Today on Blogcritics
Home » Intelligent Design OR Looking for God in all the ‘Right’ Places

Intelligent Design OR Looking for God in all the ‘Right’ Places

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Einstein: God does not play dice with the universeAuthor’s Note: Perhaps all the flak over the president’s comments is due to the words “intelligent design” and “Bush” being used in the same sentence?
“`
Hell, if you can’t see it, and if you can’t measure it then it ain’t there. Everybody knows that.

We teach our kids real scientific theory not faith, so there’s no way that ‘Intelligent Design’ claptrap is gonna be taught in our schools. Hell, no.

We teach our kids about real stuff that has been proven under strict scientific conditions and stood the test of time.

I doesn’t matter to me that most theories are replaced every few years. At least it’s done by real science.

After all, we teach our kids about important things like the big-bang theory and gravity and such.

What’s that you say? Gravity is an unseen force? Ok, I admit we can’t see gravity but we can still feel it’s effects. Right? And just because we can’t see it don’t mean it ain’t there.

Ok wait a sec. I think I see where you’re going with this so stop messin’ with my head. The next thing you’re probably gonna tell me is the big-bang never really happened.

Excuse me? Who lit the fuse? Well, just because we don’t know who started it don’t mean it didn’t happen. It was probably that great cosmic arsonist in the sky or something.

I mean… say again? What is the universe expanding into? Talk about an exercise in semantics. No way I’m going there bud.

Ok, maybe I see your point. Come to think of it, scientific theory is kinda like faith. Both take a little bit of “faith” to believe in.

Then again, I never was a gambler. May the force be with you.

This post also appeared at the daily FISK.

Powered by

About BB

  • ochairball

    Bingo!
    There’s more to the universe than what scientists know now and theories abound. But, dang it, it’s a real turn off when Bush starts talking about Intelligent Design. In fact the universe may be a combination of great science and something we can’t even comprehend with our present minds.

  • gonzo marx

    Science….Metaphysics

    can ya tell the difference between the two?

    can the White House?

    oh…the humanity….

    Excelsior!

  • http://nomilk.blogspot.com No Milk

    the only thing i want to make sure that we do is that we teach ALL versions of ‘intelligent design’. let’s not forget that there are many versions of this; one version has not proven to be better than the other. for example: there is the greek pantheon, the indian version, the islamic version, the native american version and so on and so forth. to focus solely on one version of ‘intelligent design’ would be plain stupidity.

  • Bennett

    HEH!!! good one No Milk!

  • jo

    Brilliant BB!

  • Duane

    Yes, brilliant BB! Your uninformed bias shows through brilliantly!

    So, anyway, it’s clever. Well … wait … your questions show [edited].

    So, yes, a fine job. It’s not totally stupid.

    However, you seem not to know what the word “faith” means. And although you’re fairly adept at linking, it’s clear that you don’t understand how science works.

    So, all in all, it’s a pretty dullwitted post. But brilliantly dullwitted! I wouldn’t try to take that away from you.

    Carry on.

  • Lumpy

    “I doesn’t matter to me that most theories are replaced every few years. At least it’s done by real science.”

    Evolution theory is over one hundred years old. Over that time, the evidence to support it has been piling up.

    A lot of confusion is due to people not understanding the meaning of the term “Theory” in a scientific context. A scientific Theory is not a guess or an estimate or an idea, like the word is commonly used. In order to become a theory, a concept must undergo rigorous testing, and pass.

    Intelligent Design is not considered a scientific theory at this point, far from it. Teaching it in a science class in a public school would be ridiculous. However private schools are free to teach whatever they please.

  • RKC

    The concept of “intelligent design” that makes sense is identifying all the “holes” in what is currently being taught. There are more questions than answers in the current “theory”. To ignore these “holes” is deceptive.

    Accepting the “the theory of evolution” as it is currently expounded takes more faith than to believe in an “intelligent designer” who has a “plan” that has been revealed over time (keeping in mind that “time” is also an intrinsic part of the “plan”.)

    To simply believe that “chance” and “selection” have been sufficient to achieve all that our senses can perceive is too simplistic to believe — even with unbounded “faith”.

  • apeman

    You might have to ask yourself, though,
    which theory has more ‘holes’ in it.
    The theory that accurately maps the close genetic similiarity between all mammals with opposable thumbs and postulates the species that learned to use tools, and copy other members of it’s species that learned to use tools is the same species in which increasing intelligence became a reproductive asset, the end result being math, science, music, and culture
    OR
    the one that says an invisible man created all life at the same time and fossils are the tricks of an equally invisible evil trickster?
    You might ask yourself, but if you believe in the invisible man, no questions are required.

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 9

    Which theory has more ‘holes’ in it?

    The theory that relies on a similiarity between mammals and the ability to use tools without consideration of what it would take to achieve such a result?

    OR

    The one that says there is a lot more to this puzzle?

    You should ask yourself — but if you believe in the “tooth fairy” and that all creation came about by the magic wand of “selection” and “chance”, no questions are required.

  • JR

    RKC: There are more questions than answers in the current “theory”.

    You keep saying that. How many questions are there? How many answers are there? If you know which number is greater, you should be able to tell us what the numbers are.

  • RKC

    How many questions are there?

    I could not begin to list them all here — but if you have not raised your own questions during your own lifetime, you have a problem with perception.

  • JR

    RKC: How many questions are there?

    I could not begin to list them all here

    Then how do you know they are greater in number than answers? Why won’t you just tell us how you know that evolution raises more questions than it answers? You’ve made the claim on more than one occasion; can’t you defend your own statements?

  • apeman

    Selection, chance, and random mutations aren’t ‘magic wands’. Mutations occur due to a variety of factors, here’s just three:
    1) RNA transcriptose is the chemical that allows for DNA replication. The copies are faithful to a staggering degree, but errors do occur.
    2) Viral contamenation.
    3) Environmental radiation and toxins.

    These three factors allow for a great deal of mutation. These mutations are rarely benificial. And even when they are beneficial, there is no gaurantee the genetic sequence that created them will become the most likely to repeat itself at the molecular level (the dominant gene).But occasionally these mutations are beneficial and the recipient becomes likely to sire or birth the most offspring. If the new mutation also turns out to be easier to produce at the molecular level, the dominant gene will slowly(over many generations) push the recessive gene to points on the helix where it no longer functions. (except in rare cases where it causes birth defects)Over time, this creates a new species. That’s why it takes a long time for evolution to work. Chance plays a part at the molecular level, selection interacts with the environment.
    Neither the ‘tooth fairy’, or any fictional character invented for the delight of small children, is required.

  • Shark

    RKC: “…if you believe in the “tooth fairy” and that all creation came about by the magic wand of “selection” and “chance”, no questions are required.”

    So we have a choice — and you pick God [AKA “Mr. Intelligent Designer”] as the one to use the magic wand?

    Making something out of nothing is just as much of a dilemma for “God” as it is for science, although science currently has the best record when it comes to explaining ‘things’.

    One question, RKC: Who made God?

    [Shark grabs his shorts — anticipating an eternally spiraling semantics maze — a never ending ‘open-ended’ heirarchy wherein gods gets created by bigger gods ad infinitum.]

    Meanwhile, I’ll stick with Science.

    PS: Where’s my aspirin?

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Bogdal

    I just had to weigh in on this one, first it is very important to go back to 1845 or so and to grasp that scientist before Darwin already embraced evolution theory, why? because it was a useful tool to justify using people of color for slave work and menial tasks by claiming they wheere less evolved. They where caught red handed putting a gorilla jawbone on a human skull to promote their racist scheme. Contrary to what I read here there is no proof of CROSS evolution, meaning zero proof that one species turned into a new a distinct species. sorry folks but the term THEORY does apply clearly to cross evolution. It was created to promote racism and justify slavery simple as that. Virtually no science from over 100 years ago is worth its weight in modern science, 100 years of science hardly is enough for humans to make such grand statements as fact, especially with all the documented racial parts to this story. For all we know this is one big dream.

  • billy

    Bob
    I guess all different species dont have eyes, ears, noses, mmouths, stomachs, arms, legs, lungs, hearts, brains . . .

    yet there is no evidence for coss evolution?

    are you dimwitted or just willfuly blind?

    who cares if darwin was the second coming of the devil?
    his theory is right. his motivations irrelevant.
    yours are revealing.

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob bogdal

    I would like to add that evolution is a fact that all creatures are evolving, I can accept that without hestitation. The problem with Darwin lies in the illustration and how they present it. I am sure mankind evolved from some type of upright walking creature, however the idea that it was another species ( aka apes or monkeys is ridiculous) and not a unique species of its own is where the problem begins. the dream thoery is just as viable and just as hard to prove, everything around us seems concrete enough even though we know every thing is fluid and in motion. I think all these peole that argue this should keep in mind that some of our greatest scientist are Jewish and like Einstein use Kabbalah and their religious mentality to come up with this stuff in the first place. Lastly it might suprise poeple how many scientist are embracing, a form of intelligent design and evolution. The problem is not that some scientist do not believe in a higher being, it is that in science you can only prove what is known and can be proven with very limited scientific instruments. There is so much we do not understand and cannot, do to the limitations of the very science everyone embraces as truth.

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Bogdal

    All earth creatures have unique attributes to earth, in our case it is two eyes one mouth etc as you suggest, however you still have to explain say a platypus or any myriad of creatures. You are confusing earths dynamics with Darwins cross evolution theory. and again the racism behind Darwin is well documented.

  • billy

    “however the idea that it was another species ( aka apes or monkeys is ridiculous)”

    evolution doesnt claim this. it claims we share a common ancestor, and all life does, it doesn claim we were monkeys. that is a typical id response.

    true einstein believed in god, and evolution, and he believed in the static universe, which he was wrong about, it just goes to show there is no conflict at all between evolution and religion, except the one made up by id proponents.

  • billy

    “and again the racism behind Darwin is well documented”

    so what, people were racists back then. thats not relevant. hitler could have said the earth is round, does that mean the earth is really flat?

    platypus is no big deal, it lives in two environments and has retained features for both. that is the best proof of evolution.

    A theory cant be based on finding “holes” in another theory. the hole has to be explained by a new theory. SO ID is just evolution bashing with no substance. there is no chance to teach it in school outside of comparative religion.

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Bogdal

    And yes you are correct there is NO proof of cross evolution…period. If there where it would be a fact not theory. My point in all this is that for people of say philosophical or science minded should be able to freely explore every and all theory without religion or the president or anyone else saying what is true or not true because we simply do not know. Just because simple minds have an easy time wrapping around an idea does not make it more viable. I want my children to be taught all theories and all possibilities, it was God , it was the devil, its all a dream. we live in a belief system, and time after time it is proven that what the majority believes becomes the truth. It was true with the speed of sound, electricity etc etc. the speed of light …no problem once people believe it can become true and happens, this is the nature of our being. we are not as encumbered by physics as it seems. Thatis a fact.

  • billy

    “what the majority believes becomes the truth.”

    sometimes, except for religion. the majority are muslims, not christians, but even christians must admit, everything they believed in the bible has been proven false. thats a fact.

    the earth wasnt created in 6 days.
    its not the center of the universe.
    etc.

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Bogdal

    I love this place for this interaction , glad I found it. You do not offend me in anyway for your beliefs one way or another, I believe the only way to break through what is true or untrue is with exchange of thoughts and freedom to think any possibility that the mind can create. That is the the point here anything the mind can concieve can become reality, once the masses accept it.

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Bogdal

    I agree with you about Christian thought it is one version, however, I think Joseph Campbell explained it the best, all the major religions of the world have the same basic storyline colored by their particular culture. Christ is Krishna, Christ is Mohamed, God is YHVH, God is Allah, story is the same the coloring of it different. And you are correct to point out that there are inconsistancies in the religions of the world, the question is did man change the doctrine as the Catholics have with Christianity to control the masses, I say yes. But underlying the story is a universal truth that all races seem to embrace, the flood stories, the devil, heaven and hell etc. look I do not claim that religion has scientific answers, I am only cliaming that Darwin and his cronies and the Freemasons of the day had an agenda, and it is clearly documented.

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Bogdal

    Lastly because I have to go, I am pretty sure in the bible it states that there are other worlds and other beings, just like it says that Cain went to live with a nearby tribe and created a family there when he was kicked out of camp. I do not know where people come up with the idea that Adam and Eve where the only people and started everything because it does not say that in the bible, what it does claim is that they where the socalled first enlightened people, and by that I mean to say they got the feeling that there was something more to it all and started philosophical thinking. In my mind it is just as easy to accept that aliens from another planet guide our reasoning with visits in early days and that ancient people had no other way to explain space travel so they explained it in the only way they knew. who knows. Many of the misconceptions about the bible are born out of the false religion of Catholicism, that includes mixing the Isis religion( in the guise of the Madonna) and other pagan beliefs such as chickies and eggs during spring which is pagan fertility rites, and the incredible X-mass tree, which by the way is looked down upon in the bible, and has direct influence of Isis worship. The problem with religious thought is that peoples ideologies much like Bush and his cronies, blur and divide people. I do not look to religion to explain science, and I do not look for science to explain religion, that is best left to each individual to express and believe as they may. I do not disagree with Darwin based on religion I base it on well documented Masonic history.

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Bogdal

    Ok last one Billy and thanks for the interaction, but you mentioned the Nazis and I think it is relevant because they also embraced and believed in the cross evolution theory and used it to support their crazy belief system. Understand that my premis is that simply all theories should be taught and explored and I understand your feelings about this ID thing it is politically motivated for the most part for sure. But lets not close the door on any theory as long as they are just theories. Best to you. and thanks again. When I studied philosophy in college we where never encumbered by ideology it is a disservice to real thought and growth, I do not care what crazy ideas people have I want to here them all, and for sure they will make us laugh sometimes. But I got to tell ya’ I have been watching x-games and if that can not convince you of mans ability to do just about any damn thing we put our minds to I do not know what will, you can’t throw a double flair inverted on a bike unless some fool believed it could be done and unhindered by the negative forces of his peers, he throws it down.

  • PseudoErsatz

    “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian Theory should be encouraged.” This is the statement that 400 credentialed scientists agree to regarding The Theory of Evolution. (Sorry to break the sad news to Blogcritic christophobics, but most of you would not be qualified to even tie these credentialed individual’s mental shoestrings.)

    For those of you who may be confused or have been brain damaged by frequent exposure to daytime television, this link to discovery.org will assist you with gathering information regarding the Intelligent Design argument, which uses science to ask tough questions about the Theory of Evolution. While this materialistic approach to cosmology is persuasive, The Theory of Evolution is not beyond criticism. The website also explains what ID is–and indicates clearly that it is not unscientific creationism “repackaged”.

  • billy

    discovery.org is a known quack house. dont insult our intelligence here. we are not dumb enough to bother with your 400 quacks who arent scientists.

    “ID uses science to ask tough questions about the Theory of Evolution.”

    a theory can not and can never be based on evolution bashing. that is proof enough id is not a theory. evolution is a theory, that is why it is taught in school.

    no theory is without criticism, but yours is a joke.

    this fact/theory misunderstanding, purposeful or because you dont know any better, only shows that id proponents know nothing of science, so should stay out of the debate.

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Bogdal

    Thanks for stepping in Pseudo, but about the shoestrings part, I don’t know, I have met alot of people with degrees in this and that and are really and practically dumb as dirt, I am not claiming this is the case here , but textbook knowledge can be a dangerous thing. We have scientist in America today working on 3rd , 4th and 5th dimesion beings since WW2 this is not fantasy and is researchable, I would just like to know how that idea would be explained by Darwins followers. I say if we have dimesional beings that are being studied that really anything is possible. Honestly I believe myself it is a mixture of both ID and evolution. And just to push this over the edge, I suggest to everyone to read transcripts from the early moon landings to learn the real reason we do not go back to the moon it is startling, sort of. There is so much we do not know, and more we do, that we are not allowed to know. So thanks, but I have a show in Memphis this week and I need to hit the road, I can’t sit around playing philosopher all day. BB out

  • JR

    “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian Theory should be encouraged.”

    Absolutely, I agree. And that’s a lot of ground to cover. That’s why I don’t think science students should have their precious time wasted on a political argument over an idea for which there is as yet no evidence to examine.

  • billy

    good one. why do id people keep citing this when it goes without saying and everyone understands it. is it a misunderstanding of science? noone believes any theory, evolution or any else, is finished, nor will it ever be. that is the beauty of a scientific theory, it grows and changes as people get smarter. ID on the other hand is fixed, not testable, unchanging, dead, and not science or a theory.

  • RKC

    billy still hasn’t explained what he said he learned in the fifth grade about how the eye evolved.

  • billy

    are you serious? do you contend that how the eye evolved is a significant “problem” in evolution? it is not, so why should i explain something that can be easily looked up in a dictionary. you should have learned it in 5th grade. you must have been home schooled.

    stick to things that are real “problems” with evolution and dont get hung up on easily answered diversions.

  • RKC

    Yes, I am serious.

    You don’t understand the complexity of “eye evolution” and the problem it presents to Darwin’s theory.

    I referenced the eye because it is too complex to have evolved.

    But billy won’t admit he can’r explain what he said he learned in fifth grade.

  • Duane

    Post #28 by PseudoErsatz provides the best ammunition for ID proponents that I’ve seen here at BC. I’m surprised that this hasn’t been specifically addressed on other threads. True, arguing from this position is an appeal to authority, but in this case I think it’s a formidable approach.

    One thing I’d like to point out is that this list of 400 scientists provides explicit proof that the scientific community is not dogmatic. Look at all the dissent from the mainstream view. I have argued over and over again that the scientific community is perfectly willing to entertain alternative hypotheses. Progress is stifled by dogmatism. Now, if the Discovery Institute could come up with some real science, great!

    Billy and Bob, I’m not so sure that you want to dismiss these people by referring to them as quacks and claiming that they are dumb as dirt. It might be better to see what their arguments are first, and deal with the issue from that level. In fact, this is what is so annoying about believers, that they simply dismiss professional evolutionists without having a real understanding of their research. Let’s not do the same thing by dismissing the arguments of the ID camp a priori.

    Pseudo says the Intelligent Design argument, which uses science to ask tough questions about the Theory of Evolution.

    The ID advocates use the research of scientists, identify problems, then pronounce those problems as being signs of a deeply flawed theory. So, in fact, it is the evolutionists themselves that are asking the tough questions. Traditionally, a scientist doesn’t take potshots at a theory unless he has a better one to replace it. RKC’s persistent question about evolution of the human eye is a typical example.

    Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian Theory should be encouraged.

    They say this as if evolutionary biologists were not aware of the fact that they should examine the evidence. It’s like telling Robert DeNiro that he should know his lines before the cameras start rolling. This kind of statement is effective with the uninitiated masses, however, because it implies that scientists are thoughtlessly jumping on the Evolution bandwagon. It’s insulting to the scientists carrying out this research. Very effective. Worthy of politicians, but not worthy of scientists.

  • PseudoErsatz

    Billy,
    “noone believes any theory, evolution or any else, is finished, nor will it ever be”

    Where I come from, a belief in something that is not corporeal or which has an ever-changing reference point is called faith. Why is your faith allowed free access in classrooms, whereas my faith stopped at the border?

    400 quacks. Funny. It is obvious you never even looked at the referenced site. Your loss. Your choice to remain not fully informed.

  • billy

    DEAD WRONG!!!

    “Where I come from, a belief in something that is not corporeal or which has an ever-changing reference point is called faith.”

    WRONG
    Faith is belief in something that CANNOT BE PROVEN and NEVER CHANGES, like a belief in god that can never be proven.

    Science- always changes as we learn more things. It is based on theories and supported by evidence and CAN be proven.

    Your definition of faith defies logic. I have no faith in evolution. I only know the facts this theory has proven and they are overwhelming.

    ID is not a theory. If there are “holes” in evolution, they are not filled by ID so it is a waste of time.

    Just pointing out “problems with evolution” which is possible, though noone here has done it, does not resurrect the faith of ID to the level of science.

    that is why it isnt in school. it has nothing to do with faith, although that is another reason it cant be in school.

  • billy

    “I referenced the eye because it is too complex to have evolved.”

    I dont want to call names, but that is just plain stupid.

    Who puts an upper limit on the complexity something can evolve to?

    God?

    give me a break. something can be infinitely complex, there is no “speed limit” to complexity. that makes NO SENSE AT ALL. no wonder it isnt taught in school.

  • apeman

    ‘So, in fact, it is the evolutionists themselves that are asking the tough questions. Traditionally, a scientist doesn’t take potshots at a theory unless he has a better one to replace it. RKC’s persistent question about evolution of the human eye is a typical example.’

    Duanne makes a good point RK and psuedo.
    Exactly how do you think the human eye came into existance?

    P.S.
    A refusal to answer will be taken as deliberate obfuscation.

  • billy

    Ill answer that one:

    The eye is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO complex, it must have been designed, by who, who knows? how? who cares? proof that evolution cant create complexity? James Dobson told me.

    Oh yeah and I just spit on the sidewalk. I put a microscope up to it and the spit is just as complex as the eye if looked at close enough. God must have made me spit.

    class dismissed everyone go to bible study now and forget about science.

  • ClubhouseCancer

    I think Jesus realized that we’d never be able to watch Touched by an Angel reruns unless we had eyes, so he gave everybody two, except David Bowie, who only has one. Oh, and Stevie Wonder’s don’t work, because they’re not irreducibly complex.

  • Kurt

    People…people! We over-dignify the original post! This Neanderthal revealed his ignorance of the scientific method by talking about proving theories. You can’t prove a theory correct; you can simply prove it wrong via experimental evidence. That, my friends, is Science 101. Anyone is welcome to poke holes in any theory – they had just better do it well, or some other doctoral student will eat them for lunch. The ID crowd has yet to disprove the theory of evolution. Their pet ID theory is immune to the scientific method, so I bet they will be with us for a looong time. BTW, the Flying Spaghetti Monster really created everything!

  • KYS

    Bob said, “Virtually no science from over 100 years ago is worth its weight in modern science.”

    Well, Franklin, Newton, Pasteur and Halley just called. They’re crushed.

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Bogdal

    Wow! I get in my hotel plug in my laptop and you people are still at it. Touche! KYS add Michaelangelo but I did not say all science, just most remember alchemy came first. Secondly I never dismissed the 400 scientist I agree with some of their perspectives, what I meant to convey is that textbook knowledge in philosophical thinking can be well, textbooky. Not to say they in particular where quacks, not my quote. So lets say science figures out that you can travel in time( this is a viable theory) and all time is in fact simutaneous, how does that effect evolution. Or for that matter all that science knows may change. It is fluid my friends, the universe the whole show. I have been driving since this afternoon I am crashing. Ya’ll are killin’ me in a good way.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Just a random thought. If life could come from nonlife once, why not many times. And if it did come many times, wouldn’t it have created various different evolutionary trees? The assumption that all life comes down to one event is pretty far fetched, unless it was done by a designer.

    If life did begin at various places and times, wouldn’t that throw a big monkey wrench into a lot of what we now know or think we know about the fossil record?

    Also, are we quite certain that a very intelligent species like man never existed in the 7,000,000,000 years this planet has been here? Maybe there is no fossil record, because it is too deep, or some catastrophe destroyed any trace. Maybe that species created some of the things that we now think were created more recently. Just throwing out ideas. These would be testable, too, somehow, someday, as we progress in our knowledge.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    To call this entire process “Intelligent Design” is an insult to the Creator. Poor God — can’t win regardless.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Yeah. Good point. Another one of my theories is that we are all actually devolving. One would expect things to start out as complex and become less so. Cockroaches and ants have done pretty well. Not to mention amoeba.

    I would propose that the only reason humans as a society are doing better (I think we are…nah… leave that for another discussion) is that there are so many of us and because we are great engineers. No real evidence that really new thinking is taking place at anything like the per capita rate of say the late 18th century.

  • billy

    “If life could come from nonlife once”

    now that is the REAL problem with evolution. it cant explain GENESIS. how did amino acids sitting in an ancient pool combine to replicate themselves. it took billions of years just to form a cell wall.

    that is still not fully understood, and really predates or is at the very beginning of what evolution can do.

    GENESIS is probably VERY rare, i.e., it happened ONLY once here and we are lucky, it did.

    it may happen on other planets too since there are trillions of them out there.

  • snakeye

    Comment #6: Tsk, tsk Duane. So much anger.

    Actually it was a cleverly written post. Obviously something that you are not capable of. Must have hit a sore spot.

    Your hateful comments only belies your own bias and you make no intelligent reasons to back up your diatribe. The fact is there are scientists much smarter than you or I that are on either side of the debate.

    So take a deep breath and say two hail marys and apologize like a good boy. And next time that you decide comment [edited].

  • Duane

    I was trying to be nice, but then I read the original post again. That was all the “nice” I could come up with. Sorry to have made you so angry. A little sensitive?

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Editors note:

    “One question, RKC: Who made God?”

    My good friend Shark. That is the 60 million dollar question. For to attempt to answer that would also have to accept the notion of the possibility of the miraculous would it not? But we don’t want to show our bias here now do we?

    Comment #43: Uhumm, I never said anything about “proving theories”. Read what you want into it, but I can tell you that it was written as satire with a strong element of irony. So, for the benefit of certain angry “neanderthals” out there carry on by all means, but kindly cease the hostile comments. Relax. Thank you so much.

    Comment #6. Same as above.

    The point of the post is in the end we will all believe what we want to believe, no matter what the so-called evidence states. Which is exactly what all of these comments have demonstrated.

    Streuth!

  • Duane

    Comment #52. See Comment #51.

  • Shark

    Shark: “One question, RKC: Who made God?”

    BlogBloke: “My good friend Shark. That is the 60 million dollar question.”

    Yes it is. And one that ID doesn’t and CAN’T answer.

    But more important, it also shows that their own cute little scenario — the “magic pocketwatch” tale — ie that a complex system that exhibits some form of “design” MUST HAVE A DESIGNER — is the horn of a dilemma that their theory dies ON before it’s even out of the figurative womb of whackyness.

    The “magic wand” of evolution is mocked and answered with a NEW MAGIC WAND OF GOD — which still does NOTHING to explain where He/She/It came from — and which puts us right back in the same starting back-alley of the circular streets of the an open-ended heirarchial hell.

    =====

    PS: THERE IS NO ARGUMENT WITH THE ABOVE, so all of you faith-based “scientists” SHUT THE FUCK UP.

    Thanks in advance,
    The Management

  • Shark

    Gawd, I hate this thread and others like it; it treats ID as if it has some smidgen of scientific validity that requires refutation and/or debate.

    ID needs the ‘look of legitimacy’ — which is something it doesn’t deserve.

    Would you argue with a flat-earther?

    A “we didn’t land on the moon” conspiracy nut?

    ID is a medieval, Christoid wet dream fantasy plague that needs to ignored [Shark reaches for a condom and a bottle of bleach to apply to his computer monitor]

  • G. Oren

    To note that the existence of the universe is itself an argument for intelligent design is not simply a tautology. The scientific method does not require that we make ourselves incapable of apriori thought in order to practice aposteori observations. Must an assertion of random chance from chaos be the foundation stone for logical inquiry? How is that logical? Where does the foundation lie for thinking that we can reason and observe anything true at all if life is simply the result of a millionth-millionth chance? How is the chain of causality we call natural law valid? Which is more incredulous chance or intelligent design?

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    “Would you argue with a flat-earther?” Heh, how about a flat head?

    How many new organisms, phenomena, or theories have we yet to discover? We are not the first and the last to struggle with the question who is God. Or, for that matter who created God.

    To be truly God He would have to exist beyond time and space as we know it, and because we cannot see him in our telescopes, or put Him in a petry dish does not preclude his existence.

    God is the great “I am” of the Bible. He is described as spirit, the alpha and the omega. The name God revealed to Moses clearly implies that God exists only in the present, so that what we perceive as past, present and future is all present to God.

    God’s name “I am” also asserts that He exists in Himself and that He was not created. In turn, God’s self-existence implies that He is eternal, existing both before and after His creation.

    God’s self-existence also implies his omnipresence in space. He exists both outside His creation and at every point within it. And because God is present at every point of time and space, and exists only in the present tense, He is now present at every place and at every time simultaneously. Thus, God, being self-existent, is found simultaneously in the past, present and the future. He is not limited by the flow of time as we are.

    Such a concept is beyond our simple minds or understanding. It therefore becomes a debate of futility and semantics of sorts, and comes down to a matter of choice and what you want to “believe”.

  • gonzo marx

    back to the same olde…

    some folks seem to have a problem with categorization…

    science and metaphysics

    there IS a difference, can we agree on that?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Blogdal

    Man why all the name calling etc. ? Look everyone like it or not Darwin, ID all of it is just theory, not even the scientist themselves find they need harsh words to discuss this in an open and free manner. My original statement holds true and is researchable, cross evolution was created to promote racism and it did it well for about 100 years, the premise started in 1845 or so. That said I am not trying to prove or disprove any theory, only to point out that there are more than two. For instance there is a mathmeticiam at Harvard who will tell you all of this world is math, every aspect of the world can be broken down to math, it is one big formula. Now if you accept that then as some occultist know you can inject a formula into the base formula and change apparent reality. Another words as Kabbalist and others who study this know, you can make an object move from A to B by changing the formula. This is way to intricate for details, and I will leave it to you folks out there to research this. Einstein knew this stuff and based most of what he came up with on Kabbalah theory, as many of our great Jewish scientist do. God in this context is THE formula, the binding formula for what we view as reality. What is really getting me here is that the proponents of the Darwin theory seem awful antagonistic towards any other thinking and that my friends will come back and bite you some day. Mankind is but a baby speck in the whole of the Universe, and we are children at science at best. There is no way you will ever convince me that we have this all figured out here by a long shot. If we do I guess all those scientist can go home because it is a clear cut case. Perception is the key here, you only suppose you see reality because the mind tells you it is so. Yet anyone who has had a super realistic dream can tell you that reality is illusive and can fool even the greatest mind. I propose a law to promote seperation between religion and science, of course that would not really work because as I have said some of our greatest scientist are religious, they however have no problem discussung all this out of the context of religion. This has been a great post except for the name calling, totally, uneccesary. I will give you evolution but you have to give me the fact that the Formula was put in motion by something to propogate it. Have to get on the road again today and when I get back everyone should be nice to each other. Welcome to Maya, land of illusion.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Some folks seem to have a problem with accepting that faith is faith and belief is belief.

    Believe what you want, accept what you will, but it all comes down to a matter of the will.

    (pun intended)

    Cheers!

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Blogdal

    BB understands the Point within the Circle. Because of that BB can comprehend the formula. If you had a telescope and could see earth from 61 light years away, and looked in on us you would see what happened 61 years ago like it was an actual event taking place live. You could witness the end of WW2. Time is simutaeneous from out there, and our perception of time locks our thinking into a dead end because it is hard to comprehend that all is happening at once, past , present and future. This will be found out some day and will allow us to go back and forth in time. This is just as viable a theory as anything in here according to Einsteins alternate theory. I will see you in the future if I don’t see you in the pasture my friend.

  • gonzo marx

    ID is NOT scientific Theory, by definition..but it IS a wonderful excercise in metaphysics

    on many of the other points, there can be agreement, or reasonable discussion…

    but one must define one’s terms, and with many ID proponents, it is their position that ID is a scientific Theory, without having passed the hurdles of such a definition, that i object to

    evolutionary theory = science

    ID = metaphysics at this point in time

    hope that helps

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Blogdal

    You should not dis metaphysics, virtually all science we have came from alchemy and metaphysics first. Secondly you should not treat metaphysics as a non- science it is studied at Universities around the world and has many viable attributes. what about Chaos, and astral physics. Our government along with Russia has intensive research in meta-physics. In fact the girl who was taken hostage early in this war was found by a remote viewer for the military , that is a documented fact. There is much we do not know. I am out the door, will check back when I het to Memphis. Through my telescope of course.

  • kid nada

    humanity’s need for fiction triumphs over evidence and absurdity alike.

    Is there a god who cares about you?
    ID says predatorial relationships rule nature. That survival of the fittest shapes development.

    Congratz proponents of ID!
    You have created a haven in which your god can hide from heartless reason.
    And reduced your god to an uncaring, impotent wretch in so doing.

  • Shark

    Blogbloke, re. comment #57 — glad I could be yer straight man — but I feel like Bud Abbot throwing a line to Thomas Aquinas on a crack binge.

    Next schtick:

    SHARK: “Knock knock!”
    Blogbloke: “I know who’s there: GOD!”

    =====

    BTW: Your “explanation”

    “…He [God] would have to exist beyond time and space as we know it…” sorta slams the door on any further discussion.

    …to which I say…

    ~GOOD!

    =====

    PS: Gonzo, re. defining our terms.

    Nice try.

    And call us again when you wanna aim yer squishy intellectually advanced fontanelle at another BRICK WALL.

    xxoo
    S

  • Shark

    Bob Blogdal: “…I will give you evolution but you have to give me the fact that the Formula was put in motion by something to propogate it.”

    Tell ya what:

    you give me Evolution — and I’ll give you a handful of line breaks, a beaker of commas, a year’s supply of downers, and a rusty razor to cut up those convoluted sentences.

    Thanks in advance,
    The Management (aka The Blogcritics “Formula”)

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    #65: Shark, I will always be available as your straight man, for who am I but a simple man who would dare to compete with the great omnipotent One.

    “sorta slams the door on any further discussion”

    Like I said it all comes down to choice and what we want to believe. There are no absolutes for proof one way or t’other. Unfortunately the only way we will really know for certain is after we’re dead and gone. Kinda takes the fun out of the discussion don’t it.

    Blogdal, thanks for joining the conversation and you make some interesting points.

  • RKC

    Is this what billy learned in the fifth grade about evolution of the eye?

    IF a simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some blind ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage,

    AND IF that allowed evading all predators,

    AND IF random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch,

    AND IF that deepening pit made “vision” a little sharper,

    AND IF at the same time, the pit’s opening gradually narrowed,

    AND IF light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera,

    AND IF every change resulted in a survival advantage,

    AND IF eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina,

    AND IF the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the eye over time formed a lens at the front of the eye

    AND IF a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid gave it the convex curvature of the eye,

    AND IF about 350,000 years were available for this evolution, a camera-like eye might evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

    AND IF I had faith that such a process could succeed (without any “intelligence” behind it) — I would believe I could win the Lottery every week of the year — although the odds are about one in 80 million at each drawing.

  • billy

    congrats! you won the lottery. how do i know? we have eyes.

    the odds are steep, for this result, but easily could have went another way. our eyes would be infrared sensors if that gave an advatage, equally unlikely.

    but there are billions of possibilites, one of them occurred, no need to resort to some unseen and undetectable “intelligence” behind it all. that is without basis, unless you are literally interpreting the bible.

    if a monkey sits at a typrewriter long enough he will type out the whole bible in latin. thats just playing the odds, nothing mystical needed.

  • billy

    moreover, if a ball rolls down a hill , are you going to claim some intelligence must have guided it? it is simply acting in the easiest way given the forces on it.

    the same is true of evolution. put two animals near a predator, one with eyes, one without. the blind animal will be gone, the one with eyes will pass on his genes and his eyes. survuval of the fittest is the “intelligence” that guides the process you seek.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    “if a monkey sits at a typrewriter long enough he will type out the whole bible in latin. thats just playing the odds, nothing mystical needed.”

    Um, Billy? What would happen if the above statement were true? One thing I often wonder is how will religion survive when mankind finally has tangible proof that there is intelligent life outside our galaxy? Will the walls of religion crumble? Or will those who have the faith be strengthened?

  • simeon

    Umm… dear Silas. If God is the creator of the universe then He is also the Creator of every living thing within.

    There’s a problem here?

    And billy boy… “moreover, if a ball rolls down a hill , are you going to claim some intelligence must have guided it? it is simply acting in the easiest way given the forces on it.”

    If God created the universe and all of its “scientific” forces within – that is a problem?

    So let me see… monkey see, monkey do. Right?

    Bingo you’ve solved it!

  • billy

    “If God is the creator of the universe then He is also the Creator of every living thing within.”

    bingo, we agree.

    a big IF though.

    but IF god created the universe, then yes if we find life elsewhere too he could have created that too, as well as the whole universe itself (big bang.

    It will take a re-thinking of modern religion, but creation is on real solid ground as a philosophy, until . . .

    we find another universe!

  • Paul

    Billy, your post #69 uses circular reasoning. “Evolution created the eye, not God. How do we know that evolution can create an eye? Because we have eyes.” Do you see the problem?

  • simeon

    Semantics dear brothers.

  • billy

    sure, and i wont claim to be the socrates of logic in defining how the evolution debate proceeds, but it isnt just “we have eyes” as evidence evolution is real.

    the things cited in post 68, If those things were shown to actually have existed, through fossils, dating and whatever evidence they could use, then you could say based on artifacts, we see the eye developed that way (evolved).

    It may be semantics. But why fight against a historical scenario that we can see actually happened on earth.

    To a scientist, “evolve” doesnt encroach on god, but it shows, for instance how he actually did create the universe.

    If you are religious then why would you not accept that god created life using evolution as a tool to make us, just as a ditch digger uses a shovel to move dirt? Clearly if god exists he is powerful enough to set in motion the laws of the universe to create us.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    The problem is that the human mind is uncapable of grasping the reality that is God. We are all from the same substance and to that substance we shall return. It’s the circle of life. While everything is a creation of God, everything within creation is God. Rather than trying to figure all of that out we should be concentrating on those things which are necessary to sustain humanity. That’s not contrary to God, in fact, it’s most God-like.

  • gonzo marx

    Bob B…

    you mistake me, i am not “dissing” metaphysics..it just isn’t science

    a large part of this never ending argument revolves aroudn defining the terms

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    billy:

    “If you are religious then why would you not accept that god created life using evolution as a tool to make us, just as a ditch digger uses a shovel to move dirt? Clearly if god exists he is powerful enough to set in motion the laws of the universe to create us.”

    You make a good point and I cannot disagree. However…

    I would qualify that by saying “to a scientist, “evolve” doesn’t NECESSARILY have to encroach on god, but it shows, for instance how he actually did create the universe.

    That is one of the points I was making with the post. Science and faith don’t necessarily have to be enemies. In fact I “believe” down the road you are going to see a merging of the two.

  • gonzo marx

    so i will ask what Carlin did..

    “if God is omnipotent, can he make a rock so big even He can’t lift it?”

    a small Jest…

    Excelsior!

  • RKC

    Now billy has a monkey to help him out.

    No, billy — the lottery is not won that easily. You are grasping to draw that conclusion.

    We have eyes — but not based solely on random events — unless you believe that randomness produces rational results.

    Actually — anything can happen if randmness is allowed to proceed unfettered, but no one with a modicum of sense believes that the ordered universe is the result of purely random processes.

    There has to be some form of “intelligence” for each rational result that emanates from randomness.

    The eye is only one of millions of rational results that exist — or do you want us to believe “Mother Nature” is behind it all?

    And if you believe that if the eye went another way, our eyes would be infrared sensors — assumes that the infrared portion of the EM spectrum presents a lesser issue.

    If that is what you believe — it leads me to believe that you read too much science fiction.

    The simple fact that we have the EM spectrum provides another set of probabilities that are as unlikely and as remote as evolution of the eye.

    You are hung up on “literally interpreting the bible”. That is not the issue — the issue is the validity of the theory of evolution to explain away issues that are unanswered.

    And your theory that if a monkey sits at a typrewriter long enough he will type out the whole bible in latin. thats (sic) just playing the odds, nothing mystical needed.

    No, billy. The monkey would first produce enough garbage to fill most of the universe — and that is not what we have. If and when the monkey succeeded, no one would know it because it would be hidden in the garbage.

  • gonzo marx

    allow me to refute you, RKC, using the same level of Logic that you are demonstrating…

    ie: your wrong

    thanx for playing, please try again

    Excelsior!

  • faith

    “Come to think of it, scientific theory is kinda like faith. Both take a little bit of “faith” to believe in.”

    Only to those who don’t take the time to learn.

    Scientific conclusions are not based on faith – only to the ignorant.

    All religion is based on man-made devices to control people. “God” has nothing to do with these man-made religiond at all.

    In fact “She” can clearly see that the biggest cause of all the problems in the history of Man are related to false beliefs in “Her”.

    Mankind has no idea [or very little] of the nature of the Creator. The only way to find the true meaning of the Creator is through science.

  • RKC

    Not so fast, gonzo.

    If you were the monkey on a typewriter, how much time would it take you, and how much garbage would you produce before producing the intended result that billy proposed?

  • gonzo marx

    not playing your little bit of semantical silliness…

    i’m not a monkey

    ID = metaphysics

    and theory of Evolution = science

    there, defined it, just that easy…not denigrating either one, both are processes

    one just involves testable axioms and mathematics, the other does not

    i will leave it as an excercise to determine which uses which

    objects in mirror are closer than they appear

    Excelsior!

  • RKC

    To all who are satisfied with the current theory of evolution…

    What is the mathematical probability that our total environment — could be reproduced, based purely on random events?

  • gonzo marx

    another straw man…

    science is NEVER “satisfied” with a theory…always being tested, refined, stretched, proven and tossed aside when required…

    it’s only in philosophy or metaphysics when you get to the “i believe” button parts that one can be “satisfied”

    try harder

    Excelsior!

  • RKC

    gonzo doesn’t like probability.

    He doesn’t know it’s part of science.

  • Paul

    Billy, you have responded with some arguments before. But you’ve got to admit, “we have eyes” was cheap. The fact is, there’s nothing in the fossil history to show the gradual development of the structures within the eye, because we haven’t been able to crack the code of DNA showing a progressive development of the eye. Will we? Maybe. But as Gonzo reminds us, we’re supposed to be adhering to scientific standards. We may suppose that the eye developed, but there’s nothing in the fossil evidence or in the structure of the eye in currently living creatures which reveals a path of development.

    Evolution = science based on evidence

    ID = evidence to the contrary

  • Duane

    What is the mathematical probability that our total environment — could be reproduced, based purely on random events?

    Sounds like a pretty tough homework problem.

    Here’s an easier problem. You set for for a tee shot at the first hole. Your drive goes 190 yards. You walk to your ball and notice that it has folded over a blade of grass. What is the probability that the ball should have landed on that particular blade?

  • gonzo marx

    RKC probability is part of statistical mathematics…try again

    Paul…eyes don’t fossilize…soft tissue is notoriously difficult to preserve under natural circumstances…

    take the “iceman” that was found in the alps a few years ago…mummified as best as possible…even soem of the stomache contents were preserved…date of death, a bit over a mere 7000 years ago…even the wood arrow shafts were preserved as well as the tattooing of his skin…

    guess what?…no eyes

    Paul sez…
    *ID = evidence to the contrary*

    please share your empirical evidence?..i would truly enjoy looking at it

    can you give us any experimentation that could prove or disprove any postulates of ID?

    and testable prediction the ID hypothesis makes?

    just a few of the differences between the scientific method and metaphysical or philosophical discussion

    hope that helps

    Excelsior!

  • http://hungrytroll.com troll

    probability = 1

    now take your lameass meaningless questions on down the pier – you can leave the monkey

    troll

  • Paul

    Gonzo – My point exactly (about eyes). There’s no fossil record, so any assumptions about its development aren’t based on evidence. There are plenty of creatures alive today, and we don’t see progression in the structure of their eyes. So there’s just no evidence that the eye developed gradually.

    I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of always using the eye as an example. Bad habit.

    Anyway, you’re right that I blurred “ID” and “IC” in my earlier post. As we’ve discussed before, irreducible complexity poses a challenge for gradual evolution. Structures that could be produced by progressive development are evidence in support of evolution; structures that couldn’t are evidence against evolution. Not conclusive evidence, but it shouldn’t be disregarded either.

  • Shark

    Each time I see “RKC” at the beginning of a ‘comment’ — I FUCKING WISH I HAD NO EYES.

    STOP! PLEASE! STOP!

    [Picture Shark screaming while gouging out his own eyes with a bloody crucifix]

  • Shark

    Gonzo: “…a large part of this never ending argument revolves around defining the terms…”

    [SFX: Gonzo’s frustrated, squishy fontanelle crashes into a Christoid brick wall covered with thin, semi-transparent ‘scientific’ equations, doodles, and silly assertions]

  • Shark

    PAUL: “…structures that couldn’t are evidence against evolution.”

    uh, Paul, you’re not on the road to Damascus, by any chance — are ya…?

    ============

    I suggest we change the name of this new “scientific” movment to:

    “Intelligent Design Implies Omnipotent Tutelary”

    to be known in the future… as:

    I.D.I.O.T.

    Thanks in advance,
    Shark [Creator of New Acronyms Too Complex to Evolve On Their Own]

  • Paul

    Shark – “structures that couldn’t are evidence against evolution”

    Yes. An irreducibly complex structure could not reasonably have developed through random mutation and natural selection. Either an irreducibly complex structure developed in a single mutation, or in a series of mutations. So let’s consider.

    T-cells, for example, are pretty elaborate, and wouldn’t function with one fewer chemical process. So could t-cells evolve in one step? Probably not; that’s a heck of a mutation. So could t-cells evolve over multiple steps? Probably not; partial t-cells would bestow no advantage on the species that had them. Hence (I love that word!), irreducibly complex structures raise questions about the process of evolution.

  • billy

    “irreducibly complex structures”

    that is a meaningless term. everything can be termed that way, including the dirt between my toes. it is a word gimmick you are playing without meaning.

    word gimmicks dont weaken evolution.

    your logic is silly at best and nonsensical at worst.

    cells evolved WAY before mamals existed, billions of years before and it wasnt just one or two steps, it was millions of steps. clearly complexity can and must come about when such time scales are used.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Paul has inadvertently summed it up very well:

    “Evolution = science based on evidence

    ID = evidence to the contrary”

    Steven Hawking himself acknowledges that God must have played a part in lighting the big bang. Call it metaphysics or whatever you want, but the major scientific players are now recognizing there are questions that cannot be resolved without also recognizing the miraculous.

    That may be a major bummer for die-hard evolutionists, BUT… it seems that God does play dice after all, but only if the dice are loaded.

  • billy

    “That may be a major bummer for die-hard evolutionists”

    Not the case at all. Everyone knows evolution CANNOT and WILLNOT answer the question of Genesis, only how it proceeded after the spark of life was lit here.

    “Steven Hawking himself acknowledges that God must have played a part in lighting the big bang.”

    I prefer to disagree, I think it was a big cookie monster with a large cigarrette lighter the size of the earth, but thats just me.

  • Duane

    Billy says: “irreducibly complex structures”

    that is a meaningless term.

    No, it isn’t meaningless.

    Paul says: An irreducibly complex structure could not reasonably have developed through random mutation and natural selection.

    The battle cry of those who fear cruel, cold science. The last thread of hope for the believers.

    Paul (and anyone else), I have a question for you. Hypothesis: In the year 2028, someone develops a science-based model for the evolution of the human eye. Would you then accept the Theory of Evolution?

  • http://Druxxx Druxxx

    If ID is correct, why not fire all the biologists working on finding answers to the origin of life and how we came to be what we are.

    God did it. Haleluya.

    Wait a minute, maybe if we give those biologists more time, they may figure out what was once seen as irreducibly complex, now can be shown to evolve.

    Science is about taking the time to anwser hard questions. The earth may be gone before we can figure out how life started and how we got to where we are. I just don’t think its time to throw up our hands and say, “Stop where you are, god did it and thats all we need to know.”

  • billy

    “An irreducibly complex structure could not reasonably have developed through random mutation and natural selection.”

    that makes no sense, viruses are “irreducibly complex” and we can watch them evolve in a petri dish right before our eyes.

    so the statement is false as well.

  • Duane

    Druxxx, you’re asking believers to be patient? Haha. Even though they supposedly build their faith on the notion of Eternity, they demand the answers to scientific questions they wouldn’t possibly know how to answer, and they want them RIGHT NOW! If they were patient, they wouldn’t have anything to jump and down about.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Comment #100: Thank you Billy for that thoughtful response, but you cannot solely focus on the after effects without first considering the originating process.

    That would be akin to saying it was the stork that delivered you home to your parents. But then again some folks may still believe in such.

    If energy cannot be created or destroyed, (it can only be converted) then it goes without saying there was an originating energy force that begat it all.

    Heaven forbid, but could that energy force be God? That concept will certainly be problematic for some.

  • billy

    “but you cannot solely focus on the after effects without first considering the originating process.”

    true philisophically, but i have seen many scientific texts call this an (a priori cause) i.e., the cookie monster with the big lighter that caused the big bang. and then exclude a priori causes from the scientific pursuit, thereby leaving room for religion.

    I agree though that the law of thermodynamics you cited leads to only 1 conclusion, “the force must have been tremendous, which was an a priori cause of this universe.” since the universe went from nothingness to 99.999% of what we see today in 1 trillionth of a second.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    For the benefit of the other smug commentators. Creationists do not discount the fact that adaptation can and does happen.

    But neither does it discount the very real possibility there was an energy force that existed before the universe and started the ball rolling so to speak. Creationists and others do not necessarily have to be in enemy camps.

  • Duane

    What is an “energy force”? Have you ever taken a physics course? Energy and force are two different concepts. There is no such thing as energy force. I now that sounds smug, but you’re just throwing stuff around that you don’t understand. How can you comment on such complicated physics problems when you don’t understand basic concepts?

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Dear Duane: Semantics my friend. Perhaps I could have punctuated it as energy, force, or energy/force, or…

    Don’t let your anger get in the way of your ability to reason and please kindly refrain from the personal slights thank you very much.

  • Duane

    BB, sorry buddy, there is a difference between force and energy, and the fact that you don’t know the difference is telling. It has nothing to do with semantics. Just admit that you’re in over your head. It’s OK, really.

    Anger? Don’t flatter yourself, junior. Just trying to be helpful. A “thank you” on your part would have been appropriate. [Edited]

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Dearest Duane: The only thing you need to apologize for is the personal attacks. To be blunt, having looked over your comments the only contribution that you have made [edited].

    If you are indeed such an expert in all things science then please, by all means bemuse us with your brilliant intelligence backed up with the facts and credible sources (it’s called linking).

    But as for the personal attacks – take it elsewhere. You do not impress. You are just wasting valuable electrons in the blogosphere.

  • Duane

    Oh, poor BB, now you’ve gone and gotten all angry.

    If you are indeed such an expert in all things science …. .

    Not all things, but some things. You presume that nobody at BC knows anything, and you got caught.

    … the only contribution that you have made is to be an asshole. … But as for the personal attacks – take it elsewhere.

    Uh, yeah.

    You do not impress.

    Not trying to impress you Jack. Just running my bullshit detector, and it’s in the red.

  • snakeye

    Duane, you really are [edited]. It’s [edited] that ruin it for everybody else.

    It is one thing to disagree with an intelligent response, but all you do is make sarcastic comments and add nothing of value to the conversation.

    All that you’ve accomplished “junior” is to show the world how immature you really are.

    Until you are prepared to say something intelligent, do us all a favour – make like the birds and flock off.. twirp twirp…

  • http://hungrytroll.com troll

    yummy you guys

    that’s what I call meaningful dialogue

    feel free to dangle your toes

    btw, where do miracles and my unicorn fit in the world of ID

    troll

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Actually Duane I presume nothing and know very little. In the grand scheme of things none of us have all the answers. That is the point of this post and you should read it again without a coloured lense.

    But thanks for calling me out. It is intelligent discussion like this that will surely enlighten us all.

  • Duane

    [edited]

    Well, you have to grow up and stop living in your fantasy world eventually. Sorry to ruin your fun. And it was thoughtful of you to take time out from Dungeons and Dragons to add your illuminating wit and wisdom to the thread.

  • snakeye

    “take time out from Dungeons and Dragons”

    Confused again junior?

    You must have obfuscated me with the troll son.

    Try again [edited].

  • Shark

    This thread is officially CLOSED.

    Move along — nuttin’ to see here.

    Thanks,
    The Management

  • theforce

    Oh Gawd.

    They’ve made Shark management. Saints preserve us all!

    The truth is this debate will never end (or at least until yur all dead and then I got you).

    Sincerely yours,

    … the Force, er I mean the Energy, or… heck with it.

  • theforce

    Oh Gawd.

    They’ve made Shark management. Saints preserve us all!

    The truth is this debate will never end (or at least until yur all dead and then I got you).

    Sincerely yours,

    … the Force, er I mean the Energy, or… hell with it.

  • theforce

    ditto ;-)

  • gonzo marx

    BB sez…
    *For the benefit of the other smug commentators.*

    can we set aside the bullshit for jst a second here…

    i don’t think anyone looking from a science perspective has ever claimed to have “all the answers”…the function of science is to find the right Questions, then prove/disprove hypothesis to form axioms out of Postulates, thereby creating a solid Theory that can be tested, function to aid in making predictions and/or create mathematical models to describe the various phenomenae being studied

    do note, gentle Readers, that never in my bit of a tirade there do i even come close to using the word “Answers”…

    now, those that work from a metaphysics perspective, or even honest scholars/students of Philosophy, travel down a variation of that Path…most of the Questions they explore, do not have any kind of quantifiable, or qualitative, Answer…

    i cannot and will not categorize those that have personal Faith in some unknown and unknowable god/energy/alien/usetheForceLuke/whatever being the Final Answer…

    the entire real crux of the Argument stems from methodology…

    the scientific method has been clearly defined in many places…any approach outside of that falls into either metaphysics, philosophy, or religion

    so, we will keep those evil scientists out of sunday school, and the others can stay in their metaphysics/philosophy/theology classes

    fair enough?

    cuz “smug” is thinking you have the “Answer”

    Excelsior!

  • KYS

    OK, two thoughts:
    Who is sick of the stopwatch argument? What reason would an inanimate object have to evolve? Rocks don’t evolve because 1) they are not ‘alive’, and 2) because their survival as a species is not dependent on adapting to a changing climate, landscape, etc. (ok, I know a rock isn’t a species, but you folks know where I’m going with this, don’t you?)

    Secondly, let me stretch the “eye theory” for a minute. If we are suggesting that complex chance mutations cannot occur, somebody must explain God’s grand purpose for dwarfism, giantism, MS, and the like. Can we at least admit that very complex results can occur with mutation which, from time to time, may be an advantage to the survival of the species?

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Gonzo sez he’s all for scientific methodology and agin’ the miraculous (which he calls metaphysics), and the two can never meet any more than matter and anti-matter. Ok, we all got it so can we move along now?

    Following your lead for the need to define matters, for lack of a better word the “miraculous” could also be conferred “unknown” as yet to be discovered by science could it not? Why the need to be so adversarial is beyond my limited understanding.

    Nonetheless, I need also to clarify that I was not referring to you in particular as being smug, but now that you mention it you must certainly be a man of faith because your answer belies your need for confession. Mais ouis?

    Only a jest gentle sir.

  • Paul

    Billy – “Irreducibly complex” is a meaningless term, it could be applied to dirt

    Nope. Dirt has no chemical processes, and if you change a single structure, it’s still dirt. A t-cell accomplishes nothing if any one of the steps in the immunity process is missing. Actually, a 98%-chemically-developed t-cell is about as effective as dirt. Changes we see in a virus are changes within a functioning structure.

    KYS – If we are suggesting that complex chance mutations cannot occur, somebody must explain God’s grand purpose for dwarfism, giantism, MS, and the like.

    Well, you actually have a point. See how well a small change in a DNA strand works. If t-cell is even slightly off-kilter, it leads to (or at least it’s a potential cause of) MS. If the t-cell evolved gradually, then we are better-equipped than something with a partially-developed t-cell. Fine. But the thing with a partially-developed t-cell would have been better-equipped than something with an earlier version. Doubtful.

    Duane – In the year 2028, someone develops a science-based model for the evolution of the human eye. Would you then accept the Theory of Evolution?

    Of course. I’m not an idiot.

  • gonzo marx

    well, BB…note i don’t use the word “miracle” either..

    as a wise man once said “one Man’s magic is another Man’s engineering”

    once terms are defined and agreed upon, intelligent discourse may ensue

    or, we could just have pie

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • KYS

    I would suggest that the T-cell mutation only exists today because of the ability of the human species to compensate for these mutations. The trick with evolution is that it’s at the mercy of the environment. Man has learned to manipulate his environment, and make adjustments that allow previously terminal mutations to propagate.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    “once terms are defined and agreed upon, intelligent discourse may ensue”

    As a mediator I couldn’t agree more. So is it possible (in your considerate opinion) that we can eat humble pie and find common ground?

    Or shall we continue this dance forever?

    I have faith enough for the both of us brother.

    Streuth!

  • KYS

    “If energy cannot be created or destroyed, (it can only be converted) then it goes without saying there was an originating energy force that begat it all.

    Heaven forbid, but could that energy force be God? That concept will certainly be problematic for some.”

    I think that source is the sun. Did I miss something?

  • http://hungrytroll.com troll

    - conspiracy alert –

    these guys are getting ready to define miracles and the fantasy worlds that depend on them out of existence – scientific unknowns my ass

    a dangerous presence on the bridge

    troll

  • http://blogcritics.org BB

    Apparently you did.

  • Shark

    BB: “…shall we continue this dance forever?”

    Yall dance forever, odds are that one of you monkeys will eventually stumble onto the entire choreography for Swan Lake.

    WHICH IS JUST WHAT HAPPENS when you have a lot of random shit taking place in a time-frame approaching close to infinity.

    : )

  • gonzo marx

    i’ll pass on the pie…but i do appreciate the Thought

    i don’t see anything left to discuss

    my position has been that Evolution is a scientific Theory, and ID is a metaphysical proposition…each rightly belongs in the proper category, and neither has all the answers

    outside of that..the only time i have had any problem with ID is when some folks want it taught in a science class…to me, that is the same as having, oh…astrophysics; being taught in sunday school

    so where’s the problem?

    Excelsior!

  • Shark

    PS: Duane, how’m I doin’?

  • snaffoo

    I will say this.

    It is a completely illogical notion to expect a serious and intelligent discussion at blogcritics.

    Carry on bozos.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    My good Shark:

    I am not a “monkey”, and I protest that slur in the strongest of terms.

    I have evolved son!

    Gonzo: “problem with ID is when some folks want it taught in a science class…to me, that is the same as having, oh…astrophysics; being taught in sunday school”

    An interesting point, but did you have to take so long getting to it?

    Let me offer a compromise. How ’bout we define the class as “metaphysics”?

    Does that work for you?

    No problem here.

    Snaffoo: I’m beginning to see your point.

    Love you guys.
    XXXXXX000000

  • Duane

    Shark, I’m actually starting to miss Sandra S., if you know what I mean.

  • KYS

    Bravo, Gonzo.
    Thus ends the lesson.

  • gonzo marx

    BB..o’ve been making that self same point in every one of these threads for, oh..months now…

    but now that you agree to the same definitions..

    i am more than happy to audit the “class”

    metaphysics, eh?…do go on…

    Excelsior!

  • http://blogcritics.org BB

    Good. Now we’re finally getting somewhere.

    I recommend we call the class “A Sharks guide to the Metaphysics of Intelligent Design”.

    What say you?

    Do we have a majority?

    All in favour say aye matey.

  • KYS

    And the point is lost, once again.

  • disgusted

    This thread is a perfect example how the left wing nutcases hijack a serious discussion.

    For all their posturing about so-called imperical, scientific methods, it always boils down to the same old bullshit – immaturity, hostility, name calling, baiting…

    To quote the Shark:

    FEH!

  • billy

    “left wing nutcases hijack a serious discussion.”

    why would you say this when the left has the support of mainstream science and only a few loonbags and whacked out holy rollers promote “intelligent design”?

  • snakeye

    You just made his point bozo. Or should I say gonzo the clown.

    Some people here are trying to find concensus.

    Whereas [edited]

  • KYS

    LOL- Left wing nut cases….YES! We are tyrants who want to ensure that only those truths that apply to ALL of us are taught in public schools….that all the “interpretation” is left to the myriad of different faith based institutions…
    The public school systems are obliged to teach the “what” of science….not the “why”…
    Only then are we all represented.

  • snakeye

    And another rises from the ashes.

    Only an idiot would say he has found the “truth” based on theories that will only be disposed of in a few years, or months, or…

    Go find a brain before opening your mouth or rat-a-tatting on your stupid keyboard.

  • gonzo marx

    snakeye..that was billy

    get your clown straight..

    i know you can’t tell them apart without a scorecard

    did ya know that Barnum and Baily circus created one of the first test tube babies made form a single parent?

    name was Bozo the Clone

    we now return you to your regularily scheduled program

    Excelsior!

  • KYS

    Oh, please..
    Tell me gravity effects athiests and born-again christians differently. That’s a truth. The “why” is somewhat open to debate. When was the last time gravity was challenged???

  • gonzo marx

    last time gravity was challenged?…umm..Icarus mebbe?

    i told him not to use wax…but did he listen?

    Excelsior!

  • billy

    snakeyes, einstein said god does not roll dice, but if he did id hate to be standing next to you if i was playing craps with him.

    you feel like you are on solid ground but i defy you to put forth any testable theory that can be used in a science class to show that kys is not right.

    talking about so called “problems” with evolution isnt a theory. lets hear the theory if you have one. noone is afraifd of a new theory, there are plenty of them being put forth at every college in the country.

  • KYS

    Wax on….wax off
    (sorry, but I never decline to reference the Karate Kid)

  • snakeye

    Well, well. The mob has awoken. Time for a good ole curbing.

    Gonzo the clown? Yeah, rather appropriate. Has a nice ring to it. I think I’ll keep it thank you.

    “evolution isnt a theory” Heh, just keep on talking [edited] and dig your own grave.

    “When was the last time gravity was challenged???

    And your point is??????????????? Who the FUCK cares?

    Was that loud enough for ya [edited].

  • KYS

    Dude, if you don’t get the point then nobody here can help you.

  • gonzo marx

    i get it now, snakeye here is just interested in a flamewar…

    attention whores just need the greasy stains of their existance laundered from the soiled underwear of the blogosphere…

    but i digress…

    Excelsior!

  • KYS

    you digress not, for attention whores crave evolution as well…

    Perhaps we will talk of them in bio 101 someday…..as an extinct species….

  • gonzo marx

    just the small minded large mouthed variety…

    they kept attracting predators

    Excelsior!

  • KYS

    They will forever hold a place in the Jerry Springer exhibit….

  • snakeye

    You guys are SO intelligent.

    Clown, it’s spelt “existence”.

    For someone who goes to such lengths to impress, it all comes down to the fact you are just another immature jerk with a keypad. And that goes for the peanut gallery as well.

    Excelsior!

  • jo

    I’ll take this snake.

    please allow me to digress:

    dufus, shithead, slimy, putrid, greaseball, gobs of snotnosed sluts of the leftwing blogwhoresphere.

    Isn’t this intelligent?

    yur turn clown.

  • gonzo marx

    that’s “spelled”

    and “keyboard”

    if yer gonna try and be grammar/spelling cop…be more careful

    otherwise you might look a bit silly

    ooops…too late

    now me..i’ve always said quite clearly that

    1) i’m dyslexic
    2) i don’t edit, or spell check…cuz that’s not what “gonzo” writing is about
    3)reptilianorb seems like a euphemism for “dick”

    and your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Apropos of nothing, my dictionary spells spelt as an acceptable variant spelling of spelled.

    Not sure why I felt compelled to comment, but I hope any confusion has now been dispelled.

    Perhaps now the combatants will be impelled back to the topic at hand, unless of course this comment leaves them feeling repelled.

  • Duane

    I’m compelt to ask, what was the topic again?

  • snakeye

    Clown, “spelt’ = “sarcasm”. It’s a form of humor so look it up.

    And look up the word “keypad” while yur at it.” It’s in da dicksionary.

    “and your mileage may vary”

    You’ve run out of gas bud.

    Excelsior!

  • gonzo marx

    why thaks Victor..i am appalled to know i have rebelled against something properly spelled, and am now impelled to have excelled at being repelled by failing to have dealt with how i felt about how things were spelt…

    dreck

    Excelsior!

  • gonzo marx

    oh yes..and for the one eyed wonder worm…

    cum again?

    i realize you enjoy spewing invective, but the flaccid nature of your dribblings reveal a certain softness that may require implanting something to siffen your resolve when it comes to the turgid nature and overall thrust of the discussion

    but don’t go soft on me now…k?

    Excelsior!

  • snakeye

    You try so hard [edited]

    And given yur porn euphemisms [edited]

    PICTURE:

    Gonzo in his clown suit. [edited]

    Thank god for tabbed browsing eh Clown.

    Excelsior!

  • gonzo marx

    once again you are being premature, and factually incorrect…

    no beer for gonzo since ’85

    happily married for almost 20 years now, the mrs. waves “hi”

    [edited]

    “now, go away, or i will taunt you a second time…you silly english k-n-ig-it.”

    Excelsior!

  • snakeye

    [edited]

    Excelsior!

  • gonzo marx

    heh…

    nuff said, O mystery Editor

    any stepping over the line on my part was merely an indication of my own silliness

    i truly tried to keep it just this side of being direct…

    no worries and…

    nuff said

    Excelsior!

  • snakeye

    Very interesting editing job.

    Comment #166 was heavily edited, referring to insipid comments that were first made by the gonz in #165. But the gonz gets away with hardly a scratch.

    The same goes for the rest of the comments.

    Speaks volumes about this place.

  • gonzo marx

    no..it speaks volumes about knowing and almost following the very few Rules laid out in the comment policy…

    but hey, thanks for Playing…

    ..:::lights a cigarrette:::..

    was it good for you too?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Snakeye, stop whining. I’m the editor. You started with the comment policy violation in your first comment on this thread, #50.

    If you follow the comment policy, you will never be edited. In other words, just discuss the post or the content of comments, and leave the personal attacks out of it.

  • snakeye

    Not at all [edited].

    It helps when your bud is the editor. That’s the only way you can cum out on top.

    BTW, how’s that tabbed browsing cumming?

    Rhetorical question.

    Ahhhhhhhhhh! [edited]

    Excelsior!

  • gonzo marx

    aww…bhw, and here i wanted to keep that sense of Mystery

    ..:::ducks:::..

    kidding..just kidding

    no worries, i’ll try and “be good”

    Excelsior!

  • snakeye

    Just as I suspected. Ms. left-wing bhw coming to the rescue of one of her own.

    I repeat. I made direct reference to gonzo’s comments, but he remains unscathed.

    Play yer little games, but play fair or not at all.

  • snakeye

    Waaaaaaaaaaah

    Poor little Gonzo can’t fight his own battles.

    Hide behind bhw’ skirts all you want bud but we know who’s the wanker here.

    Still smokin’ that cigarette?

  • gonzo marx

    snakeye…seriously for a second

    the editors around here play completely fair…the comment policy is quite clear and simple

    and i am in nobody’s “camp”

    if you look around a bit, you will find that i can piss off folks from every part of the spectrum..and garner laughs and sometimes even praise or appreciation form the quarters one woudl least expect it

    your quarrel is with me…leave the editor out of it

    even better yet..how about going at it concerning the actual Issue at hand?

    or woudl you rather get served some cheese with that whine?

    i know..a nice french brie perhaps?

    Excelsior!

  • snakeye

    Seriously, a nice gesture gonz but not credible. You should have thought of that beforehand.

    I’ve seen your type more times than I care. You don’t know how to disagree without belittling people. You are an eternal smart-ass with a repertoire of silly pet phrases and euphemisms. Your little groupies surround you and encourage you onwards, and you feed off it like like a bully at a roadside curbing. You take delight in disparaging people with your juvenile quips and think you’re so clever in your superiority that you actually bemuse yourself.

    I got involved in this thread after watching you and your cronies make a mockery of sincere folk who wanted a serious discussion. It was time to give you a little taste of your own medicine. You should think about that next time ’cause I will be watching.

    So go ahead. Nobody’s stopping you. Show me that you can make a sensible statement if it is at all possible within you, but I’m not holding my breath. If you play nice I will be more than happy to back off.

    Now I’ll have that cheese please.

  • Shark

    Snakeye, just for the record:

    We have an unwritten rule around here:

    personal insults must original, funny, and/or entertaining.

    I’m sure they sometimes work at lunchtime on the playground, but your recent attempts are none of the above: come back when you get some *new material.

    *I’m available for freelance work, but it’s gonna cost ya.

    PS: ….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

  • gonzo marx

    snakeye…let me put it to you that you have NEVER seen “my” type before

    i’m a one of a kind critter

    now, as for the rest, you are again factually incorrect…scroll on up to comment #50

    i get into it in #58..anything there you don’t like? but you did get edited for insults in 50…still with me? i comment again in #62…still seems pretty reasonable , and at the very least…on topic…i’m back in 78…still reasonable discussion…80 and 82…getting into the metaphysical with some small Jests to make a point..no insults..and so far no one seems to have any problems…85, 87 and 91…still more discussion , no insults…barely even snarky

    in #113..you hop in…some edited insults there…very mature..117 you call someone a “moron”

    122 i write again..reasonably…126, 133 and 139..reasonable discussion with BB..we come to some agreement!!! alert the media

    you get edited again in 144…and in 152
    sankeye sez
    *Time for a good ole curbing.*

    look at what i say in 154

    you will then find yer flamewar

    now, who is the “bully” that wants to do a “curbing”?

    up to you, gentle Readers…to decide

    Excelsior!

  • CS MONITOR

    THIS JUST IN:

    Dr. Sorgum Ostrick, a noted propent of Intelligent Design and PhD holder in the feild of Paranormal Quantum Physics, has proven that God does in fact exist. Further, Dr. Ostrick has personally spoken with the elusive deity, and had this to say about the conversation:

    ‘Well, the good news is that ID is one hundred percent true. The bad news is, uh, God’s, well… God’s gay.
    Actually God’s not just gay, he’s a raging queen. I didn’t want to believe it, but He who is I am just kept smirkin’ at me, like I was the weirdo, and askin’ me questions like “Didn’t you notice all the Pagan Gods are married?” and “Did you notice I sent A SPIRIT to do Holy Mary, Mother of God. The ‘virgin mother’ had a taste for the invisible meat, and I passed. I wanted to stay in heaven with a bunch of male angels dressed in flowing robes and listen to’m sing and play the harp while we watched a rerun of American Idol. I mean…HEL-LOOOOOO.”

    A visibly shaken Dr. Osterick delivered a few new commandment unto the believers:

    “God, or has he prefers to be called
    ‘uhn, Yeah Way’ wants all Christian males to wear Daisy Duke cut offs and those half tank top things. Oh and he said to remind the formerly straight ones not to forget the foot wear, ‘like a nice pair of sandals’.
    We’re all supposed to wax, now.
    And be excellent to each other.”

    Amen

  • http://hungrytroll.com troll

    hey bhw – stop taking the icing off the cake

    some of us get our sustenance from comments such as snakeye’s – such an erudite intellect should be widely read

    editors should be required to insert a synopsis of disappeared comments when they apply their nasty trade

    take your delete button off my bridge

    troll

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    This discussion is all a waste of time. Debating with wackjob creationists and intelligent design proponents gives that nonsense more credibility than it deserves.

    Shark, instead of calling these fundamentalists monkeys, why aren’t you commenting on everything I comment about, old man? My presence here is like a ripe summer peach, juicy and only in season for a short while. Politics is for the gulags in winter.

    That is all.

  • snakeye

    Let’s not be a hypocrite here Shark.

    My quarrel is not with you. I’ve seen some of your best work hacked to death and you scream like a banshee but that would be another story. You’ve made it clear that you want to close this thread because God stuff just isn’t your cup of tea. But there are other people that have something to say and they should be allowed to say it.

    That was precisely my problem with gonzo et al. They hijacked the thread and started with the insults whom I see have decked themselves out in full array here again.

    And speaking of hatchet jobs, bhw removed my best stuff which was was certainly no worse than our ole buddy gonzo’s. Trying to piece together an edited aftermath is like trying to do a body count after dropping Fat Man on Nagasaki.

    Gonzo, I’m really not interested in playing tit for tat with you at this stage ’cause as you can see my hands are tied behind my back so to speak. Or is that the only way you can play with all your buds helping you from the corner. The point is you were whipped until yur little editor came to the rescue so spare us the bullshit bud.

    You stated earlier you had something of value to add to this thread. We’re waiting with baited breath oh wise one. Speak, or have we already seen the best you have to offer.

  • jo

    Ok, enough with the revisionist bullshit.

    Snakeye trounced gonzo and that is a done deal.

    But if y’all want to continue this fight then let’s play fair, and jo will be more than happy to turn it into a full scale war.

    Your choice boys and girls.

  • billy

    “Snakeye trounced gonzo and that is a done deal.”

    that gets my vote for the most hairbrained comment of the day.

    snakeye is defending ID, not a theory, not accepted by science, not taught in school, not testable, useless.

    So how exactly did he win? last time i checked id was only for kooks, holy rollers, and bush.

    even rick santorum doesnt think id should be taught in school. you are on the fringe of the fringe. until you can pull yourself off of it, you lose.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    jo/snakeye, it’s against Blogcritics rules to post under multiple identities. Please cease and desist with that practice and with your practice of making personal attacks.

    You risk being banned from the site if you don’t comply with the rules. This is your official warning.

  • http://blogcritics.org BB

    HEY EVERYBODY

    KNOCK IT OFF… HUH !

    This is my post and please don’t denigrate it any further.

    ALL of you are to blame here. Obviously this is a touchy topic and like my momma always said, politics and religion bring out the worst in people.

    BUT surely we can discuss this like the civilized adults that I know that we are.

    So please, no more sarcasm. No more spewing of vitriol, and no more personal attacks.

    Gonzo and Snakeye. Kiss and make up and get on with it!

    And the rest of you in the cheap seats – hold thy tongue.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Eloi Eloi lamach Sabbathini?

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    You’ve been reading Ginsburg?

  • gonzo marx

    to BB…no worries, i said my last bit in #180…

    and since you and i have agreed discussion of ID falls in the category of Metaphysics, we have nop Argument…

    but i remain more than happy to discuss any parts of it , or thoughts, that you would care to share and chew on…

    fair enough?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Gonzo, I must confess that I had my tongue in my cheek on that one.

    Nonetheless, sometimes it is wise to just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

    I asked Eric to close comments fearing this may deteriorate even further but…

    Oh yes… one last confession. When I said “ALL of you are to blame here”

    I should have said that goes for mois as well.

    As far as I’m concerned this post has had its day.

    We’ve all had our say and perhaps it is best that sleeping dogs lay (sorry for the cliche but I’m tired and my witticisms got lost in the translation).

    Peace everyone.

  • gonzo marx

    fair enough BB…thanks for the clarification

    personally, i don’t think comments should EVER be closed…but this ain’t my site..so i do what Eric tells me too and try and duck quickly…

    as i’ve said repeatedly..i’ll gladly accept full Responsibility for my own crazed peckings at the keyboard…

    comment #180 was a silly attempt to show “gonzo design”

    as for ID…i mentioned this once to another proponent..something you might want to look into…mathematically there are two fascinating absolute Facts that ID folks never seem to notice, they are NOT evidence, but in the metaphysical side of the discussion, they are quite compelling

    PI…infinity found in a Circle

    and PHI…the Golden Ratio

    google away…your welcome

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Ok. I’ll give it one last shot.

    I’m hoping we can discuss this with some semblance of civility but I can’t stay long because I got stuff to do.

    A criticism I have of scientific theory is that no matter how sound the hypothesis may seem in the present, there is still a very real possibility that the model can be replaced at a moments notice.

    Let me clarify that statement. I am not saying that all theory is nonsense. It is just not etched in stone so to speak and therefore still takes a certain amount faith to believe. So I have a healthy amount of scepticism when it comes to scientific theory. Can you at least give me that?

    I gather that you are old enough like mois to have seen this happen time and again. It’s not as if I’m making any of this up. Mathematical models are being changed all the time. The model of the universe has changed so often that I’m not even certain where the north pole is anymore. And for that matter, they are now saying the poles are about to reverse so that gives me an excuse (I hope).

    Streuth!

  • gonzo marx

    no argument form me on those points, BB

    that’s why it’s called a Theory, and not an Answer or a Fact

    my riposte to that is that ID postulates the untestable and unprovable

    so, as flawed and correctable as Science is and can be..that remaines a great strength to the scientific method…the System allows discovery to be built up, step by step, making testable predictions and quantifying empirical data…thus allowing extrapolation of new information, which in turn can be tested again…

    since ID has yet to show me how it can be tested, quantified, proven or disproven..that is why i place it with Science and Metaphysics

    i am NOT saying that it’s a “bad” thing, nor that it should be ignored…

    just that it isn’t science at this point in time

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Ok, that having been said, at least at this stage (and as flawed as science can be), then it goes without saying science does not have all the answers.

    And having said that, it is also a reasonable postulation that science may never have all the answers.

    And having said that, there will always be an element of doubt (faith), and that is something we cannot get away from.

    And having said that it is not reasonable to rule out the metaphysical, the miraculous or any other tag that you may wish to call it. After all, another word we could use for the miraculous would be “unknown as yet to science” could it not.

    Another way to look at it. If there really is a God, do you think we would be able to test Him in a laboratory, or put all of His essence into a mathematical formula? And if it “isn’t science at this point in time”, could that be the unification theory Einstein was searching for?

    Just a thought.

    Streuth!

  • Duane

    Gonzo, please elaborate on your fascination with pi. What do you mean that infinity is found in a circle?

    BB says: A criticism I have of scientific theory is that no matter how sound the hypothesis may seem in the present, there is still a very real possibility that the model can be replaced at a moments notice.

    I wouldn’t take that as a criticism. That is the strength of the scientific method, as Gonzo points out. Also, you could restate your position by calling it optimistic. You are, in fact, optimistic that science will progress. And that optimism would be well founded, given its history. We’ve gone from bloodletting to CAT scans, from riding mules to 747s, from a flat Earth covered by a bowl with holes punched in it to measuring the age of the Universe. I could go on and on, but you can at least acknowledge these historical examples of progress.

    Science will continue to make progress. You may call that faith. Fine, in a colloquial sense, many have faith that science will progress. There is every reason to expect that better theories will come along and replace current theories. But it is extremely unlikely that a theory will come along which says “Evolution has not occurred.” It is as unlikely as saying “Gravity does not exist.” The mathematical description of gravity has changed since Newton’s time. It has been refined and generalized. Similarly, the details of Evolution as a mechanism will be revised, corrected, and perfected over time. The holes that are discovered by Evolutionists give rise to new problems to work on, which are then solved — by Evolutionists — and used to move on to the next level of refinement. This has always been the pattern.

    I will ask you the same question I asked Paul in an earlier post. If a scientific explanation for the evolution of the human eye is discovered in the near future, would you then accept the validity of Evolution? Or will you look for another unsolved problem and put your faith in the Biblical creation based on that? What would it take?

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Duane, I don’t think most reasonable people would argue against the theory of adaptation. It is only the extremes some may question that evolutionists have a tendency to stretch the theory into almost a religion of its own.

    Nevertheless, I suppose what I am trying to get at is I don’t believe science will ever have all of the answers and we need to be a little more open minded to all of the possibilities.

    Regarding the matter of gravity, it is my understanding that the string theory is now questioning the role gravity plays within the known universe.

    I would like to answer your question with another question: If a unified theory proves God’s existence once and for all, would that make a believer out of you? Or if Jesus Christ Himself landed with a legion of angels on the Mount of Olives, will that convince you?

    Hypothetical questions that will never be answered until it actually happens. Until then we have no choice but to keep the faith.

    Streuth!

  • Duane

    If a unified theory proves God’s existence once and for all, would that make a believer out of you?

    Of course. I would believe that God exists. I would then have to face my former state of mild atheism and adapt to a new reality.

    Or if Jesus Christ Himself landed with a legion of angels on the Mount of Olives, will that convince you?

    You bet. I would have a million questions for Him.

    But you didn’t answer my question about the eye. It is hypothetical, but it’s quite likely to happen within our lifetimes (unless you’re in your 60s).

    Regarding the matter of gravity, it is my understanding that the string theory is now questioning the role gravity plays within the known universe.

    The current level of success of string theory, one of the big reasons why physicists are pursuing it, is that Einstein’s gravitational field equations are derivable from it. In that sense, string theory has hopes of providing sort of a “master theory” from which the four forces of nature can be derived. Einstein’s theory of gravity — general relativity (GR) — has been verified to high order where it can be tested. On paper, it is known to break down near a black hole singularity, or in the Big Bang singularity, where quantum mechanical effects become important. String theory hopes to provide a quantum mechanical theory of gravity.

    Such a theory would not invalidate GR, only refine it. GR still describes things such as the exterior spacetime near a black hole, or the bending of starlight near a gravitating object. In the same way, Newtonian gravity provides an adequate description of weak gravitational fields, such as those found in the solar system. Note the finely tuned trajectories used by NASA spacecraft. Only rarely do GR effects need to be considered in the solar system.

    You may also have heard about Einstein’s “biggest blunder,” where he set the cosmological constant equal to zero in his field equations. There is a mathematical process known as integration, with which you may have some experience, which provides a so-called constant of integration. The cosmological constant is a constant of integration which can be set in accordance to initial conditions or boundary conditions. Einstein set this constant to zero to yield a static (steady-state) Universe, which is what was believed in 1915. When Hubble discovered the cosmological expansion in the 1930s, the cosmological constant was revived, which inspired Einstein’s famous comment. Recent observations of the expansion have re-focused attention on the constant, and it is now thought that the constant can in fact provide a repulsive (anti-gravity) force that is caused by dark matter, whose detailed nature is unknown. Even with this, the GR field equations are not invalidated, just modified to account for gravity on cosmological distance scales. It is hoped that string theory may shed light on dark matter.

    Sorry for the long-winded explanation. All of this research again points to progress, in this case illustrating modifications that have occurred over a time span of over 300 years. Newtonian gravity survives, nonetheless, in almost all applications.

  • Duane

    BB says: I suppose what I am trying to get at is I don’t believe science will ever have all of the answers ….

    Science will not provide answers to metaphysical question, by definition.

    … and we need to be a little more open minded to all of the possibilities.

    I am open-minded. Let’s see some evidence that God exists. In particular, let’s see some evidence that The Bible provides scientific truths that cannot now or ever be explained in a naturalistic way. I would never disregard such evidence. But it is not enough to simply attempt to punch holes in current theories, especially when history shows us that holes get filled as science progresses.

  • Balletshooz

    “It is only the extremes some may question that evolutionists have a tendency to stretch the theory into almost a religion of its own.”

    Thats a rational argument from someone coming from a religious point of view.

    String theory does require alot of faith too, mainly because strings are so immensely small, even when compared to atoms, that it may be thousands of years before we could ever detect if they are really there or not.

    But I think it is only at the outskirts and cutting-edge of evolutionary theories, such as what happened at or near when life first began and how, that evolution and philosophy/religion come into direct conflict.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    And your point is???

    Just kidding.

    Quite an impressive discourse there Duane.

    Regarding the matter of evidence, has anybody read “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”. Or how about one of my favs “Crash go the Chariots” by Dr. Clifford Wilson I believe. I wish I still had my copy.

    I realize they’ve been around for a while but there are other similar books out there. I just haven’t read any of the more recent ones. Perhaps someone out there can pick up the ball on that one. The point is however there are tons of bonafide scientists much smarter than us who are also people of faith. And I don’t think it is fair to just write them off as airheads.

    Nevertheless we could get into stuff like archeological evidence, etc. but as for putting the great Alpha and Omega into a petry dish I must confess ya got me there.

    But I don’t think that is a fair argument. If God really be God, I’m certain that he knows how to hide from our puny little telescopes. But then again, He is described as Spirit, the Holy Ghost etc., albeit perhaps just another way of describing an energy / force (I hope I got it right this time).

    Sometimes we get caught up in the minutest details and miss the bigger picture.

    Cheers!

  • Duane

    The point is however there are tons of bonafide scientists much smarter than us who are also people of faith.

    I am a bona fide scientist. Some are smarter than I am. Some are not. It’s a big world out there.

    And I don’t think it is fair to just write them off as airheads.

    I don’t write them off as airheads. In fact, if you’ll check my post #36 above, you will find that I recommended to you guys to track down these 400 scientists, see what they have to say, and use that to strengthen your position.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    I wasn’t pointing a finger at you Duane and I must say that I am impressed with your knowledge. I will defer to you from now on when I get myself into trouble. ;-)

    As a scientist you must then also know what I say is true; that there are many of your colleagues out there who are just as well schooled as you, and have come to a different conclusion with respect to creationism/evolution.

    Do you have a link with respect to the 400 scientists you refer to?

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    [edited]

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    [edited]

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    I give up! [edited]

  • Duane

    BB says: I will defer to you from now on when I get myself into trouble.

    Thanks for the nice words, but you don’t want to do that. I really don’t want you to consider my credentials (or anyone else’s), just what I might say here at BC. Judge for yourself. But judge from a position of reason and logic, not feeling or instinct. Don’t let people’s credentials sway you. Let their arguments sway you (or not). This is exactly why I have problems with believers. They argue from authority instead of logic (usually).

    As a scientist you must then also know what I say is true; there are many of your colleagues out there who are just as well schooled as you, and have come to a different conclusion with respect to creationism/evolution.

    I’ve known that for quite some time. It’s an interesting debate. Scientists working at the physical/metaphysical boundary.

    PseudoErsatz provided the link you want up in post 28. Check it out. Very impressive. My only advice would be to try to get a sense of what “The 400″ are saying before you include them in your arsenal. Use their arguments, not their letters. The weight of their credentials is lessened when they stray into metaphysical territory.

  • Duane

    [edited]Please don’t do that again.

    Thanks
    Duane

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    [edited]

    Then again I didn’t appreciate your comments in number #6 either. So I guess we’re even now (albeit unintentionally).

    If we are not to take scientific credentials all that seriously in the debate then that can work for or against depending on which side of the fence you sit.

    If logic and reasoning are the more beneficial, I would add that I consider myself to be a logical person. Having worked in law and the computer sciences it is a required attribute, and my credentials are just as fine as yours, albeit agreeably science is not my major. I would also qualify that by stating a logical person can well indeed come to a conclusion that the universe owes its existence in a metaphysical sense. Neither would Steven Hawking disagree.

    I appreciate you taking the time to set me straight, and it is a pleasure speaking with you when you are not so condescending.

    Just kidding (I think ;-).

    Peace.

  • http://www.bobice-bolieve.blogspot.com Jewels

    Duane,
    Well in the case of BB curiousity killed the cat.
    [edited]

  • Duane

    BB says: If we are not to take scientific credentials all that seriously in the debate then that can work for or against depending on which side of the fence you sit.

    Yeah, so, what I guess I meant is that the professional credentials alone of any single person shouldn’t be used to convince another person of the validity of a position. Even Einstein made mistakes:

    A: “Quantum mechanics is wrong!”
    B: “I don’t believe that.”
    A: “Einstein says he doesn’t think the theory is correct!”
    B: “Oh, well that’s different.”

    You shouldn’t believe any single person here at BC just because he says he’s an expert. You never know.

    Another mistake that people make is to assume that just because someone is an expert in a particular field, that this person’s opinion has high validity in other fields. Hawking is one of the superheroes of my field. He is way smarter than I am in physics. But if he’s talking metaphysics, politics, music, history, whatever, I don’t necessarily assume he knows more than I do. Look up William Shockley on Google for a notorious case of this.

    On the other hand, when thousands of scientists share a consensus, it should be taken seriously. They could be wrong, but dismissing them out of hand is likely to leave you looking like you missed the boat.

    I would tend to approach the 400 seriously. However, from what I’ve seen so far, their approach is simply to try to shoot holes in Evolution. It’s a rather lame approach, since they purport to be using their scientific expertise to challenge Evolutionists, but offer nothing better, scientifically speaking. That’s not how good science is done. The Discovery Institute obviously has an agenda, and they have managed to recruit a lot of smart people to push their agenda. I don’t claim to understand what possible motivation the 400 have to undermine their own profession, yet use the weight of authority that is based on that very profession. I will learn more as time goes by.

  • Jewels

    Well, that’s the very beauty of our existence, it is a constant learning process, and that makes it interesting. The intelligent hopefully, always keep learning.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Duane: When I realized who you were, I was seriously considering getting on my knees and proclaiming ‘WE’RE NOT WORTHY”.

    But after downplaying yourself and reading comment #6 again, I sez to myself… to hell with it!

    Just kidding!

    You’ve really got me interested in the “400”. I think I’ll check it out.

  • Jewels

    Duane, I had to go back and look, forgot who really started this as the fascination switched to you! We had talked off BC prev. on how to get the e.ml feeds, write something. Waiting to hear!

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    BTW, if you want your name removed Duane just ask bhw, (otherwise known as God around these parts) and I’m certain she will be more than happy to accommodate and pull out that big eraser of hers.

    Did you hear me Lord! I messed up. Please fix ASAP!

  • Duane

    So, BB, now you know why I would rather be anonymous — so I can be an asshole and a moron when the mood strikes (as in this thread) or be a goofball (Jewels would know about that) or an intentional ignoramus just to bug somebody and not worry about some colleague from Italy or wherever linking into BC and seeing just what an asshole I really am. Not good for the career. I will ask bhw about it.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Crikey, who the hell can be calling from Italy at this time of the night?

    Heh. If that was an apology then it’s duly accepted.

    You can meet some amazing people at BC.

    “`
    I’ve already contacted bhw, but being a celebrity might get quicker action than my cry from the wilderness.

    Cheers.

  • Duane

    I don’t know any celebrities (I met Eddie van Halen a long time ago), but I’ll go ahead and ask bhw if she (?) will whip out her whiteout. Right. No more BS. Back to business, eh?

    What happened to Gonzo and Snakeye Joe?

    I still want to know about pi and infinity and what that has to do with ID arguments.

  • Shark

    Duane,

    Seriously, I love you, maaaan.

    ========

    BB: “…If a unified theory proves God’s existence once and for all, would that make a believer out of you?”

    BB, as you know, I wanna know who made God.

    (I suspect it might be His believers, but that’s just a theory.)

  • gonzo marx

    my apologies Duane…took the evening “off”

    as for PI…

    a little over 30 years ago, a very young gonzo was sitting in an algebra class, all pumped up on Heinlein, Twain and Shakespeare…and had been given a problem whose Variables consisted of the areas of various geometric shapes…

    the Teacher asked for our answers…and when called upon..i told him he could only have an Approximation..

    he asked Why?

    i said, because that’s all that could be had with the area of a circle

    the circle is perhaps the simplest geometric shape, two “sides”, inside and outside…yet the area calculation: PI times Radius squared becomes an infinate calculation…since the exact Value of PI goes on forever, never finding a pattern(that we know of yet), and never ending (that we know of yet)

    this freaked the young me out a bit..i liked nice, neat, Answers…so i spent a weekend with a pad of paper and a pencil attempting to work out PI to the last digit…

    failing miserably , of course…there are computer systems that have been doing that same calculation for decades without resolving it

    so i just looked at a Circle…being able to see the quantifiable value…but having no way to exactly measure it

    in my own purely Subjective viewpoint, that became the fuzzy boundary between science and metaphysics

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    My dear friend Shark:

    I too want to know who made God. There’s a lot of things I would like to know. Like Duane said, if He made a grand entrance today I would have a million questions.

    But that is not a be-end-all argument. Can’t you accept the notion that there may be questions that science will never be able to answer? Or at least in our lifetime. Hence, all that remains is that dirty word “faith”.

    P.S.: I love Duane and You toooo

  • Duane

    Gonzo, OK, I see what you’re saying. The amazement comes from the fact that you can “measure” the area with your eye, but you can’t actually write down the exact value. Same goes for the surface area and volume of a sphere.

    This is also true with the length of the diagonal of any square. The length is just the length of a side times the square root of 2.

    The quality at work is the irrationality of pi and sqrt(2). Of course there are an infinite number of irrationals. So pi is calculated on supercomputers out to billions of places not because the exact value is being looked for. It’s already known by proof (actual proof in this case) that pi goes on forever. These calculations are done for computer speed and accuracy tests — benchmarking.

    But pi is more special than an ordinary irrational number. It is a transcendental number. Now we’re talking some metaphysics! A guy by the name of Lindemann proved that pi is transcendental in 1882.

    What I find amazing about pi is that it shows up in the most unexpected places. Also, some of the most famous equations in physics have a pi hanging around somewhere: Schrodinger’s Eq, Maxwell’s Eqs, and Einstein’s field eqs, for example. It is truly mysterious.

  • gonzo marx

    you nailed it Duane..

    to me, it was the Concept that we had the unKnowable and the Infinite held within the simplest of euclidian geometrical shapes

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    bhw: Further to my emails, it is bad enough that you show bias in your editing hatchet jobs for others, but given that I am the author of this post I will appreciate your undivided cooperation.

    Duane made personal attacks against yours truly in comments #6 et al. Having also read Duane’s comment #217, I do not believe he would object to their being edited and I will appreciate your assistance in this respect ASAP.

    I have been waiting for your response since last evening when I first requested that you remove his name. This is now my third request. I notice that Duane’s name removal has “mysteriously” come to pass… but my concerns still remain.

    Please do not abuse the authority that has been granted unto you in good faith. If God be God, then I would expect His or Her judgment be passed fairly and equitably for all.

    And please kindly do not reply with an adversarial comment of your own. I would not wish to see this post degenerate again given all the progress that has already been made.

    Thanking you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

    Love,

    …BB

  • gonzo marx

    ok..that made me laugh…

    thanks BB..a good chuckle always helps me out

    Excelsior!

  • Duane

    Aw, hell, now I’m starting to feel guilty about the whole thing.

  • gonzo marx

    bah..no guilt, Duane

    you know how some folks feed off of it

    stay strong

    kick a puppy or something

    {8^P~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Guilt is good.

    Next thing you’ll be going to church.

    And speaking of proof, I prayed and it was answered, albeit only partially.

    We’re making progress here.

    Streuth!

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Gonzo, re: #226.

    In hindsight perhaps I should have started it as an “Open Prayer”, and ended it with “From your loving servant”.

    Isn’t it wonderful that we have a God that we can argue with and still be merciful?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    bhw: Further to my emails, it is bad enough that you show bias in your editing hatchet jobs for others, but given that I am the author of this post I will appreciate your undivided cooperation.

    BB, you have my hatchet’s attention.

    I have been waiting for your response since last evening when I first requested that you remove his name. This is now my third request. I notice that Duane’s name removal has “mysteriously” come to pass… but my concerns still remain.

    That is because I was on the road all day today, as I told you I would be in an email I sent you yesterday.

    There were TWO emails in my inbox about this matter when I got up this morning. Unfortunately, only ONE of them had a relevant subject line, and it wasn’t yours. That’s the one I read because it caught my attention. I did a quick edit to undo the damage before leaving my house at 7 am.

    I just now returned home and started plowing through the rest of my inbox. That’s when I found YOUR email about this matter. It came to me as a reply to another thread — the one where I told you I’d be away all day today — so it remained among the unread messages all day. There was no indication in the subject line that you needed something new from me, so I didn’t open that message before leaving this morning.

    It’s called prioritizing.

    And please kindly do not reply with an adversarial comment of your own.

    Even though you publicly accuse me of bias and “hatchet jobs,” my only comment to you is that you should stop posting private messages in a public forum.

    Now, I’m going to feed my kids and catch up on other important matters. I’ll be back to review the entire thread tonight.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Dear bhw: Since you responded here I have no choice but to reciprocate.

    I wouldn’t mind so much if you WOULD return my emails. Granted, if you were away today then so be it. But what was your excuse yesterday when I first emailed you, after you finished hacking to death other commentators that shall remain unnamed.

    You wasted no time putting the hammer down on some commentators, and air brushed others, and yet the first person who started it all still remains unscathed.

    A small oversight perhaps? Or is it bias? You choose. But given that you are back now and have STILL not yet edited Duane’s comments, then we have no choice but to go with the latter explanation.

    Sorry dear but I work in law and it’s my job to see through the bullshit. The facts plainly speak for itself. So I reiterate, please stop abusing the trust that you have been given and be fair or don’t play at all.

    Please kindly edit the comments in question.

    Thank you so much.

    That is all.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    As you say…

    it is all a matter of priorities.

    Isn’t it?

  • gonzo marx

    oh BB..and here i was getting to like you

    those last two don’t suit you well…

    number 6 has no direct INSULT…passes the smell test, snarky..yes..a bit derisive..yep, but i can’t see any problem there…and Bog knows Duane and i have gone at it in the past…

    as for the way i was edited as compared to snakeye/jo…one might note that i skirt a very fine line…deliberately..

    check comment 180 and see the breakdown, and the man with two names is no where near as particular in his choice of phrasing…you say you know Law..you should know what i mean..it’s not always what ya say, but how ya say it

    so leave the editors be…discuss as you like…when all the bullshit is taken away, there is a lot of good stuff here

    so what is the problem?

    BTW…did you have a gander at the PI and PHI bits?

    i’d like to hear your take on it…it woudl seem to fit the whole ID philosophy

    just a thought

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    But what was your excuse yesterday when I first emailed you, after you finished hacking to death other commentators that shall remain unnamed.

    You mean the email that arrived in my inbox at 2:28 am? Did it ever occur to you that I went to bed?

    You wasted no time putting the hammer down on some commentators, and air brushed others, and yet the first person who started it all still remains unscathed.

    You keep repeating this, even though I explained to you in an email that I haven’t read the entire thread and that I would DO THAT per your request. I come out here to do that now, and I get more commenting from you that I have to deal with instead.

    As far as how I edit goes, my instructions are to leave as much of a comment in place as possible and to edit only the part(s) that directly violate(s) the comment policy. That means some comments get heavier editing than others. The goal for all our editors is to leave as many of the writers’ words and their meaning intact as possible.

    A small oversight perhaps? Or is it bias? You choose. But given that you are back now and have STILL not yet edited Duane’s comments, then we have no choice but to go with the latter explanation.

    I’m quite sick of you accusing me of bias. As I mentioned in an email and in my previous comment, I have a personal life that sometimes needs my attention. I occasionally sleep, and every once in a while I’m lucky to get 8 full hours in a row, as I just have now finished doing.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Okay, if anyone has anything more to say about comment policy violation on this thread, keep it offline and send me an email, please.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled debate about intelligent design.

  • http://hungrytroll.com troll

    never underestimate the power of the paradox – human linguistic freezes will not describe movement and change completely and consistently

    moments of epiphany come closer to ‘truth’ than years of systematic scientific grinding, mathematical manipulation and sophistry

    logic leads the IDer to posit a designer…but then what to say about omnipresent suffering…fall back on the axiom that the designer’s plan is beyond human comprehension or that, hey, aids is a punishment or that the designer only designed some of this shit or that suffering is but a point of view, a teaching tool or the yang in our yin – maybe the designer was just a fuck-up as so many designers are

    in any case ID requires the study of the designer as much as the designed object

    best to keep religious paradoxes bracketed from science and everyday life – they are debilitating

    physical science avoids discussion of first cause…it’s the rule

    although it is logically impossible for you to get off my bridge, try

    troll

    bhw – rather than:

    bhw you’re a (edited)

    try

    bhw you’re a (edited: wherein troll makes reference to bhw’s qestionable parentage)

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    It’s all elementary my dear Gonzo. Editing is a judgment call, and since you were somewhat involved, in law we would call that a conflict of interest. Kinda like that word were hear all the time called “reasonable”. It’s all subjective.

    And since y’all are involved to a certain degree, and I was a non-participant I think I’m in a better position to call it.

    Unfairness is something that riles my rancor to no end and unfortunately I see bullshit here. It’s bad enough to be screwed over on someone else’s post, but is intolerable on your own.

    WIth respect to my dear bhw… more revisionist nonsense. I’m still waiting for that eraser of yours to do its handy work. And the only think that’s sick about all this is my heart. I will think twice before I post again at BC.

    Nevertheless, I agree there is a lot of interesting stuff going here so please by all means carry on. I need a break. So as Dr. Frasier Crane once said – I’m listening.

    Cheers!

  • http://mistwereld.blogspot.com Floris Vermeir

    Its a bit late perhaps to comment on the example of the eye, and it not being found in fossils. Yet eyes that did not evolve further are found in species that are still around, as are other things.

    Some of those species are apperently reffered to as ghosts, species that went extinct in most parts of the world but stayed alive in a particular environement. An example would be several of those big fish, that where thought to be exitint and where found alive. There name starts with a c, but I don’t remeber it correctly.

    One of the arguments used as a comment on Darwin’s book, was that what he said about the eye having evolved step by step, trough natural selection, could not be proven, as there was no evidence of certain of those steps.

    That was so until, not so long ago, max 5 months or so, a species was found to have miniature eyes, that had somethings in common with ours, but where not that far evolved. They are so small, that if it wouldn’t be know know that they existed, they would just be looked over.

    There iamge isn’t focused on the retina, but behind it so they don’t see sharp but are apperently good at spotting larger stationay objects. On top of that they have, its called pigments I think, or a kind of light sensors, that allow them to notice if it is light or dark. I’ll look up the article if you want to. That is an example where a very primitive eye, is used together with a more evolved eye, that has some features in common with us, but others not. It was said to be like the missing link in eye evolution.

    As for science and religion, do they don’t deal with two different things ? In a very recent article a lady pointed out that religion, is abit like some fairy tails. Its not really the good way of telling it. But what she wrote came out that science is there to explain things, the best we can, and we can prove or disprove that. Religion in her opinion, had as a function to offer comfort, so that if something would happen we had something to fall back on. Some fairy tales do the same. One of the reasons why Wolves still have such a hard time, in parts of the world, because of this one fairy tale.

    I don’t quite agree with that, as I’d say that that would be forgetting about the medling of the church in all kind of affairs and trying to control science and people. Which continues in a lesser form to this day. Although some of there key teachings like saying that gay and stuff like that is unnatural, are starting to show cracks. I can only point them out, its not for me to decide when that argument is no longer logical correct.

    As for God could it be that, part of the confusion and the discussion occurs, because people are using one name to talk about two different things.

    The science and methaphysic thing ?

    Put it this way:

    God as is reffered to by some is a creation of man, to explain certain things that were not understood at that time, to control other people with, or a combination of both. People used to refer to the sun, thunder, the stars as gods and knowing that there is a god that created everything is a kind of comfort, something that makes life easier for those people. In a discusion that followed on trying to answer the three big questions, and from other discusion in the past in other places it became rather clear that there are people who are so sure of themselves that they do not accept anyone else having a different opionion. Especialay on that kind of stuff.

    Life would be to empty for some withouth that knowledge. To difficult, to many questions. I’m not a believer, meaning I don’t believe in god. I only belief that I don’t know everything, and that there are things I most likely never will understand, or know the answers on.

    The other thing that is reffered to by some as God, may be the energy, the process that created the universe and the big bang, but even if we figure it out, it might not give us much comfort. It might turn upside down everything we know.

    One of the main difference between science nad religion, is that if in science an argument turns out ot be incorrect, or can be proven wrong, then that may not be accepted direct by everyone, but if it is proven incorrect then new questions are posed, and answers are sought for them.

    With religion, it does not seem to be the case, or it takes much longer. It only took till 1992 or something like that for the church to acknowledge that Galileo was correct. I wonder what will happen if the evidence has reached a sufficient amount to prove that a bout being gay as being a choice, wrong, if the religion will then accept that.

    Theory’s of science, evolve over time, and there are indeed so many theories of how the univers is, how planets formed, that it sometimes looks like there are myriad possibilites. But after time, evidence mounts to support or contradict a theory. Some religious theory’s haven’t changed for the past 2000 years.

    I would agree more with the lady who wrote the article if religion didn’t mingle time and time again with things it does not have a business with. The bias being removed that makes humans unique, and anything we have learned acquired , like language , tools, how to use them and so on … seems to bring unsetlling thoughts with it for soem, that maybe.. we are not so specials as we see ourselves…

    Its called reality. Many of the things have evolved and didn’t fall out of the sky.

    As for Irreducibly complexty. Recently it was pointed out that some organism have things in commons with others, yet in there case they are not as complete but do work.

    Perhaps the best argument against it is, that it is not because it is to complex for some to understand; and there are things I hardley can comprehend because of there complexity; that there should be a designer that as designed that.

    Comment 86: I’ll take the fomation of the solar system as an example. There is no resaon to accept and suspect, that I know of, but correct me If I’m wrong, that if a situation is given and known, that would be the starting situation that lead to our solar system (on some parts Is till have question, like that it needs to be a flat disk) always gives rise to exactley the same end situation. So it is very well possible in my opinion, that if you take the start position, and use a simulation, that a different solar system could have formed from that situation. I’m considering testing that idea, using a cheap/not so easy experiment.

    As for evoltion this means, that there is no evidence that exactley the same would have evolved. After all, if the Dinosaurs did not ran in to bad luck, and if that meteorite didn’t fall, wich cuased the bad luck, and got them extinct, then we wouldn’t/might not be around. The process of the extinction is more complex I know.

    Please point it out, if I’m incorrect somehwere, I appriciate that very much.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    name starts with a c, but I don’t remember it correctly.

    Floris, I believe you are referring to the Coelacanth.

    As promised I’ll pass this one on to Duane. I know when I’m licked.

  • Lothar

    The big bang theory says that in the beginning there was noothing. Still, nothing was all sucked into a small dot wich spinned, exploded and created the universe. So: Nothing exploded and created all planets and stars… Really hard to get evidence for that. You ever thought about the FACT that all planets should turn in the same direction? Well they don’t. Just a simple proof that the big bang theory is totally stupid.

    I believe God made time, space and place. We are bound to those 3. Those 3 things also limits our ability to think. God, who made it, is beyond those. How can we know Him? One thing is certain: We know what the bible fortold. Many things wich was written so long ago happen now. How’s that proof? enough for me to know there’s a God.

    If there wasn’t a God and we just live and die, our lives are the same worth as a rock.

    One piece of advice: Watch the siminars done by Kent Hovind. He explains the Faith in God in a sientific way.

  • zingzing

    yes, in the very beginning, there was a new thing. there wasn’t nothing. why do you believe that? it’s the bible that says there was nothing, not the big bang theory.

    where did you ever get the idea that planets should turn in the same direction?

    “Those 3 things also limits our ability to think.”

    apparently.

    “If there wasn’t a God and we just live and die, our lives are the same worth as a rock.”

    don’t be so down on yourself.

    “Many things wich was written so long ago happen now. How’s that proof? enough for me to know there’s a God.”

    yes, not everything is unique. watch this: i will wake up tomorrow, and on january 25th, 2034. am i god? the proof awaits…

    “He explains the Faith in God in a sientific way.”

    explain your spelling… you need an education, methinks.