NationStates Jolt Archive

Actually, I don't think they'll let retarded people into decent colleges, unless they have some sort of gift. It'd be a pointless and costly gesture. They DO let in minorities and homosexuals. So should churches. People are intolerant of Christian ideas often, tis true. But Christians have an obligation to be tolerant, turn the other cheek, you might say. BTW, not to go way off topic, but homosexuality is just another sexual immorality from a Biblical standpoint. You kicking them out? How about remarried people? Basically all teenagers?

Just to clear up these issues, I don't mean to put words in your mouth that weren't there.

EDIT: I did NOT say to keep retarded people out of church...in case that was unclear. =P

tolerance is only good if its tolerance for minorities, homosexuals, retards, etc..
but if its tolerance for christian views, they wont allow it.

The question doesn't have anything at all to do with tolerance. It has to do with teaching science in a science class.

If these schools taught science properly, but happened to teach religion in a separate class, and suddenly the university wouldn't take their science class, you would have a point. As it is, all you have is misplaced whining.

tolerance is only good if its tolerance for minorities, homosexuals, retards, etc..
but if its tolerance for christian views, they wont allow it.
Would you tolerate the flat-earth view being taught in earth science?

How about tolerating phrenology taught in sociology?

It's not about "tolerance"; it's about teaching what is factual. And ID is not factual. It's not science. It's junk.

Well, you're probably right. Tolerance might not be the issue here, but your examples fail.

Your flat-earth view is known to be false, which is why it should never be taught. That wouldn't make sense (at least phrenology has produced weak and useless correlations among males...). "ID" has not been proven false, it's just off-topic. It's like teaching philosophy in science or sociology or psychology classes. Misplaced, like his "whining." (Ouch words...cool it, guys. Flaming isn't THAT fine a line.) But it doesn't in itself compromise the course. It takes something lame like whatever Bob Jones book they were using.

If they taught religion in the SAME class, but still taught good science, then the course is good. The orange doesn't spoil the basket of apples. The nasty, rotten apple does.

BTW, ID is a position of fact, it's just not scientific. Saying it's "junk" is not science either. That'd be philosophy (kinda intolerant too, eh), or if you prefer, religion. Don't reject the orange because it's not red and smooth enough to be a good apple.

Your flat-earth view is known to be false, which is why it should never be taught.

Not really. It is possible that we view the world as round although it is actually flat due to some as-yet-unfound factor in human perception. In science, every idea is open to being disproven. However, the idea that the world is flat has much, much less evidence than the theory that it is not.

If they taught religion in the SAME class, but still taught good science, then the course is good.

You want to teach religion and science in the same class? Way to confuse the hell out of people...

BTW, ID is a position of fact, it's just not scientific.

It is an opinion, a philosophy, or a religion. To say it was "fact", one would have to have a way to prove it to be true.

If they taught religion in the SAME class, but still taught good science, then the course is good. The orange doesn't spoil the basket of apples. The nasty, rotten apple does.

.
In science it does ... you can hardly call it a basket of apples

And any quanitiative or qualitative discription of that basket (grades) is no longer reflective of apples alone but apples AND oranges

The problem is the university wants to know about apples ... and it does not have the time to go back and study each students basket item by item

QUOTE: "Not really. It is possible that we view the world as round although it is actually flat due to some as-yet-unfound factor in human perception. In science, every idea is open to being disproven. However, the idea that the world is flat has much, much less evidence than the theory that it is not."

*sigh* I know. I know. But you're not making a point.

QUOTE: "You want to teach religion and science in the same class? Way to confuse the hell out of people..."

No, it wouldn't be very confusing. Not if you were taking it. Only if that's the only kind of mostly science course you had.

[Will continue later, for I must go.]

Not really. It is possible that we view the world as round although it is actually flat due to some as-yet-unfound factor in human perception. In science, every idea is open to being disproven. However, the idea that the world is flat has much, much less evidence than the theory that it is not.

if thats the case they shouldnt teach anything at all, it is possible that nothing is real everything is deception created by your imagination.

You want to teach religion and science in the same class? Way to confuse the hell out of people...

science itself can be viewed as a religion, there are different sciences, you still mention chemistry in biology, and you may mention biology in physics, ...

they seem to mention those within eachother ok, why cant they even touch on other theories.

It is an opinion, a philosophy, or a religion. To say it was "fact", one would have to have a way to prove it to be true.

which as many other people have stated, it is impossible to prove something to be true

philosophy (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=philosophy)

you will see that pretty much everyhting can be thought to be a part of philosophy

science, religion, that peanut butter sandwich under your couch.

and as for not being able to prove anything, why teach one thing you cant prove but not teach something else you cant prove.

science itself can be viewed as a religion, there are different sciences, you still mention chemistry in biology, and you may mention biology in physics, ...

they seem to mention those within eachother ok, why cant they even touch on other theories.


BECAUSE ITS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY just because people like you get lazy and call ID a theory does NOT make it a SCIENTIFIC theory wich is ALL that SCIENCE class should teach

BECAUSE ITS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY just because people like you get lazy and call ID a theory does NOT make it a SCIENTIFIC theory wich is ALL that SCIENCE class should teach

why isnt it scientific, decsribe to me what something has to be to be considered scientific

why isnt it scientific, decsribe to me what something has to be to be considered scientific

Here ya go:

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory....

.....A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

why isnt it scientific, decsribe to me what something has to be to be considered scientific
ID uses an UNFALCAFIABLE hypothesis (god) therefore can NOT be studied using the scientific method

Sorry but it fails to integrate with the scientific method it is NOT science

If you can not fail a hypothesis you can not study it with the scientific method

Well, you're probably right. Tolerance might not be the issue here, but your examples fail.

Your flat-earth view is known to be false, which is why it should never be taught.
ID is known to be false as well. It shouldn't be taught.


That wouldn't make sense (at least phrenology has produced weak and useless correlations among males...). "ID" has not been proven false,
Yes, it has.

ID is junk, pure and simple. It has no backing. It offers no predictions. It offers nothing but "goddidit".

ID is known to be false as well. It shouldn't be taught.



Yes, it has.

ID is junk, pure and simple. It has no backing. It offers no predictions. It offers nothing but "goddidit".
But it has NOT been proven false … which is the WHOLE FRIGGING PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE CALLING IT SCIENCE

That is EXACTLY why it is not science … you cant falsify god, in the end it could exist beyond all ability to test or search for

Therefore it can NOT be tested

Therefore any hypothesis that includes GOD as a part of it is NOT science

Dang!
How many times must I tell these religious zealots and Christian Fundamentalists that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure??

I DEMAND that GGAT theory be taught alongside ID and ET in science classrooms. Our Bible clearly states the fact of the Universe's origins in the Divine Snot of The Great Green Arkleseizure!!


In the beginning the Universe was created.

This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a
bad move.

Many races believe that it was created by some sort of God, though the
Jartravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe
was in fact sneezed out of the nose a being called the Great Green
Arkleseizure.

The Jartravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call the
coming of The Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more
than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

However, the Great Green Arkleseizure theory is not widely accepted
outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the puzzling place it is, other
explanations are constantly being sought.

For instance, a race of hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings once
built themselves a gigantic supercomputer called Deep Thought to calculate
once and for all the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe
and Everything.

For seven and a half million years, Deep Thought computed and
calculated, and in the end announced that the answer was in fact Forty-Two - and so another, even bigger, computer had to be built to find out what the actual question was.

And this computer, which was called Earth, was so large that it was
frequently mistaken for a planet - especially bythe strange ape-like beings who roamed its surface, totally unaware that they were simply part of a gigantic computer program. And this is very odd, because without that fairly simple and obvious piece of knowledge, nothing that ever happened on the Earth could possibly make the slightest bit of sense.

Dang!
How many times must I tell these religious zealots and Christian Fundamentalists that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure??

I DEMAND that GGAT theory be taught alongside ID and ET in science classrooms. Our Bible clearly states the fact of the Universe's origins in the Divine Snot of The Great Green Arkleseizure!!
I preffer my Flying Spaghetti Monster

http://www.venganza.org/

why isnt it scientific, decsribe to me what something has to be to be considered scientific

A theory exists to be disproven by empirical scietific means. If it withstands numerous tests, designed to disprove it, then it becomes accepted as fact...at least until it can be disproiven, at which point the theory is discarded.

Religion, and ID cannot be scientific for the simple reason that it cannot be studied in laboratory conditions, it cannot be duplicated or replicated, it cannot be subjected to the rigorous testing science requires, because it cannot be duplicated in a laboratory environment and subjected to tests.

When you find me a scientist who can change water into wine, we'll talk. Till then, keep your religion out of our science classrooms!

I don't care what you call it...Creationism, ID..call it what you want, your intentions are obvious. You intend to indoctrinate and brainwash our schoolchildren with your religion...probably with the intent of turning them into good little bigots. No thank you. World has enough hatred and intolerance in it already, without forcing it down impressionable kid's throats, and calling it science. It's not science.

Faith and knowledge are not the same thing, much, I'm sure, to your chagrin. Science REQUIRES PROOF. Your faith, and your religion cannot provide PROOF. If it could, it would not be called FAITH. It would be called KNOWLEDGE...and it would be called PROVEN FACT.

Now, you might have a great emotional investment in your faith, and maybe you require no proof of your faith...that is fine and dandy for you, but science requires proof. And your faith cannot provide it. Saying something is true "because God said so..." or "Because the Bible says so..." does not constitute empirical scientific evidence...much as you might wish otherwise.

I preffer my Flying Spaghetti Monster

http://www.venganza.org/

Our Arkleseizure could kick your Spaghetti Monster's ass!! :D

In spite of that, I'm in favor of teaching about The Flying Spaghetti Monster, alongside teaching about The Great Green Arkleseizure, and, of course, ID.

Of course, we know that the Intelligent Designer was the Arkleseizure, and that he, in fact, intentionally created the Universe while huffing pepper!

But it has NOT been proven false … which is the WHOLE FRIGGING PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE CALLING IT SCIENCE
It has been proven false, but that doesn't mean that people won't call it science. Look how many people call astrology a science, for example, and how many times that's been shown to be just a load of crap.

It's been proven false in the sense that *there is no design*. That's about the only quasi-testable claim it makes, and since there's no design (because obviously that kills the distinction between the metaphysically given and the man-man)--ID is proven false. End of story.

It has been proven false, but that doesn't mean that people won't call it science. Look how many people call astrology a science, for example, and how many times that's been shown to be just a load of crap.

It's been proven false in the sense that *there is no design*. That's about the only quasi-testable claim it makes, and since there's no design (because obviously that kills the distinction between the metaphysically given and the man-man)--ID is proven false. End of story.
No god by deffinition can not be proven false ... he has infinate power to avoid observation

That does not mean that the "evidence"for ID is not horseshit but it does mean that you can NEVER disprove a creator

in the end ID is not a scientific theor

No god by deffinition can not be proven false ... he has infinate power to avoid observation
Oh, they can ad hoc it all the want; in the end they all trip over themselves.


That does not mean that the "evidence"for ID is not horseshit but it does mean that you can NEVER disprove a creator
Sure you can, ontologically (in the sense that the creator is, invariably, "god" and exists apart from the universe)


in the end ID is not a scientific theor
Absolutely.

It's been proven false in the sense that *there is no design*. That's about the only quasi-testable claim it makes, and since there's no design (because obviously that kills the distinction between the metaphysically given and the man-man)--ID is proven false. End of story.
What if creationists changed from Intelligent Design to Shoddy Design? you know, like US cars in the late 70s and 80s. I think there's enough evidence for SD, only that instead of a creator in charge of all design, planning and implementation there's a committee taking decisions, and it's unionized workers actually making the stuff.

Sure you can, ontologically (in the sense that the creator is, invariably, "god" and exists apart from the universe)



Exactly ... so how do you test for something that is not part of the universe (or larger then ... however you wish to view it)

You cant

Thats exactly why god is not falsafiable

if thats the case they shouldnt teach anything at all, it is possible that nothing is real everything is deception created by your imagination.

I didn't say anything about imagination. I said that there may be something in our measurements that is incorrect.

science itself can be viewed as a religion,

Not by anyone with an ounce of logic in their brain...

there are different sciences, you still mention chemistry in biology, and you may mention biology in physics, ...

Yup. Each and every one of those is science, following the scientific method.

they seem to mention those within eachother ok, why cant they even touch on other theories.

They can only teach scientific theories in science class, just like they can't teach the idea that 2+5=99 in math class. However, they can discuss that in philosophy, as they can discuss the fact that human beings created mathematics and defined the terms, and could have defined the terms in such a way that the statement might be true.

which as many other people have stated, it is impossible to prove something to be true

Exactly! So people need to stop wandering around calling their beliefs, "fact."

you will see that pretty much everyhting can be thought to be a part of philosophy

science, religion, that peanut butter sandwich under your couch.

Irrelevant. Science is a part of philosophy with extra restrictions placed upon it. To be a part of science, one must follow all the restrictions, not just general philosophy.

and as for not being able to prove anything, why teach one thing you cant prove but not teach something else you cant prove.

People have seen the good that science does for them - the progress it leads to - and have decided that it is important to teach the basics of science. Thus, science is taught. It is true that science cannot prove anything, but it gets about as close as you can get, by testing the hell out of something until it has so much support that it might as well be proven (although it is always open to the possibility of disproof - thus ensuring that the process continually moves forward).

It has been proven false, but that doesn't mean that people won't call it science.

Hardly. One cannot prove that there was not a creator.

Look how many people call astrology a science, for example, and how many times that's been shown to be just a load of crap.

Anyone who thinks astrology is science needs their head examined.

It's been proven false in the sense that *there is no design*.

Whether or not there is design is in the eye of the beholder. It is hardly something that can be proven one way or another.

BAAWA, you are using science to prove that something is false and that it is not science. Don't trip. If I were to pull a Dem on you, I'd mark you for thinking science proves at all, ever. You treat it like a god, not like science. Fundamentalist much? And watch your conclusive generalizations.


QUOTE: "In science it does ... you can hardly call it a basket of apples

And any quanitiative or qualitative discription of that basket (grades) is no longer reflective of apples alone but apples AND oranges

The problem is the university wants to know about apples ... and it does not have the time to go back and study each students basket item by item"

The problem here is that the University is not going to get a better idea of the apples if they throw out too many of their statistics.

A person with two baskets full of apples with a few oranges has many more apples than a person with a half-full basket and no oranges. The problem is, they could be blinded by the oranges and fail to see the apples. It's a flawed observation.

Besides, a University is rarely going to be able to tell a persons worth by their high school courses. For all they know, the all-science courses were total junk. If they do not have the time to consider testing, then they do not have the time to sort out their applicants well at all.

Now from what I've seen about the courses in this specific case, they're pretty outside of the whole education concept. They fail. But I've only seen select courses. More than likely, the rest weren't anywhere near as bad (I wouldn't be surprised if some were fine).


Oh noes. :eek: It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster! The sarcasm is chewing out my eyeballs!! Fight back for your life...with the BioRifle!! :gundge:

*sigh* I do not advocate teaching Christian theology in public classrooms. I DO advocate the option for private schools, out of simple choice. That way, education/socialization isn't quite as much governmentally controlled.

If you want to teach FSM for real, go right ahead. You're just raising a new level of a sarcastic, unlistening generation. Or, you're lying on purpose as a vaccine to listening. You jerks. =P

BAAWA, you are using science to prove that something is false and that it is not science. Don't trip. If I were to pull a Dem on you, I'd mark you for thinking science proves at all, ever. You treat it like a god, not like science. Fundamentalist much? And watch your conclusive generalizations.


QUOTE: "In science it does ... you can hardly call it a basket of apples

And any quanitiative or qualitative discription of that basket (grades) is no longer reflective of apples alone but apples AND oranges

The problem is the university wants to know about apples ... and it does not have the time to go back and study each students basket item by item"

The problem here is that the University is not going to get a better idea of the apples if they throw out too many of their statistics.

A person with two baskets full of apples with a few oranges has many more apples than a person with a half-full basket and no oranges. The problem is, they could be blinded by the oranges and fail to see the apples. It's a flawed observation.


And I would hope sub par courses (half baskets) would also be filtered out as well as the ones with oranges

(and you dont know too much about statistics and outlyer processing lol)

QUOTE: "(and you dont know too much about statistics and outlyer processing lol)"

Explain. Or should I simply assume there's not a problem here, since you didn't bring any of it up.

I'm pretty confident about my understanding of general stats, but alas, not about my understanding of terms (I have just begun my first and second practical stats courses). What is "outlyer processing"? Is this simply trying to come to a good population conclusion while dealing with results far from the curve?

In any case, state the meaning of the final line of your last post.


Yes, half-baskets fail. Bad example. Replace it with a regular basketfull. Then remember that all of a person's baskets are going to be combined into one bin. Not just apples, but oranges, bananas, mangos, and phoenixes too. Hopefully, they get organized when in the bin, but this won't always happen. Two perfect baskets may get jumbled together, and mixes may be sorted.

But now, I'm done for the night. Later.

Well, finally, America is going straight to hell *COUGH COUGH* I mean the Dark Ages.

Technically, science is philosophy, with addded restrictions. All of science must follow those restrictions, however.


It's nice to see that you have 'come round'. At least this is a 'progression' from what you seemed to be saying a while ago.

Interestingly, these restrictions on science is quite the point of the whole debate over whether ID should be considered as science, and therefore a sensible addition to the science classroom.


Still spouting the same old nonsense, I see. Of course, anyone who has any idea at all of the logic behind science knows that no such assumption is made.


So you think you can refute an argument using ridicule?

I say the assumption is there. Not as a hypothesis, but as an inference. Currently, there is a prevailing opinion that says, 'We don't know how macroevolution occurs, but since we are all decended from a single ancestor, it must be possible using selection and mutation.' This sort of statement does not deal directly with the possibility of the supernatural, in that the supernatural does not get a mention. However, it is ruling out the possibility that the supernatural created man as a man. How can you not see that? This is the assumption to which I refer.

Interestingly, these restrictions on science is quite the point of the whole debate over whether ID should be considered as science, and therefore a sensible addition to the science classroom.So, you want to revamp the established scientific method and open the door for crack brained doctors going around selling vitamin pills to cure cancer, just because it would allow your belief system to be included in science class? These restrictions are what separate science from science fiction and fantasy.

You are just full of baseless statements today, aren't you? Actually, most scientists (since most scientists do understand evolutionary theory) would say that the process that leads to small changes (microevolution) can, over time, lead to large changes and even speciation (macroevolution).

Perhaps that would be the scientist who haven't studied microevolution for themselves (there are plenty of them). But the ones who are working away at trying to uncover a detailed model of macroevolution are puzzelled (and rightly so) at how large changes can be brought about by a collection of smaller changes. That is why embryology is regarded as a hot field for this topic. Many have a feeling that this field of study demonstrates how an organism can undergo dramatic changes (e.g. in morphology) in a very short timespan.
However, any half-baked science student can criticize the concept of microevolution being the process for macroevolution, since there is no one clear case of this happening, neither is it likely to be demonstrated based on what we have uncovered thus far.



Lots and lots and lots of tiny changes = big changes. It is a relatively simple concept that most gradeschoolers can comprehend.

The concept is simple. It is also simply fantastic if you expect any scientist with any sort of experience in this field or who has simply read a little more about it (that would be me) to just accept that it 'must have happened', without closing their eyes to the obvious problems.

Consider an example, the process of a prokaryote changing into a eukaryote. What we need to imagine is a bacterium being engulfed by another bacterium (similar to the process of macrophages (white blood cells). The 'swallowed' bacterium may be broken down into pieces. Some of these pieces become the future organelles (the requirement for a eukaryote). Amazingly, the phospholipid-bound sac (the remnant of a broken bacteria) (the future mitochondria) or can give an advantage to the macrophage-like cell. Alternatively, the 'swallowed' bacterial cell needs to mutate very rapidly indeed to adjust to life inside another cell.It has to get passed on to the daughter cells. It also has to be replicated, maintained, and conferring an advantage all the while. Can you imagine the number of mutations that bacteria has to make. It needs new proteins (to replace the worn out ones, particularly those with a half-life of something like minutes), and thus new genes. In the case of mitochondria, it needs to find a specific way of transporting proteins across the membrane. But specificity requires a number of steps, all which need to be in place in a single generation (in order for the advantage to be provided). Each step can involve one or several proteins, all which must be capable of performing the necessary step without delay. I could go on and on.

So while all this may be considered possible, perhaps you can also see why something like microevolution is just not the favourite process for people trying to explain how natural causes brought about this change. Only by NOT looking at the detail can one get an impression that little changes can provide for big changes.

So, you want to revamp the established scientific method and open the door for crack brained doctors going around selling vitamin pills to cure cancer, just because it would allow your belief system to be included in science class? These restrictions are what separate science from science fiction and fantasy.

No, I wouldn't say that a revamp is necessary. Neither have I found any crack-brained scientists selling vitamin pills to cure cancer in the name of ID.

What I don't like is that these restrictions come from a philosophical viewpoint, not from experimental science. Before they were here, there were plenty of scientists who did science without such restrictions.

No, I wouldn't say that a revamp is necessary. Neither have I found any crack-brained scientists selling vitamin pills to cure cancer in the name of ID.But without empyrical evidence that they work.

What I don't like is that these restrictions come from a philosophical viewpoint, not from experimental science. Before they were here, there were plenty of scientists who did science without such restrictions.Before they were here, we believed the earth was flat...
The restriction that something must be proven takes the element of fantasy out of scientific work.

Before they were here, we believed the earth was flat...
The restriction that something must be proven takes the element of fantasy out of scientific work.


I have often seen people use this example. But I don't think it is a good one. The simple reason is that the earth can be demonstrated, using scientific principles, to be round. The conclusion is based on an observation that can be repeated as many times as desired.

However, the conclusion that the origin and diversity of life looks like it arose from natural causes is altogether in a separate category. It is somewhat similar to the conclusion that life and it's diversity looks likes it came from a designer. We can't do the science to test either of these ideas. That is why they belong to the realm of philosophy.

In Pennsylvania the fanatics at a local school board voted to include I.D. as a teaching subject. The parents that think this is one of the most idiotic things that can happen and that are concerned that their children get a proper education are doing the American thing and have filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction until the issue of seperation of church and state is resolved. This case if ajudicated to the satisfaction of the parents will squash any further efforts at including I.D. as " science" by exposing it at as thinly veiled substitute for creation . It will be back to the drawing board for the fanatics .
It seems some parents care if there children are indoctrinated or taught false science .

I have often seen people use this example. But I don't think it is a good one. The simple reason is that the earth can be demonstrated, using scientific principles, to be round. The conclusion is based on an observation that can be repeated as many times as desired.

However, the conclusion that the origin and diversity of life looks like it arose from natural causes is altogether in a separate category. It is somewhat similar to the conclusion that life and it's diversity looks likes it came from a designer. We can't do the science to test either of these ideas. That is why they belong to the realm of philosophy.
No it appears as such to you

Just as the world appeared flat to those standing on It and not LOOKING at the details pointing to its roundness (namely the horizon)

Hopefully some day people will be educated enough to actually understand the theory as a whole (and of course we refine the current theory) and it will be a similar thing “duh that’s what caused it … make so much sense” sort of attitude

Holy crap! You don't even understand the basic logic of science. How the hell do you claim to have a science degree?


I was using the language of the poster to which I was replying. And my point was that science is one approach to finding reality. In that sense, it's purpose is to 'prove' things. Not in the sense of proving that 1 = 1, but in the sense of e.g., proving that antibiotic resistance is due to genetic changes. Of course there will always be a level of uncertainty. But science is not in a position to remove it completely. Thus, in the practical sense, one can use the word 'prove', for it is by such proof that we are able to live in a modern society where science is continually changing the way we live (e.g. through technology).



Incorrect. An experiment cannot confirm a hypothesis, as there are still ways that it could be disproven. It can only support the hypothesis by not disproving it.


Getting technical in order to 'win an argument' does look a bit silly. But you often seem to do this. As I pointed out before, science cannot completely remove the uncertainty in a hypothesis, but it can confirm a hypothesis. When a scientist removes a particular gene that is thought to code for an antibiotic resistance protein and observes antibiotic sensitivity, he is not proving that the gene codes for an antibiotic resistance protein, but he is confirming the hypothesis. The results of an initial experiment (e.g. mutagenesis) will suggest a particular gene. The results of the second experiment (e.g. complimentation of the gene) will support that particular gene as being responsible. The results of a third experiment (e.g. cloning the gene into another species and observing antibiotic resistance) will confirm that gene as the antibiotic resistance gene.

You would say that the evidence supports the hypothesis. And I am saying that a bunch of experiments cleverly designed can confirm the hypothesis, although they can never remove all doubt. (Obviously my definition of 'confirm' is not to remove all doubt, but to support a hypothesis to such a point as making the hypothesis most likely to be closest to reality). You are claiming that I don't understand science because I cannot see the limitations in science. I say you are being silly and throwing out technical arguments in order to refute my point. In fact, you are criticising a technicality in my post that had little to do with the point I was making.



Incorrect. The purpose is to provide support for the hypothesis. If enough support is gathered, one might consider it "proven", but it is never actually proven. There is always uncertainity and the hypothesis (even if it garners so much support that it becomes theory) is still open to being falsified.


No, you are incorrect. As I said before, a bunch of cleverly designed experiments are capable of proving that a gene is related to e.g. antibiotic resistance. Not in the sense of proof beyond doubt, but proof that is needed to, e.g. base further research steps upon, make further testable predictions, etc.


Again with your baseless statements. I'm beginning to think that you make up lies on purpose because you think that some people haven't already heard this BS and you might be able to mislead them.

Science does not assume that the supernatural did not intervene. It does not assume that the supernatural did intervene. The supernatural is, by definition, outside of science, so science assumes nothing at all about it.


I have shown you that the assumption is an indirect one.

No it appears as such to you

Just as the world appeared flat to those standing on It and not LOOKING at the details pointing to its roundness (namely the horizon)

Hopefully some day people will be educated enough to actually understand the theory as a whole (and of course we refine the current theory) and it will be a similar thing “duh that’s what caused it … make so much sense” sort of attitude

The more I look at the debate between evolutionary theory and ID, the more I see it really is about differences in what people think makes sense to them. The central issue seems to be about whether the existence of God makes sense, or whether His interference would be a sensible thing.

You are also requiring ME as a TUITION PAYER to pay for THEM because THEIR parents choose to send them to a school that did not meet minimum standards

Yes, because California "Universities" (I use the term VERY loosely) have purposely gone about setting unconstrained, unwarranted standards for the sole purpose of discriminating against a particular group of schools (and who also can provide absolutely no pratical justification for those standards, and such standards fly in the face of 99.99% of other state run Universities, including the the larger Calfornia State University System [CSU] which is more than twice as large as the UC system), further have no records of the purpose and discussion whereby such standards were arrived, can not provide any impact studies supporting the purpose or plan. Specifically rejected one course on Physics, merely because the textbook had "Biblical Quotes" as subtitles to each chapter, and admittedly (before a state representative) would have approved had the quotes (only in the subtitles) not been there...

If they bring religion in to the science class it is no longer science and should not be counted as such

They do not have the necessary prerequisites to attend and the university is under no obligations to provide those prerequisites. They can go get them by their own self without wasting my money

It's funny how CSU has the same binding of "pre-requisits" but is capable of making non-discrimintory determinations....

It's funny how UC cannot produce records of why or how they determined the specifics....

It's funny how they even rejected courses where there was no factual dispute (Physics).... I guess if they bring religion (in form of quotes) into Physics, it's no longer Physics either? Or if religion is brought into history, it's no longer history.... Or if its brought into social science, it's no longer social science...

Nice bigotry... It does not work, however, on those of us capable of reason.

If we are talking about philosophical viewpoints, we have moved out of a science discussion. I'm sure there are those who personally believe that natural causes can explain all there is to know. In fact, I know some such people. The ones who have studied science, however, are well aware that said belief is no more scientific than the belief that God created everything.


What do you call the scientists who are working on abiogenesis? Obviously their philosophical view point is influencing their science. Their science will never be free from the assumption that life came from non-life. The same goes for any scientist who assumes that all of life came from a single ancestor (a major point in the evolutionary theory). Their science will never be separate from this philosophical view point. Thus, it is perfectly normal to discuss philosophy WITHIN science, because it is such a determining factor over how to interpret data and how to design experiments and which questions to answer.


Hardly. "Extremely rare," could, if you were so inclined, be interpreted as, "God only does it every now and then." "Conditions unlike those of modern Earth," could, if you were so inclined, be interpreted as, "God has to be directly intervening for that to happen, and God isn't directly intervening now."


Reading your posts, one gets the feeling that you are a bit removed from reality. I'm sure my old professor would have raised eyebrows at your suggestions. In fact, just about every scientist that excepts the neo-Darwin philosophy that I have ever met or read about would reject your suggestions. They would say that, since natural causes can explain how apes evolved into humans, why invoke God to explain abiogenesis? God can easily be removed using Ocham's Razor.

There is nothing about 'extremely rare' that suggests God was necessary. And the whole point of theorising about 'conditions unlike those of modern earth' is to make it possible for life to come from molecules using natural causes, and not involving God in the process.


And now you're delving into bigotry.... "No one can possibly logically come to a different conclusion than me..."


On the contrary, I did mention that it was my personal preference. That implies that I can accept that other people can come to alternative viewpoints. My point was that there is a fair amount of belief involved in any viewpoint. You can call that bigotry if you like. Perhaps it is more like bias. You have yours. I have mine.


Good thing that evolutionary theory doesn't depend on any such thing, eh?


You are right. It doesn't. But there are people on NS (yourself included) who have used that argument before (if I recall correctly).

It's funny how CSU has the same binding of "pre-requisits" but is capable of making non-discrimintory determinations....

It's funny how UC cannot produce records of why or how they determined the specifics....

It's funny how they even rejected courses where there was no factual dispute (Physics).... I guess if they bring religion (in form of quotes) into Physics, it's no longer Physics either? Or if religion is brought into history, it's no longer history.... Or if its brought into social science, it's no longer social science...

Nice bigotry... It does not work, however, on those of us capable of reason.
If you bring it in the material may be the same but if any portion of the grading scheme is based on that aforementioned religion the grades they get from that course are no longer reflective of their knowledge nor aptitude for science
As such it should NOT be counted as a demonstration of either … and if that is a prerequisite for entrance (and I find knowledge of science to be a reasonable prerequisite) any course that did grade on non scientific principals in a science class (baring the normal attendance and such … which should be figured in to all courses … usually) should not be accepted


As far as the one example you gave on that book … I would show it representative of a low class science book. As such I would look more critically at students from said science classes but I would not automatically disbar them

But I would do the same for any class that used a shoddy book in general weather injection of religion or just old or outdated.

In Pennsylvania the fanatics at a local school board voted to include I.D. as a teaching subject. The parents that think this is one of the most idiotic things that can happen and that are concerned that their children get a proper education are doing the American thing and have filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction until the issue of seperation of church and state is resolved. This case if ajudicated to the satisfaction of the parents will squash any further efforts at including I.D. as " science" by exposing it at as thinly veiled substitute for creation . It will be back to the drawing board for the fanatics .
It seems some parents care if there children are indoctrinated or taught false science .

Thought this has nothing even in similtude to the issue there.

We're dealing with a particular University Sysem (University of California System), which unlike its larger counterpart California State University (CSU) and it's system (each being under the same guidelines), has made determinations (unlike CSU system) to deny any coursework with religious inferences (which has extended not only to Biological Science, but also Physics, Calculus and other math, Sociology, Ethics, and Language classes in those private religious schools)... Lawsuit is filed to by ACSI as class-action with the schools and students offended (which may expand, as UC is planning to nullify the other private-schools not currently effected, as their rulling is not ex-post-facto [though they will make it that in the near future by their own admission in meeting before ACSI layers and a State Representative]), thereby challenging the reasoning (of which no records were kept of the meetings whereby determinations were made on the rejections of this, and other classes based on curricular content by the people responsible for defining said requirements; which is a no-no in the first place for public officers and employees... and alone should be the basis for removing these people from their offices)... To ensure their students are provided equal treatment before the UC system board of admissions (though I'd assume that since CSU system has not gone to the levels of bureucratic despotism that UC has, that these students will take their money to CalState instead of UC, where the state funds are obviously being put to better use)... And to top it off admit that the decision was not based on a difference in collegiate sucess of part students from these and other private schools (using the same curriculum and course work), and is therefore not based on poor past performance of students taught from these books and schools.... in fact, they were on par, and in many casses performed BETTER than their peers), whereby to have their students accepted into public universities.....

No where are they demanding that ID be taught in UC system (or any other particular public school); not by the schools, not by the Representatives "Friend of the Court" brief, and not by the ACSI filed suit. Rather demanding equal consideration, and a fair assessment (which cannot be provided by any certified document or record of any UC system admissions board meeting), of the said coursework and classes.

Any judge is going to take one look at UC's bullshit, and call them on it... The evidence is not in their favor...

If you bring it in the material may be the same but if any portion of the grading scheme is based on that aforementioned religion the grades they get from that course are no longer reflective of their knowledge nor aptitude for science
As such it should NOT be counted as a demonstration of either … and if that is a prerequisite for entrance (and I find knowledge of science to be a reasonable prerequisite) any course that did grade on non scientific principals in a science class (baring the normal attendance and such … which should be figured in to all courses … usually) should not be accepted


As far as the one example you gave on that book … I would show it representative of a low class science book. As such I would look more critically at students from said science classes but I would not automatically disbar them

But I would do the same for any class that used a shoddy book in general weather injection of religion or just old or outdated.

It's funny how you apply that reasoning to the private school, yet categorally support UC system admissions, while they themselves, through actions, have brought into question their overall determination in the first place.

If I judge is found to have made violation in a single case... It opens up appeals to all other cases which arose before him/her.... I question UC's standards, because they have rejected other material merely BECAUSE of sub-titles and not curricular or factual inclusion; they have not made, or refuse to supply minutes or other persuant records indicative to the process and arguments behind decisions reached for reason of rejection of particular courses (in itself a no-no, given we're speaking of governmental employees; and alone should bring question to their compitency in their positions), have addmitedly not based the decisions on past student performance of persons educated by use of those course materials (and even admit that there is no show of reason whereby students educated by use of those materials have been poor performers; but rather to the contrary).... So sorry, if I apply the scientific method to the operation, attitudes, and results of the UC systems admissions, and automatically bring question to anything which utters from their mouth and board... All evidence is indicative of them operating from a purpose and reason as to discriminate against private religious schools... And I have seen NO EVIDENCE (though plenty of supposition by supporters of the what UC has done) that purports to be defense for their determination.

Suppositions have included:

1. The students would be a drain on the schools resources....( A supposition refuted by UC's own representatives admissions before the State Rep and ACSI layers)

2. That Higher Education needs these standards... (A supposition refuted by the fact that only 1 system [composed of 10 schools] has made this determination, and no other system has gone to these lengths, including CSU which uses the same state-imposed "a-g" [and CSU is technically more in line, as they actually use "a-g"... UC does not recognize any "g" level coursework] guidelines)

3. That kids educated by using these materials don't know the "scientific method"... (Refuted... especially when no other questions were asked about curricular details outside of what is listed in the book [how many classes have you taken which were based only on the content of a single text?]...And have a history of suceeding in the UC system science curriculum in the past...)

You and Dem should use this scientific method you keep talking about... Baseless, unfounded suppositions and claims, do not a truthful response and position make.... And a "scientific method" of convenience is no scientific method at all....

Riddle me this, batman..... Why was a physics book, and the class connected to it rejected only upon the grounds of their being biblical quotes in sub-title of each chapter? Why were history classes rejected which encompassed religious views? Why were morality and ethics (cat "g") sociology courses rejected because of religious overtones?

If a judge holds 5 trials, and 4 of them are shown to be in question and have badly motivated decision and poor judgement on his part... All 5 will be brought in to question, and given new trials.... And I hold these UC nitwits to the same standards.... Even if they could produce fairly good reasons for the singular biology text.... It in no way excuses the other 4 texts rejected (3 of which aren't even "science courses", and the fourth is not even under question by the method or information content, but merely the SUBTITLES to the books chapters)...

Both Biology and Physics meet the need of "d" level requirements... These students have had BOTH rejected... Even if one is somewhat founded (let's say I buy your reason pertainig to ID's involvement); it still does not excuse them rejecting the other "d" work Physics course merely because of biblical quotes placed in subtitle (so even if Biology is rejected, they can still meet "d" requirements by physics)... And why is history, sociology and language credits also denied, merely because it may contain religious overtones (hell my own HS language classes incorporated religious literature into the coursework at the time... and that was in public school!) Are you telling me religion has no more place in history, sociology, ethics, morality, and language than it does science? You'ld have a hard time reasoning that one through, bub...

Even if they win the ID issue.... They still loose.

It's nice to see that you have 'come round'. At least this is a 'progression' from what you seemed to be saying a while ago.

I have never said anything different.

Interestingly, these restrictions on science is quite the point of the whole debate over whether ID should be considered as science, and therefore a sensible addition to the science classroom.

Incorrect. The restrictions are the scientific method - logic and empiricism are required in order to be considered science, while neither is necessarily required for general philosophy. ID doesn't meet the restrictions (the scientific method) and is therefore thrown out as some other type of philosophy.

So you think you can refute an argument using ridicule?

No, but there has to be a sensible argument to refute. Since there is not, and this has been demonstrated to you more times than I can remember, I see no point in doing anything at this point but pointing out how ridiculous it is.

I say the assumption is there. Not as a hypothesis, but as an inference.

Inference != assumption.

Currently, there is a prevailing opinion that says, 'We don't know how macroevolution occurs, but since we are all decended from a single ancestor, it must be possible using selection and mutation.'

No, there really isn't. There is a prevailing opinion that says, "It seems that the processes we are observing could have causes all creatures to descend from a single ancestor. Genetic evidence seems to support this. Therefore it is possible. We don't have evidence of a better explanation, so this is the prevailing opinion."

This sort of statement does not deal directly with the possibility of the supernatural, in that the supernatural does not get a mention. However, it is ruling out the possibility that the supernatural created man as a man. How can you not see that? This is the assumption to which I refer.

This particular theory hypothesizes that humankind was not made as humankind is now, because evidence backs that theory up. If evidence is found to suggest that humankind popped into existence, just as humankind is now, with no precursors, that evidence will be examined.

What we need to imagine is a bacterium being engulfed by another bacterium (similar to the process of macrophages (white blood cells). The 'swallowed' bacterium may be broken down into pieces. Some of these pieces become the future organelles (the requirement for a eukaryote).

Actually, a lot of the hypothesis rests on the idea that the prokaryote was not broken down, and instead became an organelle over time itself.

Amazingly, the phospholipid-bound sac (the remnant of a broken bacteria) (the future mitochondria) or can give an advantage to the macrophage-like cell.

It isn't that amazing. We have examples, even today, of one type of organism living within another and conferring an advantage. There are organisms that could not survive - as they would get no nutrients - if they did not have other organisms living in or on them to provide breakdown products that they use as nutrients.

Alternatively, the 'swallowed' bacterial cell needs to mutate very rapidly indeed to adjust to life inside another cell.

An assumption you have provided no backing for. It might be able to live within another cell just fine. It is observed even today.

It has to get passed on to the daughter cells.

Not hard at all, considering that it is most likely (just like a mitochondria) still dividing on it's own. A splitting cell would be likely to pass some to the next cell.

It also has to be replicated, maintained, and conferring an advantage all the while.

It has to replicate and maintain - yes. It does not have to confer an advantage the entire time, it simply can't confer a disadvantage. This is something you try and twist all the time, but there is a large difference.

Can you imagine the number of mutations that bacteria has to make.

Not nearly as many, in nearly as short a time, as you make it out to be.

It needs new proteins (to replace the worn out ones, particularly those with a half-life of something like minutes), and thus new genes.

Not if the proteins it already has do the job.....Then, they just change slowly over time. Meanwhile, half-life has nothing to do with new genes. The proteins in *your* body have short half-lives. You aren't producing new genes to replace them.

In the case of mitochondria, it needs to find a specific way of transporting proteins across the membrane.

You mean like processes that every cell already has? Show me a cell that doesn't transport any proteins across its membrane.

So while all this may be considered possible, perhaps you can also see why something like microevolution is just not the favourite process for people trying to explain how natural causes brought about this change. Only by NOT looking at the detail can one get an impression that little changes can provide for big changes.

You have an incredibly myopic viewpoint on these matters.

No, I wouldn't say that a revamp is necessary. Neither have I found any crack-brained scientists selling vitamin pills to cure cancer in the name of ID.

Allowing a theory to depend on an untestable assumption is a huge revamp. If you don't think a revamp is necessary, then you don't think that ID can be considered science.

Getting technical in order to 'win an argument' does look a bit silly. But you often seem to do this.

We are talking about science my dear. To have a real discussion of science, one must be technical.

Reading your posts, one gets the feeling that you are a bit removed from reality. I'm sure my old professor would have raised eyebrows at your suggestions. In fact, just about every scientist that excepts the neo-Darwin philosophy that I have ever met or read about would reject your suggestions. They would say that, since natural causes can explain how apes evolved into humans, why invoke God to explain abiogenesis? God can easily be removed using Ocham's Razor.

You ignore the difference between a personal philosophical viewpoint and a scientific one. From a scientific viewpoint, we cannot invoke God to explain anything - God is outside of science. From a personal philosophical viewpoint, we can believe that God did X.

On the contrary, I did mention that it was my personal preference.

And then said, "There is no possibly way....."

You basically said, "This is my personal opinion, but no logical person could disagree with me."

You are right. It doesn't. But there are people on NS (yourself included) who have used that argument before (if I recall correctly).

You recall incorrectly.

The more I look at the debate between evolutionary theory and ID, the more I see it really is about differences in what people think makes sense to them. The central issue seems to be about whether the existence of God makes sense, or whether His interference would be a sensible thing.

Hardly. One can believe that God interfered all over the place, and still be able to understand the logic of science - and realize that such interference cannot be assumed or posited by science.

3. That kids educated by using these materials don't know the "scientific method"... (Refuted... especially when no other questions were asked about curricular details outside of what is listed in the book [how many classes have you taken which were based only on the content of a single text?]...And have a history of suceeding in the UC system science curriculum in the past...)

Every class I had in high school was based off the content of a single text - especially science classes.

Edit: Except literature - that had plenty of books we had to read.

What if creationists changed from Intelligent Design to Shoddy Design? you know, like US cars in the late 70s and 80s. I think there's enough evidence for SD, only that instead of a creator in charge of all design, planning and implementation there's a committee taking decisions, and it's unionized workers actually making the stuff.
It would be funny, but somehow I don't think they'd want to admit that their perfect god made crappy products.

I say you are being silly and throwing out technical arguments in order to refute my point. In fact, you are criticising a technicality in my post that had little to do with the point I was making.

When discussing science, you need to be sure to use the logic of science. The fact that people get out of high school with such a dim understanding of the scientific method is appalling. I do what I can to correct that. Of course, when people use words like "prove", they suggest that there is no longer any doubt, and people get up in arms.

No, you are incorrect. As I said before, a bunch of cleverly designed experiments are capable of proving that a gene is related to e.g. antibiotic resistance. Not in the sense of proof beyond doubt, but proof that is needed to, e.g. base further research steps upon, make further testable predictions, etc.

.....which is exactly what I said. So how am I incorrect again?

I have shown you that the assumption is an indirect one.

No, you have shown me that you are incapable of separating your own religion from the logic of science. Many of us have no problem doing it. Many of us don't make that assumption in any way, shape, or form. The fact that you cannot see a way to come to the conclusions of science without making that assumption says something about you, not about science.

Exactly ... so how do you test for something that is not part of the universe (or larger then ... however you wish to view it)

You cant

Thats exactly why god is not falsafiable
But it's also why "god" is just a load of crap; it's ontologically impossible. You can't have something exist apart from the universe, so it means it can't possibly exist. Ergo, ID is junk, unless they want to say that the designer exists in the universe, but we know that they want the designer to be god, so they can't do that.

BAAWA, you are using science to prove that something is false and that it is not science.
Yes it is.

You can't have something exist apart from the universe,

What a silly and arrogant statement.

Yes, because California "Universities" (I use the term VERY loosely)


:rolleyes: Hmmmm how many nobel lauretes have come from Berkeley.


have purposely gone about setting unconstrained, unwarranted standards for the sole purpose of discriminating against a particular group of schools (and who also can provide absolutely no pratical justification for those standards, and such standards fly in the face of 99.99% of other state run Universities, including the the larger Calfornia State University System [CSU] which is more than twice as large as the UC system), further have no records of the purpose and discussion whereby such standards were arrived, can not provide any impact studies supporting the purpose or plan. Specifically rejected one course on Physics, merely because the textbook had "Biblical Quotes" as subtitles to each chapter, and admittedly (before a state representative) would have approved had the quotes (only in the subtitles) not been there...

Do you even know what their rules or are you just making this up as you go along?

Meh.

tolerance is only good if its tolerance for minorities, homosexuals, retards, etc..
but if its tolerance for christian views, they wont allow it.

By definition, the majority doesn't NEED tolerance. They can force the issue. Minorities can't.

What a silly and arrogant statement.
Oh really?

Please provide me the ontology of "apart from the universe".

I'm prepared to wait as long as it takes for you to realize that "apart from the universe" is ontologically meaningless, and as such, anything claimed to be apart from the universe simply cannot exist, period. It's like asking "what's north of the north pole".

Existence only has meaning within the universe. Stepping apart from the universe destroys the onto-epistemic framework we have for explanations, and thus goes into the realm of the Purely Fictional.

Oh really?

Please provide me the ontology of "apart from the universe".

I'm prepared to wait as long as it takes for you to realize that "apart from the universe" is ontologically meaningless, and as such, anything claimed to be apart from the universe simply cannot exist, period. It's like asking "what's north of the north pole".

Existence only has meaning within the universe. Stepping apart from the universe destroys the onto-epistemic framework we have for explanations, and thus goes into the realm of the Purely Fictional.

Devil's Advocate:
Just because we cannot imagine a thing, and just because we have no framework to imagine, describe, observe, explain or discuss it...does not preclude the possibility of it's existence!

Devil's Advocate:
Just because we cannot imagine a thing, and just because we have no framework to imagine, describe, observe, explain or discuss it...does not preclude the possibility of it's existence!
Which, I'm sure you realize and did it just to demonstrate, is the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Every class I had in high school was based off the content of a single text - especially science classes.

Edit: Except literature - that had plenty of books we had to read.

FEW of mine were based off of a single text, and some of them were not even based on a text (neither AP Comp Sci 1 or 2 had an associative textbook), AP Calc and AP Physics A were based, each, from a single text, AP Bio, AP Physics B, and Algebra II/Trig (a single class) had two or more texts associated with the class.... Government had a single text in the social science/history realm, AP Virginia & United States History had three seperate textbooks (the first one was used for summer-study work, which had assignments due the first day BACK to school)... I pretty much opted out of freshman college work thanks to the heavy academic nature of my public high-school educational system in my home-town.

FEW of mine were based off of a single text, and some of them were not even based on a text (neither AP Comp Sci 1 or 2 had an associative textbook), AP Calc and AP Physics A were based, each, from a single text, AP Bio, AP Physics B, and Algebra II/Trig (a single class) had two or more texts associated with the class.... Government had a single text in the social science/history realm, AP Virginia & United States History had three seperate textbooks (the first one was used for summer-study work, which had assignments due the first day BACK to school)... I pretty much opted out of freshman college work thanks to the heavy academic nature of my public high-school educational system in my home-town.
Two texts for ap bio? Which?

Ok, I said:

"BAAWA, you are using science to prove that something is false and that it is not science."

BAAWA, you said:

"Yes it is."

And this means what? That you don't understand what I'm saying? I was saying that if you "prove" it isn't science, you can't use science to "prove" that it is false.

BTW, if I got here in time to beat Dem, I think he said, "What a silly and arrogant statement," because you assume you know what the universe is. Oh, and ontology is metaphysics. It's not science at all, as it is not restricted by the same principles that define science. Dem has been saying this (and others too) for the last ... how long is this thread?


I don't know, but I doubt Tekania was making it up; at least, it's silly for you to assume this and not even ask for research in a neutral way (not that you probably want him to...). Put forth the research, and this case is cracked. And I'm not talking about CNN blurbs (or Fox/NBC/etc.). Well, where'd you get the information, and we can go read it. You don't have to go and write a research paper (unless you really want to).

If chrisitanity was forced to be taught in schools, i would kill everyone in sight. i would

BTW, if I got here in time to beat Dem, I think he said, "What a silly and arrogant statement," because you assume you know what the universe is.
Don't you?


Oh, and ontology is metaphysics. It's not science at all,
Even if you're correct, so what?

Which, I'm sure you realize and did it just to demonstrate, is the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

More or less...that is, if I am understanding you correctly. Your sentence structure is leaving something to be desired, and I don't believe the message you intended to covey is being coveyed very well, but I think I was able to pick through it.

The point I was trying to make is that there ARE things out there beyond our comprehension, beyond our understanding, beyond even our imagination. And just because we cannot imagine, describe, or percieve them....that does not preclude the possibility that such things exist.

Two texts for ap bio? Which?

McGraw/Hill Pub. - Biology (I believe 4th edition, was some time ago...)

and W.H. Freeman Pub.- Life: The Science of Biology (I think 2nd ed.)

If chrisitanity was forced to be taught in schools, i would kill everyone in sight. i would

Hey...don't kill me...I'm on YOUR side! I don't want Christianity taught in our schools, either. Glad as hell I'm out of school, and have no kids who go to school, and never will have kids, period. I wouldn't wanna bring kids into this fucked-up world, anyway, so I'm glad to be sterile!

Lol, religion better not be forced into schools.

BAAWA, I have my own concept of the universe we live in (well, some of us live here... >_>). However, I do not KNOW I am right, and I cannot make all-encompassing statements...without sounding ridiculous. Nor can I force my philosophy on others nor ridicule them for not thinking as I do (which is quite similar).


"Even if correct"?! Don't you even know what [I]you're talking about?? How can you expect to understand what anyone else says? Anyways, this goes back to what I said before. You were trying to uses science to dis"prove" something science cannot touch. Now, you're trying to use philosophy (ontology) to dis"prove" something as if ontology were science and dealt with information in that manner. I think the "ology" part is confusing you.

Even within ontology...

You claim that since the Creator would be God, he would be outside the universe, and thus, would not "exist." However, the Christian God affects (or can affect) the universe. Therefore, in the minds of ontologists, he must (logically) exist, as he is still a factor in our universe. They would view him as another part of the universe; it'd be like adding another dimension.

More or less...that is, if I am understanding you correctly. Your sentence structure is leaving something to be desired, and I don't believe the message you intended to covey is being coveyed very well, but I think I was able to pick through it.
Actually, my sentence was entirely grammatically and syntactically correct.


The point I was trying to make is that there ARE things out there beyond our comprehension, beyond our understanding, beyond even our imagination. And just because we cannot imagine, describe, or percieve them....that does not preclude the possibility that such things exist.
Argument from ignorance logical fallacy.

BAAWA, I have my own concept of the universe we live in (well, some of us live here... >_>). However, I do not KNOW I am right, and I cannot make all-encompassing statements...without sounding ridiculous.
Sounds like a personal problem to me. I can make them without sounding ridiculous, since I know what I'm talking about.


"Even if [I am] correct"?! Don't you even know what you're talking about??
Yes.


How can you expect to understand what anyone else says? Anyways, this goes back to what I said before. You were trying to uses science to dis"prove" something science cannot touch.
If something is logically impossible....

Do I need to continue with that sentence, or can you figure out the conclusion on your own?


Now, you're trying to use philosophy (ontology) to dis"prove" something as if ontology were science and dealt with information in that manner. I think the "ology" part is confusing you.
Nope.


Even within ontology...

You claim that since the Creator would be God, he would be outside the universe, and thus, would not "exist." However, the Christian God affects (or can affect) the universe.
But is, according to xer theology, outside of the universe.


Therefore, in the minds of ontologists, he must (logically) exist, as he is still a factor in our universe.
Nope. Because then you have some idiotic dual-realmist ontology, and you still have the problem of that other realm.


They would view him as another part of the universe; it'd be like adding another dimension.
Then god couldn't have created the universe.

It's simply a dichotomy, and one the xer will lose each time. If god created the universe, then god cannot be part of the universe, and thus god cannot exist. But if god is part of the universe, then god couldn't have created the universe, and god is just some natural being in the universe that's just really smart and we have no need to worship it or any of that other crap.

Oh because we know the religious groups are oh so tolerant.

They claim the right to discriminate on the basis of their religion, (ie not hire homosexuals and head start money going to groups that say they have the right to only hire christian teachers) and yet they are being desciminated against because a univirsity that has no obligation to accept every applicant is discriminating against them because their text books are found lacking.

If they want a religious "science" class then they should probably go to Bob Jones University.

So, some idiots in Bumfuck, Idaho want ID on the curriculum. Let them do it, let them ban the reading of Harry Potter because of the satanic influence. Let's face it, those fuckers are a retarded bunch of donkey shaggers, and anyone with an ounce of intelligence treats their bullshit with contempt.

You only have to take a look at George Dubya to know that evolution is a happening thang.

BAAWA.

QUOTE: "Sounds like a personal problem to me. I can make them without sounding ridiculous, since I know what I'm talking about."

You are not listening, thus you are not understanding.

QUOTE: "Yes."

You didn't know that ontology is philosophy. That, or your wording was flawed enough to display this ignorance. If the latter is the case, then you misused ontology...in which case, you still didn't understand it.

QUOTE: "If something is logically impossible....

Do I need to continue with that sentence, or can you figure out the conclusion on your own?"

You have no decent conclusion, which might be why you don't state it. If you took the time to write it out in detail, you might have realized that you are not using science. Besides, that "something" is not logically impossible....

QUOTE: "But is, according to xer theology, outside of the universe."

Lol, it took me a minute to figure out what "xer" meant. Anyways, according to "xer" theology, the Christian God is not controlled by the same forces we are...it kinda comes with omnipotence. An "xer" could SAY God is outside the universe, but he doesn't really mean it the same way you do (your definition is not compatible); he means that God is not beneath the forces we are. God is a part of our universe, as he communes with Christians regularly and has the power to alter our world (my word for your "universe") whenever he wants. It is silly to say that he is not a part of our world.

QUOTE: "Nope. Because then you have some idiotic dual-realmist ontology, and you still have the problem of that other realm."

No. Same realm, different dimension. (Quantum) Physicists nowadays are looking into the evidence for many dimensions. Some are sure that there are. These are not universes outside our own, because they are inside our universe. It's as simple as that. However, that's only a figure of science. It's basically irrelevant except to back up my simile. The bottom line is that anything affecting our universe is, logically, part of our universe. Which brings me to my next explanation....

QUOTE: "Then god couldn't have created the universe.

It's simply a dichotomy, and one the xer will lose each time. If god created the universe, then god cannot be part of the universe, and thus god cannot exist. But if god is part of the universe, then god couldn't have created the universe, and god is just some natural being in the universe that's just really smart and we have no need to worship it or any of that other crap."

Since when does creation affect whether or not you are a part of something? You are using false logic. If I create a club, can I not be a part of it? How about a child? Would I not be a part of the child? I might not be. But that's not God. God IS a part of our universe, because he chooses to be. I would expect this to come up in an intense theology course. Your last line with "we have no need to worship it or any of that other crap" makes it abundantly clear that you do not understand even the most fundamental (meaning basic, hehe) elements of the Christian theology/philosophy.

I think what you are trying to do with the word "exist" is define it as such that there isn't anything anywhere else that isn't in our universe. That way, God can't exist unless he is in our universe, even if he did create it. By this logic, God might not technically "exist" by your definition, but that doesn't mean he isn't the truth...nor does it mean that he doesn't exist, in the broader sense. You are mistaking a play on words for more than it is. (I bet you have a really rough time with paradoxes.)

Also, I would appreciate it if you would develop your ideas so that we can know for sure where you are coming from. Don't retort that if we can't understand what you're saying, then blah, blah, blah....when it comes to discussion, even a fool can sound wise if he says little but what he's been told. From what I can tell, you may not understand philosophy, theology, or science. In which case, you're wasting our time (and yours for not listening or working for understanding). Also, I must complain about your juxtaposing "big words and small, difficult words" with atrocious sentence structure. It obfuscates your meaning more than you choose to see.

For example: QUOTE: "Which, I'm sure you realize and did it just to demonstrate, is the fallacy of argument from ignorance."

This could mean a number of things, and it would be a truly poor way to say any one of the ones I thought of. Could be that the only grammatical error is the starting of your sentence with a conjunction**. Which is fine, but can't be called proper grammar.

Please spend more than 6 minutes (at max) reading, reflecting, and responding to my article next time. Otherwise, you won't get anything from it, and you'll be wasting your 6 minutes.

**EDIT: Nevermind, that's still bad grammar. But I don't care about that in itself. Just explain.

Then god couldn't have created the universe.

It's simply a dichotomy, and one the xer will lose each time. If god created the universe, then god cannot be part of the universe, and thus god cannot exist. But if god is part of the universe, then god couldn't have created the universe, and god is just some natural being in the universe that's just really smart and we have no need to worship it or any of that other crap.
This still assumes that the universe is all that exists. Some would argue that the universe is part of a still larger picture of being, much as your house is a part of your neighborhood. To deny the existence of your neighborhood because it is not part of your house seems like an absurdity to me.

I think this is a different argument. Really, you can't teach the role of Christianity in US history because there is supposed to be a system free of religion of any particular kind. If you teach how Christianity influences US politics and history, the kids will become disenfranchised and think, "If there really is a seperation of church and state and that is not followed, what in the system does work?".

So you don't teach the truth because it might upset some one? What else do we not teach the children in case it colours their future views, do we not tell them about WWII? The reality is that as the majority of people in the US are Christian it does have an effect on every part of US life including the laws passed and the politicians that are elected. Children should understand this so they can see this influnce when it happens and ask if it is right.



Regardless of the fact that most of the the US is some form of chritianity, not all are christian. If you want to teach creationism, teach it is Social Studies when studying world religions and include the creation myth of every other major religion, or some teach it in some sort of philosophy class. Keep it out of the science classroom as there is no science involved.

I agree it should not be taught with science and I also note with a wry smile your use of the word myth.

Pulled from the evil fox news site.

So again this is not about forcing christianity in school right?

The lawsuit will probably fail but if history repeats they will try again and again and again and again.....

Maybe it's the coming Dark Ages for the US?

------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167235,00.html

California Religious Schools Sue University Over Creationism
Saturday, August 27, 2005

LOS ANGELES — A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.

The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution. Other rejected courses include "Christianity's Influence in American History."

According to the lawsuit, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta was told its courses were rejected because they use textbooks printed by two Christian publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books.

Wendell E. Bird, a lawyer for the association, said the policy violates the rights of students and religious schools.

"A threat to one religion is a threat to all," he said.

UC spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina said she could not comment, because the university had not been served with the lawsuit. Still, she said the university has a right to set course requirements.

"These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed," Poorsina.
Urge to maim Rising...

Or that...

I assumed you weren't assuming that and credited you with merely using convenience definitions (if that's credit). =P Which was a little silly, in retrospect. I'm gonna have to be sure to let you display your own understanding (anyone, not just BAA).

EDIT: The Lone Alliance, you missed a good deal of this discussion, I think. Basically, we can't conclude much from just that article. Hopefully, we get some decent sources from one of the guys here. Tekania, I think. He had some serious stuff to say and just needs to back it up with his sources. If he wasn't lying. But I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Don't get me wrong, the Christian school(s) won't get off with every course intact. I hope...based on what I've seen anyways.

Incorrect. The restrictions are the scientific method - logic and empiricism are required in order to be considered science, while neither is necessarily required for general philosophy. ID doesn't meet the restrictions (the scientific method) and is therefore thrown out as some other type of philosophy.


I have to disagree. The scientific method is not the restrictions of the scientific method, any more than driving a car on the road is the road rules. The rules determine the boundaries, the edges, if you like. But to say that the restrictions are the scientific method is a bit like saying it IS rules. It does have 'rules', but it is also a good deal more than just rules. One actually has to make an hypothesis, do an experiment, collect the data and draw conclusions. That is more than just restrictions, although it has to recognise the restrictions. I reckon you know this already. But how does it feel to have your argument fuzzed up by a 'technicality', and then being accused of being poorly educated in science?


No, but there has to be a sensible argument to refute. Since there is not, and this has been demonstrated to you more times than I can remember, I see no point in doing anything at this point but pointing out how ridiculous it is.
Inference != assumption.


I acknowledge that you have continually made this point. You keep saying that there is no assumption within evolutionary theory that assumes that God did not interfere with the process of life and it's diversity and how it got here. I have frequently made the point that, while there is no one statement within the theory that directly says God did not get involved, it is inferred. An example is where a major point in the theory assumes that all of life is derived from a single ancestor. Now, the fact that this assumption is made infers that God (if he exists) did not create life more than once and did not create humans. I am sure that is something we can agree on. My point is that this inference is effectively an assumption. Sure, I can find the data to support it, but I cannot find any data to confirm it, since all of the data that I have personally examined could also be explained in terms of a direct creation.



No, there really isn't. There is a prevailing opinion that says, "It seems that the processes we are observing could have causes all creatures to descend from a single ancestor. Genetic evidence seems to support this. Therefore it is possible. We don't have evidence of a better explanation, so this is the prevailing opinion."


Perhaps this part of the theory was presented to you that way. Indeed, that would be a more sensible way to present the theory. But in my undergraduate degree, I had professors putting it another way. One professor even got all her two hundred or so genetic students to sing a song about how humans came from monkeys. Many people thought it funny. To me, it suggests that your idea of the 'prevailing opinion', while more sensible, is not so prevalent, at least not in the places where I received my education.

But before I let this point go, may I suggest that the statement you posted above could be reworded like so, 'It seems that the processes we are observing could NOT have caused all creatures to descend from a single ancestor. Genetic evidence seems to support an interference of a designer. Therefore it is possible. While we don't have direct evidence of a designer from the scientific method, it does explain the observed processes involved rather well. With more research, it could well become the prevailing opinion.'


This particular theory hypothesizes that humankind was not made as humankind is now, because evidence backs that theory up. If evidence is found to suggest that humankind popped into existence, just as humankind is now, with no precursors, that evidence will be examined.


The evidence is there. It just gets re-interpreted to fit in with the ever-changing theories. There is no evidence that can rule out either evolution or a designer.

When discussing science, you need to be sure to use the logic of science. The fact that people get out of high school with such a dim understanding of the scientific method is appalling. I do what I can to correct that. Of course, when people use words like "prove", they suggest that there is no longer any doubt, and people get up in arms.


I have to agree that semantics is perhaps the biggest obstacle to pursuing sensible discussions on NS. One just about has to define every term used, in order to get a point across. Perhaps, with this in mind, we ought to be more careful with our criticisms of one another. However, there is a clear difference between trying to win a debate by deliberately fuzzing up the issues, and trying to criticising people's use of terms. Maybe it's just me getting frustrated, but it sure looks like you do your share of fuzzing. Please show me that I'm wrong. I would much rather an opponent who tried to argue using sensible arguments than one who employs tactics designed to win a debate. Perhaps that's the issue. Perhaps the question is whether we are here to win a debate, or to learn more about our world through debate.


.....which is exactly what I said. So how am I incorrect again?


When you said that science cannot prove something. I suppose you meant that science only works by eliminating the alternatives until there is only one alternative left standing, so that the proof that science offers is more like a default-like situation. The only alternative is most likely the real one because it is the only one that cannot be falsified. However, I suggested that science can do more than this, although, perhaps this is the most common perception of science. The example I gave was the antibiotic resistance gene. By a cleverly designed set of experiments, one can confirm that a gene is responsible for antibiotic resistance, not only through elimination of the alternatives, but also by a demonstration of a precise prediction.


No, you have shown me that you are incapable of separating your own religion from the logic of science. Many of us have no problem doing it. Many of us don't make that assumption in any way, shape, or form. The fact that you cannot see a way to come to the conclusions of science without making that assumption says something about you, not about science.

Logic is logic, whether it is used in religion or science. Reason is not only important for science, but also religion, and perhaps just about any other form of study performed by humans--at least some form of reason.

If you assume that I do not accept the evolution of all living things from a single ancestor, simply because my religion tells me so, you are wrong. If science ever does 'prove' that we decended from a single ancestor, I will consider the evidence, and decide for myself. I give myself the option of accepting the single ancestor. My religion does not prevent me from doing this. Neither is my faith so weak that I need science to 'change its rules' in order to boost it.

But I think you have to recognise that there is a conflict over how the evidence can be interpreted. It's not as though science has demonstrated that there was a single ancestor. Far from it. And yet this is a major assumption in evolutionary theory. There is no good reason why I have to accept this, unless I want to avoid the ridicule that inevitable comes my way for criticising evolutionary theory. Regardless of what a person does with the assumption of a single ancestor for all of life (to either accept it or reject it), he will have to go by his beliefs, because science is seriously lacking the proof of such an assumption.

Hardly. One can believe that God interfered all over the place, and still be able to understand the logic of science - and realize that such interference cannot be assumed or posited by science.


Either you misunderstood my point, or you are again trying the fuzzing trick again. I did not say that science was trying determine the interference by God, but that the DEBATE between evolutionary theory proponents and IDers seemed to be over the philosophical sense of including God in an explanation of the origin and diversity of life.

Actually, a lot of the hypothesis rests on the idea that the prokaryote was not broken down, and instead became an organelle over time itself.

It isn't that amazing. We have examples, even today, of one type of organism living within another and conferring an advantage. There are organisms that could not survive - as they would get no nutrients - if they did not have other organisms living in or on them to provide breakdown products that they use as nutrients.


The idea of a eukaryote forming from one or several major events requiring the transition from symbiosis (where one prokaryote is within another prokaryote and confers an advantage) is not supported by our understanding of symbiosis. An example would be the rhizobia, even though the infected organism (a legume) is already a eukaryote (therefore not a good example, but perhaps the best/closest one I could think of). Rhzobia infect plants and form nodules leading to nitrogen fixation. The number of critical steps involved in the infection process is quite amazing. To imagine a similar scenario where a bacterium infected another bacterium and developed into an organelle, bases on our understanding of the symbiotic process, would require a great deal of mutations, all within a single generation. So most people DON'T try to theorise about this major step in macroevolution using what we understand so far about symbiosis as a model. I would argue that the more details we find in the process of symbiosis, the less likely it appears that a bacterium could have infected another bacterium to form a single organism and thus developed into the first eukaryote.

But the first two prokaryotes involved must have been quite different to the prokaryotes we have today, or so the argument goes. That is a logical speculation, but we have no evidence of this, so it remains just that--speculation. It cannot be questioned because, we are told, there is no alternative theory.

So there is a definite pattern here. So long as we don't know too much about the process required for a eukaryote developing from a prokaryote, it looks possible. However, the more we look into the details, the lower the chances appear. Jolly awkward situation, I have to say. No wonder microevolution is becoming less and less a satisfactory process to explain macroevolution.





You ignore the difference between a personal philosophical viewpoint and a scientific one. From a scientific viewpoint, we cannot invoke God to explain anything - God is outside of science. From a personal philosophical viewpoint, we can believe that God did X.


I would argue that it is a philosophical viewpoint with does not allow invoking God to explain something. You break it everytime you consider that God may have contributed to life being here. But why have we allowed a philosophical viewpoint to determine the rules of science? Particularly a viewpoint which brings with it a number of assumptions which also cannot be tested. That is really unfair.




And then said, "There is no possibly way....."

You basically said, "This is my personal opinion, but no logical person could disagree with me."


Rubbish. I know full well that many people disagree with me, using logic too. But my point was that their logical arguments are also based on belief, as are mine.

ID is known to be false as well. It shouldn't be taught.

ID is junk, pure and simple. It has no backing. It offers no predictions. It offers nothing but "goddidit".

I agree that ID is piffle, but it hasn't been proven false. I'd very much like you to show me how you can prove that the universe wasn't intelligently designed. Please do that.

I agree that ID is piffle, but it hasn't been proven false. I'd very much like you to show me how you can prove that the universe wasn't intelligently designed. Please do that.

We cannot, because we cannot come up with a falsifiable hypothesis regarding the design. Because it cannot be falsified, it has no value.

We cannot, because we cannot come up with a falsifiable hypothesis regarding the design. Because it cannot be falsified, it has no value.
Exactly … that is why it is NOT science

We cannot, because we cannot come up with a falsifiable hypothesis regarding the design. Because it cannot be falsified, it has no value.

Just out of interest, would you like to have a go at thinking up an experiment which could falsify the hypothesis that all of modern life arose from a single ancestor? If you can't think of one, would you then conclude that it cannot be falsified? Would you go an extra step and conclude that this hypothesis (a major point in evolutionary theory) has no value?

Just out of interest, would you like to have a go at thinking up an experiment which could falsify the hypothesis that all of modern life arose from a single ancestor? If you can't think of one, would you then conclude that it cannot be falsified? Would you go an extra step and conclude that this hypothesis (a major point in evolutionary theory) has no value?
There is a difference between not being able to think of a way yet … and being beyond the realm of possibility

Just out of interest, would you like to have a go at thinking up an experiment which could falsify the hypothesis that all of modern life arose from a single ancestor? If you can't think of one, would you then conclude that it cannot be falsified? Would you go an extra step and conclude that this hypothesis (a major point in evolutionary theory) has no value?

This hypothesis is not so important for ET as you make it out to be, but never mind that.

Yes. If I (or any other biologist) cannot think of an experiment that could falsify the hypothesis I would conclude that the hypothesis has no value, and I would discard that hypothesis.

But I CAN think of falsifiable experiments and observations. The hypothesis of a single ancestor is rooted in observations on biochemistry, hereditary system, metabolism etc. etc. If I would find a single organism on Earth that has a silicon-based biochemistry it would damage the single ancestor hypothesis beyond repair. If I would find a hereditary system that operates without a DNA/RNA analogue it would fall apart. If I would find a metabolic system that is incomparable with the systems we know of, the theory would be scrapped. Trust me, people HAVE been trying to pull the rug beneath ET for a long time, but conflicting evidence has never been found.

This hypothesis is not so important for ET as you make it out to be, but never mind that.

Yes. If I (or any other biologist) cannot think of an experiment that could falsify the hypothesis I would conclude that the hypothesis has no value, and I would discard that hypothesis.

But I CAN think of falsifiable experiments and observations. The hypothesis of a single ancestor is rooted in observations on biochemistry, hereditary system, metabolism etc. etc. If I would find a single organism on Earth that has a silicon-based biochemistry it would damage the single ancestor hypothesis beyond repair. If I would find a hereditary system that operates without a DNA/RNA analogue it would fall apart. If I would find a metabolic system that is incomparable with the systems we know of, the theory would be scrapped. Trust me, people HAVE been trying to pull the rug beneath ET for a long time, but conflicting evidence has never been found.

Interesting. But I cannot agree that the discovery of a life form (or the remains of one) that operated without DNA/RNA would damage the single ancestor theory beyond repair. I suggest that the theory would undergo modification to accommodate the new evidence, just as any theory should. The discovery of a metabolic system unlike any we have ever found may result in speculation that life had arisen from non-life more than once, but probably would not do a lot of damage to the theory. It has survived greater challenges than that. The evidence is simply interpreted in a way that fits in with the theory of 'evolution of molecules to man'. At that point, one begins to wonder what sort of evidence would be needed to falsify the theory. Perhaps finding 'Made by God' stamped on the back of some cell would do it. Seriously, the reason why no one has been successful in 'pulling the rug beneath ET' is because it is based on a philosophical viewpoint that cannot ever be proven wrong using the scientific method. That places it in the same category as ID. Where it is different from ID is that the causes that are invoked are strictly natural causes (selection and mutation). While ID invokes a supernatural cause. That fact that progress has been made, and is being made, by people who invoke a supernatural cause suggests that progress in understanding our world is possible using explanations that invoke supernatural causes. The question is whether that progress should be called science. The ET folk are demanding that it cannot be, because it violates their idea of what science is. But who really has the authority to decide what is science and what isn't?

So, some idiots in Bumfuck, Idaho want ID on the curriculum. Let them do it, let them ban the reading of Harry Potter because of the satanic influence. Let's face it, those fuckers are a retarded bunch of donkey shaggers, and anyone with an ounce of intelligence treats their bullshit with contempt.

You only have to take a look at George Dubya to know that evolution is a happening thang.

Only problem with that is...it's a bunch of folks in Bumfuck, Pennsylvania...who want it.
I know, I live in Pennsylvania...ok, not in Bumfuck, PA...but in Bumfucktu, PA, anyway. Anyways, it's a pretty big story around these parts.

There is a difference between not being able to think of a way yet … and being beyond the realm of possibility

It may be impossible to do an experiment with God in it, but it is possible to do an experiment that shows that design must have come from a source other than selection and mutation. I cannot think of one right now. Not surprising. I am not an IDer and not familiar with those sort of experiments. But I suppose it is in the realm of possibility.
Back to you, Bob.

But who really has the authority to decide what is science and what isn't?

I give up.

It may be impossible to do an experiment with God in it, but it is possible to do an experiment that shows that design must have come from a source other than selection and mutation. No, it really isn't. The only 'experiment' that IDers have advocated is proving 'irreducible complexivity', which is bunk for a number of reasons. First and foremost, because all it does is show a problem Darwinism has not yet explained, not prove design or ID. Secondly, because the very notion of irreducible complexivity means that there cannot be any vesigial, counter-functioning, or elsewhere-off piece of the whole, which simply is not true for anything. It is akin to arguing that there is nothing smaller than the atom, as physicists once did in the 19th century, only to discover that the atom could still be broken into smaller pieces.

But is, according to xer theology, outside of the universe.

Hmm, shows you have a lack of understanding of Christian Theology Proper (monotheistic) and lack of understanding of the attributes of the Xtian God's "Being". Considering by Xtian theology proper, God is "omnipresent", that is, He is EVERYWHERE inside and outside of the "universe"... So really your problem is you are ignorant of theology...


Then god couldn't have created the universe.

It's simply a dichotomy, and one the xer will lose each time. If god created the universe, then god cannot be part of the universe, and thus god cannot exist. But if god is part of the universe, then god couldn't have created the universe, and god is just some natural being in the universe that's just really smart and we have no need to worship it or any of that other crap.

A dichotomy put together by your lack of understanding of the theology involved. God is not a "part of" the Universe, but is "in it"... But the "universe" alone cannot contain Him. The creation of stawman arguments designed to make it easier for your to defeat; does not a debate win...

I'd just like to point out that there's only one place in the world where this newfangled old Creationism chestnut is roasting:

America.


Not quite, it is active in other places as well. New Scientist a couple of months back had a map of the world with various parts of the world flagged for ID activity (I think it was in this (http://www.newscientist.com/iplogin.ns) article, but I cannot get past the taster and it won't allow me to use my ATHENS log in thingy :confused: ).

One of the more interesting cases was in an ex-soviet state the government banned the teaching of evolution in favour of ID. Though the government reversed the policy after Othodox* Bishops denounced it.

If anyone has the issue to hand or has a valid subcription to New Scientist, feel free to correct any mistakes. (It has this cover (http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/covers/20050709.jpg)).


*(I think, though might have been Catholic. pretty sure it was Orthodox though)


Rational thinker: The Biblical Flood didn't happen.

Believer: Yes it did.

Rational thinker: The volume of water needed to flood the planet would have been forced down so rapidly to have been hugely evident today, and would have destroyed the ark.

Believer: Not true, god made it so no evidence of the flood survived.

Rational thinker: But how could the ark have survived?

Believer: God protected it.

Rational thinker: But there is no way an ark of the dimensions in the bible could have held all of the life needed to seed the world. Nor to hold all of the food needed to sustain the life.

Believer: God altered the supernatural dimensions of the ark and also made it so the animals could survive without the food, constant attention, special needs, etc, that they would need.


I think it is obvious to any rational human being that Noah was in fact Doctor Who, and the ark was the TARDIS. And the reason it managed to survive was because after it picked up all the animals it tranported itself to after the flood (though it got the calculations a bit wrong which is why it landed on Mt. Ararat).

This was before the TARDIS's camoflage got stuck as a 50s Police Phone Box of course ;)

Sure the Royals were Religious but they didn't send CC for the glory of the Church. They did it for power.

Well, to annoy the Portuguese (IIRC), another, easier trade route to the Orient would have been very useful indeed.


Now, describe those events with the vocabulary of a slave in Roman Society, from the year 0000 AD. Keep it in English Please.

Do you realise it is very unlikely that a Roman slave would have any modern English in his vocabulary?

Perhaps you haven't bothered reading the previous posts, but Occam's Razor will tear that idea up nicely.


http://users.adelphia.net/~ybechor/sig_occam.gif

:)



However, it the Creationists are right, that God created everything as it is some thousand years ago. Given the huge variety of genitals and ways of reproducing throughout all creation. I think God is obsessed with sex.

Tekania, I think. He had some serious stuff to say and just needs to back it up with his sources. If he wasn't lying. But I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Don't get me wrong, the Christian school(s) won't get off with every course intact. I hope...based on what I've seen anyways.

The information is available in short on the ACSI's Overview (http://www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/attachments/007875_1.%20Overview%20of%20ACSI%20Law%20Suit.pdf) detailing the meeting which occured between legal representatives of the ACSI, the schools in questions, UC systems; and presided over by a State Representative.... Further detail is available in the submitted complaint (http://www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/attachments/007875_2.%20ACSI%20CA%20Complaint.pdf) (though the document is much larger)...

ACSI's issue had little to do with ID in the one particular Biology book.... There are a number of other courses in hit by UC BOARS decisions, including Physics, Math, Social Studies and Language classes...

*snip* Seriously, the reason why no one has been successful in 'pulling the rug beneath ET' is because it is based on a philosophical viewpoint that cannot ever be proven wrong using the scientific method. That places it in the same category as ID. Where it is different from ID is that the causes that are invoked are strictly natural causes (selection and mutation). While ID invokes a supernatural cause. That fact that progress has been made, and is being made, by people who invoke a supernatural cause suggests that progress in understanding our world is possible using explanations that invoke supernatural causes. The question is whether that progress should be called science. The ET folk are demanding that it cannot be, because it violates their idea of what science is. But who really has the authority to decide what is science and what isn't?
No one has "pulled the rug" from under the Theory of Evolution, not because of any philosophy that supports it, but because of the mechanisms that do. Mechanically, it works to explain the natural phenomena we see. The natural causes "invoked" in explanations guarantee that this will always be true. Introducing the supernatural as part of the explanation of the cause would erode that guarantee, because there is no mechanism to the supernatural. It's magic. (Indeed, it seems to be the purpose of ID supporters to do just that, erode science.)

Because science is what it is, I can safely say that any progress made by people who invoke supernatural causes is made not because of their philosophy but because of those mechanisms. Their personal philosophy about god is irrelevant to the science of whatever they are doing. (It matters only to them, not to the science.)

But who really has the authority to decide what is science and what isn't?

Science does, speaking metaphorically of course. If we limit science to the natural world, then it has the authority in that realm, and can speak with authority about the natural world. If we broaden the definition of science to include the supernatural, it can no longer address with any authority anything about the natural world.

Now, describe those events with the vocabulary of a slave in Roman Society, from the year 0000 AD. Keep it in English Please.

You do realize there was no "year 0000AD".... The year after "0001 BC" was "0001 AD"

No one has "pulled the rug" from under the Theory of Evolution, not because of any philosophy that supports it, but because of the mechanisms that do. Mechanically, it works to explain the natural phenomena we see. The natural causes "invoked" in explanations guarantee that this will always be true. Introducing the supernatural as part of the explanation of the cause would erode that guarantee, because there is no mechanism to the supernatural. It's magic. (Indeed, it seems to be the purpose of ID supporters to do just that, erode science.)

Because science is what it is, I can safely say that any progress made by people who invoke supernatural causes is made not because of their philosophy but because of those mechanisms. Their personal philosophy about god is irrelevant to the science of whatever they are doing. (It matters only to them, not to the science.)
This is also something I am keen to see, what mechanisms are involved in ID, but no one, on this board at least, has ever put that forward.

I can and do. It's been shown through archaeological digs and other studies that:

1. Jericho was abandoned at the time the Israelites were supposed to have conquered it.

2 Ai means "ruins", and you can't conquer ruins

3. There never was a mass exodus of the jews from Egypt, because there never was a mass enslavement of the jews in Egypt.

4. The flood is simply impossible. The rain would have had to fall at something like MACH 3 to get enough water.

5. The creation stories are cobbled from Egyptian and Babylonian sources.

Yes, however you can never be 100% sure that a theory, or that even a reading taken in an experiment is necessarily correct (which is why you have revisions).

Remember the Bible is STORIES. Many of the stories may be metaphorial (ie not necessarily literal) stories created to illustrate a point. This is not beyond the realm of reason. However you'd be a fool to dismiss the existence of Christ - even historians will attest he existed. It is your choice, however, whether you choose to believe in it.

I happen to, because of the transformation I have seen in peoples lives because of this.

Creation stories are always likely to be similar, particularly if you consider the possibility of one origin (which is both highly plausible and a likely cause behind similarities).

It is entirely possible that one religion is the original and the others are corruptions.

We can never be 100% sure of what happened in the past, but we can be of what has happened in our lifetime. We can be fairly confident, but not certain. Writing TENDS to confirm, however it doesn't necessarily make evidence.

There is ALWAYS an element of faith involved.

(However, I am in agreeance that ID does not belong in a Science class).

Most of Science does not disagree with the concept of there being a creator (mainly because it was designed to explore these things independed of that). The only thing that really doesn't agree is evolution, which I personally don't agree with because of how psychologically destructive it is on our society. If somebody feels they are "just evolved from a blob" (I'm generalising here, but with reason).

Besides, it does not hurt me to believe.

1. Jericho was abandoned at the time the Israelites were supposed to have conquered it.

Jericho, by fact and established evidence was occupied by Canaanites no longer than till 1377 BC.... The Jewish occupation, by reliable dating using established data. The Jewish invasion occured no later than (by established historical criteria) 1397BC... The Jericho mount was inhabited almost continually from 8000 BC till around 1400-1377... and was not rebuilt till around 937 BC. Jericho was not abandoned when the Israelites invaded...


2 Ai means "ruins", and you can't conquer ruins

Ai was likely not its Canaanite name... but the name assigned by the Israelites... In any case, it was no more than an outpost... And there is presently no reliable evidence as to the exact location of Ai (though Mme. Krause-Marquet believed that et-Tell was the Biblical AI, there has been no colaborating evidence).


3. There never was a mass exodus of the jews from Egypt, because there never was a mass enslavement of the jews in Egypt.

Your right... because the term "Jew" was invented during the Roman occupation of Judea (Jew-day-ah).... The Egyptians englaved, and latter expelled a group known as the Hyksos, and to the Canaanites as Habiru around 1470-1440BC... the Hyksos/Habiru decades later began their invasion of the Canaanite region; and cuniform tablets document well the plight of the Canaanites against the Conquering Habiru/Hyksos; and their pleas to Egypt (which went unanswered).


4. The flood is simply impossible. The rain would have had to fall at something like MACH 3 to get enough water.

ACtually, if you read the story, it wasn't merely falling rain.... But other sources of added water...


5. The creation stories are cobbled from Egyptian and Babylonian sources.


cobbled? Possibly..... Abram/Abraham was from Ur (in what would one day be Babylon)... It is likely that the stories would be similar (though Babylonian and Egyptian mythos is complete different.... Biblical stories match closely with pre-Babylonian texts prior to the formation of the actual empire... There is little similarity to Egyptian mythos...)

2 ways to solve this

the one I would like to see:

1) we teach both at the same time (preferably in the same lesson) and at the end the kids have a discussion on the issue and say what they think (tear in eye at the thought of I.D children and science children getting along) this also wouldn't effect much considering I.D does use science as well they just see the force of God/s making it so

the not so good one

2) we just have separate science classes that at first parents choose and then the kids make there own choice at about 12 this would leave to a gaping gap between the two theory's and endless rants about the bible but its better than just making religious children sit in lessons that just come across as chanting what they think is wrong

Kyott, when you say "no value", I'm sure you mean "no scientific value", right?

It would be good to not confuse the two. It seems to be a recurring problem in this thread. Don't say, "Because it is not science, it is not valuable." If this is the prevailing thought, no wonder so many are up in arms; science has failed.

Kyott, when you say "no value", I'm sure you mean "no scientific value", right?

It would be good to not confuse the two. It seems to be a recurring problem in this thread. Don't say, "Because it is not science, it is not valuable." If this is the prevailing thought, no wonder so many are up in arms; science has failed.

The point is, i believe, "no value in a science class".

Sure, teach it in "things that people believe class", fine. Don't teach it as having any scientific merit in a science class. Personally i don't see anything wrong with that.

How precisely has science "failed"?

Sounds like a personal problem to me. I can make them without sounding ridiculous, since I know what I'm talking about.
You are not listening, thus you are not understanding.
Wrong on both counts.


Yes.
You didn't know that ontology is philosophy.
I did.


That, or your wording was flawed enough to display this ignorance.
It wasn't.


If something is logically impossible....

Do I need to continue with that sentence, or can you figure out the conclusion on your own?[/I]"
You have no decent conclusion,
Oh really?

If something is logically impossible, it cannot exist.

For instance, a square circle is logically impossible. Thus, it cannot exist. QED.

You're not really good at this, are you?


which might be why you don't state it. If you took the time to write it out in detail, you might have realized that you are not using science. Besides, that "something" is not logically impossible....
It most certainly is.


But is, according to xer theology, outside of the universe.
Anyways, according to "xer" theology, the Christian God is not controlled by the same forces we are
...which is just ad hoc nonsense and can be dismissed as such.


...it kinda comes with omnipotence.
Omni-attributes are logically impossible.


An "xer" could SAY God is outside the universe, but he doesn't really mean it the same way you do
Yes, he does.


(your definition is not compatible); he means that God is not beneath the forces we are.
He means that god is outside the universe. For how does god create the universe if god is part of the universe? That's logically impossible.


God is a part of our universe,
Then, one must ask, how did god create the universe if god is part of the universe, necessitating that the universe preceded god.


as he communes with Christians regularly and has the power to alter our world (my word for your "universe") whenever he wants. It is silly to say that he is not a part of our world.
No, it's silly to say that he is, given that if he created it, he must not be part of it.


Nope. Because then you have some idiotic dual-realmist ontology, and you still have the problem of that other realm.
No. Same realm, different dimension.
Nope. Not possible. God must be apart from the universe to create it. A different dimension of the universe means the universe already existed.

QED.


(Quantum) Physicists nowadays are looking into the evidence for many dimensions. Some are sure that there are. These are not universes outside our own, because they are inside our universe.
Menaing: the universe was already then, and god didn't create it. But, since god is claimed to have created the universe....

See where this is going?


Then god couldn't have created the universe.

It's simply a dichotomy, and one the xer will lose each time. If god created the universe, then god cannot be part of the universe, and thus god cannot exist. But if god is part of the universe, then god couldn't have created the universe, and god is just some natural being in the universe that's just really smart and we have no need to worship it or any of that other crap
Since when does creation affect whether or not you are a part of something?
Since always.


You are using false logic.
No, you're using sloppy terms.


If I create a club, can I not be a part of it?
You didn't "create" it in the sense of the universe being "created". False analogy.

I told you that you weren't good at this. Stop making a fool of yourself.


How about a child? Would I not be a part of the child? I might not be. But that's not God. God IS a part of our universe,
Then god can't have created the universe. It's just that simple.


because he chooses to be. I would expect this to come up in an intense theology course. Your last line with "we have no need to worship it or any of that other crap" makes it abundantly clear that you do not understand even the most fundamental (meaning basic, hehe) elements of the Christian theology/philosophy.
Actually, I understand it far better than you could ever hope to.


I think what you are trying to do with the word "exist" is define it as such that there isn't anything anywhere else that isn't in our universe.
That's what it means.

Unless, of course, you can tell me what "existence" means apart from the universe. Can you do that? Oh wait--you can't. Existence is predicated upon the universe. It derives its meaning from the universe. Trying to assign meaning to "existence apart from the universe" is like trying to, as George Smith says, speak of swimming in the absence of water. IOW: it drops the context and commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.


Also, I would appreciate it if you would develop your ideas so that we can know for sure where you are coming from.
They are. Not my fault that you're not educated enough to grasp them.



For example: QUOTE: "Which, I'm sure you realize and did it just to demonstrate, is the fallacy of argument from ignorance."

This could mean a number of things,
No, it can only mean one thing. It's the proper way to say it, and is proper grammar.

Tough if you don't grasp English. Maybe you should take a remedial course.

How shall I put this...

A scientific theory is created to best explain everything that can be observed. If you make a theory and wish it to be accept it you must make it completely bulletproof. Ie. The strawman argument shouldn't be able to knock it down.

So, if your theory doesn't fit all the available evidence (or hinges on something unprovable) then it's time to go back to the drawing board.

There is a massive ammount of evidence in favour of evolution, and no evidence against it, whereas there is no evidence in favour of this God person existing.

Therefor, if you're going to claim it's science it's time to get more proof than a book of parables and some shaky, ergot-induced hallucinations.

Thank you, come again!

P.S. Yes, I'm aware of little things like Atomic fission and fusion, and we have plenty of evidence that those works. Go back to your physics texts and start reading up on how to detect protons, neutrons and electrons ^.^ We KNOW it's all there.

Hmm, shows you have a lack of understanding of Christian Theology Proper (monotheistic) and lack of understanding of the attributes of the Xtian God's "Being". Considering by Xtian theology proper, God is "omnipresent", that is, He is EVERYWHERE inside and outside of the "universe"... So really your problem is you are ignorant of theology...
Actually, it doesn't. The problem is in the logical impossibility of the claim. How can something be outside of the universe? Does "outside of the universe" mean anything? And how can something be in the universe and created the universe? Logical. Impossibilities.

Just shows that I understand the concepts and critique them at the same time.


A dichotomy put together by your lack of understanding of the theology involved. God is not a "part of" the Universe, but is "in it"
Impossible.

I understand the theology perfectly fine.

You have the problem that there are multiple takes on xer theology with the xer community! For instance, there are some that say that hell is a place apart from god. But above, you say that god is everywhere inside and outside the universe. Thus, god must be in hell. So---who is correct?

No, you can't whine and say I don't understand the theology; that won't work. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. Assuming for the moment that the xer god actually exists, which one of them is correct? One must be; they cannot both be.

Jericho, by fact and established evidence was occupied by Canaanites no longer than till 1377 BC
Not according to the source I cited. Y'know--the archaeological digs.


Ai was likely not its Canaanite name
Irrelevant.


Your right... because the term "Jew" was invented during the Roman occupation of Judea (Jew-day-ah).... The Egyptians englaved, and latter expelled a group known as the Hyksos, and to the Canaanites as Habiru around 1470-1440BC...
No, the Hyksos invaded Egypt and were repulsed.


the Hyksos/Habiru decades later began their invasion of the Canaanite region; and cuniform tablets document well the plight of the Canaanites against the Conquering Habiru/Hyksos; and their pleas to Egypt (which went unanswered).
Yes, I know.



ACtually, if you read the story, it wasn't merely falling rain.... But other sources of added water...
Actually, that doesn't make a difference.



cobbled? Possibly..... Abram/Abraham was from Ur (in what would one day be Babylon)... It is likely that the stories would be similar (though Babylonian and Egyptian mythos is complete different.... Biblical stories match closely with pre-Babylonian texts prior to the formation of the actual empire... There is little similarity to Egyptian mythos...)
Only if you've not read it.

Yes, however you can never be 100% sure that a theory, or that even a reading taken in an experiment is necessarily correct (which is why you have revisions).
And?


Remember the Bible is STORIES. Many of the stories may be metaphorial (ie not necessarily literal) stories created to illustrate a point. This is not beyond the realm of reason. However you'd be a fool to dismiss the existence of Christ - even historians will attest he existed. It is your choice, however, whether you choose to believe in it.
I don't care about the existence of jesus, because it doesn't get the xers one angstrom closer to there being a god.


I happen to, because of the transformation I have seen in peoples lives because of this.
Non causa/pro causa


Creation stories are always likely to be similar, particularly if you consider the possibility of one origin (which is both highly plausible and a likely cause behind similarities).
Creation stories in a given area, you mean. The Norse stories, for instance, are highly different from the ones in Mesopotamia.

Olara']This still assumes that the universe is all that exists.
It is.


Olara'] Some would argue that the universe is part of a still larger picture of being, much as your house is a part of your neighborhood.
Some argue that Elvis is still alive.


Olara']To deny the existence of your neighborhood because it is not part of your house seems like an absurdity to me.
To claim that there is something apart from the universe is to claim a logical impossibility.

Originally Posted by Tekania
Ai was likely not its Canaanite name
Irrelevant.
How could it not be relevant? Ai means "ruins" in Hebrew, so if it was named when it was conquered, it is very relevant.

How could it not be relevant? Ai means "ruins" in Hebrew, so if it was named when it was conquered, it is very relevant.

that's actually remarkaby pathetic. He can rip out every single point of your post but you can only make one semantic retort. Hillarious

How could it not be relevant? Ai means "ruins" in Hebrew, so if it was named when it was conquered, it is very relevant.
Not seeing how.

To claim that there is something apart from the universe is to claim a logical impossibility. No. It's to claim a semantic impossibility. Our definition of "universe" may well be flawed. I could call my house the Universe, but there can still be things outside it.

No. It's to claim a semantic impossibility. Our definition of "universe" may well be flawed. I could call my house the Universe, but there can still be things outside it.

Ok, what is your definition of "universe"?

Far be it from me to try and argue or debate evolution vs. creationism (I believe that was the topic before it got sent off on a tangent). But I did notice that one of the "textbooks" that is being disallowed was written by the Bob Jones University Press. I debated people who attended that University in college. Do you know students can be suspended or expelled for holding hands with a member of the opposite sex on campus? In most instances male and female students are not allowed to even speak to each other. If you look up "scary religious pseudo-christian cult" in the dictionary, the founders of Bob Jones University are pictured there. There is not a more ultra-excessive conservative institution on the planet. They make the sexually repressed Cheyanne seem to be free-loving hippies. (The Cheyanne held that having sex with one's wife/husband more than once every ten years constituted a capital offense!)
Does anyone logically believe that people holding such beliefs should teach mainstream science? :headbang:

First you are spelling the name wrong-- its CHEYENNE not CHEYANNE.
And that is the WHITE name, the proper and true name is Tsitsistas.

I am uncertain what twisted redneck manual of ignorance you got that sex thing from but it is a lie and I take great offense to your spreading it.

Read a fecking book racist.

BAAWA, all of your arguments are poor. Here's why. They are either "you're wrong/I'm right", which is just hot air, or they are dependent on the logic that something cannot create something, then become a part of it (I'm not even counting the undisguised insults that stand where an argument should.).

-Let me try another approach that perhaps you will deign to listen to, being a fundamentalist and all.

You're wrong. Your logic is wrong. I am right.

-Or, annoying sarcasm aside, this one.

What is there to prevent God from creating the universe, then stepping inside it? Is it too small to fit him? No, because that would be a pretty severe limit to God, like saying a powerful and highly advanced robot cannot pick up an egg without breaking it. It can if it's skillful enough. And, by Christian theology, which you do not understand, God is quite skillful. In fact, he has three omni-s: -science, -potent, -present. I would like to discuss how omniness is logically impossible, but you give no argument or development to this claim, though you say you did so later on. I am going to let you run on this logical question before responding. (By the way, dissecting my post line by line without context muddies the argument. In fact, most of what you said was a repeat from the same post. Just describe your argument, along with the areas it applies to if you think me too feeble to realize what it applies to.)

By the way, the club analogy was designed to express some of this. The universe to God is something he could step into (join/be a part of) if he so chose. It's not of the same significance to God as to us, since the universe directly surrounding Earth is all we know of. The club analogy is appropriate enough. Also, do you not consider the creation of ideas to be creation? Invention is not creation? Music and other arts, not creation? To God, who is both omnipotent and omniscient, an idea and a physical object are not far from each other. A universe and an atom are no more difficult to make. Of course, this comes back to the omniness question, which I will be awaiting your development of your point.

Since I expect you to continue your current mode of argument, this section is about essay, lecture, and discussion. If you do not develop your points from the start of your logic to the finish, you will be called on it, as nobody can be sure you truly understand it (you could be trying to get people to think you do). Much like, in an essay, if you say something like...:

QUOTE: "Which, I'm sure you realize and did it just to demonstrate, is the fallacy of argument from ignorance." (The questionable part is "Which...is the fallacy of argument from ignorance." It sounds like a bad placement of the preposition.)

...and expect it to stand alone, you will get an F. I've already asked for an explanation on what you mean. If you cannot come up with a way to explain this, then you cannot demonstrate an understanding of it. If you think the problem is that I do not grasp the English language, then you are merely ignorant, or possibly a bigot (thinking your understanding is superior to all others). Do not merely state conclusions without explaining the logic you used to arrive at them. (Oh, and make sure you explain your acronyms before using them. I am not familiar with all of them.)


QUOTE: "Unless, of course, you can tell me what "existence" means apart from the universe. Can you do that? Oh wait--you can't. Existence is predicated upon the universe. It derives its meaning from the universe. Trying to assign meaning to "existence apart from the universe" is like trying to, as George Smith says, speak of swimming in the absence of water. IOW: it drops the context and commits the fallacy of the stolen concept."

Your understanding of the universe is not sufficient enough to claim that God is not a part of it, as I have explained earlier. Also, your understanding of English is not sufficient to realize that you do not have everyone's definition. Also, you fail to consider that if God is, in fact, outside (which He's not) what you so bigotously ("arrogant"ly) define as the "universe", then His "existence" in the context of the universe is irrelevent, as He still "is", and Christians would still be right to worship him, though they may not be able to logically explain his being.

BTW, Christians do not worship God merely because He created us. Your lack of understanding is blaringly obvious here. (Or am I hacking on straw men again, which I am prone to do.)

I think that's all....

Well said RandomJunk, very well said.

I am not certain I agree, completely.

But I like your style.

You ever read Wittgenstein?

"What can be shown, cannot be said."

Anyway-nice post.

Yep, Bob Jones is a little...pathetic. Never heard of it before this thread. Obviously, Bob Jones is the anti-christ, and his cult, disguised as Christianity, will sweep over the nation to enact its policies that are "so conservative they somehow wrap around to being liberal." That's when fascist America takes over the rest of the world with its armies of Hell, then forces everyone to read Bob Jones textbooks all day long.

Die fighting him now, or later, you'll wish you had!

=P

I bet they're not aloud to read most of the Old Testament, especially Song of Songs. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

To claim that there is something apart from the universe is to claim a logical impossibility.
No. It's to claim a semantic impossibility.
No, it's a logical impossibility.


Our definition of "universe" may well be flawed.
And you could argue from ignorance.

BAAWA, all of your arguments are poor.
No, they're all great. If you don't like them, perhaps you should educate yourself.


What is there to prevent God from creating the universe,
How does one create that which allows "create" to be defined? How can you create something without something there to create? How can you create in the absence of time? IOW: how can you create in the absence of the universe?

Saying that "god is all-powerful" does nothing to make the problem go away, because it's just an ad hoc rationalization.



By the way, the club analogy was designed to express some of this.
And it was a false analogy


Which, I'm sure you realize and did it just to demonstrate, is the fallacy of argument from ignorance
It sounds like a bad placement of the preposition.
No it doesn't.


...and expect it to stand alone, you will get an F.
No I wouldn't.


I've already asked for an explanation on what you mean.
I've already explained it. If you cannot read, then you should go back to school.


Unless, of course, you can tell me what "existence" means apart from the universe. Can you do that? Oh wait--you can't. Existence is predicated upon the universe. It derives its meaning from the universe. Trying to assign meaning to "existence apart from the universe" is like trying to, as George Smith says, speak of swimming in the absence of water. IOW: it drops the context and commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.
Your understanding of the universe is not sufficient enough to claim that God is not a part of it,
Yes it is, as I have explained earlier.


as I have explained earlier. Also, your understanding of English is not sufficient to realize that you do not have everyone's definition.
Except that it is.


Also, you fail to consider that if God is, in fact, outside (which He's not)
Then god cannot create the universe.


what you so bigotously ("arrogant"ly) define as the "universe",
I see. So you want everything to be all Humpty-Dumpty when it comes to definitions. Play it fast-and-loose. Make up definitions as you go along.

That's not how it works.


BTW, Christians do not worship God merely because He created us.
Never said they do. You just created a strawman.

No, it would be a semantic impossibility.
You have obviously not read Wittgenstein.

And since there is no empirical evidence for either supposition--Those being: universe being the limits of reality or not, one can not use science as a base for a logical arguement to either end.

As one primary principal in the scientific arguement is "empirical evidence".

I don't particularily see how it's fair or right for schools to argue one theory while completely ignoring the other. Evolution and Intelligent Design are the most widely believed ideas on how we got here, so it's only right that either both are given equal attention or both are completely ignored, especially considering either choice is a religious matter and the government allowing schools to favor one is breaching the gap that they pretend seperates church and state.
Of course there are other theories such as humanity came in spaceships from a different planet and such, but none are nearly as widely believed as creationism and evolution, and those are really the only ones that have much in the way of proof that they're correct.

Of course I don't particularily see why they have to seperated... I imagine it's quite possible that God designed life to be able to evolve. Maybe not quite to the scale of some things the evolution theory suggests, but certainly to some extent.

Nope, can't say I'm familiar, Skibs. I'll Google it. Thanks, btw.

I looked him up, and he has some rather unique work. From what I saw, he ONLY deals with philosphy itself instead of trying to work on philosophies. Which is cool.

I'll definitely read more later on (I just read a summary). Unfortunately, my current philosophy class won't include him, as it focuses on more classical voices, especially Montaigne.

You also suppose to attack someone elses education, yet you ask the question "How can you create in the absence of time?" Then attempt to connect the concept of Time to the Universe--as in-- I assume our physical Universe--however Time is not a function of the Universe--it is a Human construct that is completely relative to each individual perceiving it.

Time, as it were, does not exist. It is an illusion of Human linear thinking.

I don't particularily see how it's fair or right for schools to argue one theory while completely ignoring the other. Evolution and Intelligent Design are the most widely believed ideas on how we got here, so it's only right that either both are given equal attention or both are completely ignored, especially considering either choice is a religious matter and the government allowing schools to favor one is breaching the gap that they pretend seperates church and state.
Of course there are other theories such as humanity came in spaceships from a different planet and such, but none are nearly as widely believed as creationism and evolution, and those are really the only ones that have much in the way of proof that they're correct.

Of course I don't particularily see why they have to seperated... I imagine it's quite possible that God designed life to be able to evolve. Maybe not quite to the scale of some things the evolution theory suggests, but certainly to some extent.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

When ID/Creationism can pass the tests to be labeled a theory, then they can be added to the science classroom. Simply calling it a theory doesn't get you that right.

BTW: How do test for the involvement of the Intelligent Designer (aka God)?

I especially considering either choice is a religious matter

Huh? What?

People who believe in evolution include Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Athiests, Agnostics and many more. Hardly religious.

Also one is scientific and has evidence to support it. The other is inherently unscientific and has no evidence to support it.

BAAWA, seeing as you just did exactly what I was talking about being the problem, I don't really have a lot I have to say to that.

Yes, BAAWA, it is a semantic issue. Have you never had a philosophy class? This should be a regular exercise.

You claim that God's omnipotence is "ad hoc", and that is why God is not possible, logically? Truthfully, I expected a better explanation of the impossibility of omniness than your ironically ad hoc "ad hoc" concept. That was naive of me. You may see it as "ad hoc", but that's merely your perception. The concept of omnipotence is, empyrically, a statement about God. Humans do not control what God is, therefore it couldn't have been added by them. But this is only true to someone who believes in God. If He were an invention, omnipotence would likely be ad hoc. Otherwise, it cannot be.

Explain "Argue from ignorance." Pretty please, with sugar on top. At least copy-paste from where you said it earlier. Pleeeeaase....

QUOTE: "I see. So you want everything to be all Humpty-Dumpty when it comes to definitions. Play it fast-and-loose. Make up definitions as you go along.

That's not how it works."

I use useful definitions. This is because words were meant to stand for things (they are basically arbitrary by themselves, after all). However, you are limiting the language intentionally a la 1984. When language prevents you from understanding things, it is being oppressive. And you're right, you can't just make definitions whatever you want to. But your definition is determining your reality, not the other way around.


If I beat Willy to the trigger: BAAWA QUOTE: "Not seeing how."

The Hebrews would have named it Ai because it was turned into ruins when God knocked it down. I can think of two ways you would have missed his logic. Well three, if you count just not thinking/listening. First, you may not be familiar with the story. Second, you could have just missed the logic. But that one seems even more far-fetched.

A semantic retort can kill a semantic point.

Most of your retorts to Will's retorts don't save your original counters to the Bible. The flood: irrelevant to additional sources of water? Ok, could be. But this is also irrelevant. Exodus? Neither of you have credible sources that I've seen. And archaeological digs are NOT good proof. Did you show this source here beyond saying that you had one? You might, and I simply missed it. It'd have been pretty far back, though. In this case, could you relink it? If you haven't posted them, could you do so, that I can look into them? Could be interesting.

*sigh* I'll probably have to look through a myriad of short clips of quotes followed by redundant one-liners again.... :(

QUOTE: "Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God."

Yep, but its Atheist constituents do to no fault of the theory itself. The only science used to disprove God is BAAd science. :p

EDIT: Not all Atheist constituents, for sure. I didn't mean the implicable generalization. Sorry.

Ok, I'm going to post this again, hopefully for the last time. It seems that everytime I enter an ID thread, everyone moves on to the next.

A theory such as Intelligent Design has much more of a place in a science class than Creationism, being that evolutionism and Intelligent design walk hand-in-hand in many situations. The main thing that needs to be taught is the undeniable truth that science can only explain so much and as soon as you solve one scientific problem, 10 more are staring you in the face. We've done some amazing things with science to be sure, but the theory of evolution cannot stand on its own, Darwin himself believed that his theory proved the existence of god. For example, the fact that we have come from a single celled organism to what we are today contrasts with everything we've ever learned about entropy. Also, many other questions such as, if matter can neither be created or destroyed, why and how is it here? There is not a scientist in the world that can take me to before the Big Bang or to the farthest reaches of space. People say that experiments that support the Big Bang disprove the existence of god, to which I respond “everything in your experiments are representative of actual things and events correct? They of course respond in the affirmative so I then am forced to ask… “then who is the scientist?” Many of these experiments prove to me what I have known in my heart for years. As an example, Particle Physicists are now saying that matter is nothing but trapped energy (strangely coincidental that almost all early religions describe god as pure energy). These same Physicists are now finding that all matter is interconnected by this energy. These as well as many of the other questions that gnaw at us and gnaw at me as a man of science do nothing but support the theory of intelligent design and have forced me to see what I now know to be true. I do not understand why some people fail to realize that science and religion are merely two different roads to the same destination.

The main thing that needs to be taught is the undeniable truth that science can only explain so much

Isn't that why we have classes other than science classes? :confused:

For example, the fact that we have come from a single celled organism to what we are today contrasts with everything we've ever learned about entropy.

How so?

I meant that pure science can only explain so much of its own theories, that has nothing to do with other classes. I'm talking about the uncertainty involved in most scientific theories that will never be explained with science alone.

How so?
Things within a system tend to move from areas of high energy to areas of lower energy (in other words, get less complex) This applies to seemingly everything from the eutrification of lakes to the falling of civilizations. The thing I'm pointing out is that in regards to evolution, the general rule has been reversed. A useful mutation is like winning the genetic lottery and the odds of that happening enough times to get us to where we are today are astronomical. As a man of reason and a man of science I also believe in probability and I see virtually no chance that these mutations all happened randomly to get us to today. I hope that answered your question.

<snip>

I'm going to post this one last time. ID is not a scientific theory. It is not testable and is not falsifiable. So since ID isn't a theory and it hasn't even made its way beyond a hypothesis stage it shouldnt be in a science class.

The thing I'm pointing out is that in regards to evolution, the general rule has been reversed.

Like the rise of civilisations is this general rule in reverse.

Sorry if I am miss understanding you but;
(1)it is late here
(2) I have insomnia
(3) I'm not a scientist.

Though you language is hardly helping. That is, "Things tend to move from areas of high energy...." or "...the general rule..." What I mean is, the language you use allows for a lot of wiggle room which will allow for an interpretation opposite of your own.

A useful mutation is like winning the genetic lottery and the odds of that happening enough times to get us to where we are today are astronomical.

This is hardly conclusive proof that evolution is wrong though. Just because the odds are high, does not mean that propability = 0. Also, could it only seem that the possibility is so high because are working backwards (To give a poker analogy, finding the probability of getting dealt 9 of Spades, 9 of Hearts, 9 of Clubs, 4 of Spades, 4 of Diamonds, rather then just finding the probability of getting dealt a full house)?

No idea if the poker thing helped :confused:

All I ask is for us to realize that science is not infallable and cannot posssibly explain everything. Evolution to the point of proving its merit has not yet been thoroughly tested, so I suppose according to your theory, it isnt legit as well. We've ttested natural selection to our hearts content but have never eard of a controlled experiment in which one species of animal (not bacteria) was mutated into another. Experiments however, by the inclusion of a scientist as a catalyst do prove that something does have to set it all in motion. Personally, I believe in a blending of the two theories as they do support each other and I am not content explaining everything with either randomness or close mindedness. Also, to re-use your analogy, Im not saying a full house is impossible, but thousands in a row are. Of course everytime you flip a coin the odds are 50/50 but the odds of getting the desired result over a period of time based solely on chance are pretty bad. As for my language and explainations, entropy is difficult to explain and has many facets but it is the general rule i was referring to and tend to can be used to mean want to or are at equilibrium when...

I'm going to post this one last time. ID is not a scientific theory. It is not testable and is not falsifiable. So since ID isn't a theory and it hasn't even made its way beyond a hypothesis stage it shouldnt be in a science class.
Is that really the last time? Or will you post it one more one last time?

All I ask is for us to realize that science is not infallable and cannot posssibly explain everything. Evolution to the point of proving its merit has not yet been thoroughly tested, so I suppose according to your theory, it isnt legit as well. We've ttested natural selection to our hearts content but have never eard of a controlled experiment in which one species of animal (not bacteria) was mutated into another. Experiments however, by the inclusion of a scientist as a catalyst do prove that something does have to set it all in motion. Personally, I believe in a blending of the two theories as they do support each other and I am not content explaining everything with either randomness or close mindedness.

Are you kidding me. Are you freaking kidding me. Can someone link this guy to that talk origins site because I'm not sure he has a basic understanding of what evolution is. And also science does not claim to be infallable. A theory is the best explaination for something at the present time. It can be proven wrong if new evidence comes but until then its the best we've got.

I don't see how entropy is at all relevant to evolution in any case. That's discussing how energy's disorder tends to increase...

What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

I assure you I have far more than a basic understanding of evolution and I am in no way attacking the theory, only close-minded people such as yourself who refuse to believe that there are gaps in the theory that Darwin himself admitted to be flawed. Science is fallable but the problem is people tend to forget that. Also, A theory is the best explaination at the time but surely you must understand that to science there are some questions that cannot be answered. Anyway, I just looked at the clock and it is indeed late and I'm due in at 6:00 tomorrow so I'm going to have to leave you now.

I assure you I have far more than a basic understanding of evolution and I am in no way attacking the theory, only close-minded people such as yourself who refuse to believe that there are gaps in the theory that Darwin himself admitted to be flawed. Science is fallable but the problem is people tend to forget that. Also, A theory is the best explaination at the time but surely you must understand that to science there are some questions that cannot be answered.

So if there are gaps, just say that a designer did it? That's like duct taping your car to fix holes in it.

A useful mutation is like winning the genetic lottery and the odds of that happening enough times to get us to where we are today are astronomical.
Usefulness is irrelevant to nature.

I assure you I have far more than a basic understanding of evolution and I am in no way attacking the theory, only close-minded people such as yourself who refuse to believe that there are gaps in the theory that Darwin himself admitted to be flawed. Science is fallable but the problem is people tend to forget that. Also, A theory is the best explaination at the time but surely you must understand that to science there are some questions that cannot be answered.

1. I never stated that evolution is perfect. I only attacked your position that evolution could not be a theory since you said it could not be tested.
2. Science is an attempt to understand the natural world. The supernatural world ie god doesnt factor into it.

All I ask is for us to realize that science is not infallable and cannot posssibly explain everything.

This is hardly new news though, is it?

We've ttested natural selection to our hearts content but have never eard of a controlled experiment in which one species of animal (not bacteria) was mutated into another.

Maybe I am just misreading you. But you claim to be a man science. Surely you know that one species of animal cannot mutate into another, and niether evolution nor natural selection nor any orthodox scientific theory that I have heard claims such a thing.

Im not saying a full house is impossible, but thousands in a row are.

"Not impossible. Just very very improbable."

Of course everytime you flip a coin the odds are 50/50 but the odds of getting the desired result over a period of time based solely on chance are pretty bad.

How do you mean. Do you mean getting heads on the 5th toss. or accurately predicting the first 10 tosses?

In the first case, it remain 50/50. In the second, unlikely sure, but you seem to be stacking the odds. Evolution has no game plan, there is no path that all creatures travel with a final destination. Your use of the coin toss analogy suggests to me that either think every mutation will either keep a species on the evolutionary path, or cause to be uncompetative and become extinct. (I know I'm not expressing myself well, and thank you for bearing with me).

Usefulness is irrelevant to nature.
No its not, if an organism has a mutation that is not beneficial based on the environmental conditions teh organism will die, thus ending the proliferation of the mutation.

And evolution does suggest mutation. A species can change to a limiting factor based on natural selection but to break that boundry to become one of the many species of today a genetic mutation is required.

Also, i meant to say improbable but missed it, i did not intend to suggest the probability was zero. And i meant in a row for the mutations with a destination of present day species.


But seriously, i gotta go now.

So if there are gaps, just say that a designer did it? That's like duct taping your car to fix holes in it.

It is actually one of my biggest worries about ID. In that if it (God forbid) gains wide appeal amoung the scientific community it will practically halt all research, since if a scientist faces a problem he cannot explain he can simply say "the designer intended it that way" and just leave it.

No its not, if an organism has a mutation that is not beneficial based on the environmental conditions teh organism will die, thus ending the proliferation of the mutation.

Not nessaserily.

If the mutation is neutral, ie has no pros or cons, it won't cause an organism to die.

And even if a mutation is harmful it does not alway cause an organism to die, other wise it is unlikely so many people would be short sighted.

But seriously, i gotta go now.

Come on, EA, you admitted fallibility in the two following sentences. If "science" does not admit to being fallible, it is being naive. Besides, it does admit this. Over and over again. If you fail to understand this concept, you do not understand science.

Neuronia, you are assuming that most of ID is simply ad hoc for the missing parts in science, which is incorrect. And don't act like duct tape isn't the most useful stuf ever. :mad:

Much of evolution qualifies as theory. Which is why we call it a theory. A lot of it does not, and was added to the theory, whether it qualifies or not. ID could be a hypothesis, scientifically speaking, but the same goes for a lot of evolution. Much of both sides (not technically, but in practice) are

Plus, they are not mutually exclusive. People certainly need to realize this even before entering into the discussion.

Come on, EA, you admitted fallibility in the two following sentences. If "science" does not admit to being fallible, it is being naive. Besides, it does admit this. Over and over again. If you fail to understand this concept, you do not understand science.
Your point here is what?

QUOTE: "It is actually one of my biggest worries about ID. In that if it (God forbid) gains wide appeal amoung the scientific community it will practically halt all research, since if a scientist faces a problem he cannot explain he can simply say "the designer intended it that way" and just leave it."

No, he wouldn't. Not if he was a scientist. What you described is giving up. "The creator intended that way" is a description of purpose, which science does not attempt to describe. It's the same as saying "That's just the way it is, I guess." ID is not a necessity for that reaction to a problem. You just need a generic difficulty.

QUOTE: "Your point here is what?"

Sorry, I read your post as "fallible" instead of "infallible." Which sounded ridiculous, obviously. My mistake. =/

QUOTE: "Your point here is what?"

Sorry, I read your post as "fallible" instead of "infallible." Which sounded ridiculous, obviously. My mistake. =/

lol messed up speed reading didn't you.

I don't particularily see how it's fair or right for schools to argue one theory while completely ignoring the other. Evolution and Intelligent Design are the most widely believed ideas on how we got here, so it's only right that either both are given equal attention or both are completely ignored,
A million people who believe a silly thing doesn't make the thing any less silly.

Teaching the silly thing (ID) is a disservice to students.

You also suppose to attack someone elses education, yet you ask the question "How can you create in the absence of time?"
Yep. Creation is a temporal act. So how do you create without time?

[snip pseudo-new-agey bull]

This is really a big tangent on this subject, so everyone please forgive me, but I must defend myself against unjust accusations. If you're interested, the post this originates from is on page 25 I believe.

The Cheyanne held that having sex with one's wife/husband more than once every ten years constituted a capital offense

First you are spelling the name wrong-- its CHEYENNE not CHEYANNE.
And that is the WHITE name, the proper and true name is Tsitsistas.

I am uncertain what twisted redneck manual of ignorance you got that sex thing from but it is a lie and I take great offense to your spreading it.

Read a fecking book racist.

1. Ok, I spell bad. You can have that one. It's been two years since I was a friggin anthropology grad student at the University of Florida. (where the "twisted redneck manual of ignorance" is NOT part of the syllabus)

2. It is a bit self-righteous to be derrogatory to the "white name" for a given subject. We are speaking english here, so I used the name people would recognize.

3. I was not referring to descendants of the Cheyenne (Tsitsistas, happy?)who have, whether you wish to believe it or not, adapted mostly into western culture. I was referring to the Cheyenne before Europeans* came to colonize the Americas. (you might translate this word as "white devils")

4. It is a well studied and verified fact that the "pre-western intervention Cheyenne" were one of the most sexually repressed cultures in the history of the world. The every ten-year wait period for sex was due to the fact that the Cheyenne practiced child spacing. It was considered not only bad luck but unholy to have children more often. The taboo's the culture had about sex were so strong that the death penalty was enforced for: mastrubation; pre-marital sex;sex with one's wife/husband more often than every ten years for the sake of a child. Also children conceived outside of wedlock were killed.

for further information, take a Native American Anthropology class, or read a book on it. You can find several books on my old professor's curriculum vitae here:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/moojohn/docs/vita.pdf

5. The "angry indian" doesn't work with me- I am Navajo. So whytache whysechu.

[snip a lot of crying that I actually know what I'm talking about]
That sums up your first part.


You claim that God's omnipotence is "ad hoc",
It is.


and that is why God is not possible, logically? Truthfully, I expected a better explanation of the impossibility of omniness than your ironically ad hoc "ad hoc" concept.
It's not ironic; it's true.

To define is to limit. To attempt to get around that by making an "unlimited" attribute is purely ad hoc and smacks of exaggeration to the nth.


Explain "Argue from ignorance."
You cry about me and say I should take a course in logic, but you don't know what AfI is?

Hypocrite.


I see. So you want everything to be all Humpty-Dumpty when it comes to definitions. Play it fast-and-loose. Make up definitions as you go along.

That's not how it works.
I use useful definitions.
I haven't seen any from you so far. When you get around to using some, let me know, m'kay?



The Hebrews would have named it Ai because it was turned into ruins when God knocked it down.
No, they named it Ai because it was in ruins when they got there.



Most of your retorts to Will's retorts don't save your original counters to the Bible.
Yes they do.


The flood: irrelevant to additional sources of water? Ok, could be. But this is also irrelevant. Exodus? Neither of you have credible sources that I've seen.
You mean the Israeli archaeologist isn't credible? The one who did a lot of research that's documented?


And archaeological digs are NOT good proof.
Tell that to the archaeological community.

Hint: I give you one-liners because you offer such infantile nonsense that all I need do is provide you with one line.

The main thing that needs to be taught is the undeniable truth that science can only explain so much and as soon as you solve one scientific problem, 10 more are staring you in the face.
That's good.


We've done some amazing things with science to be sure, but the theory of evolution cannot stand on its own,
Why not?


Darwin himself believed that his theory proved the existence of god.
Irrelevant appeal to authority.


For example, the fact that we have come from a single celled organism to what we are today contrasts with everything we've ever learned about entropy.
No it does not, for if it does, then biological entity growth is impossible!


Also, many other questions such as, if matter can neither be created or destroyed, why and how is it here?
This has nothing to do with evolution, and existence simply must be. There is no such alternate existence as "nonexistence". Nonexistence simply doesn't exist. Only existence can, and as such, existence must always be. The totality of it can change form, but it cannot ever cease to be.

Don't fall into the Anselmian trap of thinking that existence is a property, rather than the raw fact that it is.


There is not a scientist in the world that can take me to before the Big Bang or to the farthest reaches of space. People say that experiments that support the Big Bang disprove the existence of god, to which I respond “everything in your experiments are representative of actual things and events correct? They of course respond in the affirmative so I then am forced to ask… “then who is the scientist?”
Who is the scientist what?


Many of these experiments prove to me what I have known in my heart for years.
Poetic, but your heart is just a muscle.


As an example, Particle Physicists are now saying that matter is nothing but trapped energy
A mass of matter has an equivalence in energy as the speed of light squared.

ID, for all your wishes, is just another variation on biblical literalism and the teleological argument for the existence of god. It's been debunked for a long time; let it die.

A theory such as Intelligent Design has much more of a place in a science class than Creationism, being that evolutionism and Intelligent design walk hand-in-hand in many situations.

True. But my problem with ID is the leaps some people take with it. The recent news I read about the ID "theme park" opening up (I can't remember where) was quite funny to me. I read all about how dinosaurs were roaming around the Garden of Eden, and how T. Rex and Velociraptors were vegetarians before man was cast out in shame. A bit far-fetched to me. I'll grant the ID crowd that the universe had to be created from something, somehow. Randon bits of stardust suddenly becoming living beings I don't buy. But I can't take the words written by a few men as the literal word of God, nor can I ignore carbon-dating. The world is older than 6000 years folks. Give me evolution- as God's plan. And the bible is a bunch of stories about morality written by men.

All I ask is for us to realize that science is not infallable and cannot posssibly explain everything. Evolution to the point of proving its merit has not yet been thoroughly tested, so I suppose according to your theory, it isnt legit as well. We've ttested natural selection to our hearts content but have never eard of a controlled experiment in which one species of animal (not bacteria) was mutated into another.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I just want to add my two cents to this.

There's an interesting book out right now called "The Case for the Creator", by Lee Strobel. In Strobel's book, he interviews important names in the scientific community and their opinions on ID/Creationism vs. Evolution. Guess what he finds? A large (and growing) number of all kinds of scientists, from biochemists to physicists, agree that ID is a viable THEORY, as is evolution. THEORY being the key word here. ID is more than a hypothesis, it's a THEORY. A large number of men and women in the scientific community are accepting it.

A challenge to Darwinists and evolutionists:

Give me an explanation for the Cambrian explosion.

Give me mathematical data for creatio ex nihilo, more commonly known as the singularity, time zero, or the Big Bang.

Explain the complexity of biological organisms.



"If it's true there's a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe. If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as contemporary physicists are discovering, then perhaps there's a designer who fine-tuned them. If there's information in the cell, as molecular biology shows, then this suggests intelligent design. To get life going in the first place would have required biological information; the implications point beyond the material realm to a prior intelligent cause" (74 Strobel).

I just want to add my two cents to this.

There's an interesting book out right now called "The Case for the Creator", by Lee Strobel.
Strobel is a hack with 0 credibility outside of apologetic circles. He's something like the bastard child of C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell.


In Strobel's book, he interviews important names in the scientific community and their opinions on ID/Creationism vs. Evolution. Guess what he finds? A large (and growing) number of all kinds of scientists, from biochemists to physicists, agree that ID is a viable THEORY,
No, he finds no such thing.


A challenge to Darwinists and evolutionists:

Give me an explanation for the Cambrian explosion.
Give me an explanation for god that does not involve the ad hoc "god always was".


Give me mathematical data for creatio ex nihilo, more commonly known as the singularity, time zero, or the Big Bang.
No, that's what xers claim god did. Only idiots who use strawmen claim that the big bang was creation ex nihilo.


Explain the complexity of biological organisms.
Explain the complexity of god.



"If it's true there's a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe.
Actually, modern cosmologists agree that the spatiotemporal continuum began, and causality cannot apply qua universe.


If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life,
No, that's correlation without causation, and in fact, is backwards. Life, it appears on the surface, is "fine tuned" for the universe.

I just want to add my two cents to this.

There's an interesting book out right now called "The Case for the Creator", by Lee Strobel. In Strobel's book, he interviews important names in the scientific community and their opinions on ID/Creationism vs. Evolution. Guess what he finds? A large (and growing) number of all kinds of scientists, from biochemists to physicists, agree that ID is a viable THEORY, as is evolution. THEORY being the key word here. ID is more than a hypothesis, it's a THEORY. A large number of men and women in the scientific community are accepting it. Which is misleading if not overly false, as very few have and those that have tended to either support Creationism beforehand or recently had undergone religious conversion. Neither of which makes for a strong bunch to rely on. The overwhelming view of the scientific community is that ID is bunk, and rightly so. It is neither scientific nor a scientific theory, which evolution is. (For the love of god, learn the difference between a theory and scientific theory.)

A challenge to Darwinists and evolutionists: Give me an explanation for the Cambrian explosion. Possibly an advantageous mutation which allowed for rapid development and evolution in organisms? Either way, this does nothing to support ID theory, just to show that evolution has not pieced everything together yet. Give it 20 years and most likely it will have the answer to this, which is more than ID could ever hope to do.

Give me mathematical data for creatio ex nihilo, more commonly known as the singularity, time zero, or the Big Bang. Evolution is not concerned with abiogenesis or the Big Bang. It is concerned with the evolution of living species. Perhaps you need to think before asking?

Explain the complexity of biological organisms. Did you NOT attend a single biology course... ever? We covered this. Like decades ago.



If it's true there's a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe. No, this argument of the 'first cause' has long since been shot down in philosophy, as it is just as plausible that there could be an infinite regression of events and hence no 'first cause'.

If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as contemporary physicists are discovering, then perhaps there's a designer who fine-tuned them. Or perhaps not. Perhaps life came about to fit the laws of physics, not the other way around. Gee, you think that might be the case in a universe where physics was set before life was?

If there's information in the cell, as molecular biology shows, then this suggests intelligent design. What? What the hell are they even trying to say here? If there's any structure to anything, it must be ID? That's about as bollucks a reason as any garbage yet purported.

To get life going in the first place would have required biological information; the implications point beyond the material realm to a prior intelligent cause" (74 Strobel).[/indent] Proving he knows little. Scientists have already done demonstation after demonstration showing how random events could lead to the creation of life. Sans 'biological information'. This guy is talking in pure gibberish, lacking any scientific or even philosophical backing to his statements.

read this whole thread and glad I did because laffo

BAAWA, now you're just doing this on purpose. You're spitting out things you could have just looked up on the internet, then using offensiveness to try and act like you understand them. That, or you're trying to get people to leave this would-be discussion. Insecure about it? (Here's where you can use a Yes/No answer.)

QUOTE: "It's not ironic; it's true.

To define is to limit. To attempt to get around that by making an "unlimited" attribute is purely ad hoc and smacks of exaggeration to the nth."

Are you saying you cannot define infinity? A straw man attacking a straw man... You did not understand my post. What is ironic is your own ad hoc (see definition (adj.)) statements about ID being all ad hoc. But nevermind that. It's just another scripted denial, and I'm getting used to it. Anyways, I'm not trying to "get around" anything, because something is not ad hoc if it wasn't thought up by people, correct? You are approaching this issue with the unflinching assumption that God was invented by people. You might as well be saying that because God does not exist, he cannot be omnipotent. Do you follow this?

QUOTE: "You cry about me and say I should take a course in logic, but you don't know what AfI is?

Hypocrite."

I do not cry about you... Why not take a course in philosophy instead. And I mean just philosophy, not prevailing philosophic views. Also, your ignoring my words is based on my not knowing a bit (though apparently quite a popular bit) of philosophic trivia is silly in two distinct ways. I cannot be sure you have understanding at all, because you do not develop your idea. This is a basic concept, and it is obvious you do not grasp it. Besides, why not explain AfI (when asked multiple times). I find it ridiculous that you would not do so if you could. Worse than if you didn't know. BTW, you're making yourself look more like a fundamentalist every minute.

QUOTE: "I haven't seen any from you so far. When you get around to using some, let me know, m'kay?"

Dodging the issue, I see. And with sarcastic insults no less. It's like talking to a teenager. I'm sorry the universe might not fit inside your box, but it really might not.

QUOTE: "No, they named it Ai because it was in ruins when they got there."

Or they named it that, because when they conquered it, it was a pile of rubbble. This can be interpreted either way. The critical difference could be only a few years. Archaeologists do not pretend to be able to work within that kind of error limit.

QUOTE: "You mean the Israeli archaeologist isn't credible? The one who did a lot of research that's documented?"

I asked you for the source; not for a reiteration that you have a source. Seriously, did you read my post or not? And why are you using such childish language?

QUOTE: "Hint: I give you one-liners because you offer such infantile nonsense that all I need do is provide you with one line."

This is not logical. If I provided you with infantile nonsense, then you would need to provide me with a very detailed description of how I am wrong (because that's what it would take). Instead, you act like a person who is in over his head: insulting, dodging, and saying as little as possible.

QUOTE: "Yep. Creation is a temporal act. So how do you create without time?"

I don't create without time. I am bound by "time." A being who is outside what we call "time" does. Besides, "time" is merely a construct that we give to progressions of events. Look at light, for example. Makes time look a little more vulnerable. Since our respective worlds are defined solely by our senses, we cannot be sure of such absolutes from where we stand. Now what was the quote about dealing in absolutes? It's on the tip of my tongue. =/

QUOTE: "[snip a lot of crying that I actually know what I'm talking about]"

Lol. Come on, man. Are you even in this discussion, or am I talking to myself? No, it's probably worse. I may be talking to nothing.

QUOTE: "It is."

(See context.) That's what I said you said...*raises eyebrow* What? Is saying it again to yourself going to reinforce it for you?



QUOTE: "lol messed up speed reading didn't you."

No, unfortunately. I can't speed read. =( Just one of those Random things. =/ Sorry 'bout that.

Done for the night. Way too late again.

OOH! OOH! What was your favorite part??! =P

I just want to add my two cents to this.

There's an interesting book out right now called "The Case for the Creator", by Lee Strobel. In Strobel's book, he interviews important names in the scientific community and their opinions on ID/Creationism vs. Evolution. Guess what he finds? A large (and growing) number of all kinds of scientists, from biochemists to physicists, agree that ID is a viable THEORY, as is evolution. THEORY being the key word here. ID is more than a hypothesis, it's a THEORY. A large number of men and women in the scientific community are accepting it.

That is a lie. And ID is not a theory as it is not testable. ID is simply an idea, nothing more.


A challenge to Darwinists and evolutionists:

Give me an explanation for the Cambrian explosion.


They used to say "give me an explanation what makes it rain". There is an expression for that kind of claim; since it is not explainable at present it must be caused by the divine. It is called "The god of the gaps arguement".



Give me mathematical data for creatio ex nihilo, more commonly known as the singularity, time zero, or the Big Bang.


Why could not the Universe have always existed in some form. Why is there a need for a first cause. Could'ent it have always been?


Explain the complexity of biological organisms.


Evolution by natural selection.

I just want to add my two cents to this.

There's an interesting book out right now called "The Case for the Creator", by Lee Strobel. In Strobel's book, he interviews important names in the scientific community and their opinions on ID/Creationism vs. Evolution. Guess what he finds? A large (and growing) number of all kinds of scientists, from biochemists to physicists, agree that ID is a viable THEORY, as is evolution. THEORY being the key word here. ID is more than a hypothesis, it's a THEORY. A large number of men and women in the scientific community are accepting it.
1.The book is neither new nor credible. If you search the forum or use Google, you'll find it's been torn apart so many times it's downright scary.
Several of the interveiwed scientists have been misquited or misrepresented, and have said so publicly. While plenty of people believe in ID, no honest scientist would claim ID is a scientific theory, or even hypothesis.
2.As someone else posted, you REALLY need to learn the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. One is simply an idea, while the other is a falsifiable proposition that has survived repeated tests. The difference is staggering.
A challenge to Darwinists and evolutionists:

Give me an explanation for the Cambrian explosion.
The pink unicorn did it. Seriously though. If you happen to find out it snowed somewhere in Alaska back on April 3rd, 1916, and you can't explain why, does that mean you think it's reasonable to assume The Pink Unicorn made it happen? This is exactly what you're asking.
Give me mathematical data for creatio ex nihilo, more commonly known as the singularity, time zero, or the Big Bang.
I could restate what I just wrote above, execpt this one's even worse. Human beings, given our current knowledge, will NEVER be able to say anything reasonable about that. No matter what anyone says, given our current understanding of the universe, any statement about it will be a completely subjective speculation, based on solely on personal opinion. Given what we know at this point in time, NOONE will EVER be able to say ANYTHING factual about it. So blame god if you want. You don't have any more reason to do it, than I have for blaming The Great Cosmic Goat. Of course, either one of us could be right, but I wouldn't bet money on it.
What you propose above is simply one idea. It's no more reasonable than any other idea you'll ever come up with, regarding what happened to bring the universe into being. The big bang theory itself isn't iron cast. Perhaps there's some other explanation.
Explain the complexity of biological organisms.
That's what the theories of evolution tries to do.
"If it's true there's a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe. If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as contemporary physicists are discovering, then perhaps there's a designer who fine-tuned them. If there's information in the cell, as molecular biology shows, then this suggests intelligent design. To get life going in the first place would have required biological information; the implications point beyond the material realm to a prior intelligent cause" (74 Strobel).
Let's see...
First, supposing the most widely accepted theories about the big bang are true, that would mean any and all speculations about what brought it on is unreasonable. Regardless of what your idea is, you have no reason to think that's actually what happened. Not any objective reasons at least.
That means that speculations about causes are simply ideas to which you take a fancy. They have no basis in reality as we know it.

Comtemporary physicists are discovering that life is finely tuned to the laws that govern our universe... Or at least that's what they're doing if we assume time isn't running backwards. I personally fancy that assumption, as things get insanely complicated otherwise. The laws that govern the universe seems to have been around since at least very, very shortly after the big bang occured. I think we're currently talking 0.(34 zeros) of a second. Google, nasa, esa or wikipedia can probably clarify it.

Why does information contained in a cell suggest design? Part of the information contained is a tiny handwritten note from Jhv or what?

Why would it take biological information for life to get started? It's been quite clearly demonstrated that abiogenesis can't be ruled out. Or did Strobel find some old blueprints buried somewhere?

At it's best, the argument is nothing but an utterly unfounded row of assumptions, at its worst, it's an exercise in circular logic.

You'd probably benefit a lot from reading a couple of books on these things. And from taking a crash course in the scientific method.

Since the supernatural can explain anything, it explains nothing.

Since the supernatural can explain anything, it explains nothing.

I suppose one can assume, in the context of this thread, that you are referring to 'anything' that can be measured by science. (Your post was rather short, so I will have to make some assumptions about where you are arguing from. Disregard if I am in error.)

If something cannot be measured by science (e.g., love) then it rightly exists outside of scientific experiments (for now anyway), but that does not mean that it doesn't exist, or that science has any authority to assume that it must be explained in terms of natural causes.

To take it a step further, if someone claims to have an experience of the supernatural, one that forever changed his life, would it be a rational thing for him to then turn around and attempt to explain that experience in terms of natural causes or his own imagination (technically also a natural cause, since it exists in the natural world)? Would it not be more rational to consider that a supernatural experience may be at least a possibility? If you see my point, you will see that I'm suggesting the irrationality of closing your mind to a supernatural explanation, simply because it is supernatural. Apparently, the fact that the supernatural is supernatural is enough for many folk to discard it as false or useless.

On the other hand, when the science community can demonstrate that a cause for an observation is completely natural, then there is no need to invoke the supernatural, except, perhaps, as a source of the natural cause (since every cause needs a cause). In that sense, the supernatural does not directly explain the first observation, but it does explain the second (i.e., the cause of the first observation). In this way, the supernatural cannot explain everything, but everything can be explained with reference to the supernatural (e.g. that the supernatural is somewhere in the background, as a secondary cause).

To contrast that with a totally naturalistic way of thinking, the naturalists cannot explain e.g. why a big bang happened in the first place. Thus, the supernatural does explain some things that have no other explanation. (We don't get any proof of this from science. We are only dealing with the philosophical issue here.)

Perhaps it would help to look at it this way. Is it logical to blame the supernatural for the sin of a paedophiliac person? Would you say that supernatural made him do it? Perhaps one could explain how God made him do it? But it isn't very rational.

Perhaps you conclude this simply because some explanations invoking the supernatural as a cause have been wrong in the past, and now we know enough about our universe to conclude that there is no such thing as the supernatural. That's not rational either.

No, it really isn't. The only 'experiment' that IDers have advocated is proving 'irreducible complexivity', which is bunk for a number of reasons. First and foremost, because all it does is show a problem Darwinism has not yet explained, not prove design or ID. Secondly, because the very notion of irreducible complexivity means that there cannot be any vesigial, counter-functioning, or elsewhere-off piece of the whole, which simply is not true for anything. It is akin to arguing that there is nothing smaller than the atom, as physicists once did in the 19th century, only to discover that the atom could still be broken into smaller pieces.

Do you mean that this is the only experiment that IDers have advocated that you have read about in the anti-ID literature?

My understanding of ID is that it will point to the holes in evolutionary theory as an example of it how believes it can explains the data better. It needs to do this in order to justify the introduction of a completely different way of explaining the data. What better way than to point to the weaknesses in your opponent! In every battle, the logical thing to do is to highlight and manipulate the weaknesses of your opponent. If you don't think evolutionary theory proponents are doing the same thing, you are seriously misled.

I don't think you have understood irreducible complexity (IC) as the IDers present it. They are not saying that IC is not consisting of smaller parts, but that the parts themselves could not confer an advantage to the organism as they are, if they were not combined with other parts. To use your atom example, they would suggest that the smaller pieces of an atom cannot exist alone. They can only be found within the structure of a atom.

Of course there are examples of complex organs, where a particular component of the complex is capable of performing a particular function independently of the other components of the complex. I don't think ID is asserting that this is false. But it would point to things like the muscles cells in the eye. Without the lens, these cells are still capable of functioning as muscle cells, but they will not confer an advantage to the organism. In fact, without the lens, the eye become more of a hindrance than a help, simply because the organism is likely to injure the eye (with its more sensitive tissue) since it can no longer avoid bumping into objects. The similar case is those fish that lost their eyes because they live in underwater caves. They find food there in the absence of light. Therefore the eyes became redundant, and were eventually lost completely. Selection does have a way of removing hindrances. Rather than the useless eye developing into an alternative or more sophisticated organ for navigation, it was lost, just as ID would predict. That is not to say that evolutionary theory would not predict the same result, or that ID would rule out the possibility of the eye developing into an alternative organ for navigation. I think (not sure though) that ID would predict that the useless eye would NOT develop into a more sophisticate organ (that required more genes and greater complexity).

Furthermore, I have not found ID to be claiming to have all the answers, only that the data that comes from scientific experiments can be explained as the direct interference of a designer. In that sense, it sees itself as a competitor to evolutionary theory.

Do you mean that this is the only experiment that IDers have advocated that you have read about in the anti-ID literature?
No, I mean this is the only experiment any IDer thus far seems to have advocated. At all. And it is immediately falsifiable.

My understanding of ID is that it will point to the holes in evolutionary theory as an example of it how believes it can explains the data better. It needs to do this in order to justify the introduction of a completely different way of explaining the data. What better way than to point to the weaknesses in your opponent! Firstly, pointing at holes is not disproving something. Just because there isn't a full understanding of it yet doesn't mean there won't be. That's *gasp* how science works. Furthermore, this method still does nothing but criticize evolution without showing a shred of evidence in support of ID. Call me picky, but I'd like to see IDers actually try and support their theory rather than tear a much more solidly based one down.

In every battle, the logical thing to do is to highlight and manipulate the weaknesses of your opponent. Science isn't a battle. This isn't a "you say this, I say that" type deal. Quite honestly, what you are advocating is tasteless and absolutely unscientific.

If you don't think evolutionary theory proponents are doing the same thing, you are seriously misled. No, they are showing exactly why ID is not a scientific theory. Just as creationism wasn't.

To use your atom example, they would suggest that the smaller pieces of an atom cannot exist alone. They can only be found within the structure of a atom. Which again is easily disproven since the parts of an atom can exist separate from it.

...big long eye rant that makes zero relevance...
Rather than the useless eye developing into an alternative or more sophisticated organ for navigation, it was lost, just as ID would predict. How the hell is that intelligent design evidence? Any useless organ that is causing trouble would tend to be phased out over time. This is props for evolution and against ID if anything, since ID would cover on the idea of perfect design and be, if anything, the one flagshiping the idea of a more sophisticated organ being there.
That is not to say that evolutionary theory would not predict the same result, or that ID would rule out the possibility of the eye developing into an alternative organ for navigation. As I just showed. What are you getting at then and why are you taking up so much page space with it.

Furthermore, I have not found ID to be claiming to have all the answers, only that the data that comes from scientific experiments can be explained as the direct interference of a designer. In that sense, it sees itself as a competitor to evolutionary theory. What evidence? This is the issue- there really is none. Essentially what it comes down to is "anything that we can't explain must be the direct interference of a designer" which is firstly not evidence at all but a lack of knowledge on the process at hand and secondly completely lazy and unscientific.

Actually, it doesn't. The problem is in the logical impossibility of the claim. How can something be outside of the universe? Does "outside of the universe" mean anything? And how can something be in the universe and created the universe? Logical. Impossibilities.

Just shows that I understand the concepts and critique them at the same time.

"outside" of something, means beyond it. And "not contained in it" (much like you could not contain the entire liquid contents of the Atlantic ocean in a test tube)...While the universe had some infinite aspects and facets within its form, it is not infinite in all respects (though, from theological extrapolation; God is infinite in ALL Aspects....) Therefore something truly "infinite" cannot be limited in the finite... What you keeping "inventing" is some either-or concept... That God is either INSIDE alone (and therefore cannot create) or OUTSIDE alone (and therefore can't exist)... When neither statement is theologically true... Theologically God exists "apart from" the "universe" (which HE CReated) [that is, His existance is not bound to His creation], and His "being" extends past the boundries (those finite aspects) of the "universe"; but while being "outside of it" He is also "inside of it" (just as I can be both INSIDE and OUTSIDE of a small bucket, if I place one foot within it, and anothre outside of it... If I am standing with one foot in a bucket, and one foot on the ground; am I inside or outside of the bucket?)


I understand the theology perfectly fine.

You have the problem that there are multiple takes on xer theology with the xer community! For instance, there are some that say that hell is a place apart from god. But above, you say that god is everywhere inside and outside the universe. Thus, god must be in hell. So---who is correct?

Theological xer doctrines are dictated by the biblical and naturally revealed attributes of the "Creator"... The Bible itself dictates that God is "Everywhere" and that He is not "contained"... (sic. Omnipresence) That is, HE exists at all places (and all times) simutaneously ... The question you need to ask, is that when talking about being "apart from" God in "Hell" what is exactly meant by "apart from"...


No, you can't whine and say I don't understand the theology; that won't work. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. Assuming for the moment that the xer god actually exists, which one of them is correct? One must be; they cannot both be.

I can say you don't understand the theology, because you have demonstrated absolutely no understanding of it.

You have specifically (and convieniently) removed the most eccumenical and established Judeo-Christian theological aspects of "God"; to build a finite creator which you can then defeat..... That debate tactic is known as the "straw man"....

Creating an either-or "Creator" and shooting him down in no way defeats my Both-And "Creator".

The "god" you invent, or try to operate with in the debate is one which is [b]either outside of the universe (in total) and therefore cannot exist; or is inside the universe (in total) and therefore constrained by it.... Theologically, however, God is both outside of the universe (not constrained by, or limited by, or reliant upon); and the "universe" itself "proceeds" from Him, whereby He is also inside (that is operating within, and controling/relating to it).

Irreducible complexity isn't an experiment. It isn't even a genuine theory. It does not propose means for testing itself it just exclaims: "This is too complicated to have happened naturally!" and does nothing otherwise. No one has actually proposed experiments to test intelligent design, testing intelligent design would involve testing for an intelligent designer. Something which is well beyond the realm of science.

*snip* Theologically, however, God is both outside of the universe (not constrained by, or limited by, or reliant upon); and the "universe" itself "proceeds" from Him, whereby He is also inside (that is operating within, and controling/relating to it).
That makes no sense by any definition of "within".

If the universe proceeds from him, he cannot be a part of it. The symbolism of the creator that is its creation belongs to his mother. That is the universe.

Not according to the source I cited. Y'know--the archaeological digs.

Ahhh.. you mean the data derived from the Kenyan digs in the 1950's which were proven false by further research by the Wood digs (in the 1990's) showing that there was a definitive settlement there (based on radio-carbon dating unavailable to Kenyan at the time in the 1950's) around 1410BC... All the most reliable scientific evidence validated the initial Garstang claim, and refuted Kenyan.... And you just lost all of your scientific credibility.


Irrelevant.[/qupte]

How is a Hebrew name not relevant? It was a common practice of that time to TRANSLATE names of people and places; though it is not now....

[QUOTE=BAAWA]
No, the Hyksos invaded Egypt and were repulsed.


You seem to be interpreting the "invasion" as it's called as a "War"... Such was not the case.... They were "settlers" by all historically documented evidence who gained "influence" early on during the early 13th Dynasty... By the 15th Dynasty they were "checked" in further advancement and taken over.... by the 17th dynasty they were in utter enslavement, and the 18th Dynasty (New Kingdom) included their expulstion.


Actually, that doesn't make a difference.


Your iniital statement: "The flood is simply impossible. The rain would have had to fall at something like MACH 3 to get enough water."

That water "source" of document was not just "rain".... So it does make a differnce....



Only if you've not read it.

I have... One wonders, from the "sources" you sometime provide, if you've actually ever READ Anything past just what you "wanted" to see...

No one has "pulled the rug" from under the Theory of Evolution, not because of any philosophy that supports it, but because of the mechanisms that do. Mechanically, it works to explain the natural phenomena we see. The natural causes "invoked" in explanations guarantee that this will always be true. Introducing the supernatural as part of the explanation of the cause would erode that guarantee, because there is no mechanism to the supernatural. It's magic. (Indeed, it seems to be the purpose of ID supporters to do just that, erode science.)

If, by 'mechanisms' of evolutionary theory, you are referring to the principles of forming a hypothesis, experimentation and collection of data, analysing data with reference to the hypothesis, etc., these 'mechanisms' of scientific procedure do not explain anything. They are used to collect evidence. It is the domain of philosophy to interpret that evidence. That all of life came from a single ancestor is a philosophical view point. It is an attempt to explain the natural phenomena. Simply because it relies on natural causes will NOT guarantee that the explanation is a true one. You only have to look some at some instances of the fierce the fighting in the science community over which natural cause is most likely to see that invoking any old natural cause will not make it right, better or true.

Introduction of the supernatural would not erode science. You only have to look at history to see that anyone can do science, regardless of their belief in the existence or the non-existence of the supernatural, so long as they employ the basic mechanisms or procedures or principles of the scientific method. This is what makes science successful. Many people have done good science, and interpreted the evidence as supporting a creator. They are not attempting to include or measure the creator in their experiments, but they employ a philosophical viewpoint that God created life. Thus, they do not need to measure or detect the mechanism of the supernatural. It isn't a part of the experiment. And it isn't the way ID does its science.

Thus no one can 'pull the rug out from evolutionary theory' because no one is doing an experiment that would falsify that philosophical position. How could they?




Because science is what it is, I can safely say that any progress made by people who invoke supernatural causes is made not because of their philosophy but because of those mechanisms. Their personal philosophy about god is irrelevant to the science of whatever they are doing. (It matters only to them, not to the science.)

Happy to say that we can agree on that one.


But who really has the authority to decide what is science and what isn't?

Science does, speaking metaphorically of course. If we limit science to the natural world, then it has the authority in that realm, and can speak with authority about the natural world. If we broaden the definition of science to include the supernatural, it can no longer address with any authority anything about the natural world.


Willamena, after reading my posts, you can still get it mixed up. That's discouraging. Either I am a failure at making the point, or you simply are not able to see it. Haven't I said all along that science is limited to the natural world? YES, of course I have. Science isn't in a position to investigate the supernatural. But that is not the same as being restricted to explanations with natural causes. No one is in a position to decide that. Evolutionary theory invokes only natural causes in its explanations. Can these explanations be falsified? Absolutely not. So the difference between evolutionary theory and ID is that one invokes natural causes, and one invokes both natural and supernatural causes in its explanations. Neither point of view can falsify their view point. Of course evolutionary theory will try to assume that only natural causes are allowed to be invoked, but that is part of its fight against including the supernatural, not from a rational argument that science depends on that philosophical viewpoint.
You basically said this above. ''any progress made by people who invoke supernatural causes is made not because of their philosophy but because of those mechanisms.''

Given that science works, regardless of the philosophical viewpoint, why is it so important to decide that only natural causes are allowed to be invoked in an explanation? And if we discover that the data fits better with the philosophical viewpoint that there is a designer, and that the recognition of a designer actually improves science, wouldn't it be downright silly to insist on a viewpoint that is inferior?

Originally Posted by Willamena
Usefulness is irrelevant to nature.
No its not, if an organism has a mutation that is not beneficial based on the environmental conditions teh organism will die, thus ending the proliferation of the mutation.
That is not a given.

And evolution does suggest mutation. A species can change to a limiting factor based on natural selection but to break that boundry to become one of the many species of today a genetic mutation is required.
Evolution is mutation.

Introduction of the supernatural would not erode science. Science deals with facts. The Supernatural, by its very definition is neither fact nor verifiable. So yes, it would absolutely erode science.

This is what makes science successful. No, what makes science sucessful is ignoring superstition and supernatural explanations and dealing only with the facts at hand.

Many people have done good science, and interpreted the evidence as supporting a creator. Like who? And what evidence? That you even said interpreted leads one to conclude that this is a loaded statement with little backing at all.

They are not attempting to include or measure the creator in their experiments, but they employ a philosophical viewpoint that God created life. Which conveniently brings them to the conclusion that a creator must be involved. How not scientific.

Thus, they do not need to measure or detect the mechanism of the supernatural. It isn't a part of the experiment. And it isn't the way ID does its science. BEcause ID doesn't do science. Any real sciene would be testing mechanisms, such as evolutionary biology does. Were you learned in this area, you'd know that.

No one is in a position to decide that. Evolutionary theory invokes only natural causes in its explanations. Can these explanations be falsified? Absolutely not. What are you talking about? Yes they can and they have, in various experiments. It is why they test everything, why data shifts, why knowledge changes over time as more and more data gives a better picture. Evolution data can easily be tested.

So the difference between evolutionary theory and ID is that one invokes natural causes, and one invokes both natural and supernatural causes in its explanations. No, one can be proven and the other can't.
Of course evolutionary theory will try to assume that only natural causes are allowed to be invoked, but that is part of its fight against including the supernatural, not from a rational argument that science depends on that philosophical viewpoint. Again, science deals only with factual evidence. Say it with me, factual evidence. This isn't some conspiracy against ID, its that science deals with what it can test and what it can prove.

And if we discover that the data fits better with the philosophical viewpoint that there is a designer, and that the recognition of a designer actually improves science, wouldn't it be downright silly to insist on a viewpoint that is inferior? How? Mind explaining how that would improve anything whatsoever? As opposed to, i don't know, actually learning how things function and testing mechanisms, which is something you derided as pointless earlier?

No, I mean this is the only experiment any IDer thus far seems to have advocated. At all. And it is immediately falsifiable.


I think you mean that the idea is false, not that it is falsifiable. Usually, science works by falsifying hypotheses. When a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it cannot be demonstrated as true. The argument against ID is that this idea of irreducible complexity is not falsifiable. Personally, I feel that it is in the realm of science, and therefore possible, though it may take some time.


Firstly, pointing at holes is not disproving something. Just because there isn't a full understanding of it yet doesn't mean there won't be. That's *gasp* how science works. Furthermore, this method still does nothing but criticize evolution without showing a shred of evidence in support of ID. Call me picky, but I'd like to see IDers actually try and support their theory rather than tear a much more solidly based one down.


No one is suggesting that pointing at holes equals disproving. It is all about comparison to see which point of view is more reasonable. The reasonableness will depend, to some degree, on the individual, particularly his belief system.

ID does more than criticise evolution. I think you really have a misconception of a bunch of chaps sitting around with white lab coats on, discussing ways in which their ideas are going to prove evolutionary theory wrong, tomorrow. ID looks at the information within living systems, and tries to analyse it in much the same way we analyse computer information systems. It tries to identify components of information, components within components, and how each component is related to the bigger picture to produce functionality, eg. sight. I am a little surprised at the number of people that criticise ID without really knowing what it does. You seem to be one of them. It certainly is not about tearing down evolutionary theory. As I mentioned before, this is a product of the debate between evolutionary theory and ID. If there was no such thing as evolutionary theory, there would still be ID.


Science isn't a battle. This isn't a "you say this, I say that" type deal. Quite honestly, what you are advocating is tasteless and absolutely unscientific.


Right. Science isn't a battle. But the debate between ID and evolutionary theory IS a battle. And it may be that all you know of ID is the debating face of it.


Which again is easily disproven since the parts of an atom can exist separate from it.


Really? How? I have never head about that? Care to demonstrate?


How the hell is that intelligent design evidence? Any useless organ that is causing trouble would tend to be phased out over time. This is props for evolution and against ID if anything, since ID would cover on the idea of perfect design and be, if anything, the one flagshiping the idea of a more sophisticated organ being there.
As I just showed. What are you getting at then and why are you taking up so much page space with it.


I think you have to see the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence is data that can be explained to support a view point. It is not proof. Proof for ID would be evidence that simply cannot be explained in terms of evolutionary theory. Evidence that could be explained in terms of either theory would remain simply evidence. I was trying to show you how ID would work. It just takes the evidence and explains it in terms of design. This does not mean that it has to disprove evolutionary theory. It seems as though you still didn't get it, which makes me wonder how you got to be so anti-ID without really understanding it. Woops, your bias is showing.


What evidence? This is the issue- there really is none. Essentially what it comes down to is "anything that we can't explain must be the direct interference of a designer" which is firstly not evidence at all but a lack of knowledge on the process at hand and secondly completely lazy and unscientific.

Once again, if you really think this, you are not understanding ID. This is not the process of ID. ID seeks to understand information in life well enough to determine whether it came from natural causes or from intelligence. The conclusion is on the basis of knowledge, not ignorance as you are suggesting.

Evolution is mutation.


Mutation and selection.

even if it is passed let the unprepared f**kers get thrown into REAL schooling and see if they sink or swim

I would be embarased to be one of these christian schools at not preparing their students for the real world

I went to a private Christian school and I am doing fine, thankyouverymuch... :)

Theories and Facts is why each side wont agree. Evolutionists see ID as a theory and a religious one at that. Creationists see ID as means of how the universe was started based off the religious teaching they believe in and feel it makes more sense. Creationists consider the theory of evolution to be just that: a theory.

Possible way of teaching both in a public school? No clear answer.
Teachers will either dismiss one view over the other based on thier principle or personal beliefs. So even if a compromise was found to teach both evolution and ID/Creationism as pure theories, it may not work based on one's approach to agreeing or disagreeing with the information.

Really? How? I have never head about that? Care to demonstrate?


I thought you said you had a biology degree, surely basic chemistry must cover things like this? An atom can be ionised by losing or gaining an electron from another atom and there are many other ways. You can of course split atoms or kock individual protons or neutrons off too. Unless this was all a metaphor in which case its not a great one.

Come on, EA, you admitted fallibility in the two following sentences. If "science" does not admit to being fallible, it is being naive. Besides, it does admit this. Over and over again. If you fail to understand this concept, you do not understand science.

Neuronia, you are assuming that most of ID is simply ad hoc for the missing parts in science, which is incorrect. And don't act like duct tape isn't the most useful stuf ever. :mad:

Much of evolution qualifies as theory. Which is why we call it a theory. A lot of it does not, and was added to the theory, whether it qualifies or not. ID could be a hypothesis, scientifically speaking, but the same goes for a lot of evolution. Much of both sides (not technically, but in practice) are

Plus, they are not mutually exclusive. People certainly need to realize this even before entering into the discussion.


You're right on this one, I've used terms such as "intelligent design" before (though I do not use it in the sense of actualy ID'ers... I am an Evolutionary Creationist in terms of my theological beliefs on "Creation"... Which differs from Theistic Evolution only in small matters of degrees relating to God's involvement in the process of evolution).... There is indeed much speculation out there (and likely much of it will not get direct answers for some time).

I think you mean that the idea is false, not that it is falsifiable. Usually, science works by falsifying hypotheses. When a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it cannot be demonstrated as true. The argument against ID is that this idea of irreducible complexity is not falsifiable. Personally, I feel that it is in the realm of science, and therefore possible, though it may take some time.

That would imply that in time we will be able to prove the existence of God.

I am a little surprised at the number of people that criticise ID without really knowing what it does. You seem to be one of them. It certainly is not about tearing down evolutionary theory. As I mentioned before, this is a product of the debate between evolutionary theory and ID.

ID IS about tearing down ET, because of what it is. ID and ET are contradictory in every aspect. ET supposes natural causes of change, ID supposes supernatural causes. Selection operates without foreknowledge, but ID supposes a teleological process. Organisms change TOWARDS a pre-signed form. ET is about chance, ID is about predetermination. In every aspect ID is contradictory to ET. There is no way the two can coexist.

Right. Science isn't a battle. But the debate between ID and evolutionary theory IS a battle. And it may be that all you know of ID is the debating face of it.

Science IS a battle. It must be. It should be. You have to do your damnest best to defend your views, you have to do your damnest best to falsify other scientists' theories. Nothing in ET is undebated, nothing. But there is no place in this debate for ID. Why? Because you can never falsify an ID hypothesis... For every process it will be possible to give an ID-explanation, but all these explanations have the explicit assumption that THERE HAS BEEN AN UPROVEABLE DESIGNER.

I went to a private Christian school and I am doing fine, thankyouverymuch... :)

Theories and Facts is why each side wont agree. Evolutionists see ID as a theory and a religious one at that. Creationists see ID as means of how the universe was started based off the religious teaching they believe in and feel it makes more sense. Creationists consider the theory of evolution to be just that: a theory.

Possible way of teaching both in a public school? No clear answer.
Teachers will either dismiss one view over the other based on thier principle or personal beliefs. So even if a compromise was found to teach both evolution and ID/Creationism as pure theories, it may not work based on one's approach to agreeing or disagreeing with the information.

I congratulate you on a sensible post.

I thought you said you had a biology degree, surely basic chemistry must cover things like this? An atom can be ionised by losing or gaining an electron from another atom and there are many other ways. You can of course split atoms or kock individual protons or neutrons off too. Unless this was all a metaphor in which case its not a great one.

True, basic chemistry does cover such things, although chem was never my strong point. However, the poster seemed to be trying to say that electrons and neutrons, etc. can exist on their own, which is not the same as saying that they temporarily transferred from one atom to another. If you could find a stable electron, now that would be something!

Yep. Creation is a temporal act. So how do you create without time?

Meaningless, "creation" is an act, the act of "creating"... There is no temporal reliance upon it.

Same occurs in dealing with nature as it stands, and the universe in general... something happened to cause the universe (and included in the cause of the universe, is "time" which is an aspect of the universe")... If nothing can happen "without time" then we're not here.... Since we are... We know the assertion that everything is based temporaly must, therefore, logically be false, and therefore "occurances" can "happen" "outside of" "time".

Neither Theory is proven by today's standards of scientific requirements for a proof. Either already fails at the requirement of being repeatable.

The theory of evolution is, scientifically, simply more viable. There's bones in the ground, there's proof that they have a certain age, there's DNA. We might one day be able to actually create scientific proof for the evolution theory. Or we find out that it cannot happen that way and another way of life generation has to be put in instead.

But simply and blindly believing in an all important, all powerful God is far from anything scientific. Of course it's an easy explanation. "He did it". But it didn't work for me in school when "someone" painted a not-so-nice picture of our teacher on the blackboard...

Conveniently enough there's nobody around who could prove it. How should he? Oh, there's a book that tells you do. Ok. Other religions have similar books, which one is right? Why is the christian god more important than others? Why is their faith-based theory "righter" than others with equally "solidly" founded proof?

To me it sounds a lot like Christo-centric bullcrap. We should prolly go out there and invent the Religion of the all encompassing Pizzamonster, and claim that the omnipresent Pizza created everything (Proof: You can get pizza with pretty much everything there is on it). And demand that it is taught in school.

It wouldn't be any further out than teaching the christian theory.

No its not, if an organism has a mutation that is not beneficial based on the environmental conditions teh organism will die, thus ending the proliferation of the mutation.

You realize that some viruses go against the law of nature by killing their hosts so fast that they cannot reproduce. But, they still exist, as they evolve.

And ever wonder why we switched from penecillian to pondicillan for throat infections? Could have been due to evolution of viruses? Or did God suddenly decide that he would step up his attempts to kill us off? 'Cause seriously, for a "divine" creator, he really doesn't like us does he?

True, basic chemistry does cover such things, although chem was never my strong point. However, the poster seemed to be trying to say that electrons and neutrons, etc. can exist on their own, which is not the same as saying that they temporarily transferred from one atom to another. If you could find a stable electron, now that would be something!

Really? Electrons exist on their own for a while quite well. They can get knocked off by EM waves and by other means and travel for a while easily enough. I suppose they would ususally get caught by another atom but if there are none around it will keep going on its own, what else could it do?

Neutrons and protons can exist on their own too. When I was doing my degree it was thought that protons would decay if left on their own but I dont know if thats still current thought.

Neutrons and protons can exist on their own too. When I was doing my degree it was thought that protons would decay if left on their own but I dont know if thats still current thought.

Indeed, any form of acid is acidic because of the presence of free H(+) atoms, or protons basically.

That makes no sense by any definition of "within".

If the universe proceeds from him, he cannot be a part of it. The symbolism of the creator that is its creation belongs to his mother. That is the universe.

"within" means that He operates inside of it... MY point is, He operated both WITHIN and WITHOUT the universe... Being a "part" of something, however, means that you are a component of "it"... Realistically the "universe" is far more a "part of" the Creator, than the Creator is a "part of" the universe. It really differns on what is mean by "apart" and "a part" when dealing with the issue... Wether you're dealing with a component connectivity, or dealing with the presence One can be inside of a house for example, while not being "a part" of that house... The house can be ran and controled by yourself while not actually being a "component" of the building... Of course both me and the building are constrained.... But God isn't constrained by "physical" limits such as that.... A better example would be manipulating the contents of a Doll House.... I can reach "inside", and change things, but still be "outside"... And therefore "Exist" within and without that small Doll House.

That would imply that in time we will be able to prove the existence of God.


Nope. Nothing in what I posted ever suggested this. Neither do I think science will ever prove God. It may prove that a designer was necessary, but it simply is not in the position to determine whether the designer was natural or supernatural.



ID IS about tearing down ET, because of what it is. ID and ET are contradictory in every aspect. ET supposes natural causes of change, ID supposes supernatural causes. Selection operates without foreknowledge, but ID supposes a teleological process. Organisms change TOWARDS a pre-signed form. ET is about chance, ID is about predetermination. In every aspect ID is contradictory to ET. There is no way the two can coexist.


I agree with you in that the philosophies are somewhat contradictory, although not in every aspect. ID does not rule out evolution, so long it is the sort of evolution that a product of design.
However, ID and ET are capable using the same experiments to generate the same data. An example would be, say, an organ like the human ear lobe. From the perspective of evolution, one needs to look at how it evolved, what was the selective pressure and which genes were mutation. It is logical to look at the ear lobes of the supposed relative, the monkeys, to get an idea of the history. ID would approach the ear lobe from the purspective of design. It would look at the genes, and get this, it may even compare the genes with those of monkeys (same experiment) to get some idea of the relationship between information and purpose.

Finally, ID was not invented in order to tear down ET. That is a ridiculous statement. Imagine asking Prof. Behe, 'Did you join ID in order to criticise ET?' He would say, 'Absolutely not!' By his own confession, he did it because he was disatisfied with ET, and has found that ID fits in with the data far better. Science was more or less a form of ID before Darwinism. If there was no Darwinism, we would all be IDers still, perhaps.

[/QUOTE]
Science IS a battle. It must be. It should be. You have to do your damnest best to defend your views, you have to do your damnest best to falsify other scientists' theories. Nothing in ET is undebated, nothing. But there is no place in this debate for ID. Why? Because you can never falsify an ID hypothesis... For every process it will be possible to give an ID-explanation, but all these explanations have the explicit assumption that THERE HAS BEEN AN UPROVEABLE DESIGNER.
[/QUOTE]

Nope. Science is not about defending your views. That is only one part of it. Of course, you have to be able to have your views criticised and be able to defend them. Such is the nature of the science community. But it is hardly necessary to fight for your views. Most of the criticism that a scientist deals with comes from his colleagues, many of whom are his friends. The criticism is not necessarily unfriendly, much less a battle. The same process would happen in both ET and ID.

As for your criticism of ID, that the designer is unproveable, I am not sure that I agree. If you have a scenario where you understand the information (e.g. genes, proteins, carbohydrates, RNA, lipids, metabolic pathways, etc.) within a complex organ well enough to know that mutations and selections could never have caused it, then it is reasonable to postulate that it came from a designer. But in looking at it from a designed perspective, one would say that if it was designed, then its information should reflect on its design and its purpose. (Obviously, one needs to be in a position of knowing a great deal about the information within the complex organ.) The moment the information contradicts the idea of design, that idea would be proven false. Another way to prove this would be for the human to take the role of a designer, and design a new complex, based on his understanding of the original complex. Functionality of the new complex would indicate that the human understood the purpose of the information.

Indeed, any form of acid is acidic because of the presence of free H(+) atoms, or protons basically.

If you have a solution of HCl, for example, there is a constant process of association and disassociation. HCl <--> H+ and Cl- That is not to say that these charged forms exists separately. This solution is an acid because the proton (H+) will protonate any new molecule because of its positive charge, so long as the number of new molecules do not outnumber the HCl molecules and that attraction force between H+ and Cl- is not greater than that between the H+ and the new molecule. Sheesh, it's been a long time since I studied chemistry.

If you have a solution of HCl, for example, there is a constant process of association and disassociation. HCl <--> H+ and Cl- That is not to say that these charged forms exists separately. This solution is an acid because the proton (H+) will protonate any new molecule because of its positive charge, so long as the number of new molecules do not outnumber the HCl molecules and that attraction force between H+ and Cl- is not greater than that between the H+ and the new molecule. Sheesh, it's been a long time since I studied chemistry.

It apparently has been some time. In a strong acid such as HCl(aq) the dissociation constant is huge, meaning that the amount of HCl is negligable compared to H+ and Cl-. Indeed, HCl is a gas, and if it should form it would escape the solution.

You are right in one thing, though. Truly "free" protons or electrons cannot exist on Earth, because there is always an atom to interact with. In a vacuum, however, they can and do exist.

If, by 'mechanisms' of evolutionary theory, you are referring to the principles of forming a hypothesis, experimentation and collection of data, analysing data with reference to the hypothesis, etc., these 'mechanisms' of scientific procedure do not explain anything. They are used to collect evidence. It is the domain of philosophy to interpret that evidence. That all of life came from a single ancestor is a philosophical view point. It is an attempt to explain the natural phenomena. Simply because it relies on natural causes will NOT guarantee that the explanation is a true one. You only have to look some at some instances of the fierce the fighting in the science community over which natural cause is most likely to see that invoking any old natural cause will not make it right, better or true.
Actually, by mechanisms of evolution I was referring to its actual "moving parts," i.e. processes like natural selection, not to the "scientific method", which is what you describe above. The mechanisms themselves are explanations, themselves dependent upon other explanations, all dependent upon those explanations being natural.

I see the philosophy of science a bit differently than you do. I see it as derived from the data, as well as a driving force for seeking further data. You seem to be suggesting it is intregral to science.

We will never know "the truth" about everything. To most of us, that doesn't matter. We humans live quite comfortably in a world of half-truths and approximations of truth, everyday. The explanations derived from science do not have to be "the truth." Science can only move towards an approximation of truth that is good enough, that works in the natural world (a working explanation; and it is an explanation). This is good enough to be labelled "truth" until something comes along to enhance or supplant it.

It is a guarantee that including causes with no possible mechanism will lead us further from "the truth". Saying "it's magic" is not useful.

Introduction of the supernatural would not erode science. You only have to look at history to see that anyone can do science, regardless of their belief in the existence or the non-existence of the supernatural, so long as they employ the basic mechanisms or procedures or principles of the scientific method. This is what makes science successful. Many people have done good science, and interpreted the evidence as supporting a creator. They are not attempting to include or measure the creator in their experiments, but they employ a philosophical viewpoint that God created life. Thus, they do not need to measure or detect the mechanism of the supernatural. It isn't a part of the experiment. And it isn't the way ID does its science.
No argument, there, except with your first statement. Invoking the unhelpful "magic" as mechanism simply is not science; allowing it to be a scientifically valid explanation, a part of another mechanism, will bring the whole tree toppling.

Employing the scientific method means limiting yourself to natural, experimentable or mathematically theoretical processes. Those people who "conclude" god do so as a side to science, not as a part of it, and their science will continue on dispite it.

Thus no one can 'pull the rug out from evolutionary theory' because no one is doing an experiment that would falsify that philosophical position. How could they?
Indeed, why would they? Their philosophy is a side to the science they do.

Willamena, after reading my posts, you can still get it mixed up. That's discouraging. Either I am a failure at making the point, or you simply are not able to see it. Haven't I said all along that science is limited to the natural world? YES, of course I have. Science isn't in a position to investigate the supernatural. But that is not the same as being restricted to explanations with natural causes. No one is in a position to decide that.
But we are. By limiting science to the natural world we are in a perfect position to say that the supernatural cause is not a scientific one. That ID is not scientific if it allows for that. There is no reason to believe that "the truth" is not contained in the natural world. Not yet, anyway, certainly not if things can be explained another (natural) way.

Evolutionary theory invokes only natural causes in its explanations. Can these explanations be falsified? Absolutely not. So the difference between evolutionary theory and ID is that one invokes natural causes, and one invokes both natural and supernatural causes in its explanations. Neither point of view can falsify their view point. Of course evolutionary theory will try to assume that only natural causes are allowed to be invoked, but that is part of its fight against including the supernatural, not from a rational argument that science depends on that philosophical viewpoint.

You basically said this above. ''any progress made by people who invoke supernatural causes is made not because of their philosophy but because of
those mechanisms.''
Ah, but the personal philosophies of scientists is not the philosophy of science. Those mechanisms are the philosophy of science. I think I was going to include that, but got distracted by work...

I'm not a scientist, falsifiability holds little interest for me. But even I understand that if we limit explanations to the natural world, they are automatically falsifiable, because everything about the natural world is. Existence is one of the approximations of truth, accepted unquestionably as truth, that we live with everyday. The very foundation of our understanding of the universe may be turned on its head overnight (which wouldn't phase most of us, as nothing would have changed). The explanations may not be fasified yet, but they can be if they are natural.

If the concept of natural mechanisms (explanations) built upon natural mechanisms, this philosophy, is overturned it will not be by ID supporters saying, "Your philosophy is wrong because it doesn't include the supernatural." That is exactly what makes this philosophy strong. It precludes the supernatural, because the supernatural has no mechanism upon which to build further explanations, either before or after the event.

Given that science works, regardless of the philosophical viewpoint, why is it so important to decide that only natural causes are allowed to be invoked in an explanation? And if we discover that the data fits better with the philosophical viewpoint that there is a designer, and that the recognition of a designer actually improves science, wouldn't it be downright silly to insist on a viewpoint that is inferior?
I'll have address this later, as I'm pressed for time.

Being tolerant of non-science within science is bad. If we allow ID to be called a scientific theory, we have to teach the Flat-Earth theory too. We have to teach the geocentric theory of the universe? Why? Because the definition of a scientific theory is thrown out and any idea someone has that they want to call theory suddenly becomes taught in a science class.

Again, it has nothing to do with religious tolerance. Science is already tolerant of all religions, as it says nothing at all about religion. Scientific study neither assumes that an deity exists, nor assumes that such deity does not exist. Scientific study neither assumes that any religion is correct, nor assumes that it is not correct. Religion is irrelevant in science. However, if you start teaching religion within science, it is obvious that you aren't even teaching the basics - the scientific method and how it can and should be used. If you aren't teaching the basics, you are hardly up to academic standards.

Before i say anything about this, i'd like to answer a question: Has anybody here actually researched the science behind creationism?
i doubt it. because you are all treating it as if it is a theory which is somehow beneath the theory of evolution. a closer look will reveal that they have about equal evidence. you cannot prove evolution, and you cannot prove creationism.

now, on to rebutting this quote.
first: you are saying that the theory of creationism is "non-science". Not true. is is backed up by scientific evidence. just like evolution.
Secondly, your are jumping to conclusions. The flat-Earth theory had no scientific evidence behind it. Creationism does however. If you teach creationism, you won't have to comprimise the definition of a scientific theory.
Thirdly, you said that "Religion is irrelevant in science." but as Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...."
Science is the study of how things around us work. Religion is about how things were made, and how it is relevent to us.
If you see an invention, one very good way to understand it is to ask the inventor how it works.
This is the same with science and religion. To understand how the world around us works, it'd be a good idea to ask the creator.

If you would like me to tell you about some very simple pieces of evidence for creationism, and against evolution, let me know.

Like who? And what evidence? That you even said interpreted leads one to conclude that this is a loaded statement with little backing at all.


Johannes Kepler

....is now chiefly remembered for discovering the three laws of planetary motion that bear his name published in 1609 and 1619). He also did important work in optics (1604, 1611), discovered two new regular polyhedra (1619), gave the first mathematical treatment of close packing of equal spheres (leading to an explanation of the shape of the cells of a honeycomb, 1611), gave the first proof of how logarithms worked (1624), and devised a method of finding the volumes of solids of revolution that (with hindsight!) can be seen as contributing to the development of calculus (1615, 1616). Moreover, he calculated the most exact astronomical tables hitherto known, whose continued accuracy did much to establish the truth of heliocentric astronomy (Rudolphine Tables, Ulm, 1627).

Throughout his life, Kepler was a profoundly religious man. All his writings contain numerous references to God, and he saw his work as a fulfilment of his Christian duty to understand the works of God. Man being, as Kepler believed, made in the image of God, was clearly capable of understanding the Universe that He had created. Moreover, Kepler was convinced that God had made the Universe according to a mathematical plan (a belief found in the works of Plato and associated with Pythagoras). Since it was generally accepted at the time that mathematics provided a secure method of arriving at truths about the world (Euclid's common notions and postulates being regarded as actually true), we have here a strategy for understanding the Universe. Since some authors have given Kepler a name for irrationality, it is worth noting that this rather hopeful epistemology is very far indeed from the mystic's conviction that things can only be understood in an imprecise way that relies upon insights that are not subject to reason. Kepler does indeed repeatedly thank God for granting him insights, but the insights are presented as rational.

More at http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Kepler.html

Isaac Newton
... all matter attracts all other matter with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Newton explained a wide range of previously unrelated phenomena: the eccentric orbits of comets, the tides and their variations, the precession of the Earth's axis, and motion of the Moon as perturbed by the gravity of the Sun. This work made Newton an international leader in scientific research.
Newton was a staunch Protestant .......

Blaise Pascal
From May 1653 Pascal worked on mathematics and physics writing Treatise on the Equilibrium of Liquids (1653) in which he explains Pascal's law of pressure. Adamson writes in [3]:-
This treatise is a complete outline of a system of hydrostatics, the first in the history of science, it embodies his most distinctive and important contribution to physical theory.

...he underwent another religious experience, on 23 November 1654, and he pledged his life to Christianity.
''If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing.''

I could go on and on.....




Which conveniently brings them to the conclusion that a creator must be involved. How not scientific.


That puts you at odds with all those real scientists.


BEcause ID doesn't do science. Any real sciene would be testing mechanisms, such as evolutionary biology does. Were you learned in this area, you'd know that.


Do you see evolutionary theory testing the idea that all of life came from a single organism?


What are you talking about? Yes they can and they have, in various experiments. It is why they test everything, why data shifts, why knowledge changes over time as more and more data gives a better picture. Evolution data can easily be tested.


Scientists cannot test whether mutations and natural selection were adequate for the evolution of man from monkeys. The simple reason is, how does one test a theory that requires hundreds of thousands of years? So, no, it isn't tested, neither is it testable.



No, one can be proven and the other can't.
Again, science deals only with factual evidence. Say it with me, factual evidence. This isn't some conspiracy against ID, its that science deals with what it can test and what it can prove.


By factual evidence, I understand evidence that is repeatable and observable. Since we cannot point to an example of macroevolution that has occurred under observation, how do we know that it is factual? We look at a bunch of fossils, and call that evidence. But it is only 'factual evidence' for evolutionary theory if ID cannot explain it. But it can. So it cannot be 'factual evidence'. Genetics has not provided 'factual evidence' either, since it can be explained in terms of ID, and even some parts are more easily explainable by ID (although it is possible that some parts are also more easily explainable by evolutionary theory). The scientific procedure can only deal with factual evidence, but science itself consists of a good deal of philosophical speculation.



How? Mind explaining how that would improve anything whatsoever? As opposed to, i don't know, actually learning how things function and testing mechanisms, which is something you derided as pointless earlier?


Perhaps you care to point out exactly where I derided the learning of how things function and the testing of mechanisms. I don't know which point you are referring to.

It apparently has been some time. In a strong acid such as HCl(aq) the dissociation constant is huge, meaning that the amount of HCl is negligable compared to H+ and Cl-. Indeed, HCl is a gas, and if it should form it would escape the solution.

You are right in one thing, though. Truly "free" protons or electrons cannot exist on Earth, because there is always an atom to interact with. In a vacuum, however, they can and do exist.

OK, you can have that one. I admit I have forgotten most of what I learned in chem, and perhaps this point has ceased to become relevant to the debate anyway, would you say?

right on, Bruarong.

If you would like me to tell you about some very simple pieces of evidence for creationism, and against evolution, let me know.

Just try posting the evidence for creationism. If there are any scientists around it'll get refuted in about 5 minutes.

right on, Bruarong.
Thanks

Just try posting the evidence for creationism. If there are any scientists around it'll get refuted in about 5 minutes.

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20020327/03
Small genomes are still shrinking
The small Buchnera genome is still shrinking toward a minimum set of genes necessary for its symbiotic lifestyle.

http://www.chlamydiae.com/docs/Chlamydiales/ev_genomedegradn.asp
Early investigations on obligate intracellular bacteria suggested that restriction to intracellular habitats had been accompanied by exploitation of host biosynthetic pathways and disappearance of corresponding pathways in the bacteria, presumably by gene loss and inactivation.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v32/n3/full/ng1102-335.html
Shrinking genome size is a common feature of obligate intracellular bacteria. This may arise through a reduction of the genetic repertoire previously required to survive as free-living organisms. One example of a bacterium associated with an arthropod in which genome downsizing is apparent is the intracellular Buchnera bacterium, which lives symbiotically in pea aphids2.

Examples of bacteria whose genomes have been sequenced and who rely on insect carriers and cause severe disease in humans include Rickettsia prowazekii3 (typhus), Borrelia burgdorferi4 (Lyme disease) and Yersinia pestis5 (plague). These pathogens represent bacteria at various stages of genome decay, with R. prowazekii having the most severe mutational meltdown-24% of its genome is non-coding DNA or pseudogenes, compared to 4% for Y.pestis. Y.pestis has arisen from the enteric pathogen Y.pseudotuberculosis in an eye-blink of evolutionary time (2,000−15,000 years) and thus is at a very early stage of genome decay. Interestingly, many of the genes no longer required by Y.pestis are important for enteropathogenesis of Y.pseudotuberculosis, evidence of remnants of a redundant enteric lifestyle5

But wait, is shrinking genomes restricted to bacteria? Apparently not.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050906081730.htm
Scrupulously shrinking genomes
Scientists generally believe that insertions of retroelements, or "jumping genes," once established in a population, are irreversible and are maintained throughout evolution. This unidirectional theory of retroelement evolution, which calls for ever-expanding genome size, is challenged by work that appears in the September issue of Genome Research.
In this work, Dr. Dixie Mager and her colleagues performed a whole-genome comparison of the human, chimpanzee, and Rhesus monkey sequences, and they identified 37 instances where a retroelement was present in Rhesus (a more primitive primate species) but absent in either humans or chimpanzees. This indicated that these retroelements had been deleted during the evolution of the more recent primate species.

I could go on an on.....

My argument is that ID predicts that if genomes were designed and created as complete, and that life forms require an intelligent design in order to exist, rather than natural causes, then the prediction ID would make is that natural selection and mutation are going to shrink genomes, not expand them. And look was is happening.....

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20020327/03
Small genomes are still shrinking
The small Buchnera genome is still shrinking toward a minimum set of genes necessary for its symbiotic lifestyle.

http://www.chlamydiae.com/docs/Chlamydiales/ev_genomedegradn.asp
Early investigations on obligate intracellular bacteria suggested that restriction to intracellular habitats had been accompanied by exploitation of host biosynthetic pathways and disappearance of corresponding pathways in the bacteria, presumably by gene loss and inactivation.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v32/n3/full/ng1102-335.html
Shrinking genome size is a common feature of obligate intracellular bacteria. This may arise through a reduction of the genetic repertoire previously required to survive as free-living organisms. One example of a bacterium associated with an arthropod in which genome downsizing is apparent is the intracellular Buchnera bacterium, which lives symbiotically in pea aphids2.

Examples of bacteria whose genomes have been sequenced and who rely on insect carriers and cause severe disease in humans include Rickettsia prowazekii3 (typhus), Borrelia burgdorferi4 (Lyme disease) and Yersinia pestis5 (plague). These pathogens represent bacteria at various stages of genome decay, with R. prowazekii having the most severe mutational meltdown-24% of its genome is non-coding DNA or pseudogenes, compared to 4% for Y.pestis. Y.pestis has arisen from the enteric pathogen Y.pseudotuberculosis in an eye-blink of evolutionary time (2,000−15,000 years) and thus is at a very early stage of genome decay. Interestingly, many of the genes no longer required by Y.pestis are important for enteropathogenesis of Y.pseudotuberculosis, evidence of remnants of a redundant enteric lifestyle5

But wait, is shrinking genomes restricted to bacteria? Apparently not.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050906081730.htm
Scrupulously shrinking genomes
Scientists generally believe that insertions of retroelements, or "jumping genes," once established in a population, are irreversible and are maintained throughout evolution. This unidirectional theory of retroelement evolution, which calls for ever-expanding genome size, is challenged by work that appears in the September issue of Genome Research.
In this work, Dr. Dixie Mager and her colleagues performed a whole-genome comparison of the human, chimpanzee, and Rhesus monkey sequences, and they identified 37 instances where a retroelement was present in Rhesus (a more primitive primate species) but absent in either humans or chimpanzees. This indicated that these retroelements had been deleted during the evolution of the more recent primate species.

I could go on an on.....

My argument is that ID predicts that if genomes were designed and created as complete, and that life forms require an intelligent design in order to exist, rather than natural causes, then the prediction ID would make is that natural selection and mutation are going to shrink genomes, not expand them. And look was is happening.....

I dont understand why you think shrinking genomes has anything to do with ID. Some genomes expand, some, it seems, shrink. This would require a lot of other evidence of differnt types to suggest anything to do with a creator.

ha.
i'm sorry, i seemed to have missed the bit where you show us evidence supporting genome growth.

you see, there is not a single piece of evidence supporting the theory that DNA information is ever gained. There is plenty of evidence that DNA information always gets lost, however. Think of genetic diseases. in fact, even natural selection (which is not evolution) looses information.
Single celled life-forms changing slowly into humans today has no evidence. New genetic information is never gained, while genetic information is constantly lost.

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20020327/03
Small genomes are still shrinking
The small Buchnera genome is still shrinking toward a minimum set of genes necessary for its symbiotic lifestyle.

Is this evidence for creationism? As an evolutionary biologist I would expect genomes to become smaller. Parts of it become useless, but are still costly t produce. If you're not using them it's best to get rid of them.

http://www.chlamydiae.com/docs/Chlamydiales/ev_genomedegradn.asp
Early investigations on obligate intracellular bacteria suggested that restriction to intracellular habitats had been accompanied by exploitation of host biosynthetic pathways and disappearance of corresponding pathways in the bacteria, presumably by gene loss and inactivation.

What you would expect. No use maintaining biochemical constructs that you're not using.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v32/n3/full/ng1102-335.html
Shrinking genome size is a common feature of obligate intracellular bacteria. This may arise through a reduction of the genetic repertoire previously required to survive as free-living organisms. One example of a bacterium associated with an arthropod in which genome downsizing is apparent is the intracellular Buchnera bacterium, which lives symbiotically in pea aphids2.

Again, don't maintain what you don't need.

Examples of bacteria whose genomes have been sequenced and who rely on insect carriers and cause severe disease in humans include Rickettsia prowazekii3 (typhus), Borrelia burgdorferi4 (Lyme disease) and Yersinia pestis5 (plague). These pathogens represent bacteria at various stages of genome decay, with R. prowazekii having the most severe mutational meltdown-24% of its genome is non-coding DNA or pseudogenes, compared to 4% for Y.pestis. Y.pestis has arisen from the enteric pathogen Y.pseudotuberculosis in an eye-blink of evolutionary time (2,000−15,000 years) and thus is at a very early stage of genome decay. Interestingly, many of the genes no longer required by Y.pestis are important for enteropathogenesis of Y.pseudotuberculosis, evidence of remnants of a redundant enteric lifestyle5

It's evolutionary advantageous to get rid of parts of your genome that are redundant, but it's not like those parts are actively removed. They disappear by chance, mutation. All around us we see redundancy.

But wait, is shrinking genomes restricted to bacteria? Apparently not.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050906081730.htm
Scrupulously shrinking genomes
Scientists generally believe that insertions of retroelements, or "jumping genes," once established in a population, are irreversible and are maintained throughout evolution. This unidirectional theory of retroelement evolution, which calls for ever-expanding genome size, is challenged by work that appears in the September issue of Genome Research.
In this work, Dr. Dixie Mager and her colleagues performed a whole-genome comparison of the human, chimpanzee, and Rhesus monkey sequences, and they identified 37 instances where a retroelement was present in Rhesus (a more primitive primate species) but absent in either humans or chimpanzees. This indicated that these retroelements had been deleted during the evolution of the more recent primate species.

The unidirectional theory of retroelement evolution is a part of ET, but ET is not only unidirectional theory of retroelement evolution. Bravo, you have given a good example of why ET is science: you set up a falsifiable hypothesis, and it holds until an observation conflicts with it.

I could go on an on.....

Please do.

My argument is that ID predicts that if genomes were designed and created as complete, and that life forms require an intelligent design in order to exist, rather than natural causes, then the prediction ID would make is that natural selection and mutation are going to shrink genomes, not expand them. And look was is happening.....

I see nothing here that is not predicted within ET. ET's predictions would be that it is advantageous to get rid of junk DNA, because it is still costly to produce. ET would also predict, however, that it is advantageous not too lose junk DNA too swiftly, because you do not know if/when that DNA that is in the present environment useless will give you an advantage in a future changed environment. ET would further predict that the more stable the environment the quicker you would lose your junk DNA, so endoparasites in general would have smaller genomes than close non-endoparasitic relatives.

Is this evidence for creationism? As an evolutionary biologist I would expect genomes to become smaller. Parts of it become useless, but are still costly t produce. If you're not using them it's best to get rid of them.


But you wouldn't expect genomes to become smaller wherever they are studied. Now that would be a bit too conincidental, wouldn't it?


What you would expect. No use maintaining biochemical constructs that you're not using.


This is also what ID would say.


It's evolutionary advantageous to get rid of parts of your genome that are redundant, but it's not like those parts are actively removed. They disappear by chance, mutation. All around us we see redundancy.


They don't disappear by chance. The are selected against because they are not being used, and everyone knows that replicating unused pieces of DNA is wasted energy. The only 'chance' aspect is when a particular gene is going to undergo a mutation. If it is an important gene, the organism dies. If it is not an important gene, the organism survives, while the gene does not.


The unidirectional theory of retroelement evolution is a part of ET, but ET is not only unidirectional theory of retroelement evolution. Bravo, you have given a good example of why ET is science: you set up a falsifiable hypothesis, and it holds until an observation conflicts with it.


What we have is an observable method for decreasing genome size. Both ET and ID can agree on that. What we don't have is a method for creating new genes, as least not one that can be observed. Therein lies the problem for ET. Shrinking genomes may not be proof of ID. It just fits ID better than it fits ET, which predicts that some genomes (at least) should be expanding. When we observe this, and perhaps the method whereby new genes are introduced into the genome, it may falsify ID's prediction that all genomes will generally either shrink or remain relatively constant.


Please do.


At this stage, it is not necessary to introduce more examples. I believe the point is clear enough.


I see nothing here that is not predicted within ET. ET's predictions would be that it is advantageous to get rid of junk DNA, because it is still costly to produce. ET would also predict, however, that it is advantageous not too lose junk DNA too swiftly, because you do not know if/when that DNA that is in the present environment useless will give you an advantage in a future changed environment. ET would further predict that the more stable the environment the quicker you would lose your junk DNA, so endoparasites in general would have smaller genomes than close non-endoparasitic relatives.

It is true that parasitic bacteria would be more likely to lose genetic information than free-living bacteria. Similar to bacteria cultivated in the rich laboratory media would be more likely to lose their genes then the same species surviving 'out in the wild'. I realize that ET is capable of predicting it, as does ID. However, my point is (let me repeat myself) is that while we have a method for losing genes, we have not one for gaining them. ET is not proven wrong, nor is ID proven right. But it looks like the data fits ID better than ET in this instance.

Indeed, any form of acid is acidic because of the presence of free H(+) atoms, or protons basically.

Well, actually...a proton and a neutron.

A normal H atom is one proton, one neutron, one electron.

knock off the electron and you get an H+ atom, which is a proton and a neutron.

It's not ironic; it's true.

To define is to limit. To attempt to get around that by making an "unlimited" attribute is purely ad hoc and smacks of exaggeration to the nth.
Are you saying you cannot define infinity?
Are you saying that god is a mathematical set without a limit? If so,then god exists solely as a concept, and hence couldn't create the universe.


You cry about me and say I should take a course in logic, but you don't know what AfI is?

Hypocrite.
I do not cry about you...
You certainly are.


Why not take a course in philosophy instead.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

btw, you're making yourself look more and more stupid every minute.



I haven't seen any from you so far. When you get around to using some, let me know, m'kay?
Dodging the issue, I see.
Lying again, I see.


No, they named it Ai because it was in ruins when they got there.
Or they named it that, because when they conquered it, it was a pile of rubbble.
Not with all of the evidence that there was no conquest of Canaan.


You mean the Israeli archaeologist isn't credible? The one who did a lot of research that's documented?
I asked you for the source;
And one was provided for you. Did you not go to your local library and look for the book? If not, then don't cry to me for your lack of initiative.

Why are you being such a child?


Hint: I give you one-liners because you offer such infantile nonsense that all I need do is provide you with one line.
This is not logical.
It absolutely is.

You're in over your head, and you're frantically trying to attack me so that you will not look bad. Not working.


Yep. Creation is a temporal act. So how do you create without time?
I don't create without time. I am bound by "time." A being who is outside what we call "time" does.
How can a being be outside time? Explain that.

Y'see this is what it boils down to: the assumption that beings can be outside of time. That begs the question, drops the context, and steals the concept. IOW: it's fallacious to the core.

Why don't you provide me the ontological base for using words apart from the referent which provides the meaning, i.e. the universe. Unless and until you do, all this crap about a being apart from time and the universe is just the same as typing lkjslk sa oiayr g adliyner,n d xhdf nu5f hs78. IOW: nonsense. Gibberish. Gimblebabble. Garblefarb.

I suppose one can assume, in the context of this thread, that you are referring to 'anything' that can be measured by science. (Your post was rather short, so I will have to make some assumptions about where you are arguing from. Disregard if I am in error.)

If something cannot be measured by science (e.g., love) then it rightly exists outside of scientific experiments (for now anyway), but that does not mean that it doesn't exist, or that science has any authority to assume that it must be explained in terms of natural causes.
Then provide the evidence of the supernatural. Provide the ontology for it.

Without that, any and all claims for the supernatural are simply ad hoc rationalizations. They have no merit. No standing. No claim. No explanatory power. They are the same as "it's magic".

Then provide the evidence of the supernatural. Provide the ontology for it.

Without that, any and all claims for the supernatural are simply ad hoc rationalizations. They have no merit. No standing. No claim. No explanatory power. They are the same as "it's magic".

Exactly. But be careful...the religious hate the "It's magic" phrase.

I'd like to clarify definitions at this point to avoid confusion, in as far as the defintion of magical vs mystical. When watching a magic show on stage, if someone asks you how a trick was done, all one can say really is "I don't know" and be genuinely sincere with that response. There may be a perfectly good explanation, but it is just unavailable.

Mysical, OTOH, just defies explanation, not understanding. It's enitely possible to talk about the taste of apples with someone that has eaten apples, but when it comes to trying to explain how an apple tastes to someone that has never eaten one, one is at a loss for words. It's not that one doesn't understand how an apple tastes, it's just that there is no way to explain it to someone that cannot relate to the experience.

Ahhh.. you mean the data derived from the Kenyan
Kenyon.


digs in the 1950's which were proven false by further research by the Wood digs (in the 1990's) showing that there was a definitive settlement there (based on radio-carbon dating unavailable to Kenyan at the time in the 1950's) around 1410BC...
http://www.netours.com/2003/jericho-debate.htm

http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200110/0363.html

Excerpt from the directly above link:

He got some press in an attempt to redate Jericho city IV. For a contrary view (also a YEC source,Gerald Aardsma) to his proposal see
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/qa/adb/bryantwood.htm. They note that
Wood's attempted redating of Jericho IV contradicts modern radiocarbon dates of that city. And yet Wood seems to stick with his beliefs--not a good
scientific procedure.

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/030BiblicalArchaeology.html

Excerpt from the directly above link:

Before the Christians get that glazed look and contented smile, they should note that Wood offers no evidence at all that proves what he claims—the biblical story. He says there is evidence even though the area where the wall stood is gone, but he does not tell us what it is. He also presumes that the Joshua invasion was in 1400 BC when biblicists for years have said it was about 1200 BC.

He tells us nothing about the piece of wood he dated, but C-14 dates are notoriously unreliable unless carried out with meticulous care, and that particularly means care in selecting and identifying the fragments of carbonaceous material. The charcoal must be related to the site but Wood does not tell us what it was. It might have been a stick from a Bedouin fire, for all we know, and since Wood is so determined in his undisguised prejudice, how can we be sure that other bits of charcoal did not yield different dates, but he has suppressed them?

In fact, the date that Wood cited has been retracted by the British Museum who did the work, along with a whole batch of dates done around the same time because their instruments were wrongly calibrated. The proper date supports Kenyon’s chronology. In 1995, Hendrik J Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht published results from high-precision radiocarbon measurements made on eighteen samples from Jericho. Six of these samples were charred cereal grains—dateable to the year—from the supposed Jericho destruction layer. The outcome was support for Kenyon, and refutation of Wood.

You were saying something about losing scientific credibility?


You seem to be interpreting the "invasion" as it's called as a "War"... Such was not the case.... They were "settlers" by all historically documented evidence who gained "influence" early on during the early 13th Dynasty... By the 15th Dynasty they were "checked" in further advancement and taken over.... by the 17th dynasty they were in utter enslavement, and the 18th Dynasty (New Kingdom) included their expulstion.
Source?



Your iniital statement: "The flood is simply impossible. The rain would have had to fall at something like MACH 3 to get enough water."

That water "source" of document was not just "rain".... So it does make a differnce....
No, it doesn't.




I have... One wonders, from the "sources" you sometime provide, if you've actually ever READ Anything past just what you "wanted" to see...
And yet the "sources" you provide are shown to be bunk.

Meaningless, "creation" is an act, the act of "creating"... There is no temporal reliance upon it.
Yes there is, because action requires time! How the hell do you act without acting in time! Please tell me, as I'd really love to know.


Same occurs in dealing with nature as it stands, and the universe in general... something happened to cause the universe
Nope. Causality does not apply qua universe, but within the universe. Since it is the metaphysical ground, the universe must always exist, and causality cannot apply to it.

But you wouldn't expect genomes to become smaller wherever they are studied. Now that would be a bit too conincidental, wouldn't it?

Now, before we continue. Just why ARE we discussing genome size? Could you explain why this is of importance to ID?

They don't disappear by chance. The are selected against because they are not being used, and everyone knows that replicating unused pieces of DNA is wasted energy. The only 'chance' aspect is when a particular gene is going to undergo a mutation. If it is an important gene, the organism dies. If it is not an important gene, the organism survives, while the gene does not.

Yes, they are selected against. The removal, however, is a stochastic process, as you stop proofreading the DNA sequence.

What we have is an observable method for decreasing genome size. Both ET and ID can agree on that. What we don't have is a method for creating new genes, as least not one that can be observed. Therein lies the problem for ET.

Untrue. Multiplication of genes, recombination... there are many ways to shuffle genomes. Then new genes are created by (point) mutations change genes. Surely you know this with your biology background. Btw this is not particularly an ET point.

Shrinking genomes may not be proof of ID. It just fits ID better than it fits ET, which predicts that some genomes (at least) should be expanding. When we observe this, and perhaps the method whereby new genes are introduced into the genome, it may falsify ID's prediction that all genomes will generally either shrink or remain relatively constant.

I don't know where you get that ET is predicting increasing size genomes. I really don't. In particular cases you predict indeed increased genome size, because of the relationship between C-value and cell size, but I don't know for the love of God why genomes should generally increase in size in ET.

At this stage, it is not necessary to introduce more examples. I believe the point is clear enough.

Frankly, I have no clue what your point is.

It is true that parasitic bacteria would be more likely to lose genetic information than free-living bacteria. Similar to bacteria cultivated in the rich laboratory media would be more likely to lose their genes then the same species surviving 'out in the wild'. I realize that ET is capable of predicting it, as does ID. However, my point is (let me repeat myself) is that while we have a method for losing genes, we have not one for gaining them. ET is not proven wrong, nor is ID proven right. But it looks like the data fits ID better than ET in this instance.

I'm sorry, but your last statement makes absolutely no sense to me. Please explain to me why we are discussing genome size. I think I can make a guess (genomes are designed to be as afficient as possible etc etc) but I'd like to be sure.

Before i say anything about this, i'd like to answer a question: Has anybody here actually researched the science behind creationism?
You can't, as there is no science behind it. What is behind creationism is this simple spewing: "goddidit".


i doubt it. because you are all treating it as if it is a theory which is somehow beneath the theory of evolution. a closer look will reveal that they have about equal evidence.
No, there is no evidence for creationism, and tons of evidence for evolution.


you cannot prove evolution, and you cannot prove creationism.
Evolution has been proven.


now, on to rebutting this quote.
first: you are saying that the theory of creationism is "non-science". Not true. is is backed up by scientific evidence.
Then you can provide it.



Secondly, your are jumping to conclusions. The flat-Earth theory had no scientific evidence behind it.
Other than all the observations people made of the earth appearing flat from horizon to horizon, you mean.

Creationism does however.
No, it does not.


Thirdly, you said that "Religion is irrelevant in science." but as Albert Einstein said:
Irrelevant appeal to authority.


If you see an invention, one very good way to understand it is to ask the inventor how it works.
This is the same with science and religion. To understand how the world around us works, it'd be a good idea to ask the creator.
Blatant question begging.


If you would like me to tell you about some very simple pieces of evidence for creationism, and against evolution, let me know.
You can try, but you will fail, since there is no evidence for creationism and no evidence against evolution.

Hint: try http://www.talkorigins.org for some research. And please, don't even think about referring people to Kent "The Fraud" Hovind's website. You will be laughed at.

Before i say anything about this, i'd like to answer a question: Has anybody here actually researched the science behind creationism?

How can you - there is no science involved in creationism it is a fairy story.

i doubt it. because you are all treating it as if it is a theory which is somehow beneath the theory of evolution. a closer look will reveal that they have about equal evidence. you cannot prove evolution, and you cannot prove creationism.

There is no evidence for a supernatural creation. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. The first is a fairy story, the latter is real science.

now, on to rebutting this quote.
first: you are saying that the theory of creationism is "non-science". Not true. is is backed up by scientific evidence.

Find some - go on, just one little bit - I dare you.

just like evolution.
Secondly, your are jumping to conclusions. The flat-Earth theory had no scientific evidence behind it. Creationism does however.

Find some - go on, just one little bit - I dare you.

If you teach creationism, you won't have to comprimise the definition of a scientific theory.

Why do you want fairy stories in schools?

Thirdly, you said that "Religion is irrelevant in science." but as Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...."
Science is the study of how things around us work. Religion is about how things were made, and how it is relevent to us.

Rubbish. Science explains everything. Religion just gives us fairy stories.

If you see an invention, one very good way to understand it is to ask the inventor how it works.
This is the same with science and religion. To understand how the world around us works, it'd be a good idea to ask the creator.

We tried that, the bugger never answers.

If you would like me to tell you about some very simple pieces of evidence for creationism, and against evolution, let me know.

Find some - go on, just one little bit - I dare you.

My argument is that ID predicts that if genomes were designed and created as complete, and that life forms require an intelligent design in order to exist, rather than natural causes, then the prediction ID would make is that natural selection and mutation are going to shrink genomes, not expand them. And look was is happening.....

This takes the cake. You come up with a non-ID hypothesis, then invoke evolutionary principles to come to a conclusion that supports ID...

The shrinking genomes are an argument against ET, not in favour of ID. It's one of the oldest anti-ET arguments I know. ID does NOT claim that genomes are designed and created as complete. Every IDer can see for himself that genomes are ever changing. In the case of bacterial genomes you cannot even speak of a particular species-bound genome.

Then natural selection and mutation destroy your perfect genome? That's silly. Why make a perfect design, then let it be ruined by chance processes? And just for the record, mutation works both ways. It can increase genome size as well as destroy it. Duplication of genes, permuations, recombination...

So we end up with shrinking genomes, an argument of the old creationist opponents of ET. Mind you, this was an argument long before somebody thought of ID. Everywhere you look you see shrinking genomes, it's true. But if you look closer you see all kinds of organisms in which C-value increases. Some organisms have HUGE genomes, that become even more huge as we speak. Some organisms decrease their C value, but retain the number of functional genes. Others increase their C value, but lower the number of functional genes. There is no trend but the "the more stable an environment is, the smaller an organism's genome can be" trend.

Oh because we know the religious groups are oh so tolerant.

They claim the right to discriminate on the basis of their religion, (ie not hire homosexuals and head start money going to groups that say they have the right to only hire christian teachers) and yet they are being desciminated against because a univirsity that has no obligation to accept every applicant is discriminating against them because their text books are found lacking.

If they want a religious "science" class then they should probably go to Bob Jones University.

ew. i'm a christian, but Bob Jones is going waaaay to far for me. Almost all of the people i know that are christians think that bob jones is going extreme. i mean seriously... separate sidewalks for different genders? good grief...

ew. i'm a christian, but Bob Jones is going waaaay to far for me. Almost all of the people i know that are christians think that bob jones is going extreme. i mean seriously... separate sidewalks for different genders? good grief...

Then maybe it's time you and your fellow Christians took a stand against these people?

How can you - there is no science involved in creationism it is a fairy story.



There is no evidence for a supernatural creation. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. The first is a fairy story, the latter is real science.



Find some - go on, just one little bit - I dare you.



Find some - go on, just one little bit - I dare you.



Why do you want fairy stories in schools?



Rubbish. Science explains everything. Religion just gives us fairy stories.



We tried that, the bugger never answers.



Find some - go on, just one little bit - I dare you.

evidence against evolution:

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

How can you - there is no science involved in creationism it is a fairy story.



There is no evidence for a supernatural creation. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. The first is a fairy story, the latter is real science.



Find some - go on, just one little bit - I dare you.



Find some - go on, just one little bit - I dare you.



Why do you want fairy stories in schools?



Rubbish. Science explains everything. Religion just gives us fairy stories.



We tried that, the bugger never answers.



Find some - go on, just one little bit - I dare you.

more evidence agains evolution:

The following are just some of the little publicised facts which contradict the "proven fact" of evolution theory.

1. FOSSILS
(A) The oldest rocks (Pre-Cambrian) have been searched for many years but no undisputed fossils have been found. The Cambrian rocks immediately above, however, contain numerous fully developed complex invertebrates. This sudden appearance of life in the strata has been a major problem for the evolutionists (Fig.1).

Minute objects found in Precambrian strata are claimed to be primordial cells. Even if they are there is an enormous gap between such microscopic objects and the complex invertebrates such as the trilobites which suddenly appear perfectly formed in the Cambrian strata above.

(B) Despite searching the strata for over 100 years, fossils which would close the gaps between classes and even species have NOT been found, as many evolutionists are now prepared to admit. In proposing their new theory of "punctuated equilibrium", Drs. Gould and Eldredge accept that these gaps still exist.


2. THE HORSE 'SERIES'
When challenged to produce a series of fossils demonstrating the transition of one species into another, the 4-3-1 toe evolution of the horse is frequently presented as evidence. However,

(A) Over twenty different geneological 'trees' have been drawn up by various scientists. This is because there are 250 similar looking animals to chose from. Those which contradict the series are ignored.

(B) All the known species of birds and mammals appear and 'diversify' within the last 150 Million years according to the evolutionists geological time scale. At this rate, the 70 million years it has taken simply to modify a horse's hoof is far too large a proportion of the time since mammals first appeared. There is therefore something seriously wrong with the time scale.

(C) Some animals used in the sequence have differing numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae, indicating that various species have been used to compile the series, but this is ignored as this contradicts the theory. Most of these fossil animals have been found in America. Yet the first fossils of modern horses they are supposed to lead up to are found in Europe. (Present American horses are a recent introduction). Two evolutionists - Prof. George Gaylord Simpson said "It never happened in nature" and Charles Deperet called it "a deceitful illusion"


3. ARCHAEOPTERYX
This bird is claimed to be the link between reptiles and birds. But it had perfectly formed feathers which are very complex in design. There can be over a million minute hooks on one feather. Nothing which is half way between a feather and a reptile's scale has ever been found. An animal with half developed wings could neither run nor fly properly and would be quickly eliminated. Finally, Archaeopteryx is irrelevant, as a fossil of a normal bird has been found in strata of same dating as Archeopteryx.


4. BIRDS
(A) Evolutionists cannot determine how birds evolved by studying existing species. Special types of skulls, feathers, hollow bones, etc., appear 'randomly' in existing species making classification impossible.

(B) Nesting habits of some birds cannot be learnt, e.g. the mud nest of the House Martin has to be right first time or the eggs will fall.


5. GENETIC EXPERIMENTS
After breeding over one million fruit flies, they still obstinately remain fruit flies! There is a wide variety of dog BREEDS but they are still dogs. Species bred beyond limits develop serious deformities. Darwin bred pigeons and knew this fact but in his "Origins of Species" he glossed over what is an impassable barrier to the "evolution" of one species from another.


6. RECAPITULATION THEORY
This is the theory that the development of a fertilised germ cell retraces the history of the species.(e.g. that gill 'slits' in the human embryo are relics of its fish ancestry). This theory, once hailed as the Biogenic LAW is now discredited even by evolutionists. However it is still implied in some books. Prof. Haeckel (a fiery supporter of Darwin) faked his drawings to support the theory but was convicted by a University court.


7. ORIGIN OF LIFE
(A) Passing a spark through a mixture of gasses forms simple amino acids but -

(B) they are only the very simplest of 'building blocks' used in the formation of larger organic molecules.

(C) they must be caught in a cold trap to prevent the spark from destroying them

(D) a reducing (non oxygen) atmosphere is necessary.

(E) any amino acids forming would have been destroyed by the ultra-violet rays of the Sun. These conditions would not have occurred in nature.

(F) Even allowing millions of years, there has still been insufficient time or material in the whole universe for very complex organic molecules to have formed BY CHANCE.


8. PEPPERED MOTH
There are two varieties - the light and the dark. Elimination of the light variety is NOT evolution. They are still Peppered Moths. Kettlewell's experiments were specifically designed to get the results he wanted and were seriously flawed. Results contradicting his evolutionary views were ignored.


9. WHALES
Evolutionists are unable to explain how the whale, which is a mammal, went back into the sea without leaving any fossil evidence of intermediate forms.


10. DUCK BILLED PLATYPUS
This strange animal has:

(A) a soft, sensitive "bill" and lays eggs like a duck

(B) fur like an animal,

(C) webbed and clawed feet,

(D) pockets in its jaws to carry food,

(E) a spur on rear legs which is poisonous like a snake's fang.

A question for the evolutionist- what were its ancestors?


11. RADIOMETRIC DATING
This method is used to give an age to rocks (and thereby the fossils they bear) but it rests upon several unprovable assumptions, e.g.

(A) Radioactive conditions are the same today as they were millions of years ago.

(B) The 'half life' of the elements is constant.

(C) No products of the radioactive decay were originally present nor have been added since the formation of the rock.

These are all very large suppositions that cannot be easily checked in the field for every sample.

When the same stratum is tested by different methods or even by the same method, it frequently gives an enormous range of ages. For example, one rock gave 14, 30, 95 and 750 million years by different methods. In another case, dating of the same rock for Leakey's 1470 'Man' gave 220 million years and 2.6 million years using the Potassium-Argon method. It is sometimes said that, despite discrepancies, radiometric dating shows that rocks are millions of years old, not thousands. One answer is that the 'daughter' elements found in some rocks are naturally occurring along with many other elements. To infer vast ages from the ratios of the elements found in rocks is unwarranted. The only reason why the results of Radiometric Dating tests are quoted is that they give ages in terms of millions of years. Other methods giving only thousands are completely ignored.

All these long ages are greatly reduced due to the speed of light being VERY much higher in the past. - SEE THE SECTION ON THE DECREASE OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT ON PAGE 3 - EVIDENCE FOR GENESIS]


12. CARBON 14
This is a radioactive form of Carbon and all living organisms have a small amount of C14 within them. However, the level is not constant as the ground level activity is still rising. i.e. the amount of C14 is not yet in equilibrium. This makes the true age shorter than apparent age (Fig. 2). This method is quite unreliable for ages over 3,000 years despite datings up to 40,000 years being quoted.

Then maybe it's time you and your fellow Christians took a stand against these people?

all i'm saying is that it's not for me, and it's not for a lot of other people out there. i don't think they're being morally wrong. it's not like they're FORCING people to go there, either...

You should post your sources: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

That's where you got this load of tripe from.

evidence against evolution:

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.
Lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4



Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Unsupported assertion. Rejected as such.


Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life,
Evolution says nothing about the origin of life.


matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Unsupported assertion. Rejected as such.


Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent.
Lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/


Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.
Lie. See the above link.


Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all.
Lie. Again, see the above link.


Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Unsupported assertion. Rejected as such.


Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
Blatant lie.


Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.
Blatant lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

more evidence agains evolution:
More lies from http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/evol.htm , you mean.


1. FOSSILS
(A) The oldest rocks (Pre-Cambrian) have been searched for many years but no undisputed fossils have been found. The Cambrian rocks immediately above, however, contain numerous fully developed complex invertebrates. This sudden appearance of life in the strata has been a major problem for the evolutionists (Fig.1).
Lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html


(B) Despite searching the strata for over 100 years, fossils which would close the gaps between classes and even species have NOT been found, as many evolutionists are now prepared to admit. In proposing their new theory of "punctuated equilibrium", Drs. Gould and Eldredge accept that these gaps still exist.
Gaps are supposed to exist. Not everything gets fossilized.

But cretinists don't grasp that.


2. THE HORSE 'SERIES'
When challenged to produce a series of fossils demonstrating the transition of one species into another, the 4-3-1 toe evolution of the horse is frequently presented as evidence. However,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html



(B) All the known species of birds and mammals appear and 'diversify' within the last 150 Million years according to the evolutionists geological time scale. At this rate, the 70 million years it has taken simply to modify a horse's hoof is far too large a proportion of the time since mammals first appeared.
Blatant assertion. Rejected as such.


(C) Some animals used in the sequence have differing numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae, indicating that various species have been used to compile the series, but this is ignored as this contradicts the theory
Blatant lie.


. Most of these fossil animals have been found in America. Yet the first fossils of modern horses they are supposed to lead up to are found in Europe. (Present American horses are a recent introduction). Two evolutionists - Prof. George Gaylord Simpson said "It never happened in nature" and Charles Deperet called it "a deceitful illusion"
No sources. Rejected.


3. ARCHAEOPTERYX
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html


4. BIRDS
(A) Evolutionists cannot determine how birds evolved by studying existing species. Special types of skulls, feathers, hollow bones, etc., appear 'randomly' in existing species making classification impossible.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html


(B) Nesting habits of some birds cannot be learnt, e.g. the mud nest of the House Martin has to be right first time or the eggs will fall.
No relevance.



5. GENETIC EXPERIMENTS
After breeding over one million fruit flies, they still obstinately remain fruit flies!
Yes. And the moron who wrote this doesn't think that speciation happens. But....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

6. RECAPITULATION THEORY
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701_1.html


7. ORIGIN OF LIFE
Has nothing to do with evolution.

(A) Passing a spark through a mixture of gasses forms simple amino acids but -

(B) they are only the very simplest of 'building blocks' used in the formation of larger organic molecules.

(C) they must be caught in a cold trap to prevent the spark from destroying them

(D) a reducing (non oxygen) atmosphere is necessary.
And that was the pre-biotic atmosphere.


(E) any amino acids forming would have been destroyed by the ultra-violet rays of the Sun. These conditions would not have occurred in nature.
Lie.


(F) Even allowing millions of years, there has still been insufficient time or material in the whole universe for very complex organic molecules to have formed BY CHANCE.
Blatant assertion, strawman, and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/


8. PEPPERED MOTH
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths



9. WHALES
Evolutionists are unable to explain how the whale, which is a mammal, went back into the sea without leaving any fossil evidence of intermediate forms.
Blatant lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/


10. DUCK BILLED PLATYPUS
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

Are you seriously going to tell me that some god designed the platypus?



11. RADIOMETRIC DATING
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html



All these long ages are greatly reduced due to the speed of light being VERY much higher in the past. - SEE THE SECTION ON THE DECREASE OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT ON PAGE 3 - EVIDENCE FOR GENESIS]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html


12. CARBON 14
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

more evidence agains evolution:

The following are just some of the little publicised facts which contradict the "proven fact" of evolution theory.

And so it begins...Fossils, horses, birds, moths and whales. It's one big conspiracy.

1. FOSSILS
(A) The oldest rocks (Pre-Cambrian) have been searched for many years but no undisputed fossils have been found. The Cambrian rocks immediately above, however, contain numerous fully developed complex invertebrates. This sudden appearance of life in the strata has been a major problem for the evolutionists (Fig.1).

Minute objects found in Precambrian strata are claimed to be primordial cells. Even if they are there is an enormous gap between such microscopic objects and the complex invertebrates such as the trilobites which suddenly appear perfectly formed in the Cambrian strata above.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion. It is the time when the first phyla with hard parts appeared. Before that: a lot of life, but with soft parts. You know how hard it is for something to become a fossil? You know how hard it is for something to become a fossil without hard parts? Almost impossible. But they did find fossils. Of course the arguments you're using are ancient, so they are not included in your little list.

(B) Despite searching the strata for over 100 years, fossils which would close the gaps between classes and even species have NOT been found, as many evolutionists are now prepared to admit. In proposing their new theory of "punctuated equilibrium", Drs. Gould and Eldredge accept that these gaps still exist.

Don't give me this crap. The punctuated equilibrium theory was new in 1977. In 28 years a lot of new findings were done. A lot of early mammal fossils were dug up, whales with legs etc. etc.

(B) All the known species of birds and mammals appear and 'diversify' within the last 150 Million years according to the evolutionists geological time scale. At this rate, the 70 million years it has taken simply to modify a horse's hoof is far too large a proportion of the time since mammals first appeared. There is therefore something seriously wrong with the time scale.

This is completely BS. Some species change within millions of years, some change in front of you, some change over tens of millions of years.

3. ARCHAEOPTERYX
This bird is claimed to be the link between reptiles and birds. But it had perfectly formed feathers which are very complex in design. There can be over a million minute hooks on one feather. Nothing which is half way between a feather and a reptile's scale has ever been found. An animal with half developed wings could neither run nor fly properly and would be quickly eliminated. Finally, Archaeopteryx is irrelevant, as a fossil of a normal bird has been found in strata of same dating as Archeopteryx.

Why would an animal that can neither run or fly properly be quickly eliminated? But first, why do you assume it could neither run or fly properly? And please oh please give me the link to the bird in the same strata. Apparently its existence has never been published, and such a discovery would guarantee me a nice fat grant.

4. BIRDS
(A) Evolutionists cannot determine how birds evolved by studying existing species. Special types of skulls, feathers, hollow bones, etc., appear 'randomly' in existing species making classification impossible.

Evolutionist couldn't when this list was set up. Which was in the late 90's of the 19th century?

(B) Nesting habits of some birds cannot be learnt, e.g. the mud nest of the House Martin has to be right first time or the eggs will fall.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.


5. GENETIC EXPERIMENTS
After breeding over one million fruit flies, they still obstinately remain fruit flies! There is a wide variety of dog BREEDS but they are still dogs. Species bred beyond limits develop serious deformities. Darwin bred pigeons and knew this fact but in his "Origins of Species" he glossed over what is an impassable barrier to the "evolution" of one species from another.

Well, SOME research was done in the years after Darwin... The concept of the species was changed, sympatric speciation and allopatric speciation was debated, and ET came up with terms like postzygotic reproductive isolation and so on. What that is? Cross a bouvier with a chihuahua, and see if they get offspring...

6. RECAPITULATION THEORY
This is the theory that the development of a fertilised germ cell retraces the history of the species.(e.g. that gill 'slits' in the human embryo are relics of its fish ancestry). This theory, once hailed as the Biogenic LAW is now discredited even by evolutionists. However it is still implied in some books. Prof. Haeckel (a fiery supporter of Darwin) faked his drawings to support the theory but was convicted by a University court.

Haeckel's theory was falsified. It happens in science.


7. ORIGIN OF LIFE
(A) Passing a spark through a mixture of gasses forms simple amino acids but - ]

(B) they are only the very simplest of 'building blocks' used in the formation of larger organic molecules.

(C) they must be caught in a cold trap to prevent the spark from destroying them

(D) a reducing (non oxygen) atmosphere is necessary.

(E) any amino acids forming would have been destroyed by the ultra-violet rays of the Sun. These conditions would not have occurred in nature.

(F) Even allowing millions of years, there has still been insufficient time or material in the whole universe for very complex organic molecules to have formed BY CHANCE. [/QUOTE

Miller-Urey was dismissed years ago as a too simple model for the origin of life. Which is related to ET, but is not a part of it.

[QUOTE=Alagos]9. WHALES
Evolutionists are unable to explain how the whale, which is a mammal, went back into the sea without leaving any fossil evidence of intermediate forms.

COME ON!!!! AT LEAST CHECK WHAT YOU POST HERE!!! Five minutes with Google would have shown you the whales-with-legs fossils. now bugger off to flat Earth...

I suppose one can assume, in the context of this thread, that you are referring to 'anything' that can be measured by science. (Your post was rather short, so I will have to make some assumptions about where you are arguing from. Disregard if I am in error.)

If something cannot be measured by science (e.g., love) then it rightly exists outside of scientific experiments (for now anyway), but that does not mean that it doesn't exist, or that science has any authority to assume that it must be explained in terms of natural causes.

To take it a step further, if someone claims to have an experience of the supernatural, one that forever changed his life, would it be a rational thing for him to then turn around and attempt to explain that experience in terms of natural causes or his own imagination (technically also a natural cause, since it exists in the natural world)? Would it not be more rational to consider that a supernatural experience may be at least a possibility? If you see my point, you will see that I'm suggesting the irrationality of closing your mind to a supernatural explanation, simply because it is supernatural. Apparently, the fact that the supernatural is supernatural is enough for many folk to discard it as false or useless.

On the other hand, when the science community can demonstrate that a cause for an observation is completely natural, then there is no need to invoke the supernatural, except, perhaps, as a source of the natural cause (since every cause needs a cause). In that sense, the supernatural does not directly explain the first observation, but it does explain the second (i.e., the cause of the first observation). In this way, the supernatural cannot explain everything, but everything can be explained with reference to the supernatural (e.g. that the supernatural is somewhere in the background, as a secondary cause).

To contrast that with a totally naturalistic way of thinking, the naturalists cannot explain e.g. why a big bang happened in the first place. Thus, the supernatural does explain some things that have no other explanation. (We don't get any proof of this from science. We are only dealing with the philosophical issue here.)

Perhaps it would help to look at it this way. Is it logical to blame the supernatural for the sin of a paedophiliac person? Would you say that supernatural made him do it? Perhaps one could explain how God made him do it? But it isn't very rational.

Perhaps you conclude this simply because some explanations invoking the supernatural as a cause have been wrong in the past, and now we know enough about our universe to conclude that there is no such thing as the supernatural. That's not rational either.


if it can't be explained outside of science, then we are reduced to "he said-she said" arguments since there's no way to disprove or prove it. Therefore supernatural things that cannot be proven by science are irrelevant for proving the existence of anything since you can by their very nature use them to explain ANYTHING-- since none of them can have anything known about them, all of them are equally valid or invalid, and thus, useless.

And yet the "sources" you provide are shown to be bunk.

My source was YOUR source (the last fucking paragraph that you couldn't seem to read)...

However, radiologically Wood is correct, so I could care less about the retarded non-sense spewed by the non-qualified personnel who wrote your further sources.... Assuming MBA C14 and then using that for base analysis to derive the "mean date" automatically scewed the further dating.... And contrary to their claims "wood" is not less reliable that grain, or indeed any other remnant of organic material found on a site (espectially considering the charing which occured during a fire). Anyone trained in radiometry would recognize that bunk for what it is.

I have a question about evolution. If it's true, then how come humans haven't changed at all for at least 6,000 years?

Just an article i've found. I really want to hear about what other people have to say in favor of evolution, but not just idiotical "everything else is purely myth, because i say, or because some famous scientists believe it", or any "it's a lie because i can't think of a good come-back for it". That's not what you say, but that's what you think. so here it is:

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
A Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis & Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box
by Robert Locke

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution. These two books – Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box – describe this phenomenon.

The first surprising thing Denton points out is that there has always been a dissident faction of highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have declined to concede that evolution has been proved. This is inconvenient for evolutionists who would like to dismiss their opponents as Bible-thumping hicks and claim that questioning evolution is tantamount to questioning the value or validity of science. He also points out biologists like Richard Owen, who were prepared to allow that evolution had taken place but thought that other causes were involved in bringing about the origin of species.

The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn’t. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it is massively systematic across different species and time periods. Worse, this problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don’t fill in the gaps. In Darwin's day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven't found these intermediate forms. As Denton puts it,

"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."

The quantity, quality, and range of the recovered fossils is impeccable. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates. Various ad hoc explanations for the gaps in the fossil record, like a temporary dearth in the environment of the chemicals needed for organisms to produce the hard body parts that fossilize well, do not stand scrutiny.

The usual response of evolutionists at this stage in the argument is a theory they call punctuated equilibrium, Gould’s great contribution, which basically says that evolution occurs not gradually but in spurts. This would explain why there are gaps and not continuity in the fossil record. The problem with this theory, which is too complex to go into in detail here, is that while it explains away the non-existence of small gradations, it still requires there to be large ones (the individual spurts) and even these aren't in the record. Furthermore, for punctuated equilibrium to have occurred, a very precise set of conditions have to have obtained throughout the entire past period represented in the fossils, and this is unlikely.

Another development that has undermined evolution is the spread of computers into evolutionary biology. Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind’s tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data. Computers have shown that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree. The data say "no evolution" just as loudly as they say "evolution"; it’s just the pattern-craving human mind that gives prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as phenetic analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, (this is called cladistic analysis) it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands. As a result of this, many biologists have in practice stopped using the idea of ancestors and descendants when classifying new species. When the British Museum of Natural History did this a few years ago, they started a small war in scientific circles.

Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will.

Furthermore, Denton argues, the classic cases printed in biology textbooks to show the evolution of present-day organisms from their supposed ancestors are in fact highly conjectural if not downright false. We read the same examples coming up again and again in textbook after textbook because there are only a few species for which an even remotely plausible fossil genealogy can be propounded out of the 100,000 fossil species known to paleontology. He takes the horse as an example and points out that several of the standard claims about the pattern of equine evolution, such as the gradual reduction of the side toes, are extremely questionable and that the morphological distance covered from the earliest horse to the present horses is so small, compared with the vast changes that evolution must encompass, that it is questionable whether the series, even if true, proves much at all. And even the emergence of one species from another has never been directly observed by science.

Another problem with evolution that continues to worsen is that it remains incapable of explaining how anything could evolve that doesn't make biological sense when incomplete. The wings of birds are the classic example: what good is half of one? Other examples abound. This is a problem that evolutionary theory has promised a solution to for a long time and not delivered. Worse even than visible examples like wings are the complex chemical reactions and molecular structures that living things are made of. This is the principal point of Darwin's Black Box (these micro-processes are the black boxes), a book too technical to be satisfying reading for the layman but that convincingly argues that many of these micro-processes make sense either complete or not at all. There are no plausible accounts of how they could have evolved from other simpler processes because as one hypothesizes back down the hypothetical chain of complexity, one comes to a point at which the process simply won’t work if it gets any simpler. At this stage, the process couldn’t have evolved from anything else because there is nothing simpler for it to have evolved from. And at this stage, the process is still far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. At one time, knowledge of the complex processes of living things was limited enough, and hopes for the discovery of intermediate processes that they could have evolved from wide-open enough, that evolutionists could ignore this problem. But as biological research has progressed, this gap too has been filled with more and more inconvenient facts. As in the case of the other problems challenging evolution, the key thing here is the intellectual direction: research is consistently making the problem worse, not better.

Another similar example: one of the things that has happened since evolution was first proposed is that biology has achieved a precise cataloging of the thousands of different proteins that make up organisms. It was hoped that a thorough cross-species comparison of these would reveal the kinds of relationships of graded similarity that evolution implies. But it hasn’t. Instead, it has given the same picture of distinct species that examination of gross anatomy does. It’s the same old story of a tree with all twigs and no branches! Worse, analysis of the closeness and distance between different species reveals bizarre results. For example, according to the sequence difference matrix of vertebrate hemoglobins in the standard Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function, man is as close to a lamprey as are fish! This problem repeats itself with other characteristics of organisms that have been brought within the scope of evolutionary comparison since Darwin’s day.

Another problem with evolution that has only gotten worse with increasing biological knowledge is the question of how life initially emerged from dead matter. As recently as the early 50's, it was still possible to hypothesize that discoveries would reveal the existence of entities intermediate between single-celled organisms and complex lifeless molecules. The existence of these intermediates (certain kinds of viruses were candidates for the role) would imply the possibility of an evolutionary transition from dead chemicals to intermediates to life. Unfortunately, the discovery of DNA in 1953 killed this hypothesis in its simplest form, and subsequent discoveries have only made the matter worse. Vast numbers of microorganisms are now known, as are vast numbers of complex molecules, but nothing in between. Furthermore, even the simplest possible cell imaginable within the limits of biology, let alone the simplest actually existing cell, is far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. So even if evolution has an explanation of how species evolve from one to another, it has no way to "get the ball rolling" by producing the first species from something that is not a species.

There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind. Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn’t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn’t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science. What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.

Anyone who doubts that the bulk of the scientific community could be wrong about a fundamental question like this should consider the case of Newtonian physics, which was thought to be unshakable until Einstein disproved it. (Lest anybody quibble about the approximate validity of Newtonian physics at non-relativistic speeds, may I point out that Newtonian physics was formerly thought to be valid at all speeds, throughout the universe, and this Einstein refuted.) Evolution is not a fraud being perpetrated upon the public, but it is a theory that has far too many problems to be treated as something that everyone is obliged to believe in on pain of being classified as a fool, as if it were the claim that the earth goes around the sun. Its credibility will continue to wane (or wax) with additional developments in biology over the coming years, but the absolute prerequisite for solving this intellectual puzzle is for free debate on the issue to be permitted again. I am quite happy to change my position if new facts come out, and I urge my readers that this is the only rational view.

My source was YOUR source (the last fucking paragraph that you couldn't seem to read)...
No, it wasn't.


However, radiologically Wood is correct
Radiologically, Wood has been proven wrong.

Lie to me some more, I dare you.

I have a question about evolution. If it's true, then how come humans haven't changed at all for at least 6,000 years?
They have.

I have a question: if creation is true, why do we have no evidence of it? Why do we have no evidence of god?

ID theory is going to be thrown out. It might win some court cases but it simply can't stand up to scrutiny. If it doesn't fall down today, it will tomorrow.

Just an article i've found. I really want to hear about what other people have to say in favor of evolution, but not just idiotical "everything else is purely myth, because i say, or because some famous scientists believe it", or any "it's a lie because i can't think of a good come-back for it". That's not what you say, but that's what you think. so here it is:

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
A Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis & Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box
by Robert Locke
Behe's IC has been shot down hardcore.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Denton fares little better:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

Now then--want to respond to all the annihilations of your crap? Or do you just want to keep making a fool of yourself and preach on?

I have a question about evolution. If it's true, then how come humans haven't changed at all for at least 6,000 years?
Well, I'm not so sure about humans not changing in the past 6,000 years. Is there actually evidence to support that claim?

If it truly is the case that humans haven't changed, the best I could do is explain why humanity hasn't changed much since civilization. That would be because civilization, medicine, governments, agriculture, and all that allow those with inferior genes to survive. Having genes that code for something that might matter a lot in nature matter a bit less when you aren't competing with your life at stake.

Yes there is, because action requires time! How the hell do you act without acting in time! Please tell me, as I'd really love to know.

So you (and the rest of us) don't exist, since there could be no "event" by which we are here, since at one point there was no "time" (itself being a product of the 'big-bang' and the formation of our "universe").

Action does not "require" time, sorry pal... for YOU action requires time because YOU ARE CONSTRAINED BY "TIME" (and indeed many other aspects of what you observe as "reality"); you're a "temporal" being, in a "temporal" world observing things from a "temporal" refference point. Your problem is that you can't lift yourself past the three basic dimentions.


Nope. Causality does not apply qua universe, but within the universe. Since it is the metaphysical ground, the universe must always exist, and causality cannot apply to it.

You need to learn the meaning of "qua". "Casuality does not apply [from/for/as/who] the universe..." makes no sense.... Undoubtedly you meant to say "absque", "sine" or at least the OE/ME/OF equivalent "sans".... However, such is not the case...

The universe can't "always" exist, given that it has a definitive start point. Always implies PAST and FUTURE existance... Though it has existed for "all time" (as time is a function of the universe) however time has a "beginning" itself, and therefore is not "always".... Time only exists infinitely in one direction...

They have.

I have a question: if creation is true, why do we have no evidence of it? Why do we have no evidence of god?

we do have evidence. you're just obliviously blind to the world around you. i mean, seriously. how could things possibly form from nothing by themselves and create something logical? and HOW have humans changed?

good grief people. we all have our beliefs. I'm going to say i'm right, and you're going to say you're right. no matter how much we argue about it neither of us is going to change our views. because you know that when somebody is arguing against someone else, the other person isn't gonna be like, "oh, you're right! i see the light now!". but seriously, i'm not going to sit here thinking and calling you an idiot about what you believe. I'm not saying you're right, and i'm not agreeing with you, but you're not an idiot for your beliefs. and i'd appreciate it if you'd not consider me an idiot either

Well, I'm not so sure about humans not changing in the past 6,000 years. Is there actually evidence to support that claim?

If it truly is the case that humans haven't changed, the best I could do is explain why humanity hasn't changed much since civilization. That would be because civilization, medicine, governments, agriculture, and all that allow those with inferior genes to survive. Having genes that code for something that might matter a lot in nature matter a bit less when you aren't competing with your life at stake.

yeah, but how could genes know when they need to change or not? i'm not shooting you down, i just want to hear your opinion about it.

we do have evidence. you're just obliviously blind to the world around you. i mean, seriously. how could things possibly form from nothing by themselves and create something logical? and HOW have humans changed?
1. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
2. Look at the fossils of early men. You don't suppose they're the same as we are now.

You should post your sources: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

That's where you got this load of tripe from.


Lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4




Unsupported assertion. Rejected as such.



Evolution says nothing about the origin of life.



Unsupported assertion. Rejected as such.



Lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/



Lie. See the above link.



Lie. Again, see the above link.



Unsupported assertion. Rejected as such.



Blatant lie.



Blatant lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

i have a question for you.. if the "fishes" (as the writer of the first article you gave me) turned to birds, then why are there still "fishes" today?

1. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
2. Look at the fossils of early men. You don't suppose they're the same as we are now.

actually, evolution does have to do with the origin of life. ever heard of "the big bang"?
i couldn't say if the fossils of early men are the same as we are now, because i haven't seen the fossils of early men. have you? and how have you seen them to be different? and supposing doesn't mean that anything is true or false.

actually, evolution does have to do with the origin of life. ever heard of "the big bang"?
i couldn't say if the fossils of early men are the same as we are now, because i haven't seen the fossils of early men. have you? and how have you seen them to be different? and supposing doesn't mean that anything is true or false.

1. Wow are you kidding me here. Evolution and the big bang are two SEPERATE scientific theories that deal with different things. Jeez I mean if your going to debate something have a basic understanding of it first.
2. I am not an expert on early human beings so off the top of my head I can't give you any information.

actually, evolution does have to do with the origin of life. ever heard of "the big bang"?


Well those are two different theories that talk about two different things.

Evolution is not about the orgin of life.


i couldn't say if the fossils of early men are the same as we are now, because i haven't seen the fossils of early men. have you? and how have you seen them to be different? and supposing doesn't mean that anything is true or false.

If you want a look at some, here you go.
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/hominidae.htm
They are different in their own ways. The biggest distinction is the cranial cavity. Capacities are different. Growing larger. But there is Neandertal which had the largest capacity. It is one of those things I don't think they have been able to explain yet.

i have a question for you.. if the "fishes" (as the writer of the first article you gave me) turned to birds, then why are there still "fishes" today?

Evolution is not species transformation.

Why do we still have Lemurs, Tarsiers, and Lorises?

Evolution is not species transformation.

Why do we still have Lemurs, Tarsiers, and Lorises?

so are you saying that one day humans will just be stupid creatures compared to the next "smartest creature". aren't you a little insulted that somebody actually thinks that you're just a level up than an ape?

so are you saying that one day humans will just be stupid creatures compared to the next "smartest creature". aren't you a little insulted that somebody actually thinks that you're just a level up than an ape?

No I think what he is saying is that flys will not turn in to horses and such.

so are you saying that one day humans will just be stupid creatures compared to the next "smartest creature". aren't you a little insulted that somebody actually thinks that you're just a level up than an ape?

Ahhh so you haven't a clue about evolution or the primates.

The Prosimians are hardly stupid. They died off simply because the monkey's could out perform them on resources and controlling the resources.

The prosimians exist due to isolation. If you were to introduce monkeys on Madagasgar, the lemurs would be extinct in no time.

As to the apes (which prosimians are not), chimps have 98% of our DNA, kind of interesting what a 2% difference can cause.

Never mind the fact that chimps have complex social structures, practice rudimentary politics, are self aware, have the ability to lie, use tools and make war.

So how different are we really?

No I think what he is saying is that flys will not turn in to horses and such.

Bingo boobie! :)

No I think what he is saying is that flys will not turn in to horses and such.

but still, do you think that humans will one day be a highly lesser species compared to somebody else? do you think that one day we will be treated like animals? just some thoughts. and nobody answered my question about if you feel the slightest bit insulted by somebody saying you are just a step up from an ape?

but still, do you think that humans will one day be a highly lesser species compared to somebody else? do you think that one day we will be treated like animals? just some thoughts. and nobody answered my question about if you feel the slightest bit insulted by somebody saying you are just a step up from an ape?

How does that question fit into this arguement at all?

but still, do you think that humans will one day be a highly lesser species compared to somebody else? do you think that one day we will be treated like animals? just some thoughts. and nobody answered my question about if you feel the slightest bit insulted by somebody saying you are just a step up from an ape?


Sorry but my crystal ball is out getting fixed.

The future is anybodies guess. Will our brains evolve? Will we have cyborgs? Will we merge with an alian race?

As to your to being insulted by being a step above an ape? No why should I? Considering Man and war; we have the capacity to be animals. Yet when have you ever heard of an animal screwing or killing something else for a percentage?

How does that question fit into this arguement at all?

It doesn't. Have you ever heard an "eviloutionist" talk about what were are going to become?

Ahhh so you haven't a clue about evolution or the primates.

The Prosimians are hardly stupid. They died off simply because the monkey's could out perform them on resources and controlling the resources.

The prosimians exist due to isolation. If you were to introduce monkeys on Madagasgar, the lemurs would be extinct in no time.

As to the apes (which prosimians are not), chimps have 98% of our DNA, kind of interesting what a 2% difference can cause.

Never mind the fact that chimps have complex social structures, practice rudimentary politics, are self aware, have the ability to lie, use tools and make war.

So how different are we really?

well. let's see.
about the chimps using tools: a lot of animals use tools. I've seen a bird (not trained) use a stick to crack open an egg.
self-aware. all animals are self aware (accept maybe pigs?) that's why they preen themselves.
ability to lie: how? they don't speak. and if they lie in their own "language" how do we know that they're lieing?
make war: almost all animals "make war" ever seen two horses fighting? or maybe a group of birds flying at and attacking a different group of birds that are "trespassing on their territory"?
rudimentary politics: almost all animals have a "class system". I mean, even in a pack of wild horses, there is a male leader. There is always a "weaker" group that is "looked down upon". (that includes the complex social structures)