[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So when Carl Sagan spoke to an audience of the general pupulation, he used the definition held by the population at large: A fact is something which has been established to have been actually true. Evolution is a fact.

I understand why he would speak in terms and concepts that the general populus can be able to apprehend. And I could be wrong here but to me it is sort of like how the people in biblical times with their lack of 'scientific' expertise wrote in terms and concepts that they (and probably the readers) could understand about the world around them from their POV.

However, I am not sure if I can totally trust everything that Carl Sagan says.

He was the book author behind that movie, “Contact”, with Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey. He used to say, “We need to build more of these radio telescopes because if there’s any intelligent alien out there that wanna speak to us we wanna make sure we’re listening.” A very noble idea. And he had his criteria set, “If we get any kind of coded information coming from space, even a simple morse code signal, that would be irrefutable evidence that it came from an intelligent being from space.” Though he had his criteria set, any information automatically is an indication that it came from an intelligent being. Yet Carl Sagan would look at that DNA molecule, which represents information and it’s loaded with this stuff. And he’d said that DNA molecule happened by chance and there was no intelligence involved there whatsoever.

I think Carl Sagan had a double-standard. He can SEE the signs of intelligence. He knew information automatically speaks of intelligence but he would look at that DNA molecule and say, ‘no intelligence there. it happened by chance.” He had a double standard and was a hypocrite.

He was a man, I think, like many people today who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. He didn’t like the idea of being held accountable to some intelligence up there and so he suppressed and pushed it aside. AFWK, he took his atheism with him to his grave. One of my personal friends once knew people who confronted him with this very argument on his death bed. And as far as we know it he never received it.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

I understand why he would speak in terms and concepts that the general populus can be able to apprehend. And I could be wrong here but to me it is sort of like how the people in biblical times with their lack of 'scientific' expertise wrote in terms and concepts that they (and probably the readers) could understand about the world around them from their POV.

Except that's not what Sagan did in this instance. He spoke the version of English used by his audience... much like who the writers of the old testament wrote in Aramaic rather than French.

However, I am not sure if I can totally trust everything that Carl Sagan says.

I'm sure you can't. Are we changing subject? I thought this was about the differences between ID and creationism, not the theology of Carl Sagan.

He was the book author behind that movie, “Contact”, with Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey. He used to say, “We need to build more of these radio telescopes because if there’s any intelligent alien out there that wanna speak to us we wanna make sure we’re listening.” A very noble idea.

That would be a good example of what the general population calls "a theory", and the scientific community calls "speculation"... though I doubt he ever said this. Care to cite?

And he had his criteria set, “If we get any kind of coded information coming from space, even a simple morse code signal, that would be irrefutable evidence that it came from an intelligent being from space.”

No, that was intelligent-design creationist Fred Heeren. You are paraphrasing from the book "Show Me God: What the Message from Space is Telling Us About God."

Though he had his criteria set, any information automatically is an indication that it came from an intelligent being. Yet Carl Sagan would look at that DNA molecule, which represents information and it’s loaded with this stuff. And he’d said that DNA molecule happened by chance and there was no intelligence involved there whatsoever.

More likely he'd just call all the presuppositions you just made to ask that question "pseudo-science".

I think Carl Sagan had a double-standard. He can SEE the signs of intelligence. He knew information automatically speaks of intelligence but he would look at that DNA molecule and say, ‘no intelligence there. it happened by chance.” He had a double standard and was a hypocrite.

I think the source of these quotes is a liar. Where did you get these quotes?

He was a man, I think, like many people today who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. He didn’t like the idea of being held accountable to some intelligence up there and so he suppressed and pushed it aside. AFWK, he took his atheism with him to his grave. One of my personal friends once knew people who confronted him with this very argument on his death bed. And as far as we know it he never received it.

Ahh... the rampant rhetoric that wonders if any of your questions in this thread where honest or if you were just hoping to get a hook in some hastily written comment and run with it. Lacking one from me you decided to hack a straw-man attributed to a dead Sci-Fi writer. Bad form .

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by Qingu

We have actually observed a number of cases of speciation.

In how many years?

Originally Posted by Qingu

There remains some debate about how gradual evolution occurs.

Are you talking about the rate of speed?

Originally Posted by Qingu

I'm not sure what you're asking. Scientific theories are best understood as roadmaps that connect a lot of information in a unified whole. They aren't just collections of facts, they are also ways of interpreting and categorizing those facts. Evolution became a "theory" when a lot of scientists realized that Darwin's ideas were the best way to explain all of these facts they'd gathered about fossils, animal behavior, and taxonomy.

I'm asking what is the putative proper criteria to formulate a scientific theory. Because a "universal theory of everything" that would attempt to unify or explain through a single model the theories of all natural systems is much like, say, a nice, tidy, little story that atheists made up to fit the facts to explain how the world could have created itself without any help from God.

Originally Posted by Qingu

What are you referring to?

Physics, mechanics, thermodynamics, everything, etc

Originally Posted by Qingu

I'm having difficulty understanding what on earth you're talking about. Are you referring to how evolution is a biological theory, not a sweeping cosmological theory? (as opposed to how fundamentalist Christians like to lump evolution together with the big bang)

Yep.

Originally Posted by Qingu

The terms are not hard to learn. And it's not particularly hard to read a biology book and see the evidence and elegance of evolution.

It is when they change all the time.

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Except that's not what Sagan did in this instance. He spoke the version of English used by his audience... much like who the writers of the old testament wrote in Aramaic rather than French.

I am talking about terms and concepts, not language.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm sure you can't. Are we changing subject? I thought this was about the differences between ID and creationism, not the theology of Carl Sagan.

I didn't mean to go off topic but that was just a little side POV. Though I'm not telling you shouldn't take it with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That would be a good example of what the general population calls "a theory", and the scientific community calls "speculation"... though I doubt he ever said this. Care to cite?

Carl Sagan.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No, that was intelligent-design creationist Fred Heeren.

So Fred Heeren had that to.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You are paraphrasing from the book "Show Me God: What the Message from Space is Telling Us About God."

?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

More likely he'd just call all the presuppositions you just made to ask that question "pseudo-science".

Probably but unlike the IDers I'm not calling those presuppositions "science" as how we currently understand it to be.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I think the source of these quotes is a liar. Where did you get these quotes?

You're looking at it. Care to refute to prove it?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Ahh... the rampant rhetoric that wonders if any of your questions in this thread where honest or if you were just hoping to get a hook in some hastily written comment and run with it.

It is the former.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Lacking one from me you decided to hack a straw-man attributed to a dead Sci-Fi writer. Bad form .

Actually, no. His quote was unclear to me until you clarified it. But my side point still stands, I am not sure if should trust everything an anti-evolutionist (in terms of expertise,) like Carl Sagan, would say about evolution.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

In how many years?

Depends on the instance; bacteria speciate within several generations. We've obvserved speciation of a number of plant and animal species in our lifetimes. I believe Jerry links to this on his FAQ, which I can tell you haven't bothered to read.

Are you talking about the rate of speed?

That would be what "gradual" means.

I'm asking what is the putative proper criteria to formulate a scientific theory.

Publish it? See how it's received? Again, I'm confused as to why you are even asking questions like this.

Because a "universal theory of everything" that would attempt to unify or explain through a single model the theories of all natural systems is much like, say, a nice, tidy, little story that atheists made up to fit the facts to explain how the world could have created itself without any help from God.

Aha.

Out of curiosity, which god are we talking about? I'm familiar with several who supposedly created the world.

Physics, mechanics, thermodynamics, everything, etc

You are going to have to be more clear: what exactly are you talking about?

It is when they change all the time.

Well, it's a good thing you're posting in the Science forum. Hopefully Jerry and I will be able to help you keep up.

So now that we've gotten the semantics straightened out, do you actually have anything to say about the actual content of evolutionary theory and ID?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

I am talking about terms and concepts, not language.

But then you are not discussing your example: which was not one of analogies, but one of definitions.

Carl Sagan.

When and where? Citations generally tell me where I can go read it.

So Fred Heeren had that to.

Yes, in a hypothetical conversation between an atheist SETI enthusiast and a theistic creationist. You'll find the conversation in his book: "Show Me God: What the Message from Space is Telling Us About God."

Probably but unlike the IDers I'm not calling those presuppositions "science" as how we currently understand it to be.

You are still presupposing them. I don't agree with the presuppositions in question.

You're looking at it. Care to refute to prove it?

You got the quotes from my monitor?

Actually, no. His quote was unclear to me until you clarified it. But my side point still stands, I am not sure if should trust everything an anti-evolutionist (in terms of expertise,) like Carl Sagan, would say about evolution.

Of course not... particularly without context. But even assuming a perfect understanding of what someone is saying, everyone is occasionally wrong... except those who are wrong more than occasionally.

[Holy_Chopz]

does it really matter? an evolutionist is an evolutionist. they have many ways to try and explain their hypothesys's.I.D is one of them. what does the Bible say though?thats all that matters.science mostly supports what the Bible says and there have been no breakthrough's regarding I.D. or the finding of E.T. life forms. it's just another way that People try to do away with God.this is just my 2 cents worth so take it with a grain of salt. it's just what I think. thats all.

[JerryLove]

Bad form resurrecting the thread for an off-topic rant