I'm not going to read anything you write ever again Lula, every time I read your ignorant repugnant responses I get farther and farther away from religion and any relationship with God. And that's not what I want.

I'm not going to read anything you write ever again Lula, every time I read your ignorant repugnant responses I get farther and farther away from religion and any relationship with God, and that's not what I want.

I've read the biblical version of creation, what more can we learn that isn't written there? What can science tell us about how God breathed the stars and planets into existence? Give me one testable theory that pertains to how God did that.

You selectively respond to my questions as well, but no I haven't seen the movie and that's irrelevant. I can't look into the eye's of people and know if they're telling the truth and neither can you. You said;

And your wright it was easy to check, and they were not being honest. That's the problem there, creationist will accept unconditionally anything that supports scripture. You would never consider verifying there stories and even when faced with contrary information you simply say "your not telling me nobody was fired over this".

In no particular order:

The basic issue is "what is science?"  If it doesn't follow the scientific method, it isn't science.  The scientific method requires experimentation where the experiments can be repeated by anyone and the same results obtained.

Maybe we're just using the word "evidence" differently.  For me, "evidence" is the result of scientific experimentation.  "Evidence" either bolsters a claim or proves it false.  It never proves it true.  For me "evidence" is necessary to have any belief in anything.  Take the phrase "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's probably a duck."  Now suppose you had an entity before you and you needed to determine what it was.  But you can't tell what it walks like, you can't tell what it sounds like, you can't tell what it smells, looks, tastes,  or feels like.  Are you still going to just go out on a limb and say it's a duck anyway?

In science, I look at this entity and I say "Hypothesis.  This thing is a duck."  I then experiment.  I take a photo of it.  I conclude it looks like a duck.  I publish that it looks like a duck."

You can now come along with YOUR camera and photo this thing.  It either still looks like a duck or it doesn't.  Now millions of other people look at our two photos, and they agree or disagree that this thing looks like a duck.  My original claim is either bolstered or proven false.  THAT is science.

I don't recall making any factual statements about creationism other than it can't be tested with repeatable experiments.  Would it be correct to say Creationism is a subset of ID?

Probably.  When it comes to good science (good = science that utilizes the scientific method) I don't care what people believe in.  So I wouldn't know if a scientist is an atheist, a Christian, or believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster unless they proclaim it.  It's completely irrelevant.  I don't have the same "know your enemy" viewpoint that you do.

I say ID isn't science.  All you have to do to prove me wrong is produce ID's very first hypothesis and accompanying experiments and results.  It should be a pretty famous experiment since it's the first one - historically speaking.  So...tell me.  What is that first experiment?

But you haven't answered the above.  I've asked it several times.  Should I point out that that is part of your standard progression?

The other side?  What other side is that?  Are there only two sides - mine and yours?  How about the side that says God started the machine running with certain parameters that would make everything in the universe possible and then the machine just ran according to his plan?  I actually find that much more believable over a God that controls the spin of every single electron.  Anyway, that's an ID theory that encompasses evolution.  The Big Bang DID happen.  God set it off.  Is that not a third side?  The only problem with pursuing is that it can't be tested.

So, we have a huge gap to fill.  We can either continue to test the nature of the gaps or suspend all testing and fill it with something that requires we just say it is so and believe it.  Up until the point that no more observational data and testing can be done, I will always stay on the side of "more testing."  If some point ever gets reached where there just aren't any more tests to do, then I'll decide at that point what I want to fill the remaining gaps with, but not until.

You already have that answer, don't you?

Quite so.  "God does not play dice" is the famous quote.  He said this in regard to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.  Ultimately it was a statement on faith of Einstein that just because it's impossible to determine causality at the planck scale (that part is proven) doesn't mean that causal determination is false.  I agree.  To say causal determination is false based on the fact that observing something changes its state and therefore we can never determine what state something is in when we're not looking at it (which is necessary for calculating determinacy) would be the same "gap science" that is so common in religion today.  Einstein chose to fill the gap with a creator, but I doubt he would have pushed that creator as a fact without some science to back it up.  It was just his personal choice.

Stubby:

well I don't think so.  You're saying the creationists are lying in this movie because you're reading some reviews that are saying they are and you haven't watched it yet.  When you watch the movie you'd see it different....I believe.  For one thing you can see the evolutionists squirm when asked blatant questions putting them on the spot. And you can see the paperwork ie emails and letters highlighted to show what they just interviewed as saying isn't meshing with the paperwork.   At least one came right out and said we should wipe Christianity right off the map.  I agree that he, at least was one honest Evolutionist. 

I'm sorry if I missed any Stubby but what have I missed?  As far as I know I've covered everything you've brought up for the most part. 

well that, like I said, gives us the overview but not the specifics.  There is much more to science than origins.  We can go around and around about origins but the fact is neither side was observable nor repeatable.  That's where the bias come in.  My bias is a biblical worldview.

I've noticed tho something interesting especially alot lately.  Whenever there is something specific to report or investigate they can't go back more than say 6-10 thousand years which meshes quite nicely with the biblical worldview. 

 For instance, recently in the paper I was reading an article about greyhounds (dogs) and their history.  In the article they reported that they can only go back about 8,000 years.  When Ock put forth his article on blue eyes, the same was reported.  It's only when the Scientists are vague and want to be mysterious they'll say billions and billions of years ago.  There is NO proof out there of anything billions and billions of years ago.  It's all interpretation of the evidence. 

So are you saying evolutionists don't accept unconditionally anything that supporst evolution? 

Well that's not me per se but I would agree that many would take it and leave it as said but this can be true, maybe even so more true for those buying up what the humanistic Scientists are saying.  But for instance when they came up with the box of bones they thought was James (brother of Jesus)......I was skeptical wanting to wait for further testing to see if it was indeed true or not.  Turns out it was a fake.  I didn't jump on any bandwagon right away preferring to wait it out. 

I certainly don't.  And the only people I know that unconditionally accept anything are religious people.

Evolutionary biologists aren't attempting to explain origins.

That's hardly a direct answer to my request that you produce experimental data.  See, I'm going on an assumption here - I admit it.  This is your article on Expelled.  In it you make a couple of points - some direct and some indirect.  I'll recap what I see.

What I'm getting from the article that you wrote is that you think ID should be taught in a science class and that ID theories should be present in scientific journals.  Then when I ask you to back that up by producing one experiment ID has ever done, you cop out and say you're not a supporter of ID.  Producing examples of experiments is the only way to justify having ID in a science class, though. 

For not being a supporter of ID, it's odd that this entire article supports it - but I guess it isn't really ID you're supporting - it's the stranglehold that you perceive evolution has in the science class.  If evolution does have a stranglehold, it's because it's the only theory on the development of life that's been doing any experiments that can actually be studied in a science class.  If people are getting fired for teaching ID in a science class, it's because they aren't doing their jobs - which is to teach science - which ID is not.

This "fear" you perceive isn't a fear of the subject.  It's a fear of having science in general undermined by allowing things that don't follow the scientific method equal billing in a class which teaches things that are science.  That was the whole purpose of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  To demonstrate that if you allow ID into the science class, you have to let absolutely anything in - even something as absurd as a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

of course .......and I would expect this answer from you.  It's a very biased POV.   So you say you're more objective than I?  I replied to that same question with:

Now I admit my biased worldview but as far as who is more objective I would not be able to say you are Ock.  You are even more biased than I am.  Only you're just unwilling to admit it thus far anyway. 

true for the most part,  but it does depend on the subject matter.  If the subject of origin comes up either by lecture or simple conversation  I'm sure they are not going to point to the bible as their source now are they? 

But you take the same biologist who just so happens to have a biblical worldview and if the subject of origins comes up, he's going to point to the scripture as the beginning of biology.  It always comes back to worldview.  Always. 

When I went to Disney it was loaded with evolutionary thought processes all thru their exhibits.  Even when they got to history they used evolutionary lingo bypassing any mention of the bible even when they were speaking in one exhibit about the establisment of the Printing Press.  Not a mention to what book was the first book printed.  This is all done on purpose. 

well what else is there besides the nonesense?  There is only a debate going on about a creater/designer or not.  Is there an intelligent being behind all that we see or not?  Explore both equally scienficially and let the people decide.  Otherwise this is only all about indoctrination. 

We had a letter to the editor from a biology teacher this past week.  He said:

"I am appalled to witness the dishonesty of academia in regard to the teaching of origins.  The teaching of the adult fairy tale called evolution, to the exclusion of other ideas is brainwashing and not education.  I thought science was a search for truth.

I always assumed that a good education would present various points of view, allow students to think critically, and draw their own conclusions.  Why do evolutionists feel threatened by different ideas on origins? "

Keep in mind Scotteh said he felt threatened by the ID folks.  I know another HS biology teacher personally who would echo these same sentiments.  He's teaching evolution because he's being forced to but he sees the lies and misinformation behind the science.   So when he teaches this he says......"some scientists believe."   When asked directly by a student on certain topics he'll admit he's not one of those scientists. 

Well, ok.  You're stating this as a hypothesis.  (I wouldn't dare think you'd just out and out slander me)  So prove it.  If you can't, then retract it.  I have a hypothesis.  I hypothesize that you won't retract this statement about me, and my experiment is this post to see if you will or you won't.  Man, I love science.

I agree.  And when ID does anything scientific, I'll be standing by to read about it.

No more than they're going to point to the flying spaghetti monster because the very idea is preposterous.