Who do you "pray" to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Wait just a moment! We had assumed linear, when it actualy was polynomial! :( So long, grant money!

---

I can see what you are trying to say, but Evolution is a conclusion based on evidence, not an assumption. On the point of scientists finding what their preconceptions would have them find, consider that Evolution didn't pop up in a book out of thin air, and become an ingrained belief. Scientists had assumed that Creation by a deity was the truth. This was their assumption. The reason this assumption was dismissed was the evidence; completely contrary to the assumption.

On the point of grant money. If you think you have a scientific method for disproving Evolution you WILL get funded. There are some very rich Christian foundations out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

The fact is, that many in the scientific field are indeed approaching their research trying to disprove God, and not simply let the evidence and facts guide them.

---

Untrue. Just because their findings might challenge or destroy the notion of your god doesn't mean that they set up research to that end, but that you misunderstand the motives of scientists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

EDIT:
Scientists are no more infallible than the Pope.

---

Noone is infallible, but comparing scientists to popes is like comparing apples to gearboxes.

YouTube - Open-mindedness

Am I the only person that finds it weird that atheists claim to be areligious, yet they are as evangelical as any fundamentalist of any "religion"?:shrug:

When someone misrepresents me, I should try to clear up the misconception, should I not. The frustrating part, and believe you me it is frustrating me, is that some people refuse to listen and continue to spread disinformation including suggesting that I am evangelizing. This thread has become a bit of a beat up the Atheists thread. It's frustrating to try and explain reasonably one's point only to be accused of dogma. The difference was clearly shown in the last video I posted, yet you fell into the trap of bad thinking right away, richmondesi.

FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?






<CENTER><TABLE border=1 rules=none cellSpacing=0 borderColor=#225599 cellPadding=3 frame=box><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>The Short Answer: Yes. The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>

Want to read more....

FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?


I have no problem at all with micro-evolution but show me proof positive of transition between species. Show me where mutations are useful and not harmful knowing what we know about irreducible complexity. Show me proven not just speculated transitional fossil forms. Show me how macro-evolution can coexsist with a natural law such as entropy. Inteligent Design uses scientific method just as evolution does. Unless you can answer these questions 100% proof positive there is a degree of faith in your logic. I fully admit I cannot begin to answer all questions to special creation but then again I'm not ashamed to tell anyone I have Faith.


If you think you can answer just a few more questions for my enlightenment try these...

QUESTIONS FOR EVOLUTIONISTS

I'm so gald I can admit where I place my faith.

richmondesi I would not call athiests evangelistic but they sure can preach. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

When someone misrepresents me, I should try to clear up the misconception, should I not. The frustrating part, and believe you me it is frustrating me, is that some people refuse to listen and continue to spread disinformation including suggesting that I am evangelizing. This thread has become a bit of a beat up the Atheists thread. It's frustrating to try and explain reasonably one's point only to be accused of dogma. The difference was clearly shown in the last video I posted, yet you fell into the trap of bad thinking right away, richmondesi.

---

First, my comment was a general comment, X-Man. It had absolutely nothing to do with your video's contents. It had every bit to do with the fact that you posted it and other information in an attempt to proselytize others to your way of thinking. I've not fallen into any trap, and I'm not the one suffering from "bad thinking". You and I have a fundamental disagreement from which we will never reconcile (and believe me, I'm OK with that). You're no more open minded than I am, and that's ok. However, you have zero objectivity if you can't look at your behavior throughout this thread as anything less than down right evangelical (and that's OK too, I just ask for you to recognize it). Atheist have substituted science and man for any god (and that's OK I just ask for you to recognize it).

What's frustrating is whenever you try to convince me that science clearly and accurately answers questions from "millions of years" of history so definitively as to render the idea that there is an intelligent design as specious. The scientific community has proven and disproven so much crap over the years to render it far from authoritative. However, they never seem to recognize this.

Guess what, I think your big bang theory every bit as ridiculous as you think my intelligent design theory. I'm sure we are both highly educated people that have studied all sides of the issue (I know am and I have, and I'm sure you are and you have too). In my mind it's equivalent to you looking at a watch recognizing that every part serves a purpose, working in perfect harmony, and assuming that it just happened over the course of a billion years through some incredible coincidence. And you think I believe in an archaic fairytale. THAT'S OK. We both know that we disagree, but at least I'm honest about who and what I am. I'm not attempting to proselytize you or anyone else. Also, I've not gotten personal with you or anyone else until you did. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENUF2

.... show me proof positive of transition between species.

---

For all the good it will do.
YouTube - RDF TV - Vestigial Organs: The Wings of the Flightless Cormorant - Richard Dawkins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENUF2

Inteligent Design uses scientific method just as evolution does.

---

Not in the least.
YouTube - Intelligent Design movement founder admits its not science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENUF2

Unless you can answer these questions 100% proof positive there is a degree of faith in your logic.

---

You equivocate again between the two meanings of faith I pointed out earlier.

-------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richmondesi

First, my comment was a general comment, X-Man. It had absolutely nothing to do with your video's contents. It had every bit to do with the fact that you posted it and other information in an attempt to proselytize others to your way of thinking.

---

Quibble, quibble. I'm sure if I had come out and said all Christians are crackpots you would consider some of that personally so please don't set a trap for me and say, "He started it". I repeat again that I am trying to clear up your misconceptions, NOT make you into an Atheist. People refuse to admit that the earth was formed 14 billion years ago even though all the evidence says so and no evidence, only dogma contradicts it. They refuse to admit that the scientific process is above your opinion or my opinion or anyone else's. It is designed to overcome, as much as we can, the tendency for human failure in perception and thinking. But whenever I point out the overwhelming evidence science provides, you still seem to think that I'm preaching or touting an opinion which is only as valid as yours is. It's simple. You're wrong about that. I try to point you in the right direction, one supported by evidence rather than scripture, but you won't have it. And here's the thing. The life of dogma is retrograde and dangerous. It stupefies and discourages critical thought. It should not go uncontested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richmondesi

I've not fallen into any trap, and I'm not the one suffering from "bad thinking". You and I have a fundamental disagreement from which we will never reconcile (and believe me, I'm OK with that). You're no more open minded than I am, and that's ok.

---

Please watch this again to discover how you are incorrect.
YouTube - Open-mindedness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richmondesi

However, you have zero objectivity if you can't look at your behavior throughout this thread as anything less than down right evangelical (and that's OK too, I just ask for you to recognize it). Atheist have substituted science and man for any god (and that's OK I just ask for you to recognize it).

---

*sigh* No, although I can see how it would be easy to draw that conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richmondesi

What's frustrating is whenever you try to convince me that science clearly and accurately answers questions from "millions of years" of history so definitively as to render the idea that there is an intelligent design as specious. The scientific community has proven and disproven so much crap over the years to render it far from authoritative. However, they never seem to recognize this.

---

I don't even know where to start with this one. ID is unscientific as stated earlier. You equivocate again. A disproven theory doesn't mean it's dead. When Einstein disproved Newton we didn't throw Newton in the garbage. That's what you're trying to imply. That's not right.

YouTube - Skewed views of science

I have long upheld and said so in previous threads that the only tenable position for theists is that their religion is completely inconsistent with observable reality, but that they believe anyway. Tony said so earlier and I applaud him for his simplicity and honesty.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

I have long upheld and said so in previous threads that the only tenable position for theists is that their religion is completely inconsistent with observable reality, but that they believe anyway. Tony said so earlier and I applaud him for his simplicity and honesty.

X

---

X, I certainly don't view you as prosyletizing, just trying to show your point of view. That's fine with me. That is what I am trying to do as well. No harm, no foul from me. That is what these discussions are for, right?

You do sometimes make sweeping generalizations, though. I may have singled out Mr Dawkins in that vid, and taken issue with his statements. I did not, and do not think all scientists are one way or another. I simply wanted to point out that certain scientists most certainly are a certain way. Same goes for theists.

I also wanted to point out vis-a-vis my graph post that assumptions do indeed influence what is later determined to be "fact". And scientifically speaking the only correct conclusion based on the original data set that can be drawn is not that you have a linear, nor even a polynomial graph, all that can be determined from that data is that you have data at points A, B, & C. That's it. The rest is unsubstantiated.

Now then, to the point you make above:
"...the only tenable position for theists is that their religion is completely inconsistent with observable reality"

I'll fill you all in on this--the people I talked about in my post #110, who were not supposed to be able to have children, etc...
How do I know the veracity of that story, that they were telling the truth?

Because the people in that story are none other than me and my family. I not only observed, but lived, and live that reality every day.


I have been on both sides of the issue. I had beeen a long time atheist/agnotic/new agey guy perhaps, then a Christian convert, then an apostate ( I really thought it was a complete load of baloney after taking a close look at it all for a couple of years), and finally came to believe truly. So, I'm no dyed in the wool, born and raised Bible thumper or fanatic.

To then go through the experience of the conception and birth of my children (alot more to the whole remarkable story than I can ever write on here), quite contrary to what the scientific community flat out told us repeatedly, and through the prayers of some truly remarkable people who have devoted their lives to prayer and God may not rise to the level of scientifically substantiated fact. But it most certainly rises to the level of observable reality in my book.:)

I certainly can be guilty of generalizations, it often happens in discussions and I apologise for any confusion because of it.

That you are a parent twice over against the odds is quite joyful. Congratulations. But what is it that you observed? As the A through B to C example you sighted yourself what you observed was that you as a couple, against all odds, now have two children. It is not only uncertain that any gods or other magical beings had any hand in it, it is unprovable and anecdotal at best. It doesn't matter that people prayed for you, it can't be substantiated as having had any effect. Just like a man who claims to have seen a UFO, it doesn't mean one was there.

I am so very happy for you though.

"Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color."





As for evangelism, I can see why characterizing responses in a conversation as such might be...advantageous.