09 Jun 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobThat’s some very interesting scientific findings (somehow I had completely missed your post previously).
“Sociologist Zena Blau of the University of Houston recently conducted a study of more than a thousand children in Chicago. [...] In 1981 Blau reported that IQs were lowest among children whose mothers have overly strict religious beliefs. Children whose mothers were from a non-denominational or non-religious background had the highest average IQs - 110 ...[text shortened]... up by scientific studies. Not one but two. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
09 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Shallow BlueLets show the context of Proper Knob’s comment (which for some reason you edited out):
Anyone who cites Dawkins as a proof of anything is more of an idiot than whomever he is trying to disparage. The "God Delusion" of Dawkins is nothing but that Dawkins considers himself the god of reason. He is neither.
Richard
“….
"Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind."”
"The God Delusion" by Prof. Richard Dawkins (2006)7
…”
Therefore, this isn’t just merely something Richard Dawkins ‘merely said’ nor ‘merely formed an opinion on’ but rather an actual result of a scientific study -so how can THIS result of an actual scientific be not proof of anything merely because; “Anyone who cites Dawkins as a proof of anything is more of an idiot than….” 😛
If somebody cites Dawkins as saying that it is proven that the Earth is round then does that mean it isn’t proven that the Earth is round? 😛
09 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…and fundamental Scientists to talk about their respective faiths
what are you doing here?, get back up to the chess only forum, this is strictly for fundamental Christians and fundamental Scientists to talk about their respective faiths. 🙂
…
1, what are “fundamental” scientists?
2, to assume a hypothesis gained through rational logical deduction/induction from actual observation is generally far more likely to be correct than false is not “faith”.
Do you dismiss the scientific fact that white light can be split into several colours by a prism as mere “faith”? 😛
09 Jun 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI apologies to you but I felt I just couldn’t let some of the claptrap I was reading here in this thread go by 🙁
Is this discussion about science? Or is it spiritual?
Please continue this line of discussion in the appropriate forum. Start a new thread if neccessary.
09 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo apologies needed.
I apologies to you but I felt I just couldn’t let some of the claptrap I was reading here in this thread go by 🙁
If an off-topic subject is too interesting to interrupt, I sometimes start a new thread in the right Forum, just to enjoy the continuation of the discussion.
But sometimes a spiritual discussion (off-topic) continues forever. And this tendency of maladie seems to multiply, as contagious, to other threads, specifically in the Science Forum. Why it is so, is worth a thread of its own... (Don't respond to this last question.)
09 Jun 09
Originally posted by Shallow BlueSo i am an idiot for citing scientific studies included in a book written by the former Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University??
Anyone who cites Dawkins as a proof of anything is more of an idiot than whomever he is trying to disparage. The "God Delusion" of Dawkins is nothing but that Dawkins considers himself the god of reason. He is neither.
Richard
Intriguing.
09 Jun 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonoh mr hamilton we have a set of theories based on data, let us not delude ourselves that it is any more than that , no matter how you may seek to cloak it with words of reassurance 🙂
[b]…and fundamental Scientists to talk about their respective faiths
…
1, what are “fundamental” scientists?
2, to assume a hypothesis gained through rational logical deduction/induction from actual observation is generally far more likely to be correct than false is not “faith”.
Do you dismiss the scientific fact that white light can be split into several colours by a prism as mere “faith”? 😛[/b]
now can any of you egg heads tell me why it was thought that the universe had a beginning. i have had Fabian tell why he thinks it has not (although for the most it was beyond me, if he used simple language and illustrations and analogies it may have helped), beetle tell me why we do not know, now can anyone tell me why it is thought that it had a beginning?
09 Jun 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobif i cited a a study based on principles written by Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, would that hold similar credence in your eyes? if not why not? are his academic credentials also not outstanding?
So i am an idiot for citing scientific studies included in a book written by the former Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University??
Intriguing.
09 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou mean his stance on 'Irreducible Complexity'? Why is it the biology department at Lehigh has taken a firm stand against his argument? "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific".
if i cited a a study based on principles written by Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, would that hold similar credence in your eyes? if not why not? are his academic credentials also not outstanding?
In the case of Kitzmiller V Dover Area School Board, the judge cited Behe's testimony extensively and still concluded intelligent design is essentially religious in nature.
THAT Behe?
10 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieReligiosity aside, it seems clear the universe had a beginning, since it is expanding now, run time backwards and it seems obvious it would hit a big crunch. The thing is, the entity we refer to as the universe probably is not the whole story. We may speak of the beginning of time and all that but what we really mean is the beginning of time in THIS universe. If there is a bigger universe that begat ours, for instance, one theory says our universe is the other side of a black hole from a yet bigger universe and our universe spawns black holes which at least some of become new universes on the other side of the hole. It means the laws of physics we see here and now may have been slightly different in the parent universe and those laws slightly different from ITS parent, etc., and whatever kind of universe that spawns off ours may have slightly different but similar laws to our own, say the speed of light is 200,000 miles per second or some such. There may be many different universes spawned from our parent universe with widely different laws where live or even matter as we know it could not even exist due to strangeness of laws there, say the fine constant being instead of 127, if it was 2, matter could not exist at all and it would forever in that reference be forever some kind of force field with no matter, just energy. So things are probably not as simple as assigning a beginning to our universe. Such a beginning would be the equivalent of one town being built in a backwoods area while other cities are being built all around that one unbeknownst to them.
any comments most welcome , please.
10 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…we have a set of theories based on data,
oh mr hamilton we have a set of theories based on data, let us not delude ourselves that it is any more than that , no matter how you may seek to cloak it with words of reassurance 🙂
now can any of you egg heads tell me why it was thought that the universe had a beginning. i have had Fabian tell why he thinks it has not (although for the most it ...[text shortened]... le tell me why we do not know, now can anyone tell me why it is thought that it had a beginning?
…
Correct.
…us not delude ourselves that it is any MORE than that ,
..…(my emphasis)
Exactly “MORE” of what kind of thing would a theory necessarily have to be based on for the theory to be valid?
The theory (which has already been proven correct) that a prism splits white light into several colours is based on ‘data’ (from the human eye) -would that theory be invalid because it is based on “nothing more” than the data? 😛
10 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…if i cited a a STUDY based on PRINCIPLES written by Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, would that hold similar credence in your eyes?
if i cited a a study based on principles written by Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, would that hold similar credence in your eyes? if not why not? are his academic credentials also not outstanding?
..…(my emphasis)
I think I can answer this for Knoby: it would depend on two things:
1, Are those ‘PRINCIPLES’ soundly based on reason/logic/evidence with no credible evidence contradicting them?
2, Did that ‘STUDY’ that was based on those ‘PRINCIPLES’ (ignoring whether or not those ‘PRINCIPLES’ are sound) use flawless scientific method?
As long as the answer to both questions 1 and 2 above are yes, then the answer to your question is “yes” regardless of who or what kind of person cited it or whether the person who cited it is a complete moron.
Ideally, any study you cited written by Michael Behe (or anyone else) would have to be scrutinised to answer the two questions before passing judgment on whether or not it is a truly credible study.
If the study you want to refer to is the one regarding 'Irreducible Complexity' then that study has been found flawed on both the above accounts.
10 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOf course you can, but take heed of this quote from the man himself given under oath in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District.
if i cited a a study based on principles written by Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, would that hold similar credence in your eyes? if not why not? are his academic credentials also not outstanding?
"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".
In short, what he believes, by his own admission cannot be called science. During his testimony Behe conceded that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.
Feel free to post.
10 Jun 09
Nice quote from Dicky Dawkins on Behe.
"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)…point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is…maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder."