There is no evidence of Abiogenesis

[Learner]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

I like to learn about you as individuals, the topics of discussions and of course the subject of debates regarding faith, being that is what this Religion section is about.

I am going to be just as arrogantly grandiose as posts that thinks that I "should be learning here" as if this was some sort of leading academic centre.
(I didn't even get a prospectus before joining)

Let's say in a like-wise grandiose manner i.e. the language you speak, so to speak:
I come here sometimes to correct you (plural) when you (plural) purposely distort the bible narratives.

Except instead here you parroting ID nonsense without knowing anything about it,

Intriguing argument. I see, so by the implication of your statement, you're saying: Creationism is not ID after all.


Best define the terms of ID so we can be on the same page. Cheers.

and showing you don’t even know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory.

Can you show me in which post where I have confused the two? Otherwise you're actually the one who's demonstrating what parroting looks like.

 

[pood]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

I like to learn about you as individuals, the topics of discussions and of course the subject of debates regarding faith, being that is what this Religion section is about.

I am going to be just as arrogantly grandiose as posts that thinks that I "should be learning here" as if this was some sort of leading academic centre.
(I didn't even get a prospectus before joining)

Let's say in a like-wise grandiose manner i.e. the language you speak, so to speak:
I come here sometimes to correct you (plural) when you (plural) purposely distort the bible narratives.

Except instead here you parroting ID nonsense without knowing anything about it,

Intriguing argument. I see, so by the implication of your statement, you're saying: Creationism is not ID after all.

No, that is not the implication of my statement. ID is creationism, and creationism is ID.

Best define the terms of ID so we can be on the same page. Cheers.

and showing you don’t even know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory.

Can you show me in which post where I have confused the two? Otherwise you're actually the one who's demonstrating what parroting looks like.

You touted ID being a hypothesis as “making progress,” in the context of a discussion of whether or how ID can fit with science, This is mistaken, as I pointed out, because ID is a hypothesis by definition. So is, “Santa brings presents on Christmas eve” and “Down is up” Actual progress would be to present a scientific theory of ID. Otherwise you are simply conflating hypothesis with theory..

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

I like to learn about you as individuals, the topics of discussions and of course the subject of debates regarding faith, being that is what this Religion section is about.

I am going to be just as arrogantly grandiose as posts that thinks that I "should be learning here" as if this was some sort of leading academic centre.
(I didn't even get a prospectus before joining)

Let's say in a like-wise grandiose manner i.e. the language you speak, so to speak:
I come here sometimes to correct you (plural) when you (plural) purposely distort the bible narratives.

Interesting that you mention distortion of Bible narratives when that is what the majority of Christians do, and every Christian church. Most Christian beliefs are unBiblical. The churches make up doctrines based on what they want the Bible to say, not what it actually states.
For instance, the Bible supports abortion, says that Jesus is a man not God, does not condemn homosexuality, and so on.

 

[Elixir]

Interesting that you mention distortion of Bible narratives when that is what the majority of Christians do, and every Christian church. Most Christian beliefs are unBiblical. The churches make up doctrines based on what they want the Bible to say, not what it actually states.
For instance, the Bible supports abortion, says that Jesus is a man not God, does not condemn homosexuality, and so on.

That's just the tip of the iceberg of irrationality to which religionists grant themselves free access. It sets the stage for endowing every streetcorner soapbox screamer to claim authority, just as Learner does here. There are no bounds. No textual bounds, no ethical bounds, moral bounds or tethering to reality is required. Thus, the superstitious godder appears to be a slimy character to those of us who consider it "good" to stick to facts and reason.
I don't believe that "learner" or most of his ilk are evil people, they're just deluded. That can make them do bad things, but it doesn't have to.

 

[steve_bank]

Learner is not paying attention if he clams human ran with dinosaurs.

Actually reading stdandrd science brigs into question interpretation of scripture.

In the old movie Inherit The Wind about the Scopes Trial there is a acene where somebody says 'the only book the jurors have probably read is the bible'.

Scopes trial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Scopes trial, formally The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, and commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was an American legal case from July 10 to July 21, 1925, in which a high school teacher, John T. Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which had made it illegal for teachers to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.[1] The trial was deliberately staged in order to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held. Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he incriminated himself deliberately so the case could have a defendant.[2][3]

ID was an attempt to get reilgion taught as science in public schools.

 

[Learner]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

I like to learn about you as individuals, the topics of discussions and of course the subject of debates regarding faith, being that is what this Religion section is about.

I am going to be just as arrogantly grandiose as posts that thinks that I "should be learning here" as if this was some sort of leading academic centre.
(I didn't even get a prospectus before joining)

Let's say in a like-wise grandiose manner i.e. the language you speak, so to speak:
I come here sometimes to correct you (plural) when you (plural) purposely distort the bible narratives.

Interesting that you mention distortion of Bible narratives when that is what the majority of Christians do, and every Christian church.

It happens and it varies in degrees, not the majority.

The narrative i.e. 'Jesus died to save us, Son of God etc & etc. If that is what is understood by Christians to be the core doctrine, regardless of denomination then that is all that matters.

Most Christian beliefs are unBiblical. The churches make up doctrines based on what they want the Bible to say, not what it actually states.

What the bible actually states, yes indeed!

Christians have guide rules and measures. Isn't that amazing? That's how we can tell who is, and who isn't going according to what's written.

We are aware of false preaching. There are many Christians warning people, like this Christian below.

For instance, the Bible supports abortion, says that Jesus is a man not God, does not condemn homosexuality, and so on.

The bible doesn't support having abortion 'out of convenience', being burdened.

Your narrative that "Jesus is 'just' a man" is the distortion I was on about.

Jesus doesn't condemn being drunkards nor fornicators either, so what? Nor did he condemn the woman who was accused of committing the 'act of adultery' which the Jews were very eager to stone and kill her. After Jesus said, "those who are without sin, cast the first stone", He then said to the woman accused of adultery to go and sin no more.

 

[pood]

The narrative i.e. 'Jesus died to save us, Son of God etc & etc. If that is what is understood by Christians to be the core doctrine, regardless of denomination then that is all that matters.

That’s all well and good, but, as I noted above, this story is inconsistent with evolutionary theory, because when you say “Jesus died to save us,” there is actually nothing to save us from, since we know Adam and Eve did not exist, the Garden of Eden did not exist, and therefore there was no pre-fall, perfect pristine world that the non-existent “sin” of the non-existent Adam and Eve caused to disappear.

Faced with these facts, it seems the devoted Christian has two options: Reject the facts (reject established science) or accept the facts and recast the biblical tales as allegories for something or other.

However, from your talk about the flood (which did not happen) to humans consorting with dinosaurs (false, except for birds, which we still live alongside) it appears you are a young earth creationist, from which if follows that you must reject ALL of science, not just evolutionary theory.

My own personal speculation is that the story in Genesis represents an ancestral, archetypal memory of the transition from the hunter-gatherer life style to the agricultural life style. The story of Jesus is just about a teacher who taught some things that others had taught before him, got in trouble with the authorities, and got himself killed (and, of course, did not rise again).

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

I like to learn about you as individuals, the topics of discussions and of course the subject of debates regarding faith, being that is what this Religion section is about.

I am going to be just as arrogantly grandiose as posts that thinks that I "should be learning here" as if this was some sort of leading academic centre.
(I didn't even get a prospectus before joining)

Let's say in a like-wise grandiose manner i.e. the language you speak, so to speak:
I come here sometimes to correct you (plural) when you (plural) purposely distort the bible narratives.

Interesting that you mention distortion of Bible narratives when that is what the majority of Christians do, and every Christian church.

It happens and it varies in degrees, not the majority.

The narrative i.e. 'Jesus died to save us, Son of God etc & etc. If that is what is understood by Christians to be the core doctrine, regardless of denomination then that is all that matters.

If you think "that's all that matters" you are not a "Learner".

 

[pood]

Interesting article today by Richard Dawkins on “reverse engineering evolution’s optimal beauty.” As the subhead of the article says, he appears to be rebutting the oft-heard claim that evolution produces organisms that are “just good enough.”

At the same time, Dawkins is known as an adaptationist who attaches little significance to genetic drift and neutral evolution, at least at the phenotypic level of description.

Dawkins invokes David Hume’s fictional philosopher Cleanthes, about how biological “deigns” “ravish into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them.” Yet, of course, Hume himself critiqued the argument to design long before Darwin came along and showed why the argument is false. But we can certainly excuse people who came before Darwin for thinking that living things were intelligently designed. Now, there is no excuse. But back then … I often think of the cave painters of tens of thousands of years ago who were just as smart as we were but lacked our knowledge base. Surely they must have thought something similar to the following: “I can paint the animals on the walls of this cave, but how much greater are the animals themselves, which are three-dimensional, which move and act!” From which the thought naturally follows, “If I can create these drawings, how much greater must be the creator of the animals that I draw?” Could be the start of religious belief right there?

 

[Learner]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

I like to learn about you as individuals, the topics of discussions and of course the subject of debates regarding faith, being that is what this Religion section is about.

I am going to be just as arrogantly grandiose as posts that thinks that I "should be learning here" as if this was some sort of leading academic centre.
(I didn't even get a prospectus before joining)

Let's say in a like-wise grandiose manner i.e. the language you speak, so to speak:
I come here sometimes to correct you (plural) when you (plural) purposely distort the bible narratives.

Interesting that you mention distortion of Bible narratives when that is what the majority of Christians do, and every Christian church.

It happens and it varies in degrees, not the majority.

The narrative i.e. 'Jesus died to save us, Son of God etc & etc. If that is what is understood by Christians to be the core doctrine, regardless of denomination then that is all that matters.

If you think "that's all that matters" you are not a "Learner".

I'll just respond 'briefly' to your statement of 'very few words' (while sitting in the park after a nice lunch in the nice weather ) and ask:

In what way do you mean?

 

[steve_bank]

Isn't there something in Proverbs about 'Ignorance is bliss'?

 

[Elixir]

... and therefore.. science is unrelated to intelligent creations and design, even on a small scale made by humans.

You really need to learn how to do logic and reason, before you start chucking around words you don't understand, such as "therefore".

Using such words for what they actually mean, eviscerates the precious creationist fantasy. It is creo code to NEVER describe causalities as they are known to be, but rather as they NEED to be to support their core superstitions.
I think Donald rump is going to win this coming election because of the STOOPID typified by creationism, and brought to a head by the TrumpJesus cult. Some of the doomsaying prophecies of these idiot-magnet cults are self-fulfilling, and the Anti-Christ fables are one of them.

If you think "that's all that matters" you are not a "Learner".

I've been telling you that for years now. "Learner" is a false label, and an exercise in the deception that is so very facile for creos.
They are here to "teach" the foolishness of creationism, and make themself proud by boldly confronting the Science Dragon that threatens their Holy Delusion.
A mission that is dumber than shit IMHO.

 

[Learner]

e.g. They've found the physical City of David. It existed after all.

And IF that's true, and IF that was the only claim made in the Bible, you would have a point.

A scientific paper doesn't include methodologies for testing some of its claims; It includes methodologies for testing them all (which is why each paper tends to make only very limited claims).

Am I to take it that the ONLY things from the Bible that you believe are those with archaeological evidence that you can go and look at for yourself?

Or are you kidding yourself that a handful of verifiable facts, in a big book, imply that every claim in that book must be the truth?

The physical city of Troy (Ilium) has been discovered; that doesn't mean that the Greek gods exist.

Interestingly by your "analysis of god comparisons" to the Abrahamic God: If they're all the same, who then is arguing the case for the existence of greek gods, or Norse gods, as Christians do for the Abrahamic God? Did they die out in the flood?

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Its called progress. Human curiosity drives us to better our understanding of the world, to both slake our thirst for knowledge and understanding, and to produce technological advances that better the lot of our species.

Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.

Thee is no progress here — not for you, anyway. Not a single person here has denied that ID is a hypothesis. Here’s another hypothesis: Santa Claus comes down the chimney each Christmas and delivers presents. Another: the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn. Another: Donald Trump is a decent man.
Do you notice what all these have in common?

There is a scientific interest... and there are theories which can overlap into the Intelligent design direction. Intelligent design can consist of a variety of theories, other than the biological (Behe's theory which is often debated ).

There is the curiousity to further expand and inquire concepts like: the Computer Universe Theory, Digital Physics Theory and Information Theory which are all part of the big progress. (Unfortunately your santa analogy is shyly feeling out of place here. You could however use the santa analogy to example the pink-unicorn)

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

Yes, I used the hypothesis term....but Intelligent design is known as a theory anyway?

Intelligent design might be called by some a theory, but it is not a scientific theory, and this was confirmed in court by a Christian judge in Kitzmiller vs Dover.

Even by 'some', that is enough for it to be a theory. Not everyone is going to agree I know. Besides, regarding your mention of scientific theory, All theories including science are under the umbrella of philosopy!


Speaking of philosophy. Peter Kosso a philosopher of science understands well what theories mean, he explains ID better.

ID is a theory of design detection, and it proposes intelligent agency as a mechanism causing biological change. ID allows us to explain how aspects of observed biological complexity, and other natural complexity, arose. And it uses the scientific method to make its claims.
(That is not a religious perpsective)



Kitzmiller vs Dover. of 2005 is a jurisdiction, in a manner of speaking, regarding US public schools from what I gather, it is not in the rest of the world!

I suppose if ID is actually defined as a religion, and those people who are said to be deviously trying to sneak creationism into public schools under the guise of Intelligent Design (perhaps not the ID defined as Peter Kosso) you would ask then. Wouldn't it have been better to just say it is a religion so that it would be taught in religious study/classes anyway?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

e.g. They've found the physical City of David. It existed after all.

And IF that's true, and IF that was the only claim made in the Bible, you would have a point.

A scientific paper doesn't include methodologies for testing some of its claims; It includes methodologies for testing them all (which is why each paper tends to make only very limited claims).

Am I to take it that the ONLY things from the Bible that you believe are those with archaeological evidence that you can go and look at for yourself?

Or are you kidding yourself that a handful of verifiable facts, in a big book, imply that every claim in that book must be the truth?

The physical city of Troy (Ilium) has been discovered; that doesn't mean that the Greek gods exist.

Interestingly by your "analysis of god comparisons" to the Abrahamic God: If they're all the same, who then is arguing the case for the existence of greek gods, or Norse gods, as Christians do for the Abrahamic God? Did they die out in the flood?

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Its called progress. Human curiosity drives us to better our understanding of the world, to both slake our thirst for knowledge and understanding, and to produce technological advances that better the lot of our species.

Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.

Thee is no progress here — not for you, anyway. Not a single person here has denied that ID is a hypothesis. Here’s another hypothesis: Santa Claus comes down the chimney each Christmas and delivers presents. Another: the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn. Another: Donald Trump is a decent man.
Do you notice what all these have in common?

There is a scientific interest... and there are theories which can overlap into the Intelligent design direction. Intelligent design can consist of a variety of theories, other than the biological (Behe's theory which is often debated ).

There is the curiousity to further expand and inquire concepts like: the Computer Universe Theory, Digital Physics Theory and Information Theory which are all part of the big progress. (Unfortunately your santa analogy is shyly feeling out of place here. You could however use the santa analogy to example the pink-unicorn)

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

Yes, I used the hypothesis term....but Intelligent design is known as a theory anyway?

Intelligent design might be called by some a theory, but it is not a scientific theory, and this was confirmed in court by a Christian judge in Kitzmiller vs Dover.

Even by 'some', that is enough for it to be a theory. Not everyone is going to agree I know. Besides, regarding your mention of scientific theory, All theories including science are under the umbrella of philosopy!


Speaking of philosophy. Peter Kosso a philosopher of science understands well what theories mean, he explains ID better.

ID is a theory of design detection, and it proposes intelligent agency as a mechanism causing biological change. ID allows us to explain how aspects of observed biological complexity, and other natural complexity, arose. And it uses the scientific method to make its claims.
(That is not a religious perpsective)



Kitzmiller vs Dover. of 2005 is a jurisdiction, in a manner of speaking, regarding US public schools from what I gather, it is not in the rest of the world!

I suppose if ID is actually defined as a religion, and those people who are said to be deviously trying to sneak creationism into public schools under the guise of Intelligent Design (perhaps not the ID defined as Peter Kosso) you would ask then. Wouldn't it have been better to just say it is a religion so that it would be taught in religious study/classes anyway?

Science is not a branch of philosophy. I think you are confused because it used to be called natural philosophy.
This Peter Kosso is either wrong or has been misquoted by you. ID is not a scientific theory. The claim you have of what he said disagrees with biological science. It is definitely a religious claim, not a scientific claim.

Notice he said it was a theory, not a scientific theory. ID does not allow an explanation of biological principles, because it is simply a 'God did it' "explanation", therefore not an explanation at all. It does not have a mechanism to explain evolution (which is an array of indisputable facts, which are explained by the theory of evolution). The claim that ID is using the scientific method to make its claims, is what was disproved in the court case. The judge in the court case did say that ID was a religious claim, specifically creationism, and therefore does not belong in science class. It would need less than an hour in religious class to dismiss it as valid religion also.

Certain court cases do have world wide implications, ever heard of the Nuremberg trial?

As regards the Norse and Greek gods, they didn't die; belief in them died, and with the Norse gods it was only about a thousand years ago.
We are seeing in today's world a similar dying of belief in the Biblical god.

 

[Learner]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

I like to learn about you as individuals, the topics of discussions and of course the subject of debates regarding faith, being that is what this Religion section is about.

I am going to be just as arrogantly grandiose as posts that thinks that I "should be learning here" as if this was some sort of leading academic centre.
(I didn't even get a prospectus before joining)

Let's say in a like-wise grandiose manner i.e. the language you speak, so to speak:
I come here sometimes to correct you (plural) when you (plural) purposely distort the bible narratives.

Except instead here you parroting ID nonsense without knowing anything about it,

Intriguing argument. I see, so by the implication of your statement, you're saying: Creationism is not ID after all.

No, that is not the implication of my statement. ID is creationism, and creationism is ID.

Thank you, I was waiting for you to clarify this, 'ID is creationism and creationism is ID'.

Then I would be correct then when I say your statement highlighted in red is a false statement, which should be really most obvious, since I am um... a creationist?

Best define the terms of ID so we can be on the same page. Cheers.

and showing you don’t even know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory.

Can you show me in which post where I have confused the two? Otherwise you're actually the one who's demonstrating what parroting looks like.

You touted ID being a hypothesis as “making progress,” in the context of a discussion of whether or how ID can fit with science, This is mistaken, as I pointed out, because ID is a hypothesis by definition. So is, “Santa brings presents on Christmas eve” and “Down is up” Actual progress would be to present a scientific theory of ID. Otherwise you are simply conflating hypothesis with theory..

'Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too...' is what I said. I meant it in the context as it is... a hypothesis! Progress, to investigate and explore from an inspirational instant idea!

 

[Learner]

e.g. They've found the physical City of David. It existed after all.

And IF that's true, and IF that was the only claim made in the Bible, you would have a point.

A scientific paper doesn't include methodologies for testing some of its claims; It includes methodologies for testing them all (which is why each paper tends to make only very limited claims).

Am I to take it that the ONLY things from the Bible that you believe are those with archaeological evidence that you can go and look at for yourself?

Or are you kidding yourself that a handful of verifiable facts, in a big book, imply that every claim in that book must be the truth?

The physical city of Troy (Ilium) has been discovered; that doesn't mean that the Greek gods exist.

Interestingly by your "analysis of god comparisons" to the Abrahamic God: If they're all the same, who then is arguing the case for the existence of greek gods, or Norse gods, as Christians do for the Abrahamic God? Did they die out in the flood?

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Its called progress. Human curiosity drives us to better our understanding of the world, to both slake our thirst for knowledge and understanding, and to produce technological advances that better the lot of our species.

Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.

Thee is no progress here — not for you, anyway. Not a single person here has denied that ID is a hypothesis. Here’s another hypothesis: Santa Claus comes down the chimney each Christmas and delivers presents. Another: the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn. Another: Donald Trump is a decent man.
Do you notice what all these have in common?

There is a scientific interest... and there are theories which can overlap into the Intelligent design direction. Intelligent design can consist of a variety of theories, other than the biological (Behe's theory which is often debated ).

There is the curiousity to further expand and inquire concepts like: the Computer Universe Theory, Digital Physics Theory and Information Theory which are all part of the big progress. (Unfortunately your santa analogy is shyly feeling out of place here. You could however use the santa analogy to example the pink-unicorn)

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

Yes, I used the hypothesis term....but Intelligent design is known as a theory anyway?

Intelligent design might be called by some a theory, but it is not a scientific theory, and this was confirmed in court by a Christian judge in Kitzmiller vs Dover.

Even by 'some', that is enough for it to be a theory. Not everyone is going to agree I know. Besides, regarding your mention of scientific theory, All theories including science are under the umbrella of philosopy!


Speaking of philosophy. Peter Kosso a philosopher of science understands well what theories mean, he explains ID better.

ID is a theory of design detection, and it proposes intelligent agency as a mechanism causing biological change. ID allows us to explain how aspects of observed biological complexity, and other natural complexity, arose. And it uses the scientific method to make its claims.
(That is not a religious perpsective)



Kitzmiller vs Dover. of 2005 is a jurisdiction, in a manner of speaking, regarding US public schools from what I gather, it is not in the rest of the world!

I suppose if ID is actually defined as a religion, and those people who are said to be deviously trying to sneak creationism into public schools under the guise of Intelligent Design (perhaps not the ID defined as Peter Kosso) you would ask then. Wouldn't it have been better to just say it is a religion so that it would be taught in religious study/classes anyway?

Science is not a branch of philosophy. I think you are confused because it used to be called natural philosophy.

Philosophy is a broader theoretical branch of study oddly enough, and the natural-philosophy is a branch that studies the physical aspects of the world. For the broader view of understanding of the world and our existence, these philosophies are intertwined.

This Peter Kosso is either wrong or has been misquoted by you. ID is not a scientific theory. The claim you have of what he said disagrees with biological science. It is definitely a religious claim, not a scientific claim. Notice he said it was a theory, not a scientific theory.

What about you being wrong? He said: ID is a theory of design detection [...] And it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

ID does not allow an explanation of biological principles, because it is simply a 'God did it' "explanation", therefore not an explanation at all. It does not have a mechanism to explain evolution (which is an array of indisputable facts, which are explained by the theory of evolution).

What on earth are you on about? The biological processes and mechanisms are observed as working like biological clockwork machines, this is acknowledged and viewed as such by the ID camp, -they allow there to be an explanation by these observations. The only difference between the ID proponants and the Atheists who observe the same processes is their perspectives on how these biological mechanisms got there in the first place, as you know the debate.

The claim that ID is using the scientific method to make its claims, is what was disproved in the court case. The judge in the court case did say that ID was a religious claim, specifically creationism, and therefore does not belong in science class. It would need less than an hour in religious class to dismiss it as valid religion also.

The case in 2005 has no effect with people wanting to study today in 2024. I have no problem if its not taught in schools myself because there are and will be access outside school to study them.

Certain court cases do have world wide implications, ever heard of the Nuremberg trial?

A totally different type of case.

As regards the Norse and Greek gods, they didn't die; belief in them died, and with the Norse gods it was only about a thousand years ago.
We are seeing in today's world a similar dying of belief in the Biblical god.

In part I agree. The centres of Christianity though, move from nation to nation doing it's rounds. Like we have seen from Africa to Russia, China etc.. Also I'm told, Christianity is growing in Iran would you believe?

 

[barbos]

Why am I being alerted by some of the posts here?

 

[steve_bank]

Sharia as interpreted by the government considers conversion from Islam apostasy, a crime punishable by death. Under the law, a child born to a Muslim father is Muslim. By law, non-Muslims may not engage in public persuasion or attempt to convert a Muslim to another faith or belief.

I both Iran and Saudi Arabia apostasy can get the death penalty. I doubt there are many converts living in Iran.

From a quick look about 300,000 Christians out of 88 million.

 

[pood]

Is Learner actually here to learn or are they going to keep repeating the same mindless and basic mistakes like "evolution is just a theory!"

I like to learn about you as individuals, the topics of discussions and of course the subject of debates regarding faith, being that is what this Religion section is about.

I am going to be just as arrogantly grandiose as posts that thinks that I "should be learning here" as if this was some sort of leading academic centre.
(I didn't even get a prospectus before joining)

Let's say in a like-wise grandiose manner i.e. the language you speak, so to speak:
I come here sometimes to correct you (plural) when you (plural) purposely distort the bible narratives.

Except instead here you parroting ID nonsense without knowing anything about it,

Intriguing argument. I see, so by the implication of your statement, you're saying: Creationism is not ID after all.

No, that is not the implication of my statement. ID is creationism, and creationism is ID.

Thank you, I was waiting for you to clarify this, 'ID is creationism and creationism is ID'.

Then I would be correct then when I say your statement highlighted in red is a false statement, which should be really most obvious, since I am um... a creationist?

No, you would not be correct. “Creationism” is not the solve province of Christianity. ANY claim that some intelligent entity created the universe and life is creationism. So if someone hypothesizes that intelligent aliens created life on earth, that is still creationism. Of course the current ID hucksters CLAIM they are not talking about the Christian God being the creator, but we know they are lying because of the Wedge Document, and of course from their own personal ties to Christianity (Michael Behe, for example, is Catholic). But even if they were sincere that they thought intelligent aliens, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster CREATED the universe and life, that is still CREATIONISM. The key word is “created.”

Best define the terms of ID so we can be on the same page. Cheers.

and showing you don’t even know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory.

Can you show me in which post where I have confused the two? Otherwise you're actually the one who's demonstrating what parroting looks like.

You touted ID being a hypothesis as “making progress,” in the context of a discussion of whether or how ID can fit with science, This is mistaken, as I pointed out, because ID is a hypothesis by definition. So is, “Santa brings presents on Christmas eve” and “Down is up” Actual progress would be to present a scientific theory of ID. Otherwise you are simply conflating hypothesis with theory..

'Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too...' is what I said. I meant it in the context as it is... a hypothesis! Progress, to investigate and explore from an inspirational instant idea!

And for the umpteeenth time, I am pointing out that your phrase “ID can be a hypothesis too” is devoid of content, because — wait for it, yet again — ID is a hypothesis BY DEFINITION. So, as I have pointed several times, are the claims “Santa brings presents on Christmas Eve” and “Down is up.” It is not that ID “can” be a hypothesis, it MUST be, just by the very definition of the word. So, in the end, as usual, you’ve got nothing.

 

[pood]

e.g. They've found the physical City of David. It existed after all.

And IF that's true, and IF that was the only claim made in the Bible, you would have a point.

A scientific paper doesn't include methodologies for testing some of its claims; It includes methodologies for testing them all (which is why each paper tends to make only very limited claims).

Am I to take it that the ONLY things from the Bible that you believe are those with archaeological evidence that you can go and look at for yourself?

Or are you kidding yourself that a handful of verifiable facts, in a big book, imply that every claim in that book must be the truth?

The physical city of Troy (Ilium) has been discovered; that doesn't mean that the Greek gods exist.

Interestingly by your "analysis of god comparisons" to the Abrahamic God: If they're all the same, who then is arguing the case for the existence of greek gods, or Norse gods, as Christians do for the Abrahamic God? Did they die out in the flood?

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Its called progress. Human curiosity drives us to better our understanding of the world, to both slake our thirst for knowledge and understanding, and to produce technological advances that better the lot of our species.

Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.

Thee is no progress here — not for you, anyway. Not a single person here has denied that ID is a hypothesis. Here’s another hypothesis: Santa Claus comes down the chimney each Christmas and delivers presents. Another: the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn. Another: Donald Trump is a decent man.
Do you notice what all these have in common?

There is a scientific interest... and there are theories which can overlap into the Intelligent design direction. Intelligent design can consist of a variety of theories, other than the biological (Behe's theory which is often debated ).

There is the curiousity to further expand and inquire concepts like: the Computer Universe Theory, Digital Physics Theory and Information Theory which are all part of the big progress. (Unfortunately your santa analogy is shyly feeling out of place here. You could however use the santa analogy to example the pink-unicorn)

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

Yes, I used the hypothesis term....but Intelligent design is known as a theory anyway?

Intelligent design might be called by some a theory, but it is not a scientific theory, and this was confirmed in court by a Christian judge in Kitzmiller vs Dover.

Even by 'some', that is enough for it to be a theory. Not everyone is going to agree I know. Besides, regarding your mention of scientific theory, All theories including science are under the umbrella of philosopy!

Putting aside the fact that “science” is not a “theory” — perhaps you meant to say, “all theories, including scientific ones …” it is a fact that science is shot through with philosophy, and routinely incorporates certain untestable assumptions that are philosophical in nature. A lot of scientists refuse to recognize this, and wrongly disparage philosophy, as did Steven Hawking when he wrote a book that began with the claim that “philosophy is dead,” and then the rest of his book turned out to be philosophy without him even realizing it, apparently.

a
Speaking of philosophy. Peter Kosso a philosopher of science understands well what theories mean, he explains ID better.

ID is a theory of design detection, and it proposes intelligent agency as a mechanism causing biological change. ID allows us to explain how aspects of observed biological complexity, and other natural complexity, arose. And it uses the scientific method to make its claims.
(That is not a religious perpsective)

I’m not familiar with Kosso, and assuming the above quote is not cherry-picked, cherry picking being a favorite tactic of creationists, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt in suspecting that his unorthodox views are closer to those of the atheist philosopher Brad Monton, who, among other things, has argued against the Kitzmiller decision on the basis that the judge was presuming to solve the Demarcation Problem. On the surface, however, Kosso’s claim is false, because ID is not a scientific theory and makes no use of the scientific method; and, furthermore, there is no such thing as “the scientific method” anyway. All of this — the scientific method vs. a plurality of methodologies (Feyerabend) The Demarcation Problem, theory underdetermination and the like would more properly be discussed in one of the philosophy forums.