I will refute it. Instead of taking the opportunity to show me the error of my ways, you sidestep the issue by saying you are not really interested. More bullshit !

You again resort to an ad hom, hoping to get off the hook.

Well, you clearly have nothing to offer other than bluster and bullshit, so you are unworthy of further attention.

INteligent design theory says nothing about the development of ecosystems. In fact it says nothing about the development of life.
Well, I am being a bit harsh. Make that says nothing with any real world import.

ID does not negate evolution and it is much more intelligent to explore all possibilities than just accepting things that are basically unanswered.

That would be where they got the well-known phrase: "wrapped around my heart", long since used in many a rock-song. Also why they didn't use: "wrapped around my kidneys" - it just doesn't have the same kind of rhythm to it.

Ah, you are overlooking the fact that kidneys have stones, not rocks

Well done, by the way, for seeing off that idiot who denied global warming. You may be interested to know that an examintion of solar energy variations has shown that there is no correlation between solar activity and global warming. I may be wrong but I think it was puiblished by scientists at the university of Sheffield. Another nail in the coffin if those who claim that our actions do not affecr global warming/

Myles

No. This is absolutely not true. Re-read my original post. Evolution does NOT tell us how the first living creatures arose. It only tells us how we developed from them.

Evolution shoots down the literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the biblical creation myth, in which all species were created in their current form in just a couple of days. But evolution does not shoot down the theory that a god created the first living things and then sat back and watched as they evolved.

No, pure abstract logic itself does that.1. God must be a living thing. 2. No thing or person can create it- or himself. Therefore God cannot have created himself. Therefore the statement, "God created the first living things," is false.We don't need evidence when we can disprove a statement through pure abstract reasoning. We may not know yet where life came from, but we KNOW that God did not create it, with the same unshakeable certainty that we KNOW 1 + 1 = 2.

I stand corrected. I confused evolutionary theory, which does not address abiogenesis, with well known philosophical arguments for and agains a deity.
Thanks for drawing my attention to my error/

I take it your thesis was on sophistry.

:yawn: Cover up quickly now. Your educational deficits are showing. You could claim they were spandrels, of course, but only if you'd won.

Look at your record. You refer to Spinoza and Einstein to support a claim. In rational debate this puts the onus on you to explain in what sense they support your argument. . You have failed to do so and resorted to veiled invective instead; that's a sure sign of a loser, as you will know if you have ever taken part in a formal debate. You then try to get off the hook by asking me to qoteSpinoza. Another no. no.

Why not? If he doesn't support the notion of a "carpetbagger God" - and I can tell you that he doesn't in fact - why not simply drag out his statement and display it proudly on your dialectical mantlepiece? This is what I was hoping you would...eventually...come round to. But you refused to comment further. Why are you so afraid to do so? It's astounding that one person makes so much out of a minor point; or not so astounding, if it's integral dislike for the other person's philosophy motivating the game.

Next you argue that philosophy falls on both sides of the question.

It does. There are philosophical arguments both for and against God. I was stating the fact of their existence; I cannot believe for a moment that you were actually unaware there were such arguments, but I for one am generally uninterested in them. You find this a difficult position? How, exactly?

I ask you to put forward an argument that supports the esxistence of a god, telling you that I will refute it.

Rather, you refused to present Spinoza and accused me of deception when I called you on pointless name-dropping. If you can't get around to describing Spinoza in a sentence or two (see above) then I have no hope you'll go any further.

Your accusation also relates to your next point, BTW:

You again resort to an ad hom, hoping to get off the hook.

It is a schoolyard tactic to point fingers and claim "he started it", but unfortunately you did. :D Please review your first response to me. I'll give you full measure of your respect of me, I can assure you: ask iceaura, if you care to learn anything.

Well, you clearly have nothing to offer other than bluster and bullshit, so you are unworthy of further attention.

And thus, exeunt, fleeing Dawkinsian. Your opposition appears motivated more by your biases than your reason, or so one hopes.

Best regards,

Geoff

ID does not negate evolution and it is much more intelligent to explore all possibilities than just accepting things that are basically unanswered.
Ahh, you mean ID is unsanswered. Yes, thats right. ID Creationists have not answered any questions in any way.

Hi Fraggle,
Can you defend the premises?
1 - What characteristics of God define it as "a living thing"?

2 - This premise would be considered meaningless by most Christian theologians, I think. They'd say that God is a necessary being (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm), for which the existence is included in and identical with its very essence. That God was not created; that it is impossible for a necessary being to not exist (see Leibniz (http://www.leibniz-translations.com/necessarybeing.htm)

If God does fall under the category of "living things", then a theologian would deny "God created the first living things" as meaningless, and instead assert that "God created the first biological life on Earth."

So God is an hypothesis.. something (that used to be) necessary to explain things ?

Ahh, you mean ID is unsanswered. Yes, thats right. ID Creationists have not answered any questions in any way.

Well suit yourself then.

I'm going to repeat my point because, as all my other points, it is of such incredible importance as to bear repeating:

The global notion of ID relies on predicability of the parameters it measures over wide, wide evolutionary scales.

I can only guess at the kind of massively wide true confidence intervals involved - and so can Michael Behe. The complexity of the evolutionary forces - selection, drift, mutation, recombination - to say nothing of the massive levels of completely unknown complexity in sheer stochasticity (or a derivative of drift anyway) not only among taxons, but within taxons and within and between populations within taxons, presents him with a hopeless task and an impossible estimate. The prediction of previous forms from extant ones is, by comparison, a simple one; but to assume so precise a mechanistic understanding of the evolutionary process at this point (!) as to pretend that, somehow, the partitioned residuals of predictive factors can be construed into "God" is to defy not only the very level of human knowledge regarding these processes - which is clearly incomplete! - but to pretend to our capacity to quantify the error variance itself; to describe the structure of that which we do not know! Now, some scientists are working with residuals in regression within families and the like, but this is nothing like deciding that things are "just too odd to be possible" and throwing up our hands in the air; and then using that decision to claim God.

Such is my opinion.

GeoffP- actually, the global notion of ID relies upon lots of dupes and fundies who will accept what they are told. Like Creationism in fact. Fortunately ID is already on the way out as a Creationist tactic, and here in the UK our home grown ones are still heavy on the Creationist lies.

Agreed. I've never understood Biblical - or any other - religious literalism. There's enough room for everyone without taking things at face value. I was shocked at the poll about creationism in the UK recently. For my sanity, I just pretend that it's a lie.

Hi Fraggle, Can you defend the premises? 1 - What characteristics of God define it as "a living thing"?Interesting question. Let's see, any of the following processes define something as alive:Metabolism. The deities of the ancient pantheon ate but we have no accounts of the Abrahamic god eating, breathing or excreting. Reproduction. Hmm. The ancient gods were prolific and had entire family trees, but the Abrahamists are split on this one. The Jews and Muslims say no, the Christians say yes. Let's see if we can find something on which they agree. Feeding on negative entropy. In other words, increasing its own complexity at the expense of its environment. It could be reasoned that the ability to create artifacts is an extension of this since the artifact is an extension of the organism, and this is an ability of the more intelligent tool-building animals like humans. However, the Abrahamists believe that their god creates things out of nothingness without disturbing the complexity of his surroundings, so this process doesn't give us a very strong argument. Keep looking, Responding to stimuli. BINGO! Boy does that god ever respond to stimuli, especially in the Old Testament before he took those anger management classes. Tick him off and he'll turn you into salt, send your tribe off into bondage, or maybe on a really bad day flood your entire planet.Q.E.D. God is a living thing.2 - This premise would be considered meaningless by most Christian theologians, I think.Excuse me if I'm not terribly bothered by what theologians think. In any case it's a rather sophistic argument since it does not resolve the ultimate question, "So where did god come from, daddy?"They'd say that God is a necessary being, for which the existence is included in and identical with its very essence. That God was not created; that it is impossible for a necessary being to not exist.Well finally they're cozying up to cosmology. I've always said that the science of physics is merging with mathematics, which is about pure logic and abstractions and therefore not a science, and even starting to blur with philosophy. Perhaps it will ultimately encompass theology too, in the Grand Unified Theory of Everything that is the holy grail of cosmology.

A good case can be made for the thesis that the universe has always existed. Especially if you graph time my way, on a log scale, so it has an unreachable Absolute Zero just like temperature, perhaps a point of zero entropy. So I can't criticize someone who says a god always existed.

Except for the fact that we know an awful lot about the early universe, a few femtoseconds to the right of Absolute Zero, and it defies credulity to hypothesize the existence of any living thing under those conditions. Still that does not falsify the hypothesis but merely renders it extraordinary, placing the burden on its proponents to provide the extraordinary evidence that would obligate us to take it seriously.

This is probably where the debate will stall for a while. We can't disprove their hypothesis of a god that has always been part of the universe, but it's such a wacky hypothesis that it's up to them to do all the work necessary to make it more respectable. Meanwhile we'll continue furiously trying to unlock the secrets of abiogenesis. It would sure be helpful if we had the perspective of completely unrelated life on another planet, but because of pesky relativity it will be decades if not centuries or longer before any of us travels far enough to hope to find it.

Bells,
Firstly, you do realise that ID is a form of 'creationism' right?

And exactly what does that have to do with your bullshit statement "Many schools around the world Geoff, including the US. The founder of FSM started his 'religion' after a school teacher was fired for refusing to bow down to pressure and teach creationism instead of evolution." No teacher in the US has been fired for refusing to teach evolution instead of creationism.
Secondly, public schools should not be teaching religious dogma, such as that of ID.
Agreed, only schools funded by religion should have the option of teaching ID alongside evolution.
Thirdly, when one has to take a school board to court to teach evolution in a public school, you know something is seriously wrong.
Another bullshit statement. The authority to teach evolution in the schools was never challenged. All schools in the US teach evolution. The court challenges were whether ID could be considered as an 'alternative' view to be presented in the classroom along with evolution. In the US, the Supreme court has ruled long ago that the teaching of creationism as science in public schools was unconstitutional. The teaching of ID as science has been ruled as unconstitutional by the lower courts. I don't think the movement for ID ever made it to the Supreme Court. In short, evolution is taught in every public school in the US and ID is taught in none.

All schools in the US teach evolution. Shouldn't you have qualified that with: "except for the ones that don't, because they deny Evolution, and have a religious doctrine to protect"...?

Like certain southern states, where some schools don't mention the word at all, or that guy's name (Darwin).
Or they teach a standard version of the theory but don't mention that humans are evolved too; or they teach it in a manner designed to show young minds how "wrong" it is, and how there must be another explanation? Like those "religious state" schools do.

Bells, who cares if if you want to limit yourself.

ID means what it says. Your stuck in the 1800;s.

Right. Because I say ID is creationism, I am stuck in the 1800's?

Tell me John, the paling digging into anywhere uncomfortable from that fence you're sitting on?

Some are but you are getting confused by the term 'Creationism'. Intelligent Design as it pertains to the development of an ecosystem on a planet can mean may things.
ID works off the basis that God or some higher entity started it all and then guided 'evolution' to what we are today. Hence the term, Intelligent Design.

Another bullshit statement. The authority to teach evolution in the schools was never challenged. All schools in the US teach evolution. The court challenges were whether ID could be considered as an 'alternative' view to be presented in the classroom along with evolution. In the US, the Supreme court has ruled long ago that the teaching of creationism as science in public schools was unconstitutional. The teaching of ID as science has been ruled as unconstitutional by the lower courts. I don't think the movement for ID ever made it to the Supreme Court. In short, evolution is taught in every public school in the US and ID is taught in none.
Actually no. The courts in many instances have left it wide open. Therefore, school districts can teach both or one or the other. It is only the moderates on the school boards who are able to ensure evolution is still taught in many of these schools. For example, the state of Louisiana is passing (or has passed a bill), which is called the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act, would allow teachers in public schools to teach both creationism and ID as well as pure creationism.(Source) (http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/17179166.html)

"In June 2007, Texas governor Rick Perry (R) signed into law legislation that changes the process by which the state adopts textbooks and supplemental instructional materials. In short, the law makes it easier for the state to introduce alternatives to accepted science into the curriculum. Also capturing the attention of scientists and educators is the new chairman of the Texas State Board of Education, Don McLeroy. Appointed by Governor Perry, McLeroy—a Republican who served on the board before his appointment as chairman—voted against the state's current biology textbook because it fails to discuss the weaknesses of evolution.

"Chairman McLeroy is an admitted young-earth creationist and supporter of intelligent design creationism," says Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education. "Although he seems to have received the memo from the Discovery Institute about not openly advocating for intelligent design to be taught in the schools, and instead to argue...'teach the controversy'...he is in a more powerful position now than in 2003, when he and his allies on the board almost succeeded in watering down the coverage of evolution," Scott said.

Education, science, and religious liberty advocates in Texas worry that political pressure from the governor's office or his political appointees will be brought to bear, particularly as the state considers its next textbooks and revisits Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science, the state-mandated curriculum guidelines."
Source (http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2008_01.html)



Some schools label science books that teach evolution as being an unfounded theory. Christian schools have taken to the such stickers or notes in books with zeal:

"Biology for Christian Schools, for example, declares on its first page, "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them," and "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible.".."
Source (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/CA/774_interim_victory_in_california__4_1_2008.asp)



Fun huh?

And exactly what does that have to do with your bullshit statement "Many schools around the world Geoff, including the US. The founder of FSM started his 'religion' after a school teacher was fired for refusing to bow down to pressure and teach creationism instead of evolution." No teacher in the US has been fired for refusing to teach evolution instead of creationism.

I was certain I had heard and read somewhere that a teacher was dismissed for refusing to teach ID and creationism. Can't find the link at the moment, so I retract that statement. I'll look into it further when I get the chance.

Right. Because I say ID is creationism, I am stuck in the 1800's?At least in one landmark court case, a judge regarded ID as having developed out of creationism. The Wikipedia summary of the case in its article "Intelligent Design":In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [citation attached in original]This would make ID and creationism two somewhat different things.

ID is creationism wrapped in a fairly shoddy cloak of pseudoscientific pretense designed to give legitimacy to the obviously (even to most fundies) childishly incorrect picture creationism presents. It's an embarrassment.

It would sure be helpful if we had the perspective of completely unrelated life on another planet, but because of pesky relativity it will be decades if not centuries or longer before any of us travels far enough to hope to find it.

We've far from made certain that there is not life on another of the planets or moons in our solar system. I'll chalk that up to a simple oversight, since you're not generally a pessimist.

We've far from made certain that there is not life on another of the planets or moons in our solar system. I'll chalk that up to a simple oversite, since you're not generally a pessimist.
Good point. I'm just pissed that I'll probably be dead long before they ever get around to sending an ice-drilling/melting probe to Europa or some other likely place.

I'd settle for fossil microbes on Mars though...

Bells,
Actually no. The courts in many instances have left it wide open. Therefore, school districts can teach both or one or the other. It is only the moderates on the school boards who are able to ensure evolution is still taught in many of these schools.
Again, Bullshit, Bells. No school districts have the option to not teach evolution. The moderates on school boards may object to ID being taught along side evolution, but their objections are just statements of personel opinion. By US law, evolution must be taught in all public and accredited private schools. I am not sure if parents that home-school their children are required to teach them evolution if they are not accredited.
For example, the state of Louisiana is passing (or has passed a bill), which is called the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act, would allow teachers in public schools to teach both creationism and ID as well as pure creationism.(Source)
Do you ever read what you link to, Bells? Aren't you supposed to have some knowledge in law? The bill was introduced in the US senate, not in the state of Lousiana. The bill has not "passed" and is not "passing". Many nutty bills are introduced in the senate, usually to just pacify some large contributor to the introducing Senator's election campaign. They are not taken seriously by the senate. Even if they were passed, the US Supreme Court has the final say whether the bills are constitutional or not. District school boards have no say in whether evolution is taught in their districts or not.
Some schools label science books that teach evolution as being an unfounded theory. Christian schools have taken to the such stickers or notes in books with zeal:
No, your quote was from one so-called 'Christian' textbook, one that has not been approved for use in any Christian school, let alone any public school. It is not a disclaimer sticker to be placed in standard science textbooks.

Right. Because I say ID is creationism, I am stuck in the 1800's?

Tell me John, the paling digging into anywhere uncomfortable from that fence you're sitting on?


ID works off the basis that God or some higher entity started it all and then guided 'evolution' to what we are today. Hence the term, Intelligent Design.



Honestly Bells sometimes i have a hard time understanding Australian slang. If you want to limit yourself to what was taught to you in the seventh grade then go right ahead. Evolution is not hard to understand at all so the excuses about not understanding is just a cop out and an insult to anyone possessing even average intelligence and frankly that will longer fly. We need to come to terms with certain aspects and when i refer to ID i am not only referring to life on this planet or even organic life itself, and why should I?

Furthermore, i really have no interest in what a judge believes on this subject and again why should I?

ID is creationism wrapped in a fairly shoddy cloak of pseudoscientific pretense designed to give legitimacy to the obviously (even to most fundies) childishly incorrect picture creationism presents. It's an embarrassment.

That represents a segment of people who believe ID. I dont discount anything and that includes what 'fundies' may believe. Is it what i personally believe or maintain to be absolute fact. Not really but what i believe is not really important, what is important is finding out the truth or getting just a little closer because who knows what we may discover.

We, as a civilization, are making a big mistake to limit these discussions to a few words or catch phrases.

Examples:


Evolution
Creation
Supernatural
Nature
Science


Take a look at the link below. If anyone agrees with that then you are limiting yourself. The term Supernatural should have been left where it belonged and that is in the distant past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

All supernatura\extranatural means is what we do not understand. This is not beyond nature it is just that we dont understand it or cannot explain it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

If someone cannot see the possibility of design or purpose right here on Earth then there really isnt much more to say. I am not saying by whom or what but at least i have the courage to admit this and it is high time that others do to. Because if you want to debate me and tell me that you know with 100% certainty that life began and developed with the limitations i see being imposed then i believe that you will lose or the outcome would be inconclusive. The reason is because i am presenting you with an impossibility. It is just that simple.

When there was the possibilty of avian flu jumping to humans, Bush asked scientists to develop a vaccine. I'm not aware that there was an outcry from Creationists that it would be a waste of money because god had not created such a virus.

The real reason for their silence is their frightening ignorance of what evolution is all about. I say frightening because such ignoramuses can elect others of their ilk to high office.

Its sad now stubborn people can be when taking things word for word. We must move our understanding with time. Like how animals adapt to their surroundings, we must also move on with our thought.


------
http://wikichem.net

Disturbingly, depressingly low number.

Bells,

Again, Bullshit, Bells. No school districts have the option to not teach evolution. The moderates on school boards may object to ID being taught along side evolution, but their objections are just statements of personel opinion. By US law, evolution must be taught in all public and accredited private schools. I am not sure if parents that home-school their children are required to teach them evolution if they are not accredited.

Florida only just changed the law to require their schools to teach evolution.

State education officials voted to add evolution to the required course work in public schools, but only after a last-minute change depicting Darwin’s seminal work as merely a theory. Bending to pressure from religious conservatives, the State Board of Education, on a 4-to-3 vote, included the “theory” language as part of a retooling of the state’s science standards for public school education. The compromise would require teaching that Darwin’s proposal that life evolved over billions of years is a theory that has yet to be proved conclusively. The panel includes the word “evolution” in state science standards for the first time, but it is relegated to a number of ideas including Einstein’s theory of relativity. Newton’s law of gravity is taught as fact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/20brfs-EVOLUTIONTOB_BRF.html?ex=1361163600&en=f3baad0c160280c2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I'm going to repeat my point because, as all my other points, it is of such incredible importance as to bear repeating:

The global notion of ID relies on predicability of the parameters it measures over wide, wide evolutionary scales.

I can only guess at the kind of massively wide true confidence intervals involved - and so can Michael Behe. The complexity of the evolutionary forces - selection, drift, mutation, recombination - to say nothing of the massive levels of completely unknown complexity in sheer stochasticity (or a derivative of drift anyway) not only among taxons, but within taxons and within and between populations within taxons, presents him with a hopeless task and an impossible estimate. The prediction of previous forms from extant ones is, by comparison, a simple one; but to assume so precise a mechanistic understanding of the evolutionary process at this point (!) as to pretend that, somehow, the partitioned residuals of predictive factors can be construed into "God" is to defy not only the very level of human knowledge regarding these processes - which is clearly incomplete! - but to pretend to our capacity to quantify the elements of the error variance itself; to describe the structure of that which we do not know! Now, some scientists are working with residuals in regression within families and the like, but this is nothing like deciding that things are "just too odd to be possible" and throwing up our hands in the air; and then using that decision to claim God.

Such is my opinion.

Whoops! Small error; corrective text in bold. Sorry. Obviously we can assign percentages to "error"; quantifying them on such large scale is a different story.

Disturbingly, depressingly low number.

why would that disturb someone?

I didn't even know people were still having this evolution vs creationism being taught in schools debate. I don't think they talk about it much where I am. Even the christians here believe in evolution to an extent. I should read up on what other parts of the country are doing more often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

i guess most here are aware of this, still worth pointing out.

Lets get down to brass tacks:

Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes.

I didn't even know people were still having this evolution vs creationism being taught in schools debate. I don't think they talk about it much where I am. Even the christians here believe in evolution to an extent. I should read up on what other parts of the country are doing more often.

I have to admit I had the same experience. I recall one guy speaking up about creation in class about it when I was about 11; "well, what about God and the Bible?" he asked. The entire class rained abuse on him and he promptly shut up. I've never seen it being taught myself; but then again I haven't lived everywhere.

why would that disturb someone?

It would be better if people got their science from science rather than scripture?

Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Hoyle was a brilliant astronomer, but that calculation was joke - a famous example of the fact that a scientist way out of their field is just another blogger with a keyboard. Hoyle, like a lot of physicist/mathematical/engineering types, did not understand biological evolutionary theory.

Any biologist with a semester course in statistics can take it apart in fifteen seconds, starting with all of Hoyle's assumptions.

btw: Those are actually much better odds than the usual ones attributed to Hoyle's calculations. Did you by chance overlook an exponent in there ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

i guess most here are aware of this, still worth pointing out.

Lets get down to brass tacks:

There is nothing which says that life has to begin with cells...

Oh, and why change the topic?
Lets get back onto Evolution.
So, John, whats your evidence against evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

i guess most here are aware of this, still worth pointing out.

Lets get down to brass tacks:

Yes, let's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_Fallacy

Yes, let's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_Fallacy

You refuting conjecture with conjecture and present the readers with a stopgap wiki link? Not good.

From Origin of Species-

"Difficulties of the Theory":

The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Darwin assumed that transitional species would, one day, be found. But they have not. Do you know of any? Darwin was fully aware of this and hoped that one day they would be found but that just hasnt happened.

The burden of proof is on you redwards. Now you shall proceed to offer proof or acknowledge the problem.

You refuting conjecture with conjecture and present the readers with a stopgap wiki link? Not good.Not sure what you mean by this. Hoyle's argument was absurd.

"Difficulties of the Theory":

Darwin assumed that transitional species would, one day, be found. But they have not. Do you know of any?I hear this claim all the time.

I'm going to have to ask you to define transitional species for me, as you understand it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&hs=2TX&defl=en&q=define:transition&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

I'd like your preferred definition, please.