[Sassysback]

When I speak of the High Priest of the Darwinian Movement I am sure you all know I am taking about the very Faithful Richard Dawkins. ;)

I watched a very interesting Documentary that I encourage you all to rent and watch.( Expelled, No intelligence allowed) It is a documentary about the consiracy behind the so called "Fact of Evolution" that has plagued authentic science. This is a documentary study done by a non religious Jewish man (Ben Stien) who exposes the lack of academic freedom "to legitamately Challenge "Big Science's" orthodoxy without persecution." The real issue in the film is not whether Intelligent Design is scientifically viable, (though it does address it), but rather why scientist can’t even ask scientific questions critical of Darwinism without fear of reprisal by the scientific hierarchy, or their peers.

Here is a link to a more indepth description of the Documentary. EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Official Site

Anyway, the best part of this movie was when Ben Stien asked Richard Darwkins how life began and he said life began on the back of Crystals :rolleyes: Ben Stien asks where did those crystals come from? After some probing questions Dawkins to my utter astonishment and must say amusement, Richard Dawkins, the darwinistic equivalent to a religious Fanitic, said, and I am paraphrasing, " (intelegent) alien life on a distant planet could be responsible for Origin of life... lol wait a minute here isnt this intelligent design? It seems Dawkins is open to the possibity of Intelligent Design. He just replaces "God" with "Aliens" . mmm Science?

Though it is almost always distorded by its opponents, ID is not meant as an argument for Christainity. ID is simply contending that the design of the Univers poinsts to an intelligence of some kind that would have worked with a design purpose in mind. Wether it be "GOD" or Dawkin's "aliens". Dawkins apperently recognizes an argument for intelligent design is not ridiculous although Dawkins vehemently denies and expresses horror that he might be open to ideas outside the scientific Paradigm.

Interesting, because Dawkins views simply dont meet the criteria of emprical evicence that he insists must govern all our thinking. For example, he is prepared to believe that the origin of all matter was an entirely spontaneous event, he therfore believes that something can be created out of nothing- and that since such a belief goes against the very scientific principles of verifiable evidence which he tells us should govern all thinking, this is precisely the kind of irrationality, or "magic" , he scorns.

Here is the bottom line, to believe in the spontaneous origin of matter is NOT science but rather as much a matter of Faith as is the belief in God.
Studying Dawkins, he is a very confused man which led me to write this book
"The Dawkins Delusion"

Kidding I did'nt write a book... yet ;)

[NeedKarma]

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » The Truth behind the Fiction

[Sassysback]

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » The Truth behind the Fiction

Lol go figure :rolleyes: The real truth behind the Darwinstic propaganda has been exposed so you are bound to see angry Dawinists building sites to vent against what has been made known of what really goes on. Funny this site actually buys adwords in an ongoing effort to promote the Dawinst movement. :D

[NeedKarma]

Ok.

[Capuchin]

Intelligent design is not scientific, therefore it is not allowed in science. That's not infringing on anyone's academic freedom, you can go and ponder it all you want in philosophy or theology journals.

[Akoue]

Capuchin is exactly right. The objection to ID is that it is an untestable hypothesis. To object to ID is not to object to creationism: One can hold that God created without taking that claim to count as part of a scientific theory. If you want to teach creationism in religion classes, fine. But keep ID out of science departments.

[Sassysback]

Intelligent design is not scientific, therefore it is not allowed in science. That's not infringing on anyone's academic freedom, you can go and ponder it all you want in philosophy or theology journals.

So what is scientific about Spontaneous generation? What emprical scientific evicence is there to prove that something can be created from nothing?
Something being created from nothing goes against the scientific principles of verifiable evidence thus the belief that origin of all matter came about by an entirely spontaneous event is as much a matter of Faith as is the belief in God.

[spitvenom]

I'm so sick of this stupid argument. Who cares if it was God or shape shifting alien lizards that started this planet. We are here now live your life and stop worrying about who started this planet and what is going to happen to you after you die.

[Capuchin]

so what is scientific about Spontanous generation? What emprical scientific evicence is there to prove that something can be created from nothing?
Something being created from nothing goes against the scientific principles of verifiable evidence thus the belief that origin of all matter came about by an entirely spontaneous event is as much a matter of Faith as is the belief in God.

Which theory are you talking about? I don't believe any scientific theory states such a thing.

[Sassysback]

[QUOTE]

Capuchin is exactly right. The objection to ID is that it is an untestable hypothesis

So is the idea of spontanious generation of matter a testable hypothesis? To believe that something can be created from nothing is a purely supernatuaral beliefe. Unless if you can point me to any evidence found in a lab or in nature that demostrates this that something can be created from absolutely nothing.

[Capuchin]

So is the idea of spontanious generation of matter a testable hypothesis? To believe that something can be created from nothing is a purely supernatuaral beliefe. Unless if you can point me to any evidence found in a lab or in nature that demostrates this that something can be created from absolutely nothing.

Matter is generated from the vacuum energy routinely, which is as close to nothing as you can get. This explains several phenomena, like the casimir effect.

[Sassysback]

Matter is generated from the vacuum energy routinely, which is as close to nothing as you can get. This explains several phenomena, like the casimir effect.

Yes I understand that this is your belief.
But where, how and when did this so called "vacuum energy" originate? Do you have any empirical evidence to prove that this "vacuum energy" is what is responsible for the creation of the universe?

[spitvenom]

Well when the question is on the Answer page I tend to read the question. My point being this You, me, Darwin, or the pope can't prove what we believe actually happened so what is the point of arguing about it?

[Capuchin]

Yes i understand that this is your belief.
But where, how and when did this so called "vacuum energy" originate? do you have any emperical evidence to prove that this "vacuum energy" is what is responsible for the creation of the universe?

I didn't say it did. You said that you cannot observe something coming from nothing in the lab, so I gave an example of the evidence that suggests that you can.

[Sassysback]

Well when the question is on the Answer page I tend to read the question. My point being this You, me, Darwin, or the pope can't prove what we believe actually happened so what is the point of arguing about it?

You have a good point. I agree with you 100%. Which make me wonder why these haughty self proclaimed science experts think their beliefs are better than others. At the end of the day, like you said no one can prove their claims therefore no idea is superior to the other as Darwinsts would have people believe.

[Sassysback]

I didn't say it did. You said that you cannot observe something coming from nothing in the lab, so I gave an example of the evidence that suggests that you can.

Lol... but vacuum energy is something. It is what it is, ENERGY. That is not nothing

[Capuchin]

lol... but vacuum energy is something. It is what it is, ENERGY. that is not nothing

We don't have any evidence that "nothing" exists. All we have ever observed is something. Can you back up your claim that "nothing" existed or does exist?

[Sassysback]

We don't have any evidence that "nothing" exists. All we have ever observed is something. Can you back up your claim that "nothing" existed or does exist?

Lol.. why do I have prove anything. I am not the one who claims matter apeared spontaneously from nothing.

[Capuchin]

In case you missed it:

Which theory are you talking about? I don't believe any scientific theory states such a thing.

[Akoue]

Isn't the point rather that spontaneous generation *is* a testable hypothesis? It has been empirically disconfirmed. Any claim that can be made in the physical sciences has to be defeasible: It must be possible to confirm or disconfirm it by experimental means. I don't mean to reject the claim of creationism--I want to stay neutral there--only to point out that ID cannot be subjected to experimental confirmation/disconformation. We cannot use scientific means to prove its truth or falsity, which is to say that it lies outside science. (I know scientists who believe in a divine creator but reject ID. This seems perfectly reasonable to do.)