101 replies to this topic

[betsy]

Again that means absolutely nothing.

This is my statement which you just answered:

However or whatever scientists do to arrive at conclusions does not alter the fact that some scientists wavered (and that includes Darwin).....and some are still wavering as we speak.

And you say that means absolutely nothing! Then pray explain why there is such a term called "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" being bandied about by some scientists?

You should read you sources more carefully.

Nothing is wrong with my sources. Btw, where are your sources?

But again I have to mention that even if Darwin himself said evolution was entirely false that doesn't make it true.

And on that same token I have to mention that if Darwin himself said evolution was entirely false.....it could very well also mean that he spoke the truth and was right!

You want to know what Darwin really thought try reading On the Origin of Species.

No, you're wrong on that. If you honestly and truly want to know what Darwin really thought about spiritual matters, including the origin of species....read his correspondence, specially the ones written AFTER the publication of Origin Of Species.

First link doesn't work, second is a thread where you got your ass kicked.

Try this link: http://www.asa3.org/...F9-01Miles.html

So you say I got my ass kicked. Why such crudely contentious, almost- insulting words in response to what I'd consider just plain simple statements from me. Kinda gives the impression you're on defense mode right away!
Mind you, that's just your opinion, you're entitled to it. But really, why does talking about this kind of topic makes it seem so contentious right away from start?

And speaking of opinion, you ought to read that thread again....and I suggest you also read the thread, "REJOICE ON THIS DAY" before giving yours. For your convenience, let me pull the Darwin thread up for you.
That way, I can't say you're just doing a typical pick-and-choose statement here and there....or just loosely throwing baseless opinion.
Makes debate more credible and worthwhile that way.

Edited by betsy, 29 August 2010 - 04:28 AM.

[betsy]

This is only true if you are deluded enough to think 1) That there is actually evidence supporting creationism and 2) There aren't any religious scientists, there are plenty of them most of them think of evolution as the work of a god.

Wow! I said:

Speaking as a believer in God, what fascinates (is that the right word?) me about scientists is the awful position they must find themselves in when they find science inevitably pointing to the existence of "Design"...or "Intelligent Design".....their sort of acknowledgement of a God.

Do you even read at all? I was explaining about my own fascinations and speculations....SPEAKING AS A BELIEVER IN GOD!

I don't even think we're on the same page. Bye-bye.

[DogOnPorch]

Why did 'God' make this?

http://en.wikipedia....iangulum_Galaxy

[ToadBrother]

Speaking as a believer in God, what fascinates (is that the right word?) me about scientists is the awful position they must find themselves in when they find science inevitably pointing to the existence of "Design"...or "Intelligent Design".....their sort of acknowledgement of a God.

Good thing they don't, then. If quite avowed Christians like Dobzhansky were smarter than that. There is no inevitability to any of it, and a proper scientist doesn't assume his conclusion. You might be best to read Dobzhansky's famous essay to get a glimpse at how a scientist of religious convictions actually functions.

http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm

[ToadBrother]

Why did 'God' make this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulum_Galaxy

All things dull and ugly,
all creatures short and squat.
All things rude and nasty,
the Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
each little wasp that stings.
He made their brutish venom,
he made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small.
All things foul and dangerous,
the Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiny urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
all pox both great and small.
Putrid foul and gangrenous,
the Lord God made them all.

Edited by ToadBrother, 29 August 2010 - 08:08 AM.

[betsy]

Speaking as a believer in God, what fascinates (is that the right word?) me about scientists is the awful position they must find themselves in when they find science inevitably pointing to the existence of "Design"...or "Intelligent Design".....their sort of acknowledgement of a God.

Let me expand on my statement above. In a way, I am envious....or in awe (I can't seem to think of the proper word at the moment) of these scientists who wavered, and most especially...especially of those who eventually converted to Christianity.

Fascinated by that inner struggle....what a dilemma to bear!

Envious and in awe in a way that only mere contemplation and speculation on my part....about how it must feel for them to suddenly come to the realization that with all their superior knowledge and capability....they unmistakeably found God!
I assume these people did not just come to that shattering conclusion so easily...there must've been great skepticism and reluctance....of double-checking...or triple checking to make sure. But they just keep coming to that road sign saying, "Yield"...."God Up Ahead."
I could only imagine how it must feel that exact moment of realization....the one that made them convert.

Edited by betsy, 29 August 2010 - 08:21 AM.

[ToadBrother]

Let me expand on my statement above. In a way, I am envious....or in awe (I can't seem to think of the proper word at the moment) of these scientists who wavered, and most especially...especially of those who eventually converted to Christianity.

Fascinated by that inner struggle....what a dilemma to bear!

Envious and in awe in a way that only mere contemplation and speculation on my part....about how it must feel for them to suddenly come to the realization that with all their superior knowledge and capability....they unmistakeably found God!
I assume these people did not just come to that shattering conclusion so easily...there must've been great skepticism and reluctance....of double-checking...or triple checking to make sure. But they just keep coming to that road sign saying, "Yield"...."God Up Ahead."
I could only imagine how it must feel that exact moment of realization....the one that made them convert.

I'm more interested in their science. Their religious leanings are rather irrelevant. Does it matter whether Darwin was an agnostic or not? What counts was the theory.

Science itself is necessarily agnostic, of course, and having talked with a few scientists who have religious beliefs, they just as readily as their agnostic and atheist counterparts state that that is the key principle of scientific investigation.

Edited by ToadBrother, 29 August 2010 - 08:27 AM.

[DogOnPorch]

All things dull and ugly,
all creatures short and squat.
All things rude and nasty,
the Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
each little wasp that stings.
He made their brutish venom,
he made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small.
All things foul and dangerous,
the Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiny urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
all pox both great and small.
Putrid foul and gangrenous,
the Lord God made them all.

Well that galaxy (M33) is rife with new star formation...as are untold millions of other galaxies. Us perfect creatures in God's image should be aware that he's/she's/it's choosing the 'Start New Game' option on his/her/its Sim Earth program.

Edited by DogOnPorch, 29 August 2010 - 09:19 AM.

[Bonam]

Well that galaxy (M33) is rife with new star formation...as are untold millions of other galaxies. Us perfect creatures in God's image should be aware that he's/she's/it's choosing the 'Start New Game' option on his/her/its Sim Earth program.

Lot's of star formation in our own galaxy, too.

[DogOnPorch]

Lot's of star formation in our own galaxy, too.

Oh yes...of course. Just with a galaxy like M33 you can see these regions in nice glowing rows in the spiral arms. Other galaxies seem to be filled with Population II stars with limited or even no star formation.

[Bonam]

Oh yes...of course. Just with a galaxy like M33 you can see these regions in nice glowing rows in the spiral arms. Other galaxies seem to be filled with Population II stars with limited or even no star formation.

Milky Way star formation: 3-5 solar masses per year
Andromeda star formation: ~1 solar mass per year
Triangulum star formation: 0.45 solar masses per year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy#Mass_and_luminosity_estimates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulum_Galaxy#Star_formation

However, you are right in that star formation activity is highly visible in Triangulum; it has a higher average aerial density of star formation (about 4x compared to Andromeda), since it is a much smaller galaxy.

Regardless, your original point is well taken, vast amounts of solar systems continue to be created throughout the universe on a continual basis. That being said, Kurzweil's perspective on intelligent life is interesting, according to his analysis (which I don't fully buy, but it definitely makes some good points), we may well be the first civilization that has attained our level of advancement in our galaxy.

[DogOnPorch]

Milky Way star formation: 3-5 solar masses per year
Andromeda star formation: ~1 solar mass per year
Triangulum star formation: 0.45 solar masses per year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy#Mass_and_luminosity_estimates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulum_Galaxy#Star_formation

However, you are right in that star formation activity is highly visible in Triangulum; it has a higher average aerial density of star formation (about 4x compared to Andromeda), since it is a much smaller galaxy.

Regardless, your original point is well taken, vast amounts of solar systems continue to be created throughout the universe on a continual basis. That being said, Kurzweil's perspective on intelligent life is interesting, according to his analysis (which I don't fully buy, but it definitely makes some good points), we may well be the first civilization that has attained our level of advancement in our galaxy.

Much like the old Drake equation, some numbers might need adjustment if water proves to be more common in its triple state than thought and we keep finding Earth-ish planets at the rate we have (or faster).

[TrueMetis]

This is my statement which you just answered:

However or whatever scientists do to arrive at conclusions does not alter the fact that some scientists wavered (and that includes Darwin).....and some are still wavering as we speak.

And you say that means absolutely nothing! Then pray explain why there is such a term called "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" being bandied about by some scientists?

There isn't intelligent design was made up by creationists in order to try to bring some credibility to it. This was shown in the court case Kitzmiller vs Dover where are christian conservative judge smacked down ID as Creationism and therefore unconstitutional.

Nothing is wrong with my sources. Btw, where are your sources?

You source says that "Gray may have believed that Darwin..." Not that Darwin ever actually did believe.

And on that same token I have to mention that if Darwin himself said evolution was entirely false.....it could very well also mean that he spoke the truth and was right!

Nope, because after 150 of research Darwin is the last source people go to for information of evolution. You may not realize it but their is more evidence for evolution than there is gravity, we've found the cause of evolution, still haven't found the higgs boson. So should we teach intelligent falling in science classes?

No, you're wrong on that. If you honestly and truly want to know what Darwin really thought about spiritual matters, including the origin of species....read his correspondence, specially the ones written AFTER the publication of Origin Of Species.

He continued to publish and republish On Origin Of Species throughout his life, you think he would have mentioned something like this in one of the latter editions but he doesn't.

Try this link: http://www.asa3.org/...F9-01Miles.html

Your inability to read your own links is rather sad. Because when you actually read it you get the opposite view of what your trying to claim Darwin said. You get a whole bunch of Darwin arguing against design but saying he wished it was true. Then one example that is arguably him saying design may be real, which he apparently revokes afterwords.

I also don't trust the ASA because it makes some very basic mistakes about what evolution is.

[betsy]

Your inability to read your own links is rather sad. Because when you actually read it you get the opposite view of what your trying to claim Darwin said. You get a whole bunch of Darwin arguing against design but saying he wished it was true. Then one example that is arguably him saying design may be real, which he apparently revokes afterwords.
I also don't trust the ASA because it makes some very basic mistakes about what evolution is.

So you don't trust Asa Gray or the ASA for some reason that you claim, but that is your own opinion....which is worth nothing on this debate since your claim is based on nothing. Not to mention how you just showed your opinion in this topic is askew. I'm telling you we're not on the same page!
I couldn't care less whether Asa Gray or the ASA is right or wrong. I'm not debating whether evolution is real or not. I've already done that...in lots of other topics.

Anyway, here's another link. Now surely you must trust the CBC!

• Darwin described himself as an agnostic, and was puzzled by the sometimes heated arguments between evolutionists and creationists. In an 1879 letter to his friend John Fordyce, Darwin wrote, "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist." In 1898, he said "there is no reason why the disciples of either school should attack each other with bitterness."
http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/natural_science/topics/3696/

And another interesting site:

Letter 12041 — Darwin, C. R. to Fordyce, John, 7 May 1879
Dear Sir
It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041



Yes, indeed that's what my link is revealing isn't it? The WAVERINGS.....AND FLUCTUATIONS (Darwin's own word!).....which is what I was musing about!

I'm not going to reply anymore unless you've got something worthwhile to say. Bye-bye.

Edited by betsy, 30 August 2010 - 08:21 AM.

[DogOnPorch]

So you don't trust Asa Gray for some reason that you claim, but that is your own opinion....which is worth nothing on this debate since your claim is based on nothing. I couldn't care less whether Asa Gray is right or wrong. I'm not debating whether evolution is real or not. I've already done that...in lots of other topics.

Yes, indeed that's what my link is revealing isn't it? The WAVERINGS.....AND FLUCTUATIONS (Darwin's own word!).....which is what I was musing about!
So don't talk to me about not reading, when you clearly demonstrate that it is you who's thumping on the wrong page!
Bye-bye.

How old is the planet Earth?