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

37342FW: ID Decision

Expand Messages
  • Robert Keyes
    Jan 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      My Uncle responded.

      But he has not responded in 2 days. So I post my

      Comments here.

      Bob..

      _____

      From: Robert Keyes [mailto:rlk@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:17 AM
      To: 'dkeyes'
      Subject: RE: ID Decision



      I thought you gave threw in the towel, curious as to your response.

      Comments Below. (Not sure what color but BOLD-some humor)



      _____

      From: dkeyes [mailto:dkeyes202537mi@...]
      Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:25 PM
      To: Robert Keyes
      Subject: Re: ID Decision





      ----- Original Message -----

      From: Robert Keyes <mailto:rlk@...>

      To: 'dkeyes' <mailto:dkeyes202537mi@...>

      Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:58 AM

      Subject: RE: ID Decision



      OK, I am finally in the mood to answer this. I have no idea what exactly you
      said nor do I have a clue on what I might say. But I will comment as I go.
      And to be fairI will attempt to understand you fuller meaning. (i.e. Comment
      as if I read the whole thing first)

      Here goes.






      _____


      From: dkeyes [mailto:dkeyes202537mi@...]
      Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:46 AM
      To: Robert Keyes
      Subject: Re: ID Decision



      I agree with the decision.



      [Robert Keyes] Coward !!!



      See Red below.



      One of the points made by the evoltuion guy was that all creationist can do
      is point out falacies and improbabilities in the evolutionary theory.



      [Robert Keyes] First He assumes they are fallacies. Who is to judge what is
      a fallacy. In Science I think scientists. Nobody agrees with anything
      anybody says. The best you can do is agree on common points. And below I
      will give you the common points nobody really likes to talk about.



      A Martian analysis.

      Part A.

      1. People that believe in God (any mysticism) that God (Mystical concept)
      always existed. i.e. Infinity..

      2. Scientists think Matter can be created nor Destroyed, i.e. Infinity of
      Matter is plausible.

      Conclusion of Part A. Both Sides (Mysticism vs Naturism/Science) agree on
      Infinity.

      Now Lets take the end.

      Part B.

      1. God will Destroy the Earth
      2. Scientist think the end will happen also.We will become zero entropy
      or a mass or quarks.

      Both Sides realize we will end in disaster.

      So what are we arguing about really.

      (Always humor and truth (as I see it of course))\



      [Robert Keyes] I don't blame you for glossing over this Point. But at least
      admit it is a concidence that at some base level we agree. I..e God always
      exist (or Matter) and we will End in Destruction ( Gravitational collapse).



      But the point made by the creationist guy was that this could go on forever
      because evolutionist can just put off anything they can't answer into the
      future.



      [Robert Keyes] It is a given in Science thinking that you can never know
      anything withr absolute certainty. I happen to think this. I am not saying
      it is not possible in 1 million to 1 billion years of evolution , but , the
      question is what does the evidence indicated (with ape-brain analysis of
      course) at this point in time.



      Your statment that you can't know anything with abosolute certainty is
      nothing but theoretical mumbo jumbo scientific talk. You could also say I
      can't disprove anything with absolute certainty.



      [Robert Keyes] Science has not proved that certainty exists. Math depends on
      axioms, and Bertrand Russell failed to Prove Logic can deduce Math thought.
      (Not that that is impossible I might add). If certainty is not known, you
      cannot dispove something from it.









      This is not real debate. The fact is that so far creationist have pointed
      out the impossibility of life starting in the way evolutionist hypothesise -
      biogensis. To calim this can't be absolute is a cop out.



      [Robert Keyes] True, but they have to have a reason. Somehow unless
      something very odd Happened, Molecules Transformed into replicating ones
      somehow. Keep in mind scientifically you just don't throw out the
      Cosmologist/Physicists work (Big Bang) and also Biologists, Geneticist,
      Geologists and whoever else has a theory that coincides with these theories
      , which has nothing to do with abiogenisis. So the they think that somehow
      from a replicator on we evolved for sure. We just don't know how that
      happened. it is not a cop out.







      Science is doing nothing but taking what has so far been proven to be
      impossible and putting it off into the future based on faith alone.

      [Robert Keyes] True as a Hypthosis, but is is not BLIND FAITH.. it is
      inductive logic that drives it, and inductive can never be proven true (only
      deductive arguments). The put off the conclusion and for good reason, we do
      not have enough evidence. (It really is that simple-I think)











      In short it is not disprovable so it can't be science.



      [Robert Keyes] It is disprovable. I can think of endless examples. Like
      Finding Humor Fossils at Dinosaur time.(obvious simple example of how it can
      be disproved).



      This is untrue. Creationist have proven it to be impossible.



      [Robert Keyes] They cant even prove it to a high school biology teacher let
      alone shown flaws in evolution. When they get into the game I will take
      there evidence at it's due weight. Right now they are in the .001 percent in
      my book of showing anything as a scientific fact.







      Abiogenesis for example. You are relying on the technicality that nothing
      can be disproven absolutely so evolution is allowed to put if off forever
      without any basis other than faith that things will work out. In fact,
      there is nothing that a creationist could point out that an evolutionist
      would not say time could solve.





      [Robert Keyes] I was trying very hard to provoke you but in this paragraph
      you hit a home run. Agree 100 percent.

      (CAP locks stuck excuse this- i WILL REBOOT AFTER THIS MESSAGE IT IS DRIVING
      ME CRAZY)

      Wow. That is why (software bug in outlook) there is no way to know. Ever.
      For anybody. We are in the same boat here- don't try to deny it.(humor as
      always)











      Science could, in fact, be advocating a perpetual motion machine without
      the possibility of ever having to give up.





      [Robert Keyes] True, however they would give up if it showed no progress
      like perpetual Motion. I happen to not rule out perpetual Motion especially
      since I think the Universe Must be that way. (Speculating)



      You can't be serious. You think evolutionist would give up? NEVER!!!



      Bob.. I think they would it they find it pointless. What you don't realize
      is what molecular biology is doing to the thinking. It is proving it 100
      percent, and it is the key to figuring out everything. Our past is in our
      DNA, and It can be studied. It is hardly time to throw in the Scientific
      towel. Get Real..









      Nevertheless, I don't thing you can tamper with the definition of
      science.



      [Robert Keyes] Even if they did tamper with it, it would not affect the
      reality that real science sheds on the Matter of our Ape-ness.(some humor)



      I define science as based on assumptions that are measurable. For
      example, science can't assume that a God exists mor that things may have
      been different in the past. By definition science must limit itself to
      assumptions based only on what they can see now.



      Bob. True. But the Conclusions of Understanding big bang to now, is that a
      God is unneeded. Until somebody can say why infinity of Matter is not
      Possible, the argument will exist..





      The negatives of evolution could be discussed within the confines of
      science even though no solution may ever be found.



      [Robert Keyes] If it can be solved, Humans will do it if we last long
      enough. We have the Human Genome in a Comptuer. Given 1000 years of analysis
      and will know much. Nothing is more complicated that Life (dam replicating
      things) so it might only be scratching the surface, but by then we will know
      at least how we got here. (To bad neither of us will be here in 1000 years).



      Evolution didn't happen. But that will not stop science from going on
      looking for ways to prove evolution forever. Again, anything that they
      can't answer they will always put off into the future no matter how
      unreasonable - like biogenesis.



      The amount of evolution literature has been growing. They can make the stuff
      up. It has to agree with Other Scientific Theories that make sense. On a
      Scale, evolution is more certain now by 100 percent than it was 30 years
      ago. There are factually 1000's of ways evolution is being confirmed in
      research labs. It would only take one to crush it. They cant do it. (And if
      Science is right) they will never do it because it is TRUE.











      For example the improbability of biogenesis could be taught in a science
      class.



      [Robert Keyes] Nobody Understands the Problem enough to assign probability.



      The propability is almsot infinite. Infinity is science's only answer.



      Bob. Abiogensis Is probably going to be one of the Toughtest Nuts to Crack.
      I give Creationist credit for realizing we might not know this for God
      knows how long. But, Infinity Exists in Math. I agree with Using the concept
      of using Infinity if it is needed, however in this case, the odds could be
      1, 10000000000000000000000000000000000 to 1. And it could have happened and
      that is not infinity.





      To say to the students that it happened anyway is acutally religion.



      [Robert Keyes] They don't say it happened anyway. They say there it is a
      Huge Inference and it must have happened somehow(hard to think of a
      anything better to answer big-bang/ natural selection gap) since there are
      sound scientific theories on either side of this Piece of the puzzle. {Big
      Bang, ?, Evolution(from first replicator)} . Abiogensis has to be assumed
      unless the other to pieces are removed (Scientifcially)..



      Again this is the bias of sceince. I am not allowed to infer that God did
      it. But I understand that.



      Bob. You can infer God but only if you admit you are guessing. (i.e. it is
      not scientific)







      No doubt the lines are blured. But one of the things that is unique about
      this debate is the fact that creation is understood by everyone as an
      alternative even though it is not presented. This was another point made by
      the creation guy.





      [Robert Keyes] That may be True Today, but given MTV it will not take long
      before that point will not be understood.

      My point is that if culture is the only thing you have to hang your hat on
      you are in trouble, because culture changes !



      I think this case is different. Your never going to stamp out religion.






      Bob. How can you say that. Look at the UK.. They are Devil worshipers.





      I see no problem with keeping creation in the churches and evolution in
      the schools.



      [Robert Keyes] If that happens, religious thinking will be marginalized and
      secular humanism will win. You threw in the towel. You should be ashamed..



      I don't think sceince could have done anything more than they have done
      now and yet people still beleive in creation. I think religion will always
      exist.





      Bob. It will always exist because it is a concept. I think it will exist
      also since there may be no way to prove either way.









      Creationist are not harmed becasue everyone knows instinctively that
      creation is a possibility anyway.

      [Robert Keyes] At the moment. That will most certainly not be the truth in
      future.

      Bob.. ( Hopefully you Leaders will be more brave and fight, if it cant stand
      it cant, but go down fighting- give it your best shot- you seem to not agree
      with this - how SAD).

      Bob..



      I think people know instinctively that evolution may not be true and the
      idea of creation will never die out. Religion will always exist and creation
      will always be taught in the churches.



      Bob. You are very Optimistic, I don't see it.







      ----- Original Message -----

      From: Robert Keyes <mailto:rlk@...>

      To: Dkeyes <mailto:dkeyes202537MI@...>

      Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:06 PM

      Subject: ID Decision



      The Judge Ripped Apart Everything on the ID Side. I read the full

      Text below. There are many arguments, most of them

      On that video of the debate I sent you ( did you listen to the rest of it).
      Anyway here is

      The link if you are interested.

      http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf

      p.s. I am a little disappointed because I don't think they will appeal
      because it was

      so unconvincing to the Judge at every junction. I wanted it to go to the
      supreme court,

      for entertainment reasons.

      The Discovery Institute will have to go back to the drawing board.

      Comments..

      Bob..



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic