Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Central Organizing Principle

Expand Messages
  • Victor
    ... lower ... Why is science supposed to be the standard of truth? Why is mathematics presumed to be certainty? The Bible is verified with simple sight. We
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 31 2:18 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Susan Cogan <susan-brassfield@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > >b15769140: plain and simple-there is no evidence man evolved from a
      lower
      > >creature--that is a fact and it is why the majority of americans
      > >reject evolution
      >
      > and
      >
      > >Is there ANY evidence for Darwin's magic monkey myth?
      >
      >
      > ah, the "Say it doesn't exist and declare victory" argument. I
      > haven't seen that one in days and days.
      >
      > Most people reject evolution for religious reasons, not scientific
      > ones. You (and they) have absolutely no idea what the scientific
      > evidence for evolution is. You keep yourself carefully sheltered
      > from ever finding out about it.
      >
      Why is science supposed to be the standard of truth? Why is
      mathematics presumed to be certainty? The Bible is verified with
      simple sight. We can see the past in the distant heavens. We can see
      a biblical cosmic history with sight. The entire structure of
      scientific reasoning is negated with simple sight. The Bible
      predicts that God will make foolish the wisdom of the world. How much
      more foolish can it get?

      Scientists have a blind dogma that is the basis of their entire
      structured way of thinking. The Bible predicted this and identifies
      it as the arche of the last days "all things diamenei: remain the same
      in being." We can see with sight in every part of the spectrum that
      all atoms change relationally as they age. We can see how galaxies
      formed and it surely does not fit the mathematical myths of the
      scientists.

      The horror is that Christians have been tailoring the Bible to fit
      science for several centuries now. They have a higher standard of
      truth than words and grammar. They desperately want the Bible to be
      scientific. How sad! With sight we can see with our eyes that the
      Bible completely triumphs over science, the system founded upon the
      first principle of a pagan Greek. Look with your eyes. Free
      yourselves from the dogma of science that matter does not
      change-itself. We can see what the Bible states - that everything in
      creation is phthora (fundamentally changing). NO wonder science's
      version of earth history violates the genealogies and accounts of all
      ancient people.

      > You share a common ancestor with apes. You share between 94-98% of
      > your genes with them. Only apes have a collar bone or flat
      > fingernails.
      >
      > Just about every medicine you take is tested on animals because you
      > share about 80% of your genes with mice. We share a fairly recent
      > common ancestor with mice.
      >
      > You are a mammal. You have all the characteristics of other mammals.
      >
      > All of that is evidence that we evolved from "lower" animals and it's
      > available to you every time you look in the mirror.
      >
      > >b15769140: nonsense--humans think and decide -animals don't
      >
      > animals think and decide. Where did you get the idea they don't? We
      > do it a lot better than they do, but they definitely do it.
      >
      > Susan
      > --
      >
      >
      > ----
      > COGAN BOOKS & MORE
      > http://www.coganbooks.net
      >
      > THE SPEAKEASY
      > http://speakeasy1935.blogspot.com/
      >
      > THE EVOLVING ARTIST
      > http://evolvingartist.blogspot.com/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -------
      >
    • Susan Cogan
      ... because it works so very well. ... same thing. works so very well ... If a time traveller went back to the time of Socrates and Pythagorus she would have a
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        >--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Susan Cogan <susan-brassfield@...>
        >wrote:
        >>
        >> >b15769140: plain and simple-there is no evidence man evolved from a
        >lower
        >> >creature--that is a fact and it is why the majority of americans
        >> >reject evolution
        >>
        >> and
        >>
        >> >Is there ANY evidence for Darwin's magic monkey myth?
        >>
        >>
        >> ah, the "Say it doesn't exist and declare victory" argument. I
        >> haven't seen that one in days and days.
        >>
        >> Most people reject evolution for religious reasons, not scientific
        >> ones. You (and they) have absolutely no idea what the scientific
        >> evidence for evolution is. You keep yourself carefully sheltered
        >> from ever finding out about it.
        >>
        >Why is science supposed to be the standard of truth?


        because it works so very well.

        >Why is
        >mathematics presumed to be certainty?


        same thing. works so very well

        > The Bible is verified with
        >simple sight. We can see the past in the distant heavens. We can see
        > a biblical cosmic history with sight. The entire structure of
        >scientific reasoning is negated with simple sight. The Bible
        >predicts that God will make foolish the wisdom of the world. How much
        >more foolish can it get?


        If a time traveller went back to the time of Socrates and Pythagorus
        she would have a tremendous amount to teach both of them about
        science and mathematics. If a modern theologian went back to Thomas
        Aquinus or Augustine, he would have nothing new to add. If science
        and math disappeared from the world at noon, by the next day we'd all
        be living in caves. If all the religions of the world disappeared
        from the world at noon, by the next day almost all wars would cease
        and the entire world would look like Sweden.


        FROM JIM:

        >CENTRAL ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE
        >
        > Me: "If a thing can be confidently attributed to design, the origin
        >of the thing has been explained in general, if not specific, terms."
        > Susan: "nothing at all has been explained. No knowledge has been
        >added to the world's total store. Nothing useful has been produced that
        >will lead to more knowledge. Real knowledge leads you to ask questions and
        >therefore to greater knowledge. Once you've decided something was
        >created by God out of nothing, you're done. You can go home."
        >
        > ID theory does not posit that "something was created by God out of
        >nothing." So long as you cling to that erroneous notion (a notion peddled
        >by the likes of Ed Brayton, PZ Myers, and other ill-informed [or dishonest]
        >critics of ID), you'll never understand ID theory.


        that's all "intelligent design" means. When they say "it couldn't
        have evolved, it had to be designed." They mean God materialized it
        in it's present working state in toto all at once. If there's another
        interpretation for "it was designed intelligently" please provide it.
        Don't bother with aliens. If aliens did it, then THEY had to have
        evolved.


        >For whatever reason, you
        >(like Judge Jones of Dover fame) seem to be quite incapable of
        >distinguishing between the theistic implications of ID theory and its
        >propositional contents and methodologies.


        other than it's theistic implications all it has is hot air. It
        contributes nothing to science. It's a pointless exercise in
        semantics.

        >If your manner of thinking were
        >applied to Darwinism, we'd have to say that Darwinism has decided that
        >nothing was created by God.


        unless God created evolution. Since you can watch evolution happen,
        that would be just like watching God design something. Of course
        IDists claim nothing evolves, so there's no god to to watch.

        >But if we were to say such a thing, Darwinists
        >would instantly protest that their theory has nothing to say about God. And
        >they would be right. Darwinism speaks to the God question only by
        >implication; the theory itself is silent on the question. The same is true
        >of ID theory, which - like Darwinism - relies only on biological data and
        >logical inference. Creationism has a stake in Genesis, but ID theory
        >doesn't. The theory is limited to developing the mathematical, logical and
        >scientific tools needed to discern actual (or intelligent) design in
        >biological systems.


        in other words ID is completely focused on proving God did it. Once
        you are done with that you can go home. Since you already believe God
        did it, it's really an impotent and vapid exercise. It's a waste of
        EVERYBODY's time.


        >The biological data - ID theorists argue - can take us
        >no further than design. The data cannot lead us to the identity of the
        >designer. Design theorist Wm. Dembski addressed this point as follows (in
        >"The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent
        >Design"):


        right once you decide it was designed--by mathematical flummery or
        whatever--then you hang up your lab coat and turn out the lights. You
        have proved something you believed all along anyway.

        >
        > "Creationists and naturalists alike worry that when design
        >theorists refer to a 'designer' or 'designing intelligence,' and thus avoid
        >explicitly referring to God, they are merely engaged in a rhetorical ploy.


        I don't worry that. I know that.

        >Design-theoretic reasoning tells us that certain patterns exhibited in
        >nature reliably point to a designing intelligence.


        "designing intelligence" = "God"

        nobody is fooled by this falsehood. Repeat it all you want, but
        nobody is fooled. It just makes you look foolish.

        So tell me. What does the Intelligent Designer do that God doesn't
        do? Or, if you prefer, what limits does the Intelligent Designer have
        that God doesn't have?



        > If your claim that "(o)nce you've decided something was created by
        >God out of nothing, you're done" were at all relevant to ID theory, it
        >should be phrased in this way: "Once you've determined that something was
        >designed, you're done." Phrased in either way, the claim is utterly bogus.


        once you have detected design, what is the next step? In biology, not
        engineering.

        >If design is detected in a physical or biological system, a variety of
        >design-theoretic research possibilities would open up.


        Such as?

        >In an essay
        >appearing in "Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design,"
        >philosopher of science Bruce Gordon lays out some of those research
        >possibilities as follows:
        >
        > 1) the details of the construction of the system as a problem in
        >reverse engineering;


        doesn't require detecting design in biology. Everybody already knows
        people design things.

        <delete all this irrelevant stuff about human design>


        >
        > In "The Design Revolution," Dembski lays out a number of ID
        >research themes as follows (I'll simply list these themes without
        >elaboration - if you're interested in understanding what they entail, you
        >can read the book):
        >
        > 1) Design detection;
        > 2) Biological information;

        Dembski has never defined "information"

        > 3) Minimal complexity;

        you mean like an atom? What can this mean?

        > 4) Evolvability;

        and this? Things have been observed evolving.


        all the rest have to do with human design. We already know humans
        design things.

        >
        > Susan: "ID only predicts that some things will look designed. Of
        >course, you can point in any direction and claim what you are pointing at
        >looks designed *to you*. Hey, look! There's one now!!!"
        >
        > Actually, ID contends that some things *were* designed, not that
        >they merely *look* designed (it really would be helpful if you'd actually
        >learn something about design theory before you attempt to describe it).
        >Design theorists rely on objective - not subjective - methods for detecting
        >design in biological systems.



        but they've never been able to tell how you distinguish between
        something that is designed and something that is not. They say things
        like "too complex to have evolved unguided" but designed things are
        generally simple. The better the design they have the simpler they
        are. Complex things evolve.

        Neither Dembski nor Behe have pointed to a biological system and said
        "this was not designed and here's why." (Nor will they ever. That
        would be science, not religious apologetics.)


        > Susan: "A fairy circle displays an independently given pattern. It
        >was assumed to be guided by an intelligence, because it LOOKED like an
        >intelligence had made it."
        >
        > I can't imagine that any design theorist would attribute a fairy
        >circle to design simply because it's circular.


        people did for hundreds of generations. They assumed they had
        detected design. Modern IDists wouldn't because real science has
        explained how it evolved.



        > Susan: "You can't use ID to prove creation ex nihlo..."
        >
        > ID theory makes no effort "to prove creation ex nihlo (sic)." Once
        >again, you're erroneously conflating ID with creationism.


        "Intelligent designer" = "God"

        Point out how they are different.

        Susan
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.