Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

We've had threads on science in the Bible and Prophecy in the Bible there's nothing been put forward that would warrant giving any book of the Bible any place in scientific discussions.Or maybe you had some other "sacred text" in mind ?As for Behe's "research" he really hasn't come up with much - his anti-evolution work is mainly theoretical and philosophical (and it IS just anti-evolution - there's no positive argument for ID). And he really hasn't come up with the goods yet. If you really think that he has a good argument then start up a thread to discuss it

quote:

---

Why is it insufficient to claim a cell (for example) as evidence, based on its clear design and conlude that it was designed? I understand that it is a subjective opinion that it was designed, but it is also apparent.

---

If I claimed that the cell "looks evolved" have I falsified your claim? One of us has to be wrong and one of us has to be right. What type of evidence should we use to see which one of us is right? Objective data that does not rely on either of our opinions. I have objective evidence that the cell is evolved. All you have is your subjective opinion that the cell "looks designed". Can we observe this designer designing biological organisms today? No. Can we observe species evolving today? Yes. Can we objectively detect common ancestory between divergent species and detect changing genomes over time? Yes. Can we objectively detect design? Yes. Have we ever objectively detected design in biological organisms? Yes. One example is the detection of DNA sequences that have been inserted into bacteria by man. Have we ever detected non-human design in biological organisms? No.

quote:

---

Why is it insufficient to claim a cell (for example) as evidence, based on its clear design and conlude that it was designed? I understand that it is a subjective opinion that it was designed, but it is also apparent.

---

Again, go to the thread and explain where I am being subjective. Please show me where I am entering my own opinions that are not supported by objective evidence.

quote:

---

I don't think it is unfair, but I tend to think that if you reject everything other than human observation of experiments, you are likely to miss truth.

---

Then give us an example of where science works better if we insert the supernatural. Give me one example of a scientific theory, used in science today, that only works if the supernatural is in play. Give me one example of a scientific discovery that could have only occured because of religious beliefs.

quote:

---

We've had threads on science in the Bible and Prophecy in the Bible there's nothing been put forward that would warrant giving any book of the Bible any place in scientific discussions.

---

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.I would like to make a comment in regards to this, though to lend some support to why we should include the Bible among other things in this discussion (Note, Admins, how I am really trying to stay on topic )Let us say, hypothetically, that there is no God, then, because there is a claim that there is a God in the Bible, the claims of the Bible become relevent to the discussion. The claims must be disproven by science for the no God claim to be true.Let us say, hypothetically, that there is a God. Then, because the Bible is an authority on God, it becomes relevent to the discussion also.Either way, the Bible is relevent to the discussion.

Aren't we drifting from topic here? The topic has more to do with who's standard requirements for discussion/debate are higher.Buz op excerpt: Often the "other methods" creationists try to use are disallowed due to the introduction of ID into these "other methods," thus allowing members of the evolutionist ideology the advantage here.

quote:

---

What type of evidence should we use to see which one of us is right? Objective data that does not rely on either of our opinions. I have objective evidence that the cell is evolved. All you have is your subjective opinion that the cell "looks designed".

---

I don't know Behe's and other ID's hypotheses well enough, but my understanding is that one of the main claims is something like:Darwinian evolution suggests that an evolved version of its ancestor must be sufficiently more beneficial than its ancestor in order to effectively remain as a new version, and, we what we know from how a cell would develop, the small, intricate changes that would have to develop perfectly in each area of the cell in such a way that it would survive, the extent of the change that would occur cannot be shown to be beneficial enough to meet those requirements. Simply, A sufficient advantage cannot be evidenced from one step to the next in the development of the cell.Is this close to what Behe says?

Why must the claim that there is a God be disproven scientifically ? Surely the existence of God is a question beyond the scope of science.And if there is a God it in no way means that the Bible is a reliable authority on that God.If all you have is tenuous "might be"s then no, the Bible has no useful place in scientific discussion.Really what you want is privelged treatment for your beliefs.

I stand by what I say. Evolutionists put science on a pedestal. Buz/Maestro, do you realize the two premise to which they can safely conclude that there is NEVER God in their own mind? Here it is; 1. Science doesn't mention God
2. What scientists say about God is irrelevant.

​

Conclusion; No God credence, or talk of him means anything according to our exalted philosophy, which is the modern authority, which is the only modernistic and accepted authority.What we need to show is that our theology can be backed up with valid and true epistemological and sound knowledge. Even if it doesn't meet the "scientific method" we need to show that that is not necessarily important, because we don't put science on a pedestal and worship it like others do.I mean, have you noticed how often they say, "That's not science," or, "mike - you're so right to not call that science".The real answer to that is; Why would I call it science? I don't need to - there is other ways to give credence to scripture. For example, me and Buz have proved biblical prophecy is true and valid and sound. EVen if you say God cannot be mentioned by science - the reality of evidence is still used.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-20-2004 12:13 PM

Leaving aside the issue of the accuracy of biblical prophecy, which I don't feel qualified to address, surely there is a limit to the relevance of the material you are suggesting? I doubt that many biblical prophets made many pronouncements concerning the origins or development of life on earth. This is the sort of noise I was suggesting would be problematic. If you are asking specific questions then a narrower focus is often best.I would actually prefer some sort of modern personal divine revelation to scriptural material, at least then you would have the subject there to clarify and explain to the best of their ability. That you say you can is accepted, its just whether you actually can do it that is in question.What sort of research has Behe produced, he at least has 1 properly peer reviewed research article with ID implications that I am aware of, which is probably one of the best hit rates going. That article has its problems, the most significant of which, leaving aside the fact that it is simply based on a computer algorithm, is that the conclusions rely very heavily on many assumptions which the authors made and the reasoning the authors used to determine those values, exactly the sort of systematic problem you were suggesting evolutionary biologists were suffering from leading to the prejudicing of their results.All you seem to be describing is two equally intransigent and entrenched groups, especially with assertions that criticism totally fails to register on their opinion of how succesful their arguments are.I'd not be predisposed to accept the gospels as substantial evidence of our spiritual nature.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

Surely the existence of God is a question beyond the scope of science.

---

I would point to this statement as a reason why creationists are held to a higher standard.Reasoning:1. The thrust of this forum is to debate creation vs evolution2. We are commanded to only discuss creation within science3. It is then revealed that our counterparts do not consider the question of a creator as within the scope of science.My suggestion:1) Choose 2 without believing 3
2) Believe 3 and disregard 2Those are the only equitable options, otherwise, you are holding us to a higher standard.

Mike... these two statements are exactly the same. Yeesh. And we frikkin' agree! When it comes to your personal belief, no, science doesn't matter! I'm a little tired, so I think tonight I'll just kick back and watch Angelina and Eliza go at it. I can always join in tomorrow.

wiz,Interesting that I wrote the response I did before reading your post. They say the same thing, and I would basically agree, we are seeing that this is exactly what is happening.

quote:

---

For example, me and Buz have proved biblical prophecy is true and valid and sound.

---

Yeah, I am starting to think that you are right about that. That is why I started leaning that direction with today's posts, e.g., trying to show why "sacred texts" might be worthwhile to include because of their trustworthiness.Thanks for the comments.

That's true - unless you require I give you some evidence for my belief. Then I must take part in science unwillingly. And then you guys say - "no - get out of science", I mean for Dusku's sake! SO yeah - I mean, maybe u should have a mince pie eh and a beer, cos u seem to be clever enough to not take mike's bait concerning prophecy - which is more than I can say for that big fishy I caught that begins with "H".

quote:

---

surely there is a limit to the relevance of the material you are suggesting?

---

Yes. But not full limitation as many are suggesting.

Well can you suggest any biblical passages that you feel are directly relevant to the question of Id?TTFN,WK

Wow - this is absolutely true! Excellent logic - and I agree that this is what happens here.Welcome to the forum, and please stick around.