Bush backs Intelligent Design

[traderumor]

Yup...They even built a museum right here in the Cincy-area to display their dogma neatly.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/

Dogma goes both ways in this debate.

[traderumor]

I didn't say those things needed to be covered. My point is once you allow that the Bible isn't a complete physical and historical record of our planet, and it's not even close, that should open up the door to the physical sciences and other historical sources.

Who ever said it didn't. However, when "findings" undermine the authority of Scripture, which the only reason I enter debates such as this is because that is at stake, then I will challenge them.

Seems to me you're willing to classify things as facts when they're convenient to your religious views while you label all inconveniences as theories. I don't ask that things be convenient or fit my preconceived notions. When they uncovered the dinosaur bones and use established dating techniques to verify their age, I don't have to start acting like I suddenly don't understand what they're talking about.

Didn't I say that heading in the opposite direction regarding your "facts?" My guess is that you have never researched C14 dating, say to the depth of researching a draft pick for the Reds. If you had, you likely would not be so certain about ages assigned by the method. If you have and still have the confidence you do, then you are guilty of what you accused me of above, which is essentially intellectual dishonesty.

And, once again, Creationism vs. Evolution is an either-or choice of your making, not mine. I see no reason, zero, whey they can't happily co-exist. Yeah, you've got to pick another starting point for human creation, but that strikes me as an insignificant detail when you're talking about matters of morality and divine love. Even if you want to go back and use the birth of the planet four billion years ago as the starting point, that doesn't strike me as exclusive of Creationism. I'm really not sure why the attitude of fundmentalists isn't that creation is a really complex thing undertaken by an immensely powerful being we can barely comprehend so it's something we'll be learning bits and pieces about yet never fully uncover in our lifetimes. Maybe God molded some sort of ape-like creature into His image. It provided the raw genetic material and he, pardon the pun, He monkeyed with the coding. I'm not claiming that's what happened, but you could spend all day coming up with theories about how God might have molded humans in ways that fit into a timeline congruent with the rest of what we've learned about the prehistoric world and dovetail with evolution.

See, you have to use perhaps and maybes, yet I can say that God created ex nihilo. Plus, you accept as a given a certain timeline that I do not, and we both have our reasons. Man, what to do? Oh yea, there's the "mountains of evidence" that should intimidate me but doesn't.

On origins, you're assuming a point of origin that's scientifically and historically untenable. IMO, it's theologically unimportant. That date shifts and you've still got your souce of origin in place. That's what counts. Even if the nature of origin shifts on you, all you really need is a creator who put you here for a purpose as the basis for any form of Christianity. At its core, it's a pretty interoperable religion when people let it be.

Your position creates a theological problem at the very core. The Bible calls Adam the first man, you say science says otherwise. That is a HUMONGOUS theological problem, one that should make you wonder why one would place any value on one word written in the Bible. If it lies about that, how do we know that the plan of salvation has any veracity, just as one example of the pandora's book your view opens. But then, that is what this is all about. That's why people like myself confront the arguments you advance.

[registerthis]

Better go read Exodus 14 again.

I just did, and amazingly the words didn't change from when I posted them earlier...but apparently there was a breakdown in communication, so I'll post again:

The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh's horses and chariots and horsemen followed them into the sea.

Exactly which part of "all Pharoah's horses and chariots and horsemen" isn't clear?

You're kidding, right? Of course it had to do with the length of the day, not "the sun standing still." The actual verse is

You're making an inference there. The Bible ascribes the miracle to the sun standing still--not the Earth stopping rotation on its axis. If that's what happened, why didn't the author write "And the earth stopped spinning, and the moon stayed..." If I am to accpet a literal translation of text, I shouldn't have to make inferences that begin "Well OBVIOUSLY they meant..." because for years the church thought the Bible OBVIOUSLY said the Earth was flat and OBVIOUSLY said it was the center of the universe.

I guess when we talk about sunrise and sunset still today, we're just scientically illiterate flat earthers? An ethnocentric view of heavenly bodies is a common literary device.

Of course, but I'm being asked to accept the Old testament as a literal historically-accurate text. In your view, it should read as if it were a history book--at least the parts we're discussing. The day wasn't enlongated because the sun stopped moving--it's very simple. You may wish to brush it off as simply harping on a metaphor, but the Church used to kill people who dared challenge these "metaphors".

[registerthis]

Your position creates a theological problem at the very core. The Bible calls Adam the first man, you say science says otherwise. That is a HUMONGOUS theological problem

Only to someone whose faith depends on a literal interpretation of every word in the Bible. For someone who views the creation story as an allegorical tale meant to ascribe meaning to our existence and development at a time when no concept of evolution--or advanced scientific thought, for that matter--existed, it's not a humongous problem at all. If you find it to be a huge problem, and your faith depends on a 6,000 year old Earth...I'd say you have larger problems than simply trying to explain away some dinosaur fossils.

Didn't I say that heading in the opposite direction regarding your "facts?" My guess is that you have never researched C14 dating, say to the depth of researching a draft pick for the Reds. If you had, you likely would not be so certain about ages assigned by the method. If you have and still have the confidence you do, then you are guilty of what you accused me of above, which is essentially intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, what short memories we have. We had this very discussion a few months ago. Did you not read the links I provided? Well, in case not, here we are again. Feel free to debunk these, if you wish, but the methodologies used are scientifically sound and accepted principles. this is what I wrote several months ago:

Carbon-14 Article

Radiometric Dating Article

I chose not to respond individually to your carbon dating comments for two reasons. One, carbon dating is hardly the exclusive method scientists use to offer a "date" of certain organic materials. It is only useful back to approximately 50,000 years, and even then the dates are given only as "approximations." The dates do not nearly vary so much as to suggest that the Earth could potentially be only 7,000 years old, as you seemingly suggest, but variations of several hundred to a thousand years are not uncommon.

Secondly, scientists have successfully refuted challenges to the carbon dating system to support it as an adequate method for approximate dating of organic materials, and I need not repeat them here and turn this thread into a scientific dissertation. If you are curious, this site offers a good synopsis of it. (Never say i don't provide reading material): Link to Carbon Dating article

i did want to make another point, since you brought up radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is actually a general term given to a variety (over 40) of intricate dating techniques used to provide the approximate age of rocks and other minerals on our Earth. The important thing to remember is all of these dating methods agree. COntrary to your assertion, disagreements between radiometric dating techniques are the exception, not the rule. The dating systems agree a great majority of the time.

Using all data from radiometric dating techniques, in order for someone who holds the view of a young Earth to be correct, it would require a difference in magnitude ranging from 10,000 to over 1 million. This is based on ALL data observed. The differences of which you speak, and imply are so grandiose, are actually generally within the margin of error--a few percent--and certainly no where near the *magnitude* of difference which would be necessary to support your views of a young Earth.

I have a good website for this one too, also written by a Christian physicist. Very good article on this topic

Simply put, radiometric dating overwhelmingly supports the theory of an old Earth, the evidence is irrefutable.

[registerthis]

Whenever the talk of teaching intelligent design in schools comes up, I feel this is always appropriate...

> OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD
>
> I am writing you with much concern after having read of your
> hearing
> to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design to be
> taught
> along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it
is
> important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose
> for
> themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am
> concerned,
> however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent
Design.
>
> Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent
> Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief
> that the
> universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who
> created
> all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the
> overwhelming
> scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is
nothing
> but a
> coincidence, put in place by Him.
>
> It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally
> request
> that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with
the
> other
> two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not
agree
> to do
> this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you
see
> where
> we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on
> faith,
> but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must
> also
> allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on
> faith.
>
> Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell
you
> a
> little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying
Spaghetti
> Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to
> see it,
> but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes
> explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to
> hear that
> there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very
> secretive,
> as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable
> evidence. What these people don't understand is that He built the
> world to
> make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a
> scientist
> may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that
> approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission
to
> Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000
> years
> old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But
what
> our
> scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement,
> the
> Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His
Noodly
> Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this
can
> be
> possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible
> and can
> pass through normal matter with ease.
>
> I'm sure you now realize how important it is that your students
> are
> taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they
> realize
> that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti
> Monster.
> Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing
> His
> chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot
stress
> the
> importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why
> this
> must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The
> concise
> explanation is that He becomes angry if we don't.
>
> You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes,
> hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the
> shrinking
> numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have
included
> a
> graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global
> temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a
> statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and
> global
> temperature.
>
>
>
> In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views
> and
> beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this
> theory
> to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in
> this
> alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope
dearly
> that
> no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look
forward
> to
> the time when these three theories are given equal time in our
science
> classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third
> time for
> Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism,
> and one
> third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable
> evidence.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
>
Here is an artistic rendering of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

[traderumor]

I just did, and amazingly the words didn't change from when I posted them earlier...but apparently there was a breakdown in communication, so I'll post again:

Exactly which part of "all Pharoah's horses and chariots and horsemen" isn't clear?


You're making an inference there. The Bible ascribes the miracle to the sun standing still--not the Earth stopping rotation on its axis. If that's what happened, why didn't the author write "And the earth stopped spinning, and the moon stayed..." If I am to accpet a literal translation of text, I shouldn't have to make inferences that begin "Well OBVIOUSLY they meant..." because for years the church thought the Bible OBVIOUSLY said the Earth was flat and OBVIOUSLY said it was the center of the universe.


Of course, but I'm being asked to accept the Old testament as a literal historically-accurate text. In your view, it should read as if it were a history book--at least the parts we're discussing. The day wasn't enlongated because the sun stopped moving--it's very simple. You may wish to brush it off as simply harping on a metaphor, but the Church used to kill people who dared challenge these "metaphors".

Exo 14:9 But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baalzephon.

If you want to refute Biblical claims, I will insist you do not make misleading claims about what it says. It says all his horses and chariots. It includes horseman and the army, but does not say all of either.

As for "but I'm being asked to accept the Old testament as a literal historically-accurate text," no, you're not. I've limited that to the Pentateuch so far for my claim. The only statement I've made is that the grammatico-historical approach affords for literal renderings where appropriate. There is ample evidence for a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch, thust that has been the orthodox position of Bible interpreters over the ages. Of course, there has always been naysayers, and I'm sure they had similar discussions to the one's we engage in.

As for the "sun standing still," and this comment "Only to someone whose faith depends on a literal interpretation of every word in the Bible," your responses shows a total lack of understanding of literary devices, genres, and what "literal" translation means, so further discussion on the matter will be an exercise in futility.

[M2]

Your position creates a theological problem at the very core. The Bible calls Adam the first man, you say science says otherwise. That is a HUMONGOUS theological problem, one that should make you wonder why one would place any value on one word written in the Bible. If it lies about that, how do we know that the plan of salvation has any veracity, just as one example of the pandora's book your view opens. But then, that is what this is all about. That's why people like myself confront the arguments you advance.

The book also "lies" about the entire world flooding over and every species on the planet piling into an ark. DID ... NOT ... HAPPEN. The worldwide flood didn't happen. Every species on the planet did not migrate to the Middle East and then return to its native homeland. Every species on the planet wouldn't fit onto an aircraft carrier let alone an ark.

Now is that a lie? No. Is it a parable based on what possibly was the flood that created the Black Sea? Yep.

If you're insisting that every word in the Bible must be literal, incontrovertible truth or the whole thing falls apart then you are BEGGING for people to abandon the religion.

It's a standard the Bible does not and cannot meet.

Now if you're willing to call a parable a parable, that eliminates any theological problems that might arise from a global catastrophe that didn't happen or baby back women. It's religion and it's talking about the forest, not the trees. It's the value of the lesson that counts, not the encyclopedic accuracy of the text.

BTW, science makes no claims on what the first identifiable man was named.

registerthis covered carbon-dating (not to mention the EXTREMELY important detail that there's dozens of radiological dating formats and that all of them vaporize a biblical timeline). There's a psuedoscience effort out there that tries to undermine the legitimate work being done, but it's quackery and there's no reason to call it anything else. It's akin to the guy who lied about being a Nobel candidate who conned Terry Schiavo's parents into thinking she had a treatable, reversible condition. She didn't, there was ample imaging to prove it and every reasonable medical professional who had access to Schiavo's files knew better.

Of course the sad state of affairs we've reached in this country made it that people refused to acknowledge the obvious until after a post-mortem autopsy was conducted (and that still wasn't enough for some). Belief even supplants math these days. We see that played out on the baseball side all the time. For many what they believe is the only "fact" they're willing to accept. I know that's not the way you operate. I respect your faith, but I think you're creating false choices that really should affect that faith.

[Ravenlord]

Okay. Even *if* I were to grant the Bible as a source of history/biological evidence, how does that show that the scientific method used by evolutionary biologists is less rigorous and thoroughly investigated than relying upon the authority of a single text?

not sure what you mean...are you meaning that 'how is the scientific theory being applied?' if so, then you apply it the same way you do everything else.

Particularly in light of your contention that other life forms (non-human) HAVE evolved. Why the human exceptionalism? After all, we share 98% of our genetic material with chimps; is it absurd to suggest that there may be a connection?

97.3% of human genetic material matches a pig. 96.7% a grasshopper, and a grasshopper 98% that of a chimp. i think it's because there's a small range of combonations that can sustain life on a physical prime-material existance.

fossils have never been found of the so-called 'missing link.' fossils have been found of a lot of other creatures that are lead into's of other creatures. like a saber-tooth tiger into a 'modern' tiger.

[Yachtzee]

fossils have never been found of the so-called 'missing link.' fossils have been found of a lot of other creatures that are lead into's of other creatures. like a saber-tooth tiger into a 'modern' tiger.

Why dig for fossils? Kyle Farnsworth is pitching for the Braves right now?

[Falls City Beer]

not sure what you mean...are you meaning that 'how is the scientific theory being applied?' if so, then you apply it the same way you do everything else.

Your contention, way back on the first page, was to say that you believe intelligent design to be the more rigorous and scientific of the two "competing" strands of thought. You said that you "see the exact opposite" of my contention that evolutionary biology uses the scientific method of inquiry.

97.3% of human genetic material matches a pig. 96.7% a grasshopper, and a grasshopper 98% that of a chimp. i think it's because there's a small range of combonations that can sustain life on a physical prime-material existance.

fossils have never been found of the so-called 'missing link.' fossils have been found of a lot of other creatures that are lead into's of other creatures. like a saber-tooth tiger into a 'modern' tiger.

I'm going to pull up at saying you're fabricating those pig/human similarity figures, as I can't find all the details. Though a quick Google scan shows NO verification of that assertion--I did, however, find a scholarly article claiming that some virus that affects both human and pig shares similar nucleotide sequence, that of 97.3% between pig "version and "human" version.

However, I can point to a number of sources (all scholarly and researched) that show that 98-99% of human and chimp genetic material is shared. Jared Diamond's book "The Third Chimpanzee" is a good start. But articles in Discovery, Science, and research by biologists and physiologists from institutions like Harvard, University of Chicago, Yale, and Berkeley have also attested to this fact.

Does this mean, unequivocally that science can say from this information that humans can assume a clear antecedence in chimpanzees? Science isn't (or shouldn't be) that brazen. That's why science refers to evolution as a theory. That you fill the hole or gap in the missing link with God or suggest that evolution must be wrong is contrary to science --in fact, it's a logical fallacy; the very opposite of the scientific method--you're trying to make the facts (or their absence) match a pre-ordained conclusion. And that's not science.

[traderumor]

The book also "lies" about the entire world flooding over and every species on the planet piling into an ark. DID ... NOT ... HAPPEN. The worldwide flood didn't happen. Every species on the planet did not migrate to the Middle East and then return to its native homeland. Every species on the planet wouldn't fit onto an aircraft carrier let alone an ark.

Now is that a lie? No. Is it a parable based on what possibly was the flood that created the Black Sea? Yep.

Sure it did. It actually explains some of the things that science has to fabricate millions of years to fit humanistic evolutionary theory. The Flood DID HAPPEN, whether you want to believe it did or not, M2, and there are as many papers written with answers for your objections as you can come up with objections. And I suppose you do the same thing with those explanations as you claim I do when it comes to old earth issues and macroevolution. You had your mind made up a long time ago and it will take a supernatural act of God's Holy Spirit to change it at this point.

If you're insisting that every word in the Bible must be literal, incontrovertible truth or the whole thing falls apart then you are BEGGING for people to abandon the religion.

It's a standard the Bible does not and cannot meet.

Like reg, if you come away from my posts with that idea, then you're not reading what I say very carefully. Every word in the Bible represents truth, but I'd say the number is in the hundreds of how many times I've tried to explain what interpreting the Bible literally means. You're creating a position that even the staunchest Creationists don't take. No one reads the Bible completely "literally," or else they have to claim that God has wings, looks like a chicken, and has really big hands that allow him to measure the universe by the span of just one of them. I think you know that.

Now if you're willing to call a parable a parable, that eliminates any theological problems that might arise from a global catastrophe that didn't happen or baby back women. It's religion and it's talking about the forest, not the trees. It's the value of the lesson that counts, not the encyclopedic accuracy of the text.

BTW, science makes no claims on what the first identifiable man was named.

registerthis covered carbon-dating (not to mention the EXTREMELY important detail that there's dozens of radiological dating formats and that all of them vaporize a biblical timeline). There's a psuedoscience effort out there that tries to undermine the legitimate work being done, but it's quackery and there's no reason to call it anything else. It's akin to the guy who lied about being a Nobel candidate who conned Terry Schiavo's parents into thinking she had a treatable, reversible condition. She didn't, there was ample imaging to prove it and every reasonable medical professional who had access to Schiavo's files knew better.

Of course the sad state of affairs we've reached in this country made it that people refused to acknowledge the obvious until after a post-mortem autopsy was conducted (and that still wasn't enough for some). Belief even supplants math these days. We see that played out on the baseball side all the time. For many what they believe is the only "fact" they're willing to accept. I know that's not the way you operate. I respect your faith, but I think you're creating false choices that really should affect that faith.

I recognize parables, but then I think it is as clear as the nose on my face that Genesis was meant to be read as a historical account of the earth's first days, the world's first family, the world's first sin, and various other firsts. It is only when folks thought they had to compromise this orthodox belief because humanistic scientists convinced enough people that they had explained away God as Creator. Sorry, I missed that memo.

[Johnny Footstool]

It actually explains some of the things that science has to fabricate millions of years to fit humanistic evolutionary theory.

I'll need to see some proof.

Proof that the flood happened.

And proof that a cabal of scientists with an agenda to subvert the Bible was able to come up with this coordinated "fabrication."

[ochre]

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

here within pages it goes from beasts occuring before man to man occuring before beasts? Minor detail?

[traderumor]

Try the NIV, Ochre

Gen 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

And that is the same sense as the KJV, which can cause some problems because of the Old English. So, as you can see, there is really no inconsistency at all. Folks also get off course in Genesis as they try to reconcile Gen 1 & 2 if they do not understand that Gen 1 is a fly over of Creation, whereas Gen 2 zooms in and focuses on Adam, the one created in God's image.

[traderumor]

I'll need to see some proof.

Proof that the flood happened.

And proof that a cabal of scientists with an agenda to subvert the Bible was able to come up with this coordinated "fabrication."

How far does that requirement extend, Johnny? Have you actually seen a creature evolve before your eyes, for example? Have you actually seen proof that all life can be traced back to a one-celled organism?