[Stoner]

Originally Posted by shibboleth

Watson-Crick? That wouldn't be the Crick would it? You know, the guy with enough (more than enough, you would think) advanced chemistry under his belt to know that somethings fishy in Evolutiontown? Hmmmm?

I take it the quote mining is about to start?
Well.....let's start with more then the usual response........

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)
..............." . . . "so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...e/part1-4.html

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

You know, the guy with enough (more than enough, you would think) advanced chemistry under his belt to know that somethings fishy in Evolutiontown? Hmmmm?

Hmmmmmm!............

[CADude12]

Originally Posted by shibboleth

Quick, back to the kitchen, your primordial soup is burning!!!

You don't know how appropriate that comment is . Joking about it when you're from Santa Barbara, I see your sense of humor isn't dead...

I do think it has been obvious from the beginning that biological life is just chemistry, albeit a complex chemistry. That's what we are. ID sees the complexity of life as evidence of intelligence behind our existence. That's faith speaking, not science. I don't think science is capable of reaching those kinds of conclusions... how do you measure it, quantify it, test it? What do you compare it to?

Back in the 18th century, David Hume laid it all out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogu...tural_Religion

But, you'll have to excuse me, I have to head up to Temecula this morning, and time's a wasting...

[shibboleth]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I take it the quote mining is about to start?
Well.....let's start with more then the usual response........


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...e/part1-4.html




Hmmmmmm!............

Actually, you jumped the gun and emplied I was dishonest long before I had the chance to be, er, dishonest that is...my god man, what were you thinking? Let me hang myself next time! The truth is, I'm not stupid enough to get entangled in this thread, with or without quotes. I've debated this point long enough and with enough people to know there's no point to the debate: People will believe what they want despite the evidence and when push comes to shove everyone except the most erudite and learned are emotionally led to their choice...and that includes people on both sides of the question.
Personally I don't worship the "God of the gaps", in fact I don't worship anything...I do, however believe in, have the utmost respect for and think fondly of a Creator who through forethought or by accident allowed my narrow little arse to draw breath upon a planet perfectly suited to that purpose and crawling with beautiful babes in the bargain and I don't care how he did it or how long it took. Evolution presents no problems for me although evolutionists and adherents of that most brash and egotistical young religion "Scientism" do. It seems that if there were no God it would be necessary for them to create one in the laboratory just so they'd have someone to kick around and I think that is sad and a bad reflection on science, in general...if you don't believe in God why stir up so much dust over Him? As for Creationists, especially of the Bishop Usher, 6,000-year-old-earth-variety, my god, Jesus himself must cringe everytime they open their mouths...I know I do.
From time to time I may post in this forum or a forum like it but don't get your panties all twisted up, I am merely trying to let a little fresh air into the room...for crying out loud it smelled like something died in here...unfortunately, I looked in and the debate itself was still alive and......Cricking...

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by shibboleth

Actually, you jumped the gun and emplied I was dishonest long before I had the chance to be, er, dishonest that is...my god man, what were you thinking? Let me hang myself next time! The truth is, I'm not stupid enough to get entangled in this thread, with or without quotes. I've debated this point long enough and with enough people to know there's no point to the debate: People will believe what they want despite the evidence and when push comes to shove everyone except the most erudite and learned are emotionally led to their choice...and that includes people on both sides of the question.
Personally I don't worship the "God of the gaps", in fact I don't worship anything...I do, however believe in, have the utmost respect for and think fondly of a Creator who through forethought or by accident allowed my narrow little arse to draw breath upon a planet perfectly suited to that purpose and crawling with beautiful babes in the bargain and I don't care how he did it or how long it took. Evolution presents no problems for me although evolutionists and adherents of that most brash and egotistical young religion "Scientism" do. It seems that if there were no God it would be necessary for them to create one in the laboratory just so they'd have someone to kick around and I think that is sad and a bad reflection on science, in general...if you don't believe in God why stir up so much dust over Him? As for Creationists, especially of the Bishop Usher, 6,000-year-old-earth-variety, my god, Jesus himself must cringe everytime they open their mouths...I know I do.
From time to time I may post in this forum or a forum like it but don't get your panties all twisted up, I am merely trying to let a little fresh air into the room...for crying out loud it smelled like something died in here...unfortunately, I looked in and the debate itself was still alive and......Cricking...

The truth is, I'm not stupid enough to get entangled in this thread, with or without quotes.

Then Crick can be put to rest?....eh?................

[shibboleth]

Originally Posted by CADude12

You don't know how appropriate that comment is . Joking about it when you're from Santa Barbara, I see your sense of humor isn't dead...

I do think it has been obvious from the beginning that biological life is just chemistry, albeit a complex chemistry. That's what we are. ID sees the complexity of life as evidence of intelligence behind our existence. That's faith speaking, not science. I don't think science is capable of reaching those kinds of conclusions... how do you measure it, quantify it, test it? What do you compare it to?

Back in the 18th century, David Hume laid it all out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogu...tural_Religion

But, you'll have to excuse me, I have to head up to Temecula this morning, and time's a wasting...

Nice to make yer aquaintance, yeah, we seem to endure a lot of fires out this way but imagine this: It's ten-o'clock at night and the entire hillside outside of town is in flames, in front of you is a woman, 24...maybe 25 years old...drop-dead gorgeous, built like a goddess, dressed in a sheer, nearly transparent summer-dress...the intense glow of the flames is behind her, she turns and for a moment...omg...for a moment her slim, buxom body is illuminated through her dress like an image from one of those Minoan frescoes we used to stare at in National Geographic so many years ago...sigh. You have to be able to mine all the joy you can out of this chunk of reality we call life...it may be the only one we have...Peace.

[shibboleth]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Then Crick can be put to rest?....eh?................

"Put to rest" sounds too final...how 'bout we just send him to the Bahamas?

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by shibboleth

"Put to rest" sounds too final...how 'bout we just send him to the Bahamas?

That would be a neat trick......I'm pretty sure he has been 'put to rest'

[shibboleth]

Originally Posted by Stoner

That would be a neat trick......I'm pretty sure he has been 'put to rest'

Y'mean Crick's d...d...de...um...expired?

Y'mean he won't be around to defend himself when someone takes him out of context or misquotes him?

Y'mean if I were to claim he confided something to me in confidence during a private conversation it would be difficult to disprove?

Hmmmm.

Brother Crick...oh yeah, knew him well. He was baptized in my swimming pool a month before he passed away. Found Jesus just in time. He was planning a new book all about DNA and RNA. His theory was that DNA and RNA was "The Word" that was mentioned in the New Testament; You know: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God. That's right, according to Francis DNA was the divine creation of an intelligent, loving God...Blah...Blah...Blah

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by shibboleth

Y'mean Crick's d...d...de...um...expired?

Y'mean he won't be around to defend himself when someone takes him out of context or misquotes him?

Y'mean if I were to claim he confided something to me in confidence during a private conversation it would be difficult to disprove?

Hmmmm.

Brother Crick...oh yeah, knew him well. He was baptized in my swimming pool a month before he passed away. Found Jesus just in time. He was planning a new book all about DNA and RNA. His theory was that DNA and RNA was "The Word" that was mentioned in the New Testament; You know: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God. That's right, according to Francis DNA was the divine creation of an intelligent, loving God...Blah...Blah...Blah

Yep....you're out of luck

[lotuseclat79]

Scientists Create a Form of Pre-Life.

A self-assembling molecule synthesized in a laboratory may resemble the earliest form of information-carrying biological material, a transitional stage between lifeless chemicals and the complex genetic architectures of life.


Called tPNA, short for thioester peptide nucleic acids, the molecules spontaneously mimic the shape of DNA and RNA when mixed together. Left on their own, they gather in shape-shifting strands that morph into stable configurations.

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

'Evolutionary Phenomenon' Discovered In Russia's Caucasus Mountains.

A completely new species has been discovered in the Russian mountains! ... "This is a completely new discovery," says Cornelissen, an associate professor of ecology at VU University in Amsterdam. "Snow roots are thus far unknown and a spectacular evolutionary phenomenon."

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum.

For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.

"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.

"Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."

The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland" has attracted 715,000 visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to "bring the pages of the Bible to life."

Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of social values.

Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches.

-- Tom

[shibboleth]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum.

For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.



-- Tom

Lotuseclat79:
I'm not sure what to think about this; On the one hand I don't presume to tell people what to think but on the other hand I'm appalled at what some folks do think.
The worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was its being high-jacked by the state (Emperor Constantine) to be used as a kind of socio/political tool. The Bible, old and new testaments, was sold to the masses as literally true and its veracity not open to discussion. Is it any surprise that the Dark Ages followed upon the heels of Christianity's rise to political power? Catholicism, pseudo-christianity (thinly disguised paganism) and all the other offshoots of this initial theocratic mishmash represent one gigantic and monolithic misinterpretation of ancient manuscripts and has resulted in all manner of atrocities, intrigue, propaganda and outright stupidity.
With all that said, let me add that none of this, not the Creation Museum, not the paleontologists reaction to it, not your reaction to the article nor my reaction to the article have anything to do with God. God exists outside the realm of our everyday experience and, thankfully, above all attempts by the rank-and-file theologian to pigeon-hole Him.
The Creation Museum is more than a farce, it is a tragedy and yet the paleontologists laughter in the face of it represents a bigger tragedy: The failure of science and science educators to teach the public anything about reality. Science claims to be the ascendent paradigm but it is difficult to believe its claim when 3/4 of the population of this country still believe in an interventionist God. Instead of visiting absurd museums in their spare time scientists should visit schools; instead of laughing at ignorance they should be figuring out ways to overcome it. Until they've accomlished this, they have nothing to laugh about.

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by shibboleth

Lotuseclat79:
I'm not sure what to think about this; On the one hand I don't presume to tell people what to think but on the other hand I'm appalled at what some folks do think.
The worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was its being high-jacked by the state (Emperor Constantine) to be used as a kind of socio/political tool. The Bible, old and new testaments, was sold to the masses as literally true and its veracity not open to discussion. Is it any surprise that the Dark Ages followed upon the heels of Christianity's rise to political power? Catholicism, pseudo-christianity (thinly disguised paganism) and all the other offshoots of this initial theocratic mishmash represent one gigantic and monolithic misinterpretation of ancient manuscripts and has resulted in all manner of atrocities, intrigue, propaganda and outright stupidity.
With all that said, let me add that none of this, not the Creation Museum, not the paleontologists reaction to it, not your reaction to the article nor my reaction to the article have anything to do with God. God exists outside the realm of our everyday experience and, thankfully, above all attempts by the rank-and-file theologian to pigeon-hole Him.
The Creation Museum is more than a farce, it is a tragedy and yet the paleontologists laughter in the face of it represents a bigger tragedy: The failure of science and science educators to teach the public anything about reality. Science claims to be the ascendent paradigm but it is difficult to believe its claim when 3/4 of the population of this country still believe in an interventionist God. Instead of visiting absurd museums in their spare time scientists should visit schools; instead of laughing at ignorance they should be figuring out ways to overcome it. Until they've accomlished this, they have nothing to laugh about.

Hi shibboleth,

I am not sure that the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was as you say. We can only deal with what we know today. For example, what of the Inquisition? What of the Vatican today hoarding Gospels in its research archives? Politics and Religions just do not mix. Faith is and always has been an individual matter. Belief is quite another thing, however.

Ask yourself why the public may choose to not believe in reality. Ask yourself why the public chooses (on its own) to escape from reality. It is not the failure of Science and Science educators - it is the failure of those of little faith who do not know how to separate reality from wishful thinking.

It remains a joint task of both Science and Religion to unite the human psyche to achieve a true understanding of the differences between reality and faith.

I my view, Science and Religion are but two sides of the same coin. For example, is not Science one of God's good works? And if one chooses not to believe in any one of God's good works, then is this not exhibiting a lack of faith in God?

If one chooses to lead their life wisely, they come to understand that there is more that humanity has in common with all living and non-living things upon this Earth - all the works of what is called God!

One other point, the Creation Museum was not built on Scientific evidence, it was built on the fantasy of those whom have an axe to grind. They will be ginding their axes for a very long time, and when they find that their axes are getting no sharper, perhaps they will try to resolve their faith or lack thereof, and accept reality for what it is, instead of wishing it different according to their interpretation according to the Bible - a great work of literature for sure, but hardly an accurate rendition of reality in the past, present or in the future.

-- Tom

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by shibboleth

............................ Science claims to be the ascendent paradigm but it is difficult to believe its claim when 3/4 of the population of this country still believe in an interventionist God. Instead of visiting absurd museums in their spare time scientists should visit schools; instead of laughing at ignorance they should be figuring out ways to overcome it. Until they've accomlished this, they have nothing to laugh about.

Words and concepts like 'paradigm' have always intrigued me.
Sometimes I see it used and wonder what is really meant.
Simply put.....it's a patten of thought that brings knowledge of the topic in question.
So what is an ascendent paradigm? Well, a line of thought that brings greater, more accurate knowledge sounds reasonable.
But who claims science a replacement for religion?
If science claims it.....that's circular reasoning.
Science abhors circular reasoning.
Mostly it's people with 'an axe to grind'.

but it is difficult to believe its ( that could be the scientist's claim....not science's .....) claim when 3/4 of the population of this country still believe in an interventionist God

Why?
Is correctness dependent upon a consensus of opinion?
The issue you bring is one of acceptance. An either/or situation.
Or are you arguing that science equates to atheism and has been unsuccessful in reaching a favorable consensus?

So the issue you bring is one of 3/4 of the population denying the frame of thought that we call science for one structured in an 'interventionist God'.
I don't think you can make that argument.
Past posted articles even put the people studying this 'paradigm' ( science) at about 80% believers in God and the element that denies reality ( scientific investigation ) is mostly limited to the extreme fundamentalist. And they are not a majority of Christianity.
So the 'picture ' becomes fuzzy.
Is science an ascending paradigm in regards to religious beliefs, or ascending compared to religious beliefs that impose a 'paradigm' of denial upon the study of reality......the physical world?
Looks more like the latter to me. I think the former is often seen with science and religion being distinctly different concepts that do not compare well or replace each other.

Instead of visiting absurd museums in their spare time scientists should visit schools

It's been recognized that many scientists in academia are too involved in their own 'realm' and need to venture out and publicly express their thoughts rather than let the fundamentalist extremists have an exclusive audience.
But with out recognizing the absurdities, it is difficult to address the needed corrections.
And a handful of scientists taking a break for a little adventure is hardly harmful to the cause of teaching science correctly.

Know the enemy .........