After all, what difference would it make?
<br>ID doesn't help anyone to make predictions about the universe. It raises more questions than it answers. I'm all for the discussion of alternatives to accepted theories, but teaching ID will only detract from science courses. Think our kids are falling behind in math and science now? Wait until ID is taught all over the US.
All ID is teaching children is that there's an easy way out of any scientific proof - put the blinders on and chalk it up to a supreme being. And if it sneaks into science classes, how long til they start clamoring for more time in history classes? ID is a foot in the door, and it makes me sick to think that so many children are going to be shortchanged like this.
Remember the cartoon showing a mathematical proof with "And then a miracle happened" as one of the steps? Soon teachers are going to have to accept that as a valid alternative to the "theory" of calculus.
Jack
5th August 2005 - 12:48 PM
QUOTE (Kræn Knude+Aug 5 2005, 12:10 PM) As I see it, science is just human perception of the world around them. If this perception is religious, then why shouldn't science be?
After all, what difference would it make?
No, science is not just human perception...science attempts to remove that variable as much as possible!!! That is why science has rigorous methods that try to eliminate variables such as perception-- I think it's blue, you think it's grey...which is it? Lets measure the wavelenghts to see who is right. What difference would it make? Oh, I don't know...our future doctors, growing up thinking you don't really need evidence to proceed with removing my liver! After all, my perception tells me that's what's causing your melancholy. And my perception tells me you don't really need your liver anyway.
J. Wensveen
5th August 2005 - 03:09 PM
It is scary, that an institution, that is taking care of a large and larger part of the education of the next generation, starts teaching theology instead of learning students science.
Pol Pot with his Khmer Rouge did almost the same, but he just killed all the scientific educated people and reset the year to zero before re-education started. In this case it will go slower, but a more effective way though to make the USA a Theocracy.
Why are all those ID and Creationism supporters so annoyingly stupid. like little children with their fingers in their ears shouting that they can not hear you. The difference between Science and Religion is the difference between Fact and Faith. One can be tested over and over again, the other is heresay speculation.
The Apostel Thomas was a Scientist.
Allen
5th August 2005 - 04:33 PM
I am absolutely against teaching ID in schools. My objections, besides the total lack of scientific support, and that ID promotes religion, are two:
1) How in the hell are you supposed to "teach" ID? What the hell do you say? Will there be an intensive six-week session ending with a test on which you write "A higher power might have been involved in the creation of man and his world"? There is nothing to teach about creationism, unless you want to delve into the juicy details, bringing me to my second objection:
2) Which creation myth are you going to teach the kids? The Christian myth? The Hindu myth? The Sumerian myth? One of several hundred (or thousand) American Indian myths? What about the one I just came up with, that a giant sea turtle from the Andromeda galaxy was flying through our neck of the woods when it was hit by an asteroid, and it used the pieces of its shell that broke off to form the planets? There are probably hundreds of thousands of creation stories, one for every culture, each one made valid only because at least a few people believe in it. Unless you want the curriculum to involve "creation story of the day" or the test to have "write your own creation story!" on it, "teaching" ID will have to be biased towards a certain story (three guesses which one), which is RELIGIOUS.
Come on, GW: you should know better than anyone that evolution is valid! You're the clearest evolutionary link one could ask between man and monkeys.
Edna
5th August 2005 - 04:36 PM
When the Menonites reject science it comes with conviction. When the majority of fundamentalists drive home, pop in a CD of praise music while thawing dinner in the microwave, opposition to science doesn't have a lot of integrity. There is a duality there that is surely born of ignorance. Certainly president Bush knows smart bombs are not put together by prayer teams.
Shocked
5th August 2005 - 04:43 PM
What's really...amazing...is how smart people (especially scientists) think they are. Guesses and theories have come and gone ever since the beginning of humanity. For someone to dream that they, in their tiny little instance of existance, can dream up and understand the creation of the universe...which is much more complex than their minds can imagine...is so utterly stupid that it boggles the mind.
If every human in existance throughout the stretch of time all worked together to make their guess, their combined theories would still end up being nothing but a worthless guess...which boils down to an opinion.
What form of arrogance can blind humans (who think themselves so utterly rational) into believing that as a tiny specks on a rock, they can use their atom sized brains to piece together and understand the marvels of the universe?
In my life as a scientist, I have more respect for my "Theory of the Arrogance and Foolish Pride of Scientists" than I have for anything Darwin or anyone else ever dreamed up. Spend some time looking through history, and you will see how every age had its "thinkers" who just knew that they knew everything...and then a few years later, the arrogant future generation labeled them as incompetent and unlearned as they labeled themselves as the smartest.
For those who think you are so smart, why don't you come up with some applied science instead of all of this philosophical theoretical worthless garbage? Why don't you figure out how to stop humans from ever dying? Not smart enough for that, huh?
Justavian
5th August 2005 - 05:13 PM
| QUOTE | Why don't you figure out how to stop humans from ever dying?
<br>Ahh - good call. Cause what we need is to have billions of people producing billions of children, none of whom will ever die.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Why don't you figure out how to stop humans from ever dying?
<br>Ahh - good call. Cause what we need is to have billions of people producing billions of children, none of whom will ever die.
If every human in existance throughout the stretch of time all worked together to make their guess, their combined theories would still end up being nothing but a worthless guess...which boils down to an opinion.
<br>Are you trying to characterize science as some sort of random guess? You label yourself a scientist, and yet you don't seem to have any understanding of how the scientific process advances knowledge.
You speak of scientists as if they're all very arrogant, while i see exactly the opposite. Most scientists - even those at the very top of their fields - are actually very humble. They understand that they're only really making incremental progress, and because of our flawed "atom sized brains", they may be headed in the wrong direction. What real scientist declares his theory completely unassailable? I just don't understand where your hostility is coming from.
And as to the "do something useful" statement - you see harnessing ZPE as worthless? How about fusion? What about understanding the way animals breed, the way they affect their environment, the way the EVOLVE? These "utterly stupid" ideas help us to better understand the universe - to better understand our world and our own impact on it. They help us understand how we can progress as a species, and for some of us it gives us a feeling of awe. These fantastic ideas (which could be way off) inspire new generations to tackle the same problems to refine our knowledge, and encourage people to examine other fundamental questions.
It's unbelievably short sighted to simply label theoretical work as useless.
| QUOTE | For someone to dream that they, in their tiny little instance of existance, can dream up and understand the creation of the universe...which is much more complex than their minds can imagine...is so utterly stupid that it boggles the mind.
<br>You're right - maybe this generation won't have the answers to the questions the universe provides for us. So since we can't get it perfectly right, we might as well just give up.
solidspin
5th August 2005 - 05:32 PM
Hello, all -
| QUOTE | In short, there is hardly anything more evident than the fact that the paradigm of evolution from a simple beginning to life's complexity violates the Principle of Causality, of the cause-and-effect relationship, which is ideally the cornerstone of science.
Because complexity's evolution from any kind of inferior cause is irrational, we have no choice but to postulate that the initial cause of the universe can be no lesser in qualities than what we find in the universe. Thus this logical inference from a highly complex effect to a cause no lesser than the effect itself points in the direction of an agent that we may call the Parent Seed, Common Ancestor, or Cosmic Genotype of the phenotype universe.
<br>Your statement above is false on several levels - are you then claiming that massively cooperative behavior is a violation of causality? One post mentioned the 2nd Law, which is ENTIRELY applicable here. No violation of the 2nd law so everything is just peachy fine.
hello, Shocked -
I personally am shocked that you could make such ignorant statements. In fact, humans have done a great job of extending the human lifespan from approximately 30 yrs in 2000 b.c.e. to approximately 76 today. So far, WE scientists have done this through good ol' fashioned science - proper nutrition, discovery of vitamins, discovery (and subsequent avoidance) of toxins, discovery and exploitation of bacteria......
In fact, you don't even know how to properly use the definition of "theory" in your post. You also are not likely a scientist, since you haven't been keeping up w/ the remarkable advances w/r/t the C. elegans genome - how about a 14-fold increase in their lifespans??? How about new discoveries in mutation curves, yet another of the copious examples of evolution?
Nature 430, 679-682 (5 August 2004)
among many many others...Guesses (hypotheses) can either be disproven or fail to be disproven, pure and simple. Perhaps this is again something else you have forgotten from your college days...
ID is a total joke, since it is inherently unprovable. I will give you just a few examples of how LOUSY the human body design really is:
- embryoes are parasitic on the human female body, to the point where death or serious injury can and does occur due to pre-ecclampsia or full-blown ecclampsia, pregnancy-induced diabetes, etc.
- recently it has been estimated that over 65% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion due to the chronic failure of enzyme E3, w/r/t sex chromosome separation. Think about how profound that is for all you nutjob IDers out there - more babies have been spontaneously aborted in-utero than have ever lived on the planet - ever.
- telomeres - need I say more??
- over 60% OF ALL proteins manufactured by the human body are faulty and never leave the cytoplasm. Instead, they are tagged by ubiquitin and redigested.
- When the body gets injured, tissues swell to rush fluids (lymph, interstitial fluids, blood, etc.) to the affected site. TOOOOOOO BAD this same technique doesn't work w/ cranial trauma, due to the only slightly subtotal enclosure of the brain. Intracranial pressure (ICP) is the number one cause of death following blunt force head trauma.
Wake up and smell the formaldehyde, people, ID CANNOT BE PROVEN and the pseudoscience tenets it proffers CAN EASILY BE DISPROVEN.
- STILL gleefully spinning solids 
anonymous
5th August 2005 - 05:32 PM
QUOTE (Justavian+Aug 5 2005, 05:13 PM) | QUOTE | Why don't you figure out how to stop humans from ever dying?
<br>Ahh - good call. Cause what we need is to have billions of people producing billions of children, none of whom will ever die.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Why don't you figure out how to stop humans from ever dying?
<br>Ahh - good call. Cause what we need is to have billions of people producing billions of children, none of whom will ever die.
If every human in existance throughout the stretch of time all worked together to make their guess, their combined theories would still end up being nothing but a worthless guess...which boils down to an opinion.
<br>Are you trying to characterize science as some sort of random guess? You label yourself a scientist, and yet you don't seem to have any understanding of how the scientific process advances knowledge.
You speak of scientists as if they're all very arrogant, while i see exactly the opposite. Most scientists - even those at the very top of their fields - are actually very humble. They understand that they're only really making incremental progress, and because of our flawed "atom sized brains", they may be headed in the wrong direction. What real scientist declares his theory completely unassailable? I just don't understand where your hostility is coming from.
And as to the "do something useful" statement - you see harnessing ZPE as worthless? How about fusion? What about understanding the way animals breed, the way they affect their environment, the way the EVOLVE? These "utterly stupid" ideas help us to better understand the universe - to better understand our world and our own impact on it. They help us understand how we can progress as a species, and for some of us it gives us a feeling of awe. These fantastic ideas (which could be way off) inspire new generations to tackle the same problems to refine our knowledge, and encourage people to examine other fundamental questions.
It's unbelievably short sighted to simply label theoretical work as useless.
| QUOTE | For someone to dream that they, in their tiny little instance of existance, can dream up and understand the creation of the universe...which is much more complex than their minds can imagine...is so utterly stupid that it boggles the mind.
<br>You're right - maybe this generation won't have the answers to the questions the universe provides for us. So since we can't get it perfectly right, we might as well just give up. QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | For someone to dream that they, in their tiny little instance of existance, can dream up and understand the creation of the universe...which is much more complex than their minds can imagine...is so utterly stupid that it boggles the mind.
<br>You're right - maybe this generation won't have the answers to the questions the universe provides for us. So since we can't get it perfectly right, we might as well just give up. "Why don't you figure out how to stop humans from ever dying?"
Ahh - good call. Cause what we need is to have billions of people producing billions of children, none of whom will ever die.
<br>That is not quite an honest response. Much of science is devoted to preventing death. Scientists haven't come together and decided not to work on medical advances and logevity because they think it will make the census difficult. People do not have the lofty thoughts that you imagine. The real and honest answer to my question is: "Because they can't." And they never will, although they will most certainly try until the end of time.
| QUOTE | You label yourself a scientist, and yet you don't seem to have any understanding of how the scientific process advances knowledge.
<br>Actually, that's what my employer labels me. And so I beg to differ about my understanding about the advancement of knowledge.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | You label yourself a scientist, and yet you don't seem to have any understanding of how the scientific process advances knowledge.
<br>Actually, that's what my employer labels me. And so I beg to differ about my understanding about the advancement of knowledge.
You're right - maybe this generation won't have the answers to the questions the universe provides for us. So since we can't get it perfectly right, we might as well just give up.
<br>Every generation will always want to have the answers to ALL of the questions of the universe. And no generation will ever have them. Might as well face those facts. Our world and society is out of control, and it is certainly headed towards destruction. If we scientists are smart, we will focus our efforts on ending the chaos that humanity has become, rather than trying to make guesses about what happened billions of years ago. At one point, science was mainly useful and provided many benefits. But at the point we are at now, science spends much of its time bloating egos and providing fancy toys and gadgets to people who can't even use a calculator. Of course, some of it is certainly used for blowing people up.
oomchu
5th August 2005 - 05:43 PM
QUOTE (Kræn Knude+Aug 5 2005, 12:10 PM) I don't quite get the inviolable Principle of Causality. If the effect of something is more complex, then why must this extra complexiness come from the thin air? Isn't the 2. law of thermodynamics saying pretty much the opposite?
yeah, I'm with you on this. If you take a stick of dynamite before and after it explodes, it has more entropy when it explodes. Doesn't higher entropy constitute a more comlex system? Or am I reading this wrong?
Guest
5th August 2005 - 05:43 PM
Solidspin's post is the perfect example of arrogance that I was looking for. Thank you.
This quote is great:
| QUOTE |
ID is a total joke, since it is inherently unprovable. I will give you just a few examples of how LOUSY the human body design really is:
<br>Would you like to design a new human body using dirt and sticks? How about just a bird? What about a bug? Can you at least make an amoeba from scratch?
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
ID is a total joke, since it is inherently unprovable. I will give you just a few examples of how LOUSY the human body design really is:
<br>Would you like to design a new human body using dirt and sticks? How about just a bird? What about a bug? Can you at least make an amoeba from scratch?
I personally am shocked that you could make such ignorant statements. In fact, humans have done a great job of extending the human lifespan from approximately 30 yrs in 2000 b.c.e. to approximately 76 today. So far, WE scientists have done this through good ol' fashioned science - proper nutrition, discovery of vitamins, discovery (and subsequent avoidance) of toxins, discovery and exploitation of bacteria......
<br>I think you have accidentally taken a fact from one or several areas of history and placed them on the entire timeline. Between 2000 B.C. and 1800, there were most certainly many areas and times where the average lifespan was much longer than 30. Even comparable to now, if not better.
| QUOTE |
In fact, you don't even know how to properly use the definition of "theory" in your post. You also are not likely a scientist...
<br>Please don't tell my employer that. I am going to have to come up with another title for myself anyway so that people don't categorize me with the arrogant.
oomchu
5th August 2005 - 05:45 PM
QUOTE (Edna+Aug 5 2005, 12:38 PM) Science is not just human perception of the world around us. Flat Earth theory is. That doesn't make any sense. Science is based off observation correct?
Edna
5th August 2005 - 05:55 PM
The flat Earth comment was sort of a joke, get it, observation of the world around us? But no, calculations and conclusions can be reached in the absence of observation.
solidspin
5th August 2005 - 06:06 PM
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight - Attack the person and ignore the facts... http://www.suny.edu/sunynews/News.cfm?filn...llingPatent.htm - this is a precursor to the synthesis of poliovirus from scratch. Not my department here @ Stony Brook, but you have to hand it to them. While I was working on a project 4 yrs back, GT scientists we were working w/ invented a new species of bacterium to eat away some insulators while leaving the precious copper core intact. Your bluntskulled retort is evidence to your employer of early termination. Oh, and btw, your "timeline" assertion is incorrect. But you don't even need history - Just look to Africa here in the 21st century, where the life expectancy is Uganda is a staggering 52. Science does a great job, thank you - no bullsh&t IDer can even come close. Tell an IDer to step into your lab and she will be incompetent, since everything done is according to the Scientific Method, a method to which an IDer, by definition cannot ascribe. I'd love to tell an IDer to step into my lab. All that nonsense is completely subtended.
Insyght
5th August 2005 - 06:29 PM
Another one? [This type of thread]
Solidspin,
Quote from your link:
| QUOTE | The patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,464,972 - "Recombinant poliovirus for the treatment of cancer," covers the genetic manipulation by the Stony Brook scientific team of the well-known virus that causes infantile paralysis. The new poliovirus will attack only cancer cells, leaving normal cells unharmed.
<br>That really is not from scratch is it?.
All,
Regardless, why do you all bother to argue about this stuff? If you don't beleive there is a God, fine, go about, enjoy your lives that you have on the earth, though short lived - may it bring you joy. If you do beleive there is a God, then work hard to secure your respective paradise - may it bring you joy in life.
As for education in school, who cares? If you beleive in God, then you must beleive that this responsiblity is give to Parents, not teachers. If you do not beleive in God, the perhaps learning a bit about religion would help you non-beleivers learn a little about the beleivers (We are not all fundamentalists/extremeists).
As for lack of fact, yes, that's why faith is require. If you think this is a scape goat to help us feel better, so be it. For ones who beleive there is something more than this life is something they find joy in. If you think evolution is flawed, so be it. If you think there is an amalgom of ID + EV so be it.
Whatever, Whatever, Whatever.
These topics have been hammered to death on this forum. I have taken part in a large number of them. At this point, I now have an intense desire to shutdown any shut topic which pops up. It is all pointless.
Regards
af0
5th August 2005 - 06:29 PM
| QUOTE | I think you have accidentally taken a fact from one or several areas of history and placed them on the entire timeline. Between 2000 B.C. and 1800, there were most certainly many areas and times where the average lifespan was much longer than 30. Even comparable to now, if not better.
<br>Where?
solidspin
5th August 2005 - 07:30 PM
Insyght - I surely agree w/ you, yet the problem is that POLICY decisions are being made based on beliefs and faith in pseudoscience. I am completely sick of religious arrogance trying to compete w/ science - it will fail every time to the burden of evidence and empiricism, which ID will NEVER produce. Also, in ref. to your quote, you're right. What I said was that this part. rsrch was the precursor. Over in the MSC dept, here @ Stony Brook, they followed up by creating an entire poliovirus FROM SCRATCH. We're having EPA audits starting monday so I couldn't find the exact URL, but it was remarkable. Like I've said in many threads before, we need to get a hold of ourselves and realize that we're still staggeringly primitive beings. Jumping to ANY conclusions w/o exhaustive testing and scientific research is a recipe for destruction. The harbinger is that we are the first true subset of the human continuum (since humanity began) that actually has the tools to figure out what we're doing right and what we're doing wrong, unlike the Easter Islanders, Mayans, et al., who destroyed themselves w/o realizing why. Some do realize we are destroying ourselves, but can't seem to persuade others that this is happening here and now. ID is just one part of the seminal destruction, in my opinion, the worst one - ignorance. - humbly spinning solids 
Norm
5th August 2005 - 07:33 PM
"ID just says 'It is God, now shut up'"
Hmmm. Seems like it's the evolutionlists saying, "Shut up!"
solidspin
5th August 2005 - 07:39 PM
Norm -
I definitely didn't say shut up. I was saying, 'stop making policy decisions based on ID, since evolution is proven in labs every day and ID will never be'. If anything it is easily disproven, since they violate the laws of thermo constantly.
Talk about ID and creationism all you want - coffee houses, amphitheaters, college campues - just don't spend one damn dime of my tax dollars trying to introduce inherently untestable pseudoscience into school curricula.
Jack White
5th August 2005 - 07:39 PM
Bush is a nutcake and has always been a nutcase.
Richard Wheeler
5th August 2005 - 07:40 PM
Read the bones, Darwin was right!!! I am an artist and a former senior excavator & researcher from the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, California. I continue to be astounded by those who can't seem to tell the difference between science and religion. This has stirred me to create my first ever new product on Zazzle.com, apparel printed with images of a series of skeletons from the vertebrate fossil record that clearly demonstrate the inherited, evolutionary lineage of humans from fish through amphibians & reptiles to 4-footed mammals through primates to man. The design is accompanied with classical Calligraphy that says "Read The Bones, Darwin Was Right". It is intended as ammo for those who value rational evidence, education and critical thinking over literal interpretations of belief systems found in a few ancient manuscripts, however personally significant they may seem to be. I hope those of us who know biology & science teachers will pass this on to them. They need all the help and moral support they can get. You will find the page with images & more information here: http://www.zazzle.com/products/product/pro...58&success=true"Run and Go See" !!! My Best, The Tarpitboss
whoisJC
5th August 2005 - 07:54 PM
So if I make the tip to Mars, get off the boat, look down and pickup an item that has a display moving w/ some periodicity...what might be my conclusion?
Some ET dropped his watch.
Would I spend countless hours attempting to find a way that this item formed from the dirt and minerals around it?
Has anyone ever calculated the probability of a simple watch assembling itself over Billlllioooonnnnnssss of years? Probably not because common sense tells us that we would likely find that it is not possible, we would not take time to do so.
Who said that the Bible could not show us of attitudes to come?
| QUOTE | Second Peter Chapter 3 ...First, I want to remind you that in the last days there will be scoffers who will laugh at the truth and do every evil thing they desire. 4 This will be their argument: "Jesus promised to come back, did he? Then where is he? Why, as far back as anyone can remember, everything has remained exactly the same since the world was first created."5 They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water. 6 Then he used the water to destroy the world with a mighty flood. 7 And God has also commanded that the heavens and the earth will be consumed by fire on the day of judgment, when ungodly people will perish.
<br>The king James version "...willingly ignorant..." The probability of the miricle of evolution is obserd. True science says for anything to be considered impossible the probablity must be less than 10-50th.
Any statistitions out there??
SA
Insyght
5th August 2005 - 08:05 PM
| QUOTE | I surely agree w/ you, yet the problem is that POLICY decisions are being made based on beliefs and faith in pseudoscience. I am completely sick of religious arrogance trying to compete w/ science - it will fail every time to the burden of evidence and empiricism, which ID will NEVER produce.
<br>Sure, so ignore it. Nuts will always exist right? If not religious, they manifest another form. Someone is always pushing for a policy change about something. If you don't like this, then you have to take your self out of this world. You are looking at an earth with over 6 billion people on it, with 90% of it living substandard to your quality of life and education you have, yet you expect them to all think like you?
They are oppressed, robbed, pillaged. This is nothing to do with religion (In some cases it is). Issues exist in the very fabric of humanity and religion is just one way of attempting to explain this.
Science also encroaches on our religions feelings also; consider Gay marriage, fetal abortion for stemcells, and even blood use for some. Yet, you would likely have no problem in pushing in favor of such policies. The problem SolidSpin, which much respect to you, is that you want everyone to agree with you. Because science can do something does not mean it is right to do it. That is the problem.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | I surely agree w/ you, yet the problem is that POLICY decisions are being made based on beliefs and faith in pseudoscience. I am completely sick of religious arrogance trying to compete w/ science - it will fail every time to the burden of evidence and empiricism, which ID will NEVER produce.
<br>Sure, so ignore it. Nuts will always exist right? If not religious, they manifest another form. Someone is always pushing for a policy change about something. If you don't like this, then you have to take your self out of this world. You are looking at an earth with over 6 billion people on it, with 90% of it living substandard to your quality of life and education you have, yet you expect them to all think like you?
They are oppressed, robbed, pillaged. This is nothing to do with religion (In some cases it is). Issues exist in the very fabric of humanity and religion is just one way of attempting to explain this.
Science also encroaches on our religions feelings also; consider Gay marriage, fetal abortion for stemcells, and even blood use for some. Yet, you would likely have no problem in pushing in favor of such policies. The problem SolidSpin, which much respect to you, is that you want everyone to agree with you. Because science can do something does not mean it is right to do it. That is the problem.
Also, in ref. to your quote, you're right. What I said was that this part. rsrch was the precursor. Over in the MSC dept, here @ Stony Brook, they followed up by creating an entire poliovirus FROM SCRATCH.
<br>I am no scientist. I'm a creationist and a software developer. I can tell you that there is a big difference between writing software from scratch and reverse engineering a product to understand it and then writing my own to simulate it.
Marvelous work and fudo to the team there @ Stony Brook. I take nothing away from them - it is an amazing acheivement. However, they are using a pre-existing language (Much like me producing a product using C++), and learning the language through studying existing viruses (much like mean downloading source off the internet and studying it).
| QUOTE | Bush is a nutcake and has always been a nutcase.
<br>He is likely hoping to keep more attending church, hoping to instill some morality into people, before we all go cracko and start shooting each other on the street for no apparently reason. Ooops, we are already doing that, oh well, too late.
If there is not God to return judgement, then people pick up your arms, you have to return it yourself.
See why a government might be enduced to endorse religion in some forms?
Guest
5th August 2005 - 08:07 PM
You're right - maybe this generation of political scientist won't have the answers to the questions the people of the world ask of them. So since we can't get it perfectly right, we might as well just give up and not have an election.
Remember it was a nurse who mothered Bill Clinton, and it is he who paid little attention to terrorist activities in Pakistan. Which eventually became the war most responsible for causing the failure of stem cell research.
Maybe what's needed is the elimination of the oval office since Bush isn't doing any better a job than Clinton did.
solidspin
5th August 2005 - 08:08 PM
WhoisJC -
Ummmm, please learn to spell. your argument has no weight, since you made non-sequitur type errors in your logic. You wouldn't be alive were in not for mitochondria being incorporated into your body, wayyyyy before humans were around. That's why your mitochondria has SEPARATE DNA from your regular 46 chromosomes. This EVOLUTIONARY process, it was estimated, took several million years. The first archaeobacteria have been found (that is if ID lets you believe in 40K or 13 C dating) to have first existed round 6.25b yrs ago. I think that's plenty of time for things to evolve.
A watch is not organic, biology is (another non-sequitur error on your part).
The processes Evolution talks about are bimodal (since you obviously don't know) - mutation and speciation. Self assembly occurs in science all the time, particularly in biology and most recently, in inorganic chemistry - no cheating, either.
Jerry Duke
5th August 2005 - 08:09 PM
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:16-21) Here is a spreadsheet model that illustrates the impotency of Darwinian evolution: http://home.att.net/~Jerry-L-Duke/Evolution_model.xls
a_ht
5th August 2005 - 08:27 PM
All this spreadsheet succeeded in doing was to convince me life can and did arise without intervention of god. It gave me 1/ 10^38 chances or so. Since life exits, life took the chance.
af0
5th August 2005 - 08:32 PM
Honestly people, the existence of the Christian god has already been shown to be false with the "Problem of Evil." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
Guest
5th August 2005 - 08:39 PM
QUOTE (af0+Aug 5 2005, 08:32 PM) Honestly people, the existence of the Christian god has already been shown to be false with the "Problem of Evil." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil That's a very silly argument, and the article itself classifies it as a reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy.
Jerry Duke
5th August 2005 - 08:53 PM
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. QUOTE (a_ht+Aug 5 2005, 08:27 PM) ...It gave me 1/ 10^38 chances or so... That is only the probability of accidentally typing the phrase "The Darwinian Theory of Evoulution". The probability of accidentally typing the information contained in the DNA of a system composed of 100,000 or so creatures is less than 1/10^200,000,000,000,000,000. Typing the information is not nearly as complex as actually creating the creatures and their symbiotic relationships.
oppy
5th August 2005 - 08:53 PM
If God and the Bible weren't real, people would not still be arguing about it thousands of years later. No one even really bothers trying to argue about Hinduism because everyone knows it is stupid...but of course some people try to defend it and other silly stuff as a means to fight God, whom they hate and try to hide from. And if those who said they didn't believe truly didn't believe, they wouldn't spend any time even thinking about it...but instead it fills their thoughts. Some even write long books trying to prove that God does not exist. The Bible says that people have been using God's name in vain for thousands of years, and that it is something that people will pay for. Out of all of the words that people could use for cursing, why is the name of God and Jesus Christ used so much 2000 years after the Bible was completed? That's a mighty long time. People cannot get these things out of their brains. Why? If unbelievers were as truly as rational as they say, they would be good just in case...knowing that their theories about God not existing were far from pure truth. They would not risk eternal damnation for all of the theories and even "facts" in the world. But instead, they are blind. They have been deluded. As it says: QUOTE For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Edna
5th August 2005 - 09:32 PM
Oppy, do you think it's fair to say that a lot of people believe in Jesus purely to save their own skins? Just curious.
Insyght
5th August 2005 - 10:06 PM
Some do yes John 5:39-47 documents this fact that ones were searching the scriptures trying to procure life for them selves. Jesus simply told them they did not have love of God.
Why? They were practicing God's religion at the time. What was wrong?
1 john 5:3 shows that love of God means observing his commands and the commands are not a burden. The early jews and many today did/do not observer God's commands, instead try to find their own way to life. Thats what is wrong. If they have love for God, they would obey him. Simple.
Notice Malachi 3:16, mentions that those in fear of God (deep awe/respect - not forbid) are entered into a book of remeberance. Those thinking or meditating in his direction.
Rom 6:23 shows that life is a gift, not something that we can earn. We only get that gift if we have love.
So being a Christian just to get life is stupid. It's very simple indeed to see that it would not work. Nothing deep or mystical here. Does that answer you leading question?
Guest
5th August 2005 - 10:20 PM
| QUOTE | The early jews and many today did/do not observer God's commands, instead try to find their own way to life.
<br>Which is why He used Hitler as his instrument to punish them, right?
Edna
5th August 2005 - 10:25 PM
Insyght, it was not so much a leading question as apparantly where oppy's inference was leading. He who loves his own life loses it.
Insyght
5th August 2005 - 10:46 PM
I read Oppy’s inference as intelligence should lead one to try and save him/herself, not that he/she was stating that this is how it physically occurs – which it of course does not.
More simply stated: if you are so smart, shouldn’t you cover all exits including the ones that you cannot see?
Drawing on software development for a bit as a parallel…, the following statement/assumption is one of the largest causes of software crashes: “This pointer should never be NULL”. When the time comes for it to be NULL… yeah baby, you know it.
| QUOTE | Which is why He used Hitler as his instrument to punish them, right?
<br>Gotta love the puny fire-starting Guests... Six letters for you: R..O..M..A..N..S.
Duh.
Edna
5th August 2005 - 11:10 PM
Not all exits. That is forbidden, as the slight against Hinduism illustrates. But I know where you are coming from at least. Peace, Insyght.
a_ht
6th August 2005 - 05:13 AM
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Aug 5 2005, 08:53 PM) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. QUOTE (a_ht+Aug 5 2005, 08:27 PM) ...It gave me 1/ 10^38 chances or so... That is only the probability of accidentally typing the phrase "The Darwinian Theory of Evoulution". The probability of accidentally typing the information contained in the DNA of a system composed of 100,000 or so creatures is less than 1/10^200,000,000,000,000,000. Typing the information is not nearly as complex as actually creating the creatures and their symbiotic relationships. Thats exactly my point: All you have succeeded in doing with these numbers is shown that god isnt required to explain the existence of life in the universe. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidences. show me that the chance life can arrise without god is ZERO and ill believe all the bullshit your feeding us with. But 1 in a terabigizallion, well, it just means that life got lucky. Nothing more. Im sorry you think these numbers have value.
professor andy
6th August 2005 - 01:37 PM
Isn't there a "law" in physics saying that if the chances of something happening is less than 1 in 1x10^60 then you can assume that it won't happen?
(i say "law" because nothing can acctually be said to be fact)
Edna
6th August 2005 - 02:42 PM
If you are given 10^60 chances of it happening every year, it would pretty much be a yearly event.
whoisJC
6th August 2005 - 03:43 PM
So in 15 billion years there would only be 4.7^17 seconds... There simply just is not enough time for complexity to have a chance of organizing itself. Let's say there was 200 trillion years...only 6.3^21 seconds...still not enough time if an event happened every second. 
Evolutionist
6th August 2005 - 03:54 PM
So what does ID do with the fossil record? I guess we just ignore that?
Edna
6th August 2005 - 04:04 PM
Aren't statistics a hoot? You're thinking of an isolated event repeating itself. Spread that out a little.Calculate it at 10^10 chances per second and see what happens.
Evolutionist
6th August 2005 - 04:07 PM
| QUOTE | If every human in existence throughout the stretch of time all worked together to make their guess, their combined theories would still end up being nothing but a worthless guess...which boils down to an opinion.
<br>And so...We have organized religions, fighting over control of the populous and proposing that we teach these “opinions” to our children in school so that they too will be certain to have the same “opinions” and never be critical of the organized accepted establishment. The world will always have thier "sheep" and thier "goats".
Guest
6th August 2005 - 04:09 PM
| QUOTE | That is only the probability of accidentally typing the phrase "The Darwinian Theory of Evoulution". The probability of accidentally typing the information contained in the DNA of a system composed of 100,000 or so creatures is less than 1/10^200,000,000,000,000,000. Typing the information is not nearly as complex as actually creating the creatures and their symbiotic relationships.
<br>Anyone that sees this as sensical should not be commenting on evolution.
Evolution is incremental.
I'm disappointed that I never see an intelligent argument from ID proponents. It really makes me think they're all in fact logically inept. Please prove me wrong.
If that sounds arrogant, it's not. If you attack the messenger and not the problem, it just makes you look more out of place and inept.
Remember the separation of church and state. If you want ID taught (but no OTHER religiously inspired but non-scientific ideas), then perhaps you're living in the wrong country.
This is about national policy, tax money, and the constitution.
Evolutionist
6th August 2005 - 04:23 PM
| QUOTE | yet the problem is that POLICY decisions are being made based on beliefs and faith in pseudoscience. I am completely sick of religious arrogance trying to compete w/ science - it will fail every time to the burden of evidence and empiricism, which ID will NEVER produce.
<br>Solidspin,
Yup...
Guest
6th August 2005 - 04:30 PM
Yeah, ID lovers are in a group of mentally-slow religious extremists who want to hi-jack our country. God gave us brains, curiosity, and rationality, did He not?
If he also gave us varying degrees of intelligence, perhaps the ID'ers should get a grip on and accept where they fall on the intelligence continuum. God knows they're not smart.
Let the sane Christians continue to advocate compassion and forgiveness, and continue to persue curiosity and tolerance.
Evolutionist
6th August 2005 - 04:39 PM
| QUOTE | He is likely hoping to keep more attending church, hoping to instill some morality into people, before we all go cracko and start shooting each other on the street for no apparently reason.
<br>Insyght,
Cmon, are you saying that no church means no morality?
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | He is likely hoping to keep more attending church, hoping to instill some morality into people, before we all go cracko and start shooting each other on the street for no apparently reason.
<br>Insyght,
Cmon, are you saying that no church means no morality?
See why a government might be enduced to endorse religion in some forms?
<br>And what if we (neither you nor I) believe in this particular government endorsed religion? What should the government do with these unbelievers? (Remember, Insyght, If you do not believe in the govt sponsored religion, you would be one of the unbelievers)
professor andy
6th August 2005 - 08:26 PM
I find that a lot of people with strong beliefs in darwin theory just have a problem with authority. Which most likely stems back to their childhood.
Guest
6th August 2005 - 08:43 PM
| QUOTE | I find that a lot of people with strong beliefs in darwin theory just have a problem with authority. Which most likely stems back to their childhood.
<br>I think you've got a theory right there.
Shouldn't that be taught in psychology classes?
If it shouldn't, I implore you to tell us why not.
professor andy
6th August 2005 - 08:49 PM
No really, i find my atheist friends have the attitude where they never look up to anyone. I say it might go back to childhood, because if they don't have a father figure, they may not develope that sort of respect for people above them. Load of balls really..
whoisJC
6th August 2005 - 08:49 PM
Is not evolution the current government sponsored religion. Has the missing link been found? Do you not have to have faith that there is a missing link and that one day it will be found. Or better yet have faith that the entire universe came from an infinitely small spec of stuff and Big Bang. Wow, that is true faith. I would personally chose to believe that I am part of a created universe. Why? Due to the highly complex nature of life and the delicate balance that must be maintained in order for it to survive. I believe in the Big Bang, just not the way quantum theory states it.  SA
professor andy
6th August 2005 - 09:00 PM
I used to belive in the big bang, but then i thought, why are some galaxys blue shifting? If there was a big bang, all galaxys should be red shifting. So really "big bang" theory only supports a 70%-90% explosion (or something around that). Well, red shifting or not at all.
Guest
6th August 2005 - 09:22 PM
QUOTE (solidspin+Aug 5 2005, 07:39 PM) ...since evolution is proven in labs every day...
Not really up to speed on this stuff. How is evolution proven in labs every day?
Guest_Mike
6th August 2005 - 09:35 PM
Just so everyone is clear, trying to poke holes (even finding them) in evolution in no way lends support for ID.
It's not, "evolution appears imperfect, therefore ID is correct." That's an obvious and entertaining non-sequitur.
If you understood science or formal logic, that line of reasoning wouldn't enter your thoughts.
"Well, my dad couldn't have put the presents under the tree. Therefore, Santa Claus exists."
See how silly that is?
Guest
6th August 2005 - 09:46 PM
Yes, you can be a Christian and not have a deficit in rational thought.
People that push ID just make most (normal and intelligent) Christians look stupid.
oomchu
6th August 2005 - 11:47 PM
QUOTE (Insyght+Aug 5 2005, 06:29 PM) Another one? [This type of thread]
All,
Regardless, why do you all bother to argue about this stuff? If you don't beleive there is a God, fine, go about, enjoy your lives that you have on the earth, though short lived - may it bring you joy. If you do beleive there is a God, then work hard to secure your respective paradise - may it bring you joy in life.
As for education in school, who cares? If you beleive in God, then you must beleive that this responsiblity is give to Parents, not teachers. If you do not beleive in God, the perhaps learning a bit about religion would help you non-beleivers learn a little about the beleivers (We are not all fundamentalists/extremeists).
As for lack of fact, yes, that's why faith is require. If you think this is a scape goat to help us feel better, so be it. For ones who beleive there is something more than this life is something they find joy in. If you think evolution is flawed, so be it. If you think there is an amalgom of ID + EV so be it.
Whatever, Whatever, Whatever.
These topics have been hammered to death on this forum. I have taken part in a large number of them. At this point, I now have an intense desire to shutdown any shut topic which pops up. It is all pointless.
Regards Now you just need to realize they aren't going to stop despite how logical you sound. Why? Because truth must be experienced/realized, apparently you have realized how futile these arguments are. Congratulations! You're club ring is in the mail.
oomchu
7th August 2005 - 12:00 AM
QUOTE (Insyght+Aug 5 2005, 10:06 PM) Some do yes John 5:39-47 documents this fact that ones were searching the scriptures trying to procure life for them selves. Jesus simply told them they did not have love of God.
Why? They were practicing God's religion at the time. What was wrong?
1 john 5:3 shows that love of God means observing his commands and the commands are not a burden. The early jews and many today did/do not observer God's commands, instead try to find their own way to life. Thats what is wrong. If they have love for God, they would obey him. Simple.
Notice Malachi 3:16, mentions that those in fear of God (deep awe/respect - not forbid) are entered into a book of remeberance. Those thinking or meditating in his direction.
Rom 6:23 shows that life is a gift, not something that we can earn. We only get that gift if we have love.
So being a Christian just to get life is stupid. It's very simple indeed to see that it would not work. Nothing deep or mystical here. Does that answer you leading question? uh oh, you posted again, you lose your club ring.
Guest_Steve
7th August 2005 - 09:41 AM
What about Occam's razor?
If the simplest explanation tends to be the right one, barring more, definitive one's, then why is everyone so afraid of teaching a much more straightforward perspective for the origins of life, and the universe?
Some our own were once priests, and religious believers who held to the idea that there was a supreme being, and was directly responsible for all that existed. And since they hold the foundations upon which we build our science, why all of a sudden are they to be tossed out as incoherent babblers? Are we now to rewrite history to suit our own desires? Who made us historians, when we've been trained in physics, chemistry, biology, etc...
While there may be some cowardice in the "right" sided circles, not all who hold to the idea of an intelligent creation/design are rejecting the search for truth. No, in fact, we hold the search for truth as the highest ideal upon which we build our hopes, and future.
It seems to me that if we're to tell the whole story, then ID needs to be taught as well.
As to lizardracer's sarcastic perspective on adding alchemy, black-magic, etc... I thought those are already taught- at least in california.
No one's asking them to teach the bible. Just the idea that with what little we do know, we have to tell the whole tale, not just what pleases us to tell. Otherwise, we'll end up back in the dark ages, only hearing what the 'clerics' want us to hear, so they can hold sway over society, and determine what is needed.
What I'm seeing here is no different than what happened over the years in which books were burned, or banned because certain people said so. Do each of us really want to be responsible for being on the forefront of another-- this time driven by "scientists" instead of the religionists-- book/knowledge bonfire? Do we want to be held responsible by future generations for telling them that we were too scared, and ignorant to allow other, not necessarily provable at this point in history, perspectives to be told?
So, you don't like the "cause and effect story"? Ok, fine. Don't listen then. You don't like it that the bible just might be right? Fine, no one said you had to.
Just remember-- what we now know, we didn't know even as little as 10 years ago. 40 years ago we didn't understand quantum mechanics as we do today. We now build all of our work in the shoulders of planc, einstein, heisenberg, maxwell, cavendish, newton, copernicus, etc.... what each came to realize is that if we do not learn, from all sources, we will not be able to build upon what was. Many of our former discoveries now offer tens of thousands medical hope, where none existed before. I myself am alive for two very basic reasons-- 1- medical/physics (QM/E&M) technology. 2- my doctors have absolutely no idea. They call it hope. But they have no trouble telling me each appointment that it's 'no small miracle' that I'm still alive (I have stage 4 melanoma, and it's been 18 years now). I call it divine purpose.
ID as its called only tells one possible side of the whole. Who among you started off knowing it all? Not me, and none of our predecessors. We all found it necessary to learn from scratch. And the field as a whole has benefitted. Now, look into the future 100 years from now. Do you honestly think that what we hold to be true today will be entirely, and solely true then? Come on.... really now. I would be incredibly surprised (and most certainly disappointed) if they stopped studying all of what we have yet to discover. 25 or so years ago, there needed to be a "shift in paradigms." It was believed by many that we reached the pinnacle of physics, and scientific discovery, and that unless we found something new, that was it. Why is it then that all of a sudden do so many feel that we've reached the end, again!? Can it really be that there are no more discoveries to be made? 25 years ago, there was a joke running around the churches-- One day when the scientists reach the end of the cosmos, God will be sitting there waving, and ask what took them so long to find it.
While I highly doubt that'll be the case, with what I'm seeing today, it sounds almost prophetic to me, in that there are so many who are afraid to study, and continue the quest for scientific truth. And ID (in so far as it promotes genuine research to demonstrate creative-- as opposed to solely evolutory-- origins) is among those. Now, this should bring up the question-- what about the differences between adaptive changes, as opposed to evolutory changes... Can we know if there is a distinct difference between what "evolved" and what has just "adapted" to changes in environments/climates, etc...? God knows that I've adapted between a warm, hot muggy envinroment to a cooler, drier environment over the past 12 years since my escape from the southwest.
As one who holds to a creation, I've got no trouble with the unexplainable. It'd not better remain unexplainable though.
1- the cosmos are 15-20 e+9 years.
2- Earth is around 5 e+9 years.
the bible says that it's only 5800 years. Ok, what makes this possbile? At first glance the argument says no, and nothing.
But, we have a plausible theory-- a huge, undefined gap between Gen. 1:1, and 1:2. But why? Why would a diety who claims total sovereignty over all, let such a seemingly important thing go, and allow such debate over this topic? Has anyone noticed, or ever bothered to look... the story line goes that In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then, in verse 2, it states that the face of the earth was dark, and without form, as well as void. Why? what happened? Then we go into the rest of the story, which took, according to the story line, 6 days.
1- Deuteronomy 29:29, states that There are certain things which are secret and belong only to him. But, the things that are important to us, are given for us, and our offspring to all generations, that we might live by them, and do them.
The point here is that-- it's just possible that God didn't think it was important enough to tell is just how he decided to do it. just that he did it, and the rest wasn't important enough for our spirituality, or eternal well-being.
2- Proverbs 25:2, states that It's the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the honor/glory of kings to search out that matter.
I don't know about you, but that leads me on a chase (and yes, I can hear some of you saying goose chase) to learn, study, and question-- a quest to know the truth.
So, my question here is what on earth are you so afraid of? You sure didn't get that from this field of study? We're all about questions, and learning.
Here's my theory--
In the beginning-- we know that part.
Let's say that there are numerous "epochs" that lasted as long as we hold-- precambrian, cambrian, mesozioc, etc.... Each from what we know thus far ended on something of a cataclysmic collapse. Ok, we don't know why, some went out wih a meteor, others just quietly slipped into who knows. Another started, and eventually ended, etc...
Now, my next thing is-- God was directly involved in each. But, as stated above, in my quote, he chose not to detail them to us in the bible (I have no idea why he'd not tell us, except to say that he just didn't think it important enough to do so in a book that was meant mainly for spiritual growth, and "enlightenment" ). This in no way negates the need to ask, and research why, how, and to what end. And for those who say it does, you're just demonstrating your lack of understanding-- and God-given/driven curiosity.
Then, perhaps it was all part of this huge elaborate scheme to prepare the planet for the coming of humans. Strange idea- but plausible.
The bible describes what theologians like to call 7 epochs. The time of Adam (new life), Noah (Restoration of order from chaos), Abraham (Call of one lineage), Moses (Giving of the law to show world God is), David (Age of light, and reason), Jesus(age of the church-- new, certain hope), and the end of all things (reign of King David's Messiah-- fulfilling all of God's promises to Jews).
It's my supposition that there were innumerable eras, or epochs that we will never, necessarily, know about. It could be that each age had its inhabitants that knew God, and something changed irrevocably, requiring an end to arise, and we're just the latest revision, or edition of planetary inhabitants. Then, it could just be that he really was just getting the planet ready for us. Yes, it is too simple, and easily explains unknown events, and histories. Sounds like a bit of Occam's Razor to me. Why is that so wrong? WHY?
We just don't know, it never meant we cannot search fo the answer.
Go back to why you chose science, physics, chemistry, etc. Do you alone have the right to decide that no one else gets to learn? or that they cannot have choices on what they learn? Why? who are you to decide what's true, or not? We each have a theory, and ideas. Each of us is responsible to test if those are viable, or if we've gone off half-cocked. Only research, and science will show the truth.
I for one still remember the laughter that rang in my ears the first time someone told me that I evolved from apes. My response was, and still is-- he may be your grandfather, but he ain't mine.
Oh, and no name calling in your responses. It only demonstrates your cowardice, and unwillingness to act intelligently.
Guest
7th August 2005 - 03:03 PM
It's not that ID should be shoved into a safe-deposit box.
It's that by even weak standards, ID is not science.
It does not belong in a science curriculum. It is not a scientific theory.
Science allows many theories, but there are qualities (falsifiability, parsimony, precision) that ID lacks.
If you think it is a scientific theory, then you clearly have:
a. no idea what science is
b. no understanding that you cannot impose a purely religious view on the public using tax dollars in the U.S.
Teach it. But teach it in a religion class alongside other creation stories. It's a theory in the lay sense, it's NOT a theory in the scientific sense (whereas evolution is).
Varkle
7th August 2005 - 04:01 PM
"God created life."
Sounds exquisitely simple until you ask how he did it. Did he use magic?Was he sitting at his desk with a tiny pair of tweasers trying to piece together genetic strands, sweat dripping from the tip of his nose?
If the mechanism of creation was magic, then Lizardracer was right. Are we to teach kids that God made little clay figurines of animals and breathed life into them?
professor andy
7th August 2005 - 04:02 PM
I cant be arsed with people on this forum, so im not going to bother my hole typing out a worthwhile reply.
Guest
7th August 2005 - 04:32 PM
Why all of this debate is nesseccary. Theory of religion has been around for thousands of years. It is a subject which should be passed down from parents to siblings. This is not a subject which should be taught in a classroom. Classrooms are for subject which the parents can not teach the children. Evolution Vs. creationism, two sides of the same coin. yes they will always be debated. However one is proved by faith, ie. no need for further discussion, accept it as it is or do not. Evolution however is still not completely proven, that is why we educate scientist to work in this field. That is why we teach this in classrooms, which hopefully excites the next generation of scientist.
Guest
7th August 2005 - 06:09 PM
QUOTE (Guest+Aug 7 2005, 04:32 PM) Why all of this debate is nesseccary. Theory of religion has been around for thousands of years. It is a subject which should be passed down from parents to siblings. This is not a subject which should be taught in a classroom. Classrooms are for subject which the parents can not teach the children. Evolution Vs. creationism, two sides of the same coin. yes they will always be debated. However one is proved by faith, ie. no need for further discussion, accept it as it is or do not. Evolution however is still not completely proven, that is why we educate scientist to work in this field. That is why we teach this in classrooms, which hopefully excites the next generation of scientist. I agree to some extent. But it's apples and oranges. BTW, theories are technically never proven in science, only supported. But if by "proven," you mean have evidence for, then yes, evolution is proven. If you consider Genesis evidence, then you could say creationism is proven. But that's the only evidence we have for it. And, BTW, there are many, many tales of creation. If merely being written in an old text is sufficient, then I guess all of the old creation stories are correct. And if it's on paar with evolution, then they should all be taught in American schools as alternatives. Otherwise, we're just arrogant Christians. Funny thing in all this. Scientists would adopt creationism asap if God appeared and demonstrated his artisan skills. But all we have is some text written at a period in history when there were many such stories.
Evolutionist
7th August 2005 - 06:09 PM
I have yet to hear from any ID'er how they would explain the fossil record, geologic time scale, or extinction. I challenge any who read this to respond…
Many claim that ID has nothing to do with the bible (to get around the separation of church and state) but our friend Guest_Steve quotes it quite literally in his defense of ID, it is clear that this is an attempt to teach the Christian religion in our public schools as evidenced by the statements of its proponents.
Evolutionist
7th August 2005 - 06:17 PM
| QUOTE | If you consider Genesis evidence, then you could say creationism is proven.
<br>But no one can prove that the bible was written by god so the bible could not be used as the basis of something “proven”. If the bible where written by mortal men then this would not be evidence that creation actually occurred. It is faith not science and would never hold up to scientific scrutiny.
Guest_Neurohacker
7th August 2005 - 07:20 PM
QUOTE (lizardracer+Aug 5 2005, 04:39 AM) http://www.physorg.com/news5618.html In sync with the President I purpose that along with Intelligent Design we should teach our children Alchemy and as legitimate alternative to Chemistry and Black Magic as an alternative to Physics. After all since we can"t explain all aspects of either subject and our knowledge of both are somewhat spotty my above sugestions are valid alternatives. I ntelligent Design = Human Stupidity. Human gossip is how ALL GODs are made learning through repetition or what it realy is (brain washing through repetition) thats how Megans Law came into Law. also how Toilet training a Human is done. And how Law makers make new Laws. Sincerely Yours, Neurohacker@gmail.com (.~.) --oOO--(_)--OOo--
strange-fellow
7th August 2005 - 08:52 PM
If you revile when people say evolution is false, it is exactly the same for when people like me hear that creationism is false.
Evolutionary theory is not complete on its own. No science is. So there, you cannot say that it is unfounded to teach creationism.
Though, the idea of the public educational system is to teach children the secular things they need to know to be successful in life.
What is important for the educators is to present the students with information, leaving them to their own decided conclusions. However, this is rarely the case.
Going into high school, students have, for the most part, already been told what to believe.
But even if they have been told that creationism is "a load of crap" they might still believe it if they learned it.
As I said before, the idea is to present the information to the student, without "forcing beliefs" on them. I had an AP Biology professor who I knew was Christian but he taught the class about "survival of the fittest."
He restricted conversation over human evolutionary speculation because people have the right to believe what they want.
Anyway, my point is that human evolutionary theories should not be addressed in school at all. Evolution itself as a concept is rock solid, but its application to human origin is not appropriate in public education.
Guest
7th August 2005 - 09:16 PM
QUOTE (strange-fellow+Aug 7 2005, 08:52 PM) Anyway, my point is that human evolutionary theories should not be addressed in school at all. Evolution itself as a concept is rock solid, but its application to human origin is not appropriate in public education. Tell that to my nipples, appendix, and enormous tracts of inactive DNA. Evolution is as pertinent to understanding biology (of all varieties) as algebra is to mathematics. There's no inconsistency between evolution as it relates to eels and as it relates to humans. I miss your point.
Elektra55
7th August 2005 - 09:16 PM
I am overjoyed. Intelligent Design will be taught to newly questing minds who have an openness and receptiveness to "Creation Science" - the Science of how humans can fabricate myth and fiction of the most infantilistic kind. Now what we need to get some more of the same paradigm is to finally prove that the Appollo astronauts never went to the Moon and that it was all elaborately choreographed on a dusty stage, that the Earth is actually flat, with an edge to fall off (which must be somewhere in the States if it's anywhere) and that the whole Universe is geocentricaly oriented with all superclusters rotating about Capitol Hill as its true centre. Of course, the entire fossil record is only around four thousand yearsies old, with all its forms representing "failed experiments" on the part of an inventive creator, who (absolutely must) be male. Then we can bring back the Inquisition - with modern technology we can make public executions for cretinous heathen and heinous witches far more entertaining and better for the saving of their souls. Alchemy of course has also been neglected a little since the so-called "Nuclear Age" but no doubt it can be resurrected with the help of some sincere prayer.
With a little more progress we can re-invent the stone axe and get back to trepanning - a long lost useful art of letting devils escape from the skulls they have insisted on infecting - perhaps we can start with the presidential occiput - after all, in insisting on the healthful return to an Antedeluvian Culture we have to be pre-emptive and make sure that no devils will enter that influential brain in the first place. Prevention is better than cure, isn't it?
whoa_nelly
7th August 2005 - 09:23 PM
what makes me laugh is when i mention the law of conservation of energy
energy cannot be created or destroyed
so, señor, what is your science for the creation of science?
that would be creationism, my friend.
Guest
7th August 2005 - 09:39 PM
QUOTE (whoa_nelly+Aug 7 2005, 09:23 PM) what makes me laugh is when i mention the law of conservation of energy
energy cannot be created or destroyed
so, señor, what is your science for the creation of science?
that would be creationism, my friend. Even self-respecting theologians don't give much weight to the prime-mover argument. Its most fundamental problem: To get a big bang (or something similar) going you don't need an omniscient, omnipotent being with the rough form of a human male. The argument is just as valid in support of the "great firecracker," the "great kitten," the "great seamstress," the "great pigeon," or the "great sneeze." And, no, it doesn't support creationism, it supports an initial cause (assuming one is needed). All God would need to do is tap the matter to get the big bang going. He wouldn't need to be designing organisms or resting much.
slimjimjams
7th August 2005 - 09:49 PM
You're using a blanket statement saying:
creationism = Christianity forced down your throat
Just thought I would point that out.
But to some people, evolutionism could be the similar to that, such as
[evolutionism] = [secularism] forced down your throat
Did you ever think of that?
Guest
7th August 2005 - 10:15 PM
You guys are all missing the point.
The question is whether intelligent design should be taught along with evolution as though it is a scientific alternative.
It's not.
So it shoudn't.
Case closed.
Aeon10101110
8th August 2005 - 02:59 AM
Some great posts on the last page. Undoubtedly creationism belongs in a class on Mythology rather than in any study of science.
However, I would think that "intelligent design" is theologically offensive. After all, what it amounts to is an attempt to prove a design and an intelligence. Parenthetical to the argument is of course a god. Apparently then, the proponents of this hypothesis seek to scientifically prove the existence of a supreme Creator God. Unfortunately, the premise is scientifically untestable. How could one ever find control conditions for an experiment to test for the presence of an entity that exists everywhere? Besides, the primary tenent relies upon a priori belief, and thus will simply not be proven false, no matter what the findings.
Aren't the theological writings of the group propounding this hypothesis insistent that faith is primum mobile, and that knowledge is not required? So equating "intelligent design" with science is anathema. Simply then, the latest group of religious heretics is being stirred up.
reality
8th August 2005 - 06:03 AM
so the gist of this debate would be to say........stop tryin ta prove god to the massses and prove him to yourself!!for while the god legend ruled the masses of yor by familiarity now the science legend rules of late by same!!and why is that?!?firstust with the mostest of benefit to the masses wins!!
Guest
8th August 2005 - 06:19 AM
QUOTE (reality+Aug 8 2005, 06:03 AM) so the gist of this debate would be to say........stop tryin ta prove god to the massses and prove him to yourself!!for while the god legend ruled the masses of yor by familiarity now the science legend rules of late by same!!and why is that?!?firstust with the mostest of benefit to the masses wins!! Science and religion are completely separate animals. Simply believing in something is where religion comes in. Tentatively believing in something because it is consistent with, and not inconsistent with, what we know, is where science comes in. It has absolutely nothing to do with popular opinion. Educate yourself on methods of knowledge acquisition. Science isn't an alternative or an idea, it's a methodology that is based, really, on common sense. It's just applied comon sense. There's nothing esoteric or secret about it. Nor is it a set of beliefs like creationism.
J. Wensveen
8th August 2005 - 10:16 AM
It saddens me to see that all those people here promoting ID are uncapable of any form of discussion. They have been brainwashed with false information and misconceptions and are just shouting out lies as hard as they can just to make sure they themselves can not hear anything.
The first thing they need to do is to learn what Science really is. What makes something science instead of philosophy or theology. Sciences is based on 3 things: A theory, A model and an Experiment. All a scientist does is form a theory, build a model around it and experiment on that model. The results of the experiment validate the model and therefore give value to the theory.
Since there are always questions remaining, the theory gets changed and expanded on. New tests are done, etc.
The theory of evolution has been modeled and tested. and this theory has been found valid up to a certain point. But a scientist is still looking for the answers of the remaining questions. And during this search, new technologies are developed for the betterment of mankind.
If science would have followed in the creationists path, it would at a certain point say: "And that is where God acted his miracle" And stop looking. With as result, that atoms are still undevidable spheres, DNA would not exists, and we would all be plowing our fields and die at 50 from common flu and other simple deseases.
It was science, the quest for knowledge and understanding Beyond the "God did it, now shut up" that made us what we are today.
The saying: That once scientists have discovered everything, they will find god waving at the end and saying, what took you so long? The scientist can now say, We took the long and hard road, we understand your work and all you have done in detail. Then God would say, as you know, the road to heaven is hard and long and tricky, while the road to Hell is easy, You scientists have followed the long and hard road, and now you scientists have learned all there is to learn, as my children you have grown , and I am proud of you, You did not take the easy way out and simply believed without question, like sheep and dogs. Only you are worthy to sit at my Table in My Kingdom.
Science is about progress and growing. A scientist can still believe in God. And alot of them do so. But a Scientist also knows that simply saying: God did it, would mean giving up on science, unless he also asks the question "How did God do it".
Genesis is a story, written for people with little understanding about the workings of the world. It answers questions for those that inquire after them in a way they can understand. It doesn't tell about DNA, because the people at that time could not understand it.
Nowadays the Bible is used to controll people, make them slaves. The Bible should be used to teach morals and the right and wrong to children, but not used as a brick to controll peoples lives. What alot of religions are trying to do is controlling others, in such a way that only a few people get power over other people and enslave them in a way.
People should be allowed to question, that is the only way to learn. Just provide them with a framework of understanding what is good and what is bad, and the bible is 5000 year of history written by the winnning party, and how God helped them.
Maybe ID should be tought at school, but as Theology, along with all the other evenly valid creation stories. Give Children the right to decide what they believe. But do not treat it as Science, because it simply is not. And the Bright and smart children will question the theories of both, and they will also see the Flaws. And the Dumb masses will go with the most popular theory, and end up as sheep and dogs.
If god appeared to us in a Flaming column of smoke and said to us, I created Heaven and Earth. The Scientist would simply ask him, teach me how. The Creationist would stay silent except for the I told you so. And God would not notice the Creationist.
Guest
8th August 2005 - 02:45 PM
One side is saying, "There's a debate here. Of course both sides have some clout, or there wouldn't be a debate."
The other side if saying, "No there isn't a debate. And the mere fact that I'm replying to your messages while attempting to convey that point should not be misinterpreted as a debate."
J. Wensveen
8th August 2005 - 03:15 PM
Well, if ID was talking about Divinely Guided Evolution, I can understand it. But ID is just using wrong information to attack evolution. And no matter how often you tell them they use wrong information, ID refuses to listen. That way, a debate is not possible.
But you can always use the same tacktics as the ID masses use, that is keep repeating the same over and over in the hope that they one day stop and listen and maybe even use their god given brains to interpret the data.
solidspin
8th August 2005 - 03:24 PM
very quickly - I have to get my samples spinning To respond to the inquiry "how is evolution proven every day in the lab", read the latest Science or Nature articles (or the ones I posted below) on the post-analyses being done on ANY of the genomes recently deciphered, which include: Caenhorhabditis elegans (C. elegans - a flatworm); Arabadopsis thaliana (A. thaliana or just arabidopsis - a mustard plant); Escherichia coli (E coli) and others. The reason is that since we have deciphered the whole genome (and particularly w/ C. elegans, due to its really short lifespan - about 14 days), we can now track mutations in the genomes. The reason why this is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO critical, is that one of the 2 pillars of evolution is mutation. The other is speciation and is clumsier to track (but obviously not impossible, since this was Darwin's monster conclusion to his assiduous observations) - that geographic and, more cleverly, nutritional isolation promote speciation (the different iguanas on the Galapagos and the marked difference in finch beak size, morphology, etc.). Hence the emergence of the famous paraphrase, "survival of the fittest". Nature 430, 679-682 (5 August 2004) Journal of Neuroscience, Vol 15, 8408-8418 We knew the rate at which certain mutations occur and why some mutations occur very rarely and others much more frequently (called semi or full conservatism), through basic biology. What is so ginormous now is that we have the entire source code for, in particular, c. elegans. By tracking ALLLLLL of the basepairs, and watching them through over 400 generations (due to their short lifespan), we have had a bunch of cool surprises which continue to modify the evolutionary model, yet not very differently from the original assertions. As I have said many times before on this site, Evolutionary THEORY is used in a scientifc sense - theory being model, supported by evidence - this is NOT a "guess" as the IDers like to say, of course incorrectly. This is an accurate model, whose precision is increasing every day. The precision of the model increases w/ research like I mentioned above. The reason is like looking at Manhattan island from a plane. You see the general shape and it looks very pretty and well defined. What you won't be able to see from the plane, however, are the gnarled crags of coastline up by the Harlem river, or the beautiful rocks and bulkheads underneath the Triboro bridge - the details that make up the big picture. They tell you a lot about how the big picture works, but you still have a good idea of the big picture, just by looking down from your plane. As mentioned previously in other posts, the fossil record is just getting better, and it's yet another piece of evidence that IDers can't get away with. Remember, too, that the more important fossil record is the bacterial fossil record, which IDers continuously ignore - which is MUCH more informative as to evolutionary modelling than the faunal ones. The bullsh&t about the missing link is nonsense. We don't need a missing link - that's just reserved for the most arrogant of all the species - homo sapiens - since we think we're so damn special - we're not. Of course, if you believe in the nonsense of the bible, G_d created everything in 6 days, and its only been about 6000 yrs since that occurred. Further, only 144,000 people are supposedly going to be saved, like in Revelation. That was obviously the biggest number the dumb authors could count up to, thinking that would be enough, right????? - happily spinning solids
Insyght
8th August 2005 - 03:40 PM
| QUOTE | uh oh, you posted again, you lose your club ring.
<br>Ah man... what colour was it?
All you EV'ers out that, I love to see you all post with your pompus reasonings. The fossil record - ah ah ah? I have 4 nipples - ah ah ah? my DNA is mostly garbage - ah ah ah?
None of this matters anyways - reality: We are all a bunch of sad egotists, sitting behind our computers, trying to be smart, trying to claim we know the answers, trying to prove the other guy wrong and patting our selves on the back when we think we have laid down a really find point.
Sometimes I try to put a face to the physorg alias - I try to guess what the grizzly bitter old men look like behind the mask.
Many of us are approaching death perhaps, some might have a yet-to-be diagnosed terminal illness creaping up on us. None of us will know... person XYZ will just stop posting one day. Life goes on.
Death comes, our logic, knowledge, power, supposed higher-evolutionary intelligence goes to the ground. It does not matter. Fine for me. Fine for you. What is the point of all this garbage?
Who cares what you beleive? I beleive a God exists, but I cannot be 100% clear on his early works - it is not documented in the detail you would like to have. Therefore some things are scratching - implied in scripture but not stated in detail. I may tell you a God exists, here is his name, here is his purpose. If you you dont like, move on. Who cares.
The next person who posts on this page sucks  Will it be you?
professor andy
8th August 2005 - 06:29 PM
I dont care if I suck, I agree with this guy.
DefiledEngine
8th August 2005 - 07:08 PM
| QUOTE |
Ah man... what colour was it?
All you EV'ers out that, I love to see you all post with your pompus reasonings. The fossil record - ah ah ah? I have 4 nipples - ah ah ah? my DNA is mostly garbage - ah ah ah?
None of this matters anyways - reality: We are all a bunch of sad egotists, sitting behind our computers, trying to be smart, trying to claim we know the answers, trying to prove the other guy wrong and patting our selves on the back when we think we have laid down a really find point.
Sometimes I try to put a face to the physorg alias - I try to guess what the grizzly bitter old men look like behind the mask.
Many of us are approaching death perhaps, some might have a yet-to-be diagnosed terminal illness creaping up on us. None of us will know... person XYZ will just stop posting one day. Life goes on.
Death comes, our logic, knowledge, power, supposed higher-evolutionary intelligence goes to the ground. It does not matter. Fine for me. Fine for you. What is the point of all this garbage?
Who cares what you beleive? I beleive a God exists, but I cannot be 100% clear on his early works - it is not documented in the detail you would like to have. Therefore some things are scratching - implied in scripture but not stated in detail. I may tell you a God exists, here is his name, here is his purpose. If you you dont like, move on. Who cares.
The next person who posts on this page sucks Will it be you?
<br>Yeah, we're all going to die some day, so we should all stop having these debates about thing we're not sure of/information exchange and just lie down in the dirt.
I'm sure the philosophers of the world and the scientists of old and new ages agree with that sentiment.
Guest
8th August 2005 - 07:29 PM
QUOTE (Insyght+Aug 8 2005, 03:40 PM) | QUOTE | uh oh, you posted again, you lose your club ring.
<br>Ah man... what colour was it?
All you EV'ers out that, I love to see you all post with your pompus reasonings. The fossil record - ah ah ah? I have 4 nipples - ah ah ah? my DNA is mostly garbage - ah ah ah?
None of this matters anyways - reality: We are all a bunch of sad egotists, sitting behind our computers, trying to be smart, trying to claim we know the answers, trying to prove the other guy wrong and patting our selves on the back when we think we have laid down a really find point.
Sometimes I try to put a face to the physorg alias - I try to guess what the grizzly bitter old men look like behind the mask.
Many of us are approaching death perhaps, some might have a yet-to-be diagnosed terminal illness creaping up on us. None of us will know... person XYZ will just stop posting one day. Life goes on.
Death comes, our logic, knowledge, power, supposed higher-evolutionary intelligence goes to the ground. It does not matter. Fine for me. Fine for you. What is the point of all this garbage?
Who cares what you beleive? I beleive a God exists, but I cannot be 100% clear on his early works - it is not documented in the detail you would like to have. Therefore some things are scratching - implied in scripture but not stated in detail. I may tell you a God exists, here is his name, here is his purpose. If you you dont like, move on. Who cares.
The next person who posts on this page sucks Will it be you? Thanks for curling up and waving the white flag.
Darklingknight
8th August 2005 - 07:53 PM
I can't believe you people just want us to roll over and die! Why must we stop questioning others beliefs when what we are really trying to do is prove ourselves right so that we do not have to doubt. They want to be right so they should be trying to prove themselves correct not prove us wrong. ID is one of those subjects that is psuedo-science, things that look scientific but aren't for there may be a scientific study of the ratios and how they are to regular to have happened by accident. The conclusions are not clear in that they have to repeatable basis for there would need to be a deeper study of why these ratios that they are following exist. Maybe the patterns are just random patterns that worked best in this situation instead of some otherworldy creator which by the way could just be random space aliens and not God.
whoisJC
8th August 2005 - 07:55 PM
solidspin,
Thanks for posting something that actual shows that an attempt has been made to use the scientific method on one side or the other. Have any of the observable mutations produced a positive (not quite sure what positive would look like) improvement?
ID'ers need to be as diligent and provide methodical scientific information that supports their THEORY.
We are the people. We should be engaging in heated discussions on what should be taught to our children so we can impact our government and our own future.
Insyght,
It does get extremely frustrating when either side is not very open to critique possible findings that shed some light on the big picture.
As Dory said "Just keep swimming, swimming..."
SA
Guest
8th August 2005 - 08:24 PM
QUOTE (whoisJC+Aug 8 2005, 07:55 PM) ID'ers need to be as diligent and provide methodical scientific information that supports their THEORY. Absolutely! But please read up on what is accepted as evidence in the scientific community before pushing anything. Again, purported holes in evolution are NOT evidence FOR ID. Of course, every scientist will correctly maintain ID is NOT a scientific theory and never can be (mainly because of the falsifiability issue).
solidspin
8th August 2005 - 08:58 PM
whoisJC -
You clearly understate the magnitude of these and other data, mostly since creationists can't produce ANY data. I have posted just a few of the hundreds of thousands of papers just like this, all the way back to Darwin's original papers. I just personally like these b/z they are "sexy" - they're using the genomes and bringing molecular biology to the next step, not to mention a nice (though incidental) side-benefit of crushing any ID nonsense w/ hard empiricism.
The mutations that are occurring in these particular c. elegans papers are either 1) induced by the researchers (like their capacity to turn on a single gene and extend the lifespan of the worms by a factor of 14) or 2) naturally occurring (as in a change in base pairs in a region of a gene that transcribes for a protein, where the change would result in a different output and is, therefore, mutation. The researchers, at this point, don't care about what the mutations are.
That's largely why I used them. The reason is that the aims of these particular papers are that the researchers care about the changes in the mathematic curves for the prevalence, rate, etc. of the mutations - not the mutations themselves.
Many mutations already exist in human form - the single base pair mutation among Africans (and, fascinatingly, to a lesser extent African-Americans) which confers some resistance to malaria - the mutation changes the "half-moon" shape of the red blood cell, thereby prohibiting easy entry by the merozoite. This has long been thought a "positive" mutation, even though sickle-cell anemia is the "negative" result (hence the name sickle-cell, due to the shape of the RBC). Unfortunately, SCA is a very painful side-effect.
On the phenotypic side, I can't find the reference but there has been a metastudy done in 2004 of all the recent (w/in the last 80-100 yrs) examples of "positive" mutation/speciation among many different fauna. If I find the study, I'll post it. I think I have it at home...
So, whoisJC, let's pretend that I demanded that your kids get taught "aether theory", even though you know (since you're a trained scientist) there is only specious evidence (no actual evidence whatsoever) supporting "aether theory" and copious evidence for "atomic theory". Further, even our own President believes in "aether theory" (himself a mediocre student w/ only basic command of the English language and no scientific background), yet you turn around and say, 'hey, just learn these difficult skill sets like statistics, molecular biology, biochemistry, calculus then read these complicated papers and you'll see EXACTLY what I'm talking about'. Then, people turn around and say, 'why do I need to learn all that? Everything I need I should be able to figure out myself', wouldn't you be just a little frustrated? Just a little bit????
solidspin
8th August 2005 - 09:10 PM
whoisJC - I forgot:
| QUOTE | ID'ers need to be as diligent and provide methodical scientific information that supports their THEORY.
<br>It CAN'T happen. I would LOVE to see one iota of empirical evidence from ID. Anything presented so far has been a complete sham.
If you read, for example, J. Dobson's or the Discovery Institute's points supporting ID, they VIOLATE the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Also, their extraordinarily restricted citations regarding fossil record are a ridiculous joke, since they COMPLETELY ignore the physical data of 13C and 40K dating, among many other inconsistencies. For example, there are, to date, SIX different known optical systems (like the human eye, bug eyes, etc.) which are completely genetically independent of one another - completely separate evolutionary developments. The Discovery Institute sticks to the same "von Neumann" argument (irreducible complexity bullsh&t), even though evolution has provided several examples of biological optics which all function nicely, despite the absence of a genetic link (no proteins, no base pairs, no transcriptional similarities, etc.). Further, the remarkable retention of genetics in between species is pretty damn cool - like human and murine (mouse) eyes - wow. It's a real shame that people can't appreciate the elegance of evolutionary modelling
Niles Eldridge deconstructs the rather convoluted ID arguments and quickly puts them to rest, relying on regular empirical data.
Peter Olsen
9th August 2005 - 02:47 AM
A few quick observations:
1. Mainstream evolutionary theory doesn't address the origin of life.
Evolutionary theory addresses only the change and development of things already alive. You can believe anything you want about how life got here in the first place. Evolution doesn't touch that.
2. The theory of evolution is a contingent explanation, not an absolute one.
The theory of evolution doesn't say "This is what happened!" Instead it (like all theories) says "If this did happen, then we can explain what we've seen so far and make some guesses about what we may see in the future."
You can believe whatever you want about what really went on "behind the scenes," but if you act as if you believe it was evolution, then you can explain what biologists have seen and (it now appears) you will have a high probability of explaining what they may see in the future.
3. Explanation and prediction of observed data is the standard of measurement for scientific theory.
That's why I wrote "it now appears" in the previous paragraph.
Many theories have been accepted and used for many years because they met that standard, then abandoned as soon as they failed to do so. The Ptolemaic model of the Solar system is on example.
Others are kept around even after better ones come along because they are "good enough for most practical purposes." Newton's laws are good examples here (unless you're very heavy or moving very fast).
Darwin's theory of evolution will be abandoned too, just as soon as someone proposes another with equal or better explanatory and predictive power.
4. Scientific theory is based on beliefs about things, not in them.
"Evolutionists" aren't people who believe "in" the theory of evolution. Instead they are people who believe something "about" it. Specifically they believe that the theory of evolution has been a good way to explain patterns in the data we have found in the past and so (all other things being equal) it is likely to be a good way to explain patterns we will find in the future. When that explanatory power fails, "evolutionists" will no longer believe the same things about evolution's predictive power and they'll abandon it. They can do this without regret, because they never believed in it (in the relgious sense) at all.
That's the basic difference between "faith" and "science." Faith is belief in things unseen; science is belief about only those things which have been seen. Science ignores unseen things completely. Science deals only with what has been seen, and scientific theories deal only with what has been (or is expected to be) seen at least twice.
In other words, science deals with the world as we do see it and not as we might or should see it. Might and should have no role in science, at least in any "moral" sense.
I think that's why so many people fear it.
Insyght
9th August 2005 - 03:50 AM
John Roberts? Sorry don't vote, don't get involved in this worlds political garb.
| QUOTE | Thanks for curling up and waving the white flag.
<br>I'm not curled up mate. I just conceed to let who want to walk over the cliff. A symbolic cliff of course. I just wave the flag in the direction of the drop.
K, look, it's very simple... people keep giving all that blarg around ID'er always say that evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics.... but... blah...cough.
What is that law? observations made by some gueezer.
Let me go through that sentence again... what is that law? OBSERVATIONS .... ah, stop right there.
This is science - you observe, you find a pattern and deduce laws. If something were to occur which changes that expected result the law is as good as used bog role.
What do you observe when you look at life? a giant chance, because you cannot SEE God.
I have to laud it to the almightly that he really has all you smart alecks figured out. You are too smart for your own good.
I want someone here, right now, to show me evidence that a creature in modern times has changed from one creature in another. I don't mean the leg getting shorter, or the beak getting smaller.. thats obvious - even scriptures attribute such environment to developement of races... I want all you smart aleck to show me an experiment today that has changed a BIRD (2 feet, 2 wings) in lets say, um a 4 legged LIZZARD. Of how about a CAT into a BIRD. A CHICKEN into a T-REX oh thats a great one.
Show me. Come on? Prove it to me.
I will shout this out, because people don't seem to understand this point...
WE WERE DESIGNED TO ADAPT.
WE WERE NOT DESIGNED TO CHANGE FORM.
I will also shout this out, because people dont seam to get this either...
SCRIPTURE DOES NOT SAY HOW GOD CREATED ANIMALS
SCRIPTURE ONLY SAYS HOW HE CREATED MAN.
Therefore, pulling of dinosaurs fossil history means nothing. These were created that come and gone and are nothing to do with human life or its purpose.
Guest
9th August 2005 - 04:28 AM
QUOTE (Insyght+Aug 9 2005, 03:50 AM) I want all you smart aleck to show me an experiment today that has changed a BIRD (2 feet, 2 wings) in lets say, um a 4 legged LIZZARD. Of how about a CAT into a BIRD. A CHICKEN into a T-REX oh thats a great one. ***? Above is good evidence for why you shouldn't skip high school science.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
