NationStates Jolt Archive

The other thread was not, believe it or not, meant to be spam (though it did quickly degenerate and become spam). It was, rather, designed to criticize the "Oh yeah? Prove it!" arguement that I have been seeing more and more on the forums of late.
In the other thread, all of the arguements trying to disprove my status as supreme being were essentially requests for me to prove my case.
Does anyone think that the "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution" arguement can really be proved either way when both camps refuse to recognize the evidence used to back up the other's point? In other words, do we really hope to convince anyone? What is the point of this particular debate?

In the other thread, all of the arguements trying to disprove my status as supreme being were essentially requests for me to prove my case.
That's how it should be. It is philosophically impossible to prove a negative, this is why the onus of proof is on the positive. This is where such ideas as "innocent until proven guilty" come from -- you can't absolutely prove you did not commit a crime, therefore it is the prosecution's duty to prove you did.

Incidentally, this is where the IDvE debate crumbles -- it's impossible to prove there isn't a God, and the ID folks aren't keen on trying to prove there is one. It becomes a stalemate.

It's best not to argue with people. Everyone is entitled to their point of view, but if you are into creating awkwardness, then the best way is to come up with an opinion that in order for anyone to disagree with you, they would have to disagree with themselves.

This is why I say the most intelligent design scheme possible would be one that would be indistingishable from evolution.

The problem is that the evoltutionists, or people that live in the now instead of the 200 years ago, are more than willing to prove thier case. They have studies, experiments, observations-all repeatable.

The ID cats have, "Nuh-uh" "[Someone very much like God but not God, wink wink-cause otherwise this would be a clear violation of church and state] did it."

"Who" did it in this particular sense isn't a scientific question and should not be asked in a science class.

EDIT: Now that I re-read the first post I realise that that wasn't the point you where making. Sorry.

We have to argue it because it's been made an issue. We have a global economy to compete in now and if our kids can't tell the difference between philosophy and science, or science and religon, then they will be behind.

No parent is being barred from telling thier children that life really comes from the Spagetti monster. This isn't about protecting thier kids but indoctrinating others.

I love how people with a particular viewpoint are pigeon-holed so effectively by the majority.

Who said that proponents of ID are necessarily trying to prove the existence of God/a god/many gods/a godess/ten godesses/six small dwarves with an attitude problem?

I've heard many ID arguments based simply on the apparent 'engineered' quality that some/many (depending on who you ask) people find when examining the universe and how it works.

There are also many agnostics who support ID as a viable possibility.

Also irritating me currently: when a scientist teaches a child about science, they are teaching. When a priest/mullah/whatever teaches a child about >insert belief system here<, it's indoctrination.

The assumption that 'holy men' (for lack of a better grouping term that won't cause offense to any particular faith) are teh evil, while scientists are Pure As Driven Snow[tm] is rather silly.

And I'd also like to point out that evolutionism is not scientific, but rather philosophical. It is a belief system. It is non-theistic, but it is a belief system. There is no clear-cut evidence to suggest evolution. There is evidence which shows (something which is pretty damned obvious without any real scientific process, to be honest) that a given species will adapt in order to survive, but frankly, that'd be expected to maintain any ecosystem, designed or otherwise. Else we wouldn't be here - even if humanity had been created and everything else merely directed, we would not be here without adaptation to changes in environment. Our foodsources would die off too easily.

But evolution? Show me evidence and I can think of counter-evidence. Until, then, there is actual evidence that cannot be refuted, one cannot call evolution anything but a theory. Despite this, those who believe in the theory continue to attempt to convince all and sundry that it is the Divine Truth.

TV propaganda does this especially well - in ways comparable, ironically, to some aspects of American TV evangelism (such as 'affirmative speaking', where the speaker speaks in such a way as to ensure that the listener is aware of their utter belief in what they're saying).

Isn't that indoctrination?

Religious/faith TV is on specialized channels.

But I can't watch mainstream TV without being told, repeatedly and at every oppurtunity (including in advertisements), that I am in fact descended from an ape.

Because a guy with a beard said so.

Yet the guy with a beard who died on the cross...

His followers are trying to indoctrinate everyone.

Huh.

Maybe I'm missing something.

(For counter-evidence against evolution, see the Oceanan bee orchid. According to long-held theory, it evolved to appear similar to the Australian common bee - in order to propagate. However, the Australian bee orchid has been successfully grown in the United Kingdom. Bees in the UK look significantly different to Australian bees, and are not attracted to the orchid. The orchid still propagates with equal efficiency.

Why, then, would it have evolved a 'backup' plan? Crocodiles, apparently, have not evolved any further because they are perfectly adapted. The predecessor to the bee orchid, presumably, was perfectly adapted to wind propagation - or if it was not, there was no need for it to look like a bee, as that would require more developed and directed mutation than, say, a spherical shape in general.

Evolution should be logical. The bee orchid's 'evolution' is not.

I don't say this suggests Intelligent Design, but it certainly suggests that it might be wise to be a little more... cautious... when claiming the perfect validity of evolutionary theory.)

You can't prove that ID is totally false, nor can you prove that evolution is totally true. However, evolution is the theory currently in use in the sciences, and so is the idea that should be taught in science classes, since their purpose is to inform students of scientific concepts. ID is a philosophical idea, and so belongs in classes dealing with the religious or philosophical, but not science classes since it contradicts some of the basic properties of science.

The other thread was not, believe it or not, meant to be spam (though it did quickly degenerate and become spam). It was, rather, designed to criticize the "Oh yeah? Prove it!" arguement that I have been seeing more and more on the forums of late.
In the other thread, all of the arguements trying to disprove my status as supreme being were essentially requests for me to prove my case.
Does anyone think that the "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution" arguement can really be proved either way when both camps refuse to recognize the evidence used to back up the other's point? In other words, do we really hope to convince anyone? What is the point of this particular debate?
The point of this debate is objecting to twats trying to teach theology in biology lessons. I thought that was obvious. Apparently it isn't. Mea culpa.

The other thread was not, believe it or not, meant to be spam (though it did quickly degenerate and become spam). It was, rather, designed to criticize the "Oh yeah? Prove it!" arguement that I have been seeing more and more on the forums of late.
In the other thread, all of the arguements trying to disprove my status as supreme being were essentially requests for me to prove my case.
Does anyone think that the "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution" arguement can really be proved either way when both camps refuse to recognize the evidence used to back up the other's point? In other words, do we really hope to convince anyone? What is the point of this particular debate?

1. I can prove you are not a supreme being.

2. People argue against evolution, because they are, frankly, dumb.



You are not the supreme being, because you crap, and probably urinate as well.
This means your body produces waste.

This means your digestive system is no more efficient than any other humans.
Ergo: you are just like any other human.

To be fair, I should really state my own opinion as well, I suppose (my initial post was heavily edited as I hit the post button accidentally).

I do not believe in ID as commonly proposed, and nor do I believe in evolutionary theory as commonly proposed. I believe in something of a compromise - intelligent seeding. As a Christian (although not a practicing one, because I'm childish and haven't accepted my responsibilities properly as yet), I believe that God created the universe with a word. Because God is, you know, really really smart, I don't see that He needed to guide every aspect. He just layed down the foundations, told it all to grow in a particular way, and stepped in here and there to micromanage - to create certain animals or plants that He absolutely wanted, or absolutely needed. And then, when it was ready for our arrival, He created us.

I do not work to prove this, though. I don't see the point. Why should I? To me, it is the Truth. That's it. I don't need proof.

All I care about is knowing how it all works... because the beauty lies in the infinite detail. Like the greatest paintings... the closer you step, the more wonder you find.

So... what does the argument matter? All it does is take precious time away from our observation of reality.

Argue less, learn more, I'd say. :)

it depends on what you think of as proof.

one can scientifically prove that the ID claim that there MUST be a god isnt true. that their examples of "this could NEVER happen without intelligence behind it" are rubbish

one can theologically prove the existance of god and that that "god" ran the course of evolutin through the ages. using the bible, other jewish and christian writings, the koran, the vedas, the buddhist <whatchamcallits> and many other religious texts im sure.

>snip<
one can scientifically prove that the ID claim that there MUST be a god isnt true. that their examples of "this could NEVER happen without intelligence behind it" are rubbish
>snip<


Go on, then.

Go on, then.
The notion that a guiding intelligence developed a planet whose surface is two thirds water for a species without gills isn't very convincing, for a start.

If negative proofs don't work, then what exactly are those geoemetric proofs where you have to prove two things aren't equivalent?

Then again those work where you work towards a positive proof until you reach a contradiction from either your given info or a theorem/corollary.

The notion that a guiding intelligence developed a planet whose surface is two thirds water for a species without gills isn't very convincing, for a start.

It is when you consider that sealife contributes most of our oxygen. That boils down to a sensitive dependance on initial conditions, though, of course. If you want an oxygen breather, though, and you want a ready source of protein, an ocean (inside the decidedly limited viewpoint of humanity) would probably be the way to go.

Not to mention that whole 'plants needing rainfall' thing.

At least, I'd think so.

It is when you consider that sealife contributes most of our oxygen. That boils down to a sensitive dependance on initial conditions, though, of course. If you want an oxygen breather, though, and you want a ready source of protein, an ocean (inside the decidedly limited viewpoint of humanity) would probably be the way to go.

Not to mention that whole 'plants needing rainfall' thing.

At least, I'd think so.
Well yes, but this is in terms of a limited human understanding of ecology and engineering, and the creationists are always eager to point out that god can do better.
Don't we get more oxygen from the rainforests than from photoplankton?

Also irritating me currently: when a scientist teaches a child about science, they are teaching. When a priest/mullah/whatever teaches a child about >insert belief system here<, it's indoctrination.

The assumption that 'holy men' (for lack of a better grouping term that won't cause offense to any particular faith) are teh evil, while scientists are Pure As Driven Snow[tm] is rather silly.

The difference is that in science, the student learns the reasoning behind what he's told, and should further learn how to continue research and disprove what he has learned and formulate new theories. Scientists do not hold their beliefs up as the truth. They are always trying to learn more than what they already know. When a scientist holds up his theory as absolute truth, and builds a belief system around it - then he's not doing his job.

Religious teachings require faith without proof. It's not evil. It's just not the same as science.

The difference is that in science, the student learns the reasoning behind what he's told, and should further learn how to continue research and disprove what he has learned and formulate new theories. Scientists do not hold their beliefs up as the truth. They are always trying to learn more than what they already know. When a scientist holds up his theory as absolute truth, and builds a belief system around it - then he's not doing his job.

Religious teachings require faith without proof. It's not evil. It's just not the same as science.

Very idealist of you to believe that 'scientists do not hold their beliefs up as the truth'. By this definition, there are perhaps several hundred scientists on the planet.

Very idealist of you to believe that 'scientists do not hold their beliefs up as the truth'. By this definition, there are perhaps several hundred scientists on the planet.

Maybe it would be more acurate to say that scientists don't hold up their beliefs as immutable truth. For example, if an evolutionist found new evidence that proved beyond a doubt that evolution was false then he/she would gain a lot of respect in the scientific community for their work. If a religous leader said, "There is no logical basis for God so we should stop believing in Him" they would be sacked.

This my friend, is the difference between science and religion.

(For counter-evidence against evolution, see the Oceanan bee orchid. According to long-held theory, it evolved to appear similar to the Australian common bee - in order to propagate. However, the Australian bee orchid has been successfully grown in the United Kingdom. Bees in the UK look significantly different to Australian bees, and are not attracted to the orchid. The orchid still propagates with equal efficiency.

Why, then, would it have evolved a 'backup' plan? Crocodiles, apparently, have not evolved any further because they are perfectly adapted. The predecessor to the bee orchid, presumably, was perfectly adapted to wind propagation - or if it was not, there was no need for it to look like a bee, as that would require more developed and directed mutation than, say, a spherical shape in general.

Evolution should be logical. The bee orchid's 'evolution' is not.

Can you please provide more info on that Oceanan bee orchid. It's the first time I ever heard about it (and google comes up with blanks even when mucking around with the words).

I don't say this suggests Intelligent Design, but it certainly suggests that it might be wise to be a little more... cautious... when claiming the perfect validity of evolutionary theory.)

You don't understand how the scientific method works.
But thanks to people like you evolution theory is one of the strongest theories there is.
The other thing is that no theory is perfect. Think gravity, how Newtons version was proven wrong and replaced with the version by Einstein.
Einsteins version incorperates all of Newtons version but is still lacking in some parts, we still use it because it is the best explanation we have so far.
Someone who claims that a theory is perfect is spouting garbage if that person meant perfect in a literal sense.
Very idealist of you to believe that 'scientists do not hold their beliefs up as the truth'. By this definition, there are perhaps several hundred scientists on the planet.

Nice misinterpretation of wording (or poor wording on the part of Eruantalon).
Eruantalon was referring to how the ID crowd works, which boils down to I believe this has happened so it has to be true and from there sets up a hypothesis on how to get from the desired result to the (selective) observations. A scientist has (to have any credibility) work exactly the opposite by following the scientific method.

The scientific method works (in short) as follows:

1) Observe your surroundings.
2) Setup hypothesis on how your observations tie together
3) Test hypothesis by predictions, further observations and tests that are repeatable
4a) If enough predictions / further observations/ tests validate hypothesis it eventually gets promoted to theory.
4b) If a prediction, observation or test falsifies the hypothesis/ theory create a hypothesis that works better with the new evidence while including the correct parts of the old hypothesis/theory.

Don't see a lot of belief in there it is all build on what can be measured by humans.
On the other hand there is no way you can prove or disprove the existence of God (I'm using this as a short hand for any type of 'intelligent' designer) using the scientific method.

@ashmoria (post #10):
You cannot prove there is no God. All you can do is falsify the claim that for this particular action Gods intervention was needed.

Can you please provide more info on that Oceanan bee orchid. It's the first time I ever heard about it (and google comes up with blanks even when mucking around with the words).


You don't understand how the scientific method works.
>snip<

The insult makes anything that comes after completely nonexistant to me. I don't respond to insults, thank you.

However, on the first one I will note that my memory is hazy on the name of the species... but it's an orchid. In Oceania. That looks like a bee.

That should narrow it down significantly. ;)

You might not find anything that leaps out at you, however. But I'll check with my source (just as soon as I drag her away from work long enough to ask), as I'm sure she'll be able to point you in the right direction on that whole crazy bee thing.

Ah, but I will make one point regarding the rest of what you said (post-insult); I must say that I find it constantly irritating (but not really much more than irritating) when the accusation is incorrectly levelled that all persons subscribing to ID or some variety thereof are, by default, dependant on theological argument.

Speaking entirely inside my own experience (which is with Christianity)I would like to highlight the point that most so-called scientific efforts to prove ID that I've seen are in fact efforts to provide a 'modern message' by members of various Christian churches. I note that if the churches still said the Earth was flat, etc, they would be ridiculed. Why, then, is an effort to remain true to beliefs while remaining true to truth ridiculed still?

Is it not preferable to have beliefs that carry conviction, rather than drop them merely at the say-so of someone else? Why then should people be punished for having beliefs in the first place?

There are truly scientific efforts to poke away at this problem. It is not exclusively unscientific to begin a project with a dedicated goal; if this were not the case, it would be extremely difficult to prove anything.

And as for directed thinking in the regard of ID... when aetheists/agnostics stop asking 'how could God have created the world' or 'how could He flood the world if there's not enough water to do it now' etc, I'm sure those who believe firmly that they have an answer will stop trying to find ways to explain it in a way that a secular mind can grasp.

The insult makes anything that comes after completely nonexistant to me. I don't respond to insults, thank you.

Nice evasion seeing that it was not an ad hominem, I did go after your arguments. And also it is not an insult. To me it seems like you really don't understand the scientific theory.
So I'm going to assume you accept the arguments I made.
The one about using the best theory around despite it having flaws.
The one about there cannot be a perfect theory.
The one about the ID people working in such a way that they do exactly the opposite of what a scientist is supposed to do.

Nice evasion seeing that it was not an ad hominem, I did go after your arguments. And also it is not an insult. To me it seems like you really don't understand the scientific theory.
So I'm going to assume you accept the arguments I made.
The one about using the best theory around despite it having flaws.
The one about there cannot be a perfect theory.
The one about the ID people working in such a way that they do exactly the opposite of what a scientist is supposed to do.

It was entirely surplus to requirements in the context of the discussion. Since I can spell, construct understandable sentences in my native language, etc, and the scientific method really isn't a difficult thing to understand, the implication that I do not understand it is therefore insulting.

And nice evasion by not bothering to read my entire post.

-snip-

Also irritating me currently: when a scientist teaches a child about science, they are teaching. When a priest/mullah/whatever teaches a child about >insert belief system here<, it's indoctrination.

The assumption that 'holy men' (for lack of a better grouping term that won't cause offense to any particular faith) are teh evil, while scientists are Pure As Driven Snow[tm] is rather silly.

No, not one is evil and one is pure. One is philosophical and one is factual

And I'd also like to point out that evolutionism is not scientific, but rather philosophical. It is a belief system. It is non-theistic, but it is a belief system. There is no clear-cut evidence to suggest evolution. There is evidence which shows (something which is pretty damned obvious without any real scientific process, to be honest) that a given species will adapt in order to survive, but frankly, that'd be expected to maintain any ecosystem, designed or otherwise. Else we wouldn't be here - even if humanity had been created and everything else merely directed, we would not be here without adaptation to changes in environment. Our foodsources would die off too easily.

But evolution? Show me evidence and I can think of counter-evidence. Until, then, there is actual evidence that cannot be refuted, one cannot call evolution anything but a theory.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. The scientists have even manipulated evolution in butterfly species within just a few generations simply by changing the color of available flowers with nectar.

you asked for evidence here is some:

http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=34255

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm

Despite this, those who believe in the theory continue to attempt to convince all and sundry that it is the Divine Truth.

now who's pigeonholing? Most evolutionists do not claim anything divine about evolution.

TV propaganda -snip-

Because a guy with a beard said so.

Yet the guy with a beard who died on the cross...

His followers are trying to indoctrinate everyone.

Huh.

Maybe I'm missing something.

yes, what you are missing is that one is science, based on provable fact, and the other is philosophy/theology, which by nature cannot be proven. That's the substantive difference.

(For counter-evidence against evolution, see the Oceanan bee orchid. According to long-held theory, it evolved to appear similar to the Australian common bee - in order to propagate. However, the Australian bee orchid has been successfully grown in the United Kingdom. Bees in the UK look significantly different to Australian bees, and are not attracted to the orchid. The orchid still propagates with equal efficiency.

Why, then, would it have evolved a 'backup' plan?

Maybe its about the bee, and not the orchid.

Crocodiles, apparently, have not evolved any further because they are perfectly adapted. The predecessor to the bee orchid, presumably, was perfectly adapted to wind propagation - or if it was not, there was no need for it to look like a bee, as that would require more developed and directed mutation than, say, a spherical shape in general.

Evolution should be logical. The bee orchid's 'evolution' is not.

evolution is not logical, but random. The process of natural selection allows the random mutations that are useful to remain in the species because it promotes the organism on some level of survival or propagation. If a mutation does not initiate some advantage, then the mutant gene does not ensure survival or propagation, then it will not increase its presence in the species. The bee's evolution is more about the bee's survival than the orchid's survival.

I don't say this suggests Intelligent Design, but it certainly suggests that it might be wise to be a little more... cautious... when claiming the perfect validity of evolutionary theory.)

Just like a medical doctor does not have to be 'careful' about denying/presuming God in order to study cancer and potential cures, neither does the evolutionary scientist. Scientists are concerned with physical, factual evidence. While they may or may not believe in God, it has absolutely no bearing on the medicines invented to cure cancer.

Perhaps you should read up on Scientific Method to understand the difference between science and philosophy.

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

(For counter-evidence against evolution, see the Oceanan bee orchid. According to long-held theory, it evolved to appear similar to the Australian common bee - in order to propagate. However, the Australian bee orchid has been successfully grown in the United Kingdom. Bees in the UK look significantly different to Australian bees, and are not attracted to the orchid. The orchid still propagates with equal efficiency.


"The Orchid has been successfully grown"....by? People! Human intervention initially allowed it to establish itself in the UK.. Equally, since it has been taken out of it's natural ecosystem, it is no longer subject to the same set of conditions. Perhaps its flowers now smell sweeter than others in the UK, it has a different advantage. Or perhaps there are just more bees in the UK than there are in Australia, so it doesn't need the 'advantage' it had before to attract them. The different conditions then allow it to establish itelf in the new ecosystem. This has happened hundreds of thousands of times. In many cases where this happens, the new species threatens to endanger other species within the ecosystem (This is becoming a major problem in the UK (not with the oceanic bee orchid, admittedly))

There are just so many possible factors that this cannot be used as an example that says 'evolution is mince'

Why, then, would it have evolved a 'backup' plan? Crocodiles, apparently, have not evolved any further because they are perfectly adapted. The predecessor to the bee orchid, presumably, was perfectly adapted to wind propagation - or if it was not, there was no need for it to look like a bee, as that would require more developed and directed mutation than, say, a spherical shape in general.

Firstly, why go to the trouble of evolving away from the shape? If the shape causes no problems for the species, it has no need to 'de-evolve' or 're-evolve'. There is nothing about the shape that will cause it to become a victim of natural selection.

Secondly, significant evolution takes a long time, not a couple of hundred years - especially when the selection forces are relatively low. And since there is already a European Bee Orchid, there is no particular niche for it to fill, so it would just die out (unless the differences in the ecosystems meant that it no longer needed its advantage, or there was human intervention.)


Evolution should be logical. The bee orchid's 'evolution' is not.

Why should evolution be logical? By its nature, evolution would have a lot of dead-ends which appear illogical, because evolution happens by chance - it is not directed by any intelligence. Evolution is almost inherently illogical because it is not directed by a logical mind.

I love how people with a particular viewpoint are pigeon-holed so effectively by the majority.I love how so many people feign participating in a debate, but instead of actually debating - revising ones arguments & possibly ones position, based on feedback from other debators - simply fire off a monologue over & over, until oponents either piss off, or the author of the monologue's keyboard breaks.

Who said that proponents of ID are necessarily trying to prove the existence of God/a god/many gods/a godess/ten godesses/six small dwarves with an attitude problem?Correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't people generally saying the exact opposite?

I've heard many ID arguments based simply on the apparent 'engineered' quality that some/many (depending on who you ask) people find when examining the universe and how it works.So far so good.There are also many agnostics who support ID as a viable possibility.There are? Besides you, who else? No need to list names, but some sort of backing would be nice. It's my impression that most agnostic religious types aren't literalists. I know the opposite probably were the case 200+ years ago.Also irritating me currently: when a scientist teaches a child about science, they are teaching. When a priest/mullah/whatever teaches a child about >insert belief system here<, it's indoctrination.It's because when a science teacher teaches something, children are actively encouraged to question what's taught, and the entire education is centered around teaching the children how to disprove what's being taught.

However, when a clergy person teaches something, it's imperative that children accepts said teachings, with a minimum, or preferrably no questioning.The assumption that 'holy men' (for lack of a better grouping term that won't cause offense to any particular faith) are teh evil, while scientists are Pure As Driven Snow[tm] is rather silly.Sure it is. And twisting this into a debate about individuals, as opposed to the philosophy & scientific theory that the fuss is about, is even more inane.And I'd also like to point out that evolutionism is not scientific, but rather philosophical. It is a belief system. It is non-theistic, but it is a belief system.You might be right. I've never heard of evolutionism before, but weird new philosophical schools are invented all the time. Could you possibly provide a link to this evolutionism thingy? Sounds silly enuff to be fun ;) There is no clear-cut evidence to suggest evolution.The sheer amount of evidence that suggests a process akin to evolution is mindblowing. It's probably not an overstatement to say that we have more evidence suggesting evolution thanthe combined burden of evidence for every other scientific theory ever proposed in the history of mankind.
I suggest a quick visit to the library, www.talkorigins.org or a biology course in a non-fundamentalist run educational facility.There is evidence which shows (something which is pretty damned obvious without any real scientific process, to be honest) that a given species will adapt in order to survive, but frankly, that'd be expected to maintain any ecosystem, designed or otherwise. Else we wouldn't be here - even if humanity had been created and everything else merely directed, we would not be here without adaptation to changes in environment. Our foodsources would die off too easily.... And yet staggering numbers of scientists & humble research assistants observe the process of evolution first hand every single fucking day. And the medical industry is making a killing designing new drugs on projected evolution of the things they're designing drugs against. Odd, eh?But evolution? Show me evidence and I can think of counter-evidence. Until, then, there is actual evidence that cannot be refuted, one cannot call evolution anything but a theory. Despite this, those who believe in the theory continue to attempt to convince all and sundry that it is the Divine Truth.Noone's calling it anything but a theory. The scientific community stopped calling the mechanisms they propose 'Laws' after the Newton blunder.
That said, having read the rest of the post, you can't think of coherent counters. You can't, because you haven't the faintest idea of what the ToE is all about. You only manage to make yourself look ignorant in the extreme.
I'd suggest you actually take the time to learn what it is you're trying to criticise before you try. Otherwise people will just point & laugh.TV propaganda does this especially well - in ways comparable, ironically, to some aspects of American TV evangelism (such as 'affirmative speaking', where the speaker speaks in such a way as to ensure that the listener is aware of their utter belief in what they're saying).Ah, so that's why I don't own a TV. It's a nonsense argument you're making though. Noone is suggesting leaving basic gradeschool education in the clammy hands of the networks. TV teaches you which sodas to buy & what SUV to drive. Not much else.Isn't that indoctrination?Possibly. At least, I'd agree it is. But it's another debate entirely.Religious/faith TV is on specialized channels.That's free-market economics. It has fuck-all to do with political decisions to teach sunday school every day instead of biology 101.But I can't watch mainstream TV without being told, repeatedly and at every oppurtunity (including in advertisements), that I am in fact descended from an ape.Seems people bright enough to make television were also bright enough to pay attention in gradeschool biology classes. Who'd have thought?!Because a guy with a beard said so.

Yet the guy with a beard who died on the cross...

His followers are trying to indoctrinate everyone.

Huh.

Maybe I'm missing something.I'd venture a guess & suggest braincells, but I'm afraid the mods will yell at me.(For counter-evidence against evolution, see the Oceanan bee orchid. According to long-held theory, it evolved to appear similar to the Australian common bee - in order to propagate. However, the Australian bee orchid has been successfully grown in the United Kingdom. Bees in the UK look significantly different to Australian bees, and are not attracted to the orchid. The orchid still propagates with equal efficiency.And how is this evidence to suggest the ToE is wrong? Perhaps it's evidence to suggest a specific theory of how a particular orchid propagates might be flawed or altogether wrong, but it has fuck-all to do with the ToE overall. Incidentially, how does something about 1 subspecies of a parasidic flower back up that the mechanisms governing biology are engineered by a higher power? Did God descend from the sodden sky over an english greenhouse & Zzapped forth duplicates of the damn orchid? No? Then I suppose the orchid is also rock solid proof against IDism... Or what? I'm really sorry you don't know how laughable your post is. You've no idea how much fun I'm having disecting it :p Why, then, would it have evolved a 'backup' plan? Crocodiles, apparently, have not evolved any further because they are perfectly adapted. The predecessor to the bee orchid, presumably, was perfectly adapted to wind propagation - or if it was not, there was no need for it to look like a bee, as that would require more developed and directed mutation than, say, a spherical shape in general. :)
- I keep imagining the glassroof shattering, old beardy descending & going KA-ZAPPO!! on the poor orchid.Evolution should be logical. The bee orchid's 'evolution' is not.The ToE is perfectly logical. Evolution itself, however, is highly chaotic, and mostly results in the unexpected. Why do you think it took humanity so farkin long to realize what's going on around (and inside) us?I don't say this suggests Intelligent Design, but it certainly suggests that it might be wise to be a little more... cautious... when claiming the perfect validity of evolutionary theory.)Why? Your example is about a flower propagating. At most, it has a short brush with evo. At most.
If you were trying to criticise the dominant theory of how this particular orchid evolved, you'd be proposing a competing hypothesis about how the flower ended up like it did. You haven't. All you've said is "Well it does alright without bees, by the looks of it". Granted, I know nothing about flowers - this particular parasite included - but based on what you've written, you don't even make a case against the hypothesis (or theory, if that's really what it is) you're criticising. Hell, you offer no explanation for HOW the damn thing multiply in good ole Britain - let alone in general.

And even if you did, it would in no way amount to a critique of the general ToE. Just admit you don't know what you're on about & be done with it.

I must say that I find it constantly irritating (but not really much more than irritating) when the accusation is incorrectly levelled that all persons subscribing to ID or some variety thereof are, by default, dependant on theological argument.
Given that the main thrust of id is trying to shoehorn the intervention of god into a pseudoscientific argument, how on earth else do you expect anybody to interpret it?

Given that the main thrust of id is trying to shoehorn the intervention of god into a pseudoscientific argument, how on earth else do you expect anybody to interpret it?

Yes, ID suffers from being neither scientific, nor a theory. People try and make it out to be some sort of grand theory, but essentially all it says is, "Wow life is really complicated, lets not try and explain it, lets just say it was some sort of intelligent entity (because if we don't say 'God' then it isn't religious) that designed it."

If people hadn't moved away from that sort of thinking we would never have developed our current level of technology.

Firstly, why go to the trouble of evolving away from the shape? If the shape causes no problems for the species, it has no need to 'de-evolve' or 're-evolve'. There is nothing about the shape that will cause it to become a victim of natural selection.

Secondly, significant evolution takes a long time, not a couple of hundred years - especially when the selection forces are relatively low. And since there is already a European Bee Orchid, there is no particular niche for it to fill, so it would just die out (unless the differences in the ecosystems meant that it no longer needed its advantage, or there was human intervention.

I possibly misunderstood that particular point. You didn't mean why did it not evolve a different shape, you meant why did it evolve that shape in the first place when it doesn't appear to need it now. In which case the answer is much more simple -

different ecosystems = different needs.

More competitive (in respect to the particular niche) ecosystem = 'advantage' required for survival.

Good grief, it feels like the debating society all over again. Funfun!

Okay, where to begin.

Bee orchid. Right.

Now, if you were all paying proper attention (which in some cases I find myself doubting), you would note my special mention of wind propagation vs animal propagation.

My point (which perhaps was somewhat blunted by my notably excessive rambling) was and remains that said bee orchid, under observation, did not attract native flora (ie bees). And if it had, it would have been very incredible indeed, because bees from Australia look significantly different to the European varieties.

From the fact that bees were not attracted to the plant, and no other insects were observed paying it special attention (as the plant in particular attracts dominantly visually, according to prior observation and investigation), and the equal fact that it nonetheless propagated successfully, this leaves pretty much a single other method for that propagation. Wind.

Since evolution as currently explained removes the worthless inevitably (evidence suggests human nail growth is slowing, for example) via natural selection, and wherein it can be observed that this is not the case with the bee orchid (which has no damned reason to look like a bee, since bees are not critical to it's survival, and likely never have been).

This was stated not to support any particular viewpoint or argument (thus it's seperation from my opinion, stated later), but rather to highlight major gaps in evolutionary theory that suggest a greater need for more scathing scrutiny.

Another example, often stated by those of an ID-bent, is that of failure to reproduce results in the labratory. Crossbreeding is known and proven to introduce certain traits, but no matter how many times you crossbreed a dog with a different variety of dog, you still get yet more dogs - and so on.

Of course, one might argue that the polyploidal nature of many food crops (strawberries, wheat, etc) is evidence of evolutionary development caused directly by man (and thus controlled by man), and could also argue that this represents empirical experimental evidence.

But polyploidy in animals leads to sexual sterility and therefore asexual reproduction, generally by the female. Therefore it's hard to see how, precisely, we end up with a variety of species with a variety of methods of reproduction, if polyploidy is a key element of the evolutionary process.

And since evolution takes a very long time to have observable effects (apparently), you can neither prove nor disprove it. And unless God changes His current policy of not appearing boldly and informing everybody very loudly that He exists, you can neither prove nor disprove anything.

So, uh, what's the difference? Hence the term 'evolutionism'. Those who ascribe to evolutionary theory are therefore 'evolutionists', while those who ascribe to creationary theory are 'creationists'...

Which leads back to my point on science vs philosophy. Science is a philosophy. All religions are philosophies. The difference being... what, exactly? I recall being called an idiot at school for disagreeing with a teacher who was not up to date on current scientific discovery; how is this different from the preacher who tells the child they shouldn't question the word of God?

Aetheism is a religion, it's just not theistic.

And since evolutionary theory, which has it's roots in Darwin's theory of evolution, is devoutly aetheist, one could easily make the slight leap of judgement and call evolutionism the doctrine of aetheism.

Heaven knows you people try to convert me every day; advertisements, documentaries, all of them every day attempt to do the impossible and disprove the existence of God via the supposition that we are, in fact, all monkeys.

Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. But since God - any God that anyone could possibly believe could create an entire universe - is smarter than any one of you, or me, or anyone who ever lived, I suspect that He could, you know, come up with the idea of evolution.

Or if you believe there isn't a God, then He didn't, since... well, that's obvious. Either/or, depending on your viewpoint.

Monologue. It's a funny word. With 'mono' right at the beginning, which I believe indicates 'one'. Now, maybe it's me, but I do believe the description of what's occuring here would be a 'polylogue', or something similar, since there are various people contributing to an on-going discussion.

But maybe I misunderstood.

Agnostics who support ID as a possibility. Well, uhm. Wouldn't that be... kindof... all of the open-minded one? Correct me if I'm way off here, but agnostic = someone who isn't certain whether a deity exists or not. Since most faiths have a creation story, it seems a given that someone who might go either way (aetheism or a faith) would need to be kindof open to ID to be in that position in the first place.

Also, I do believe there's some confusion as to the word 'evolution' as opposed to 'adaptation' and 'discovery'. New strains of micro-flora are discovered every day, but they are rarely that: new. Being 'strains', they are similar to different breeds of dog: the dog is still a dog, but it's not a labrador, it's a collie, if you catch my meaning. I'm sure you know that, I'm just highlighting my meaning when I say 'discovery'. Further, human interference provides new requirements for adaptation; lastly, humanity has a vastly limited understanding of the micro-flora ecosystem. But adaptation at that level is almost certainly critical, since micro-flora are by far the most important and prevalent order of life.

Science teacher vs bible/whatever teacher, hm. Well, my science teachers weren't too into being questioned. It usually resulted in my humiliation in front of the whole class for asking 'stupid' questions. Questions which arose from my reading of articles in various publications such as Nature and New Scientist. Whereas my Sunday School teacher was quite happy to have me chirping strange and bizarre questions ("Did Jesus have a motor bike?" I seem to recall asking at about age six, heh), and engaging me in in debate rather than directing me to think in a particular, pigeon-holed manner.

So I suppose it depends on the individuals, really.

Evidence of evolution, again. Changing the characteristics of a plant is not significant, especially when it involves directly manipulating the plant itself; that's like respraying a Ford Fiesta and saying you have a new species of car. Err... If cars had species. >.>

However, a big MAJOR HUGE point here - and when I say major huge, I should probably say it like this

MAJOR HUGE POINT HERE

because it's very significant: I don't say that evolution does not exist (never have, in fact) but that it is an exceedingly flawed theory.

To summarize:

(Dog + dog) x 1000 = Dogs

Here we see the equation showing that one dog plus another dog, times one thousand (representing one thousand generations of breeding dogs) equates to... dogs. Humans have been breeding dogs for many, many centuries, but they're still, well, dogs. Take a dog from five thousand years ago into the present, and it would mate perfectly capably with a dog of equal size today. So the same species, still.

Horse hooves have changed shape over the last several thousand years, but then, so has their ranging terrain. And again, they remain the same species. So that's not really evolution, still, but adaptation inside a pre-existing template.

In fact, it make startle you greatly to realize that the one and only evidence for evolution - and I mean lab evidence - works the wrong way around. Orchids (very interesting beasties) have been shown to 'de-evolve'; when exposed to certain stimuli in their environment and hybridized, they attain the characteristics of apparently earlier members of the same type. Their descendants revert, however, as with unnatural polyploids.

Further, there have been no successful hybridizations of a higher-order species leading to a non-sterile specimen - unless you count clones, which isn't exactly a fair test.

But as far as I'm concerned, God created the Universe. Whether He specifically placed every single atom, or whether He merely started the whole shebang and watched to make sure it all went well, as far as I'm concerned, there is no question in that. But from that very first moment...

Well, I'm fairly open to suggestion. :)

...but I trust you'll respect the fact that I have my beliefs (as opposed to opinions, which, if you like, are more scientific because they tend to be more malleable), and that I intend to stick to them.

Feel free to change my opinions, though. ;)

(For counter-evidence against evolution, see the Oceanan bee orchid. According to long-held theory, it evolved to appear similar to the Australian common bee - in order to propagate. However, the Australian bee orchid has been successfully grown in the United Kingdom. Bees in the UK look significantly different to Australian bees, and are not attracted to the orchid. The orchid still propagates with equal efficiency.

Why, then, would it have evolved a 'backup' plan? Crocodiles, apparently, have not evolved any further because they are perfectly adapted. The predecessor to the bee orchid, presumably, was perfectly adapted to wind propagation - or if it was not, there was no need for it to look like a bee, as that would require more developed and directed mutation than, say, a spherical shape in general.

Evolution should be logical. The bee orchid's 'evolution' is not.

I don't say this suggests Intelligent Design, but it certainly suggests that it might be wise to be a little more... cautious... when claiming the perfect validity of evolutionary theory.)

are you suggesting that GOD created the bee orchid just to goof with the bees???

are you suggesting that GOD created the bee orchid just to goof with the bees???

I have had that thought, yes (or alternately, maybe He knew we'd have this very discussion, and thoughtfully created the bee orchid to spark off an interesting debate!), but that's not what I was specifically suggesting, no. :)

...but I trust you'll respect the fact that I have my beliefs (as opposed to opinions, which, if you like, are more scientific because they tend to be more malleable), and that I intend to stick to them.
You'd have saved a lot of time if you'd just posted this in the first place.

I have had that thought, yes (or alternately, maybe He knew we'd have this very discussion, and thoughtfully created the bee orchid to spark off an interesting debate!), but that's not what I was specifically suggesting, no. :)
then what are you suggesting? seems to me that the bee orchid is an example of evil intelligent design.

evolution is not perfect. no one is suggesting it as an incredibly efficient mechanism that leads to the best of all possible species. its more like a process of trial and error where there are way more errors that successes. things that were great for "yesterday" are suddenly a detriment "today". sometimes a new mutation that fixes "X" comes with "Y" as an add on and we end up with both.

there is nothing about the bee orchid that defies the theory of evolution.

You'd have saved a lot of time if you'd just posted this in the first place.

I rather suspect I did.

then what are you suggesting? seems to me that the bee orchid is an example of evil intelligent design.

evolution is not perfect. no one is suggesting it as an incredibly efficient mechanism that leads to the best of all possible species. its more like a process of trial and error where there are way more errors that successes. things that were great for "yesterday" are suddenly a detriment "today". sometimes a new mutation that fixes "X" comes with "Y" as an add on and we end up with both.

there is nothing about the bee orchid that defies the theory of evolution.

I'm suggesting that the bee orchid in question is adapted without cause. That's... about it. That in turn implies certain inadequacies in evolutionary theory. But since repeating myself apparently annoys people, I'll just point back at the post where I first said it.

I'm suggesting that the bee orchid in question is adapted without cause. That's... about it. That in turn implies certain inadequacies in evolutionary theory. But since repeating myself apparently annoys people, I'll just point back at the post where I first said it.

So why was it that you ruled out the possibility that the flowers used bees to spread their pollen in the past but no longer do?

Another example, often stated by those of an ID-bent, is that of failure to reproduce results in the labratory. Crossbreeding is known and proven to introduce certain traits, but no matter how many times you crossbreed a dog with a different variety of dog, you still get yet more dogs - and so on.


Good lord. You don't read Kent Hovind do you?

Where are you going with the dog example? You do realize that you get a differnt animal if you breed two different species right? Ever see a mix of A St. Bernard and Poodle?


But polyploidy in animals leads to sexual sterility and therefore asexual reproduction, generally by the female. Therefore it's hard to see how, precisely, we end up with a variety of species with a variety of methods of reproduction, if polyploidy is a key element of the evolutionary process.


Not true. Even though it's very rare but Mules have breeded.


And since evolution takes a very long time to have observable effects (apparently),

Ok. Quiz time. What is the name for what you just described?


you can neither prove nor disprove it.

Actually there is evidence that suggests it.


And unless God changes His current policy of not appearing boldly and informing everybody very loudly that He exists, you can neither prove nor disprove anything.


Even then how do you prove that? Might be an alien in a ship with some sort of loud speaker.


So, uh, what's the difference? Hence the term 'evolutionism'. Those who ascribe to evolutionary theory are therefore 'evolutionists', while those who ascribe to creationary theory are 'creationists'...


Well the creationists have yet to offer anything to test their stance rather then saying evolution is wrong.


Which leads back to my point on science vs philosophy. Science is a philosophy. All religions are philosophies. The difference being... what, exactly?

Oh no. The science is a religion argument.


I recall being called an idiot at school for disagreeing with a teacher who was not up to date on current scientific discovery;


-buzzer sound- I sorry I am having a really hard time imagining a teacher calling you an idiot in front of the class.


how is this different from the preacher who tells the child they shouldn't question the word of God?

Because science expects challenges and gives them all the time. It's called peer review. You propose something and you will have 100 others basically calling you and idiot and questionging the school that you recieved your degree.

In some parts of the US, you will get your face smacked if you say something nasty about God.


Aetheism is a religion, it's just not theistic.

Oh no. The Atheism is a Religion argument.


And since evolutionary theory, which has it's roots in Darwin's theory of evolution, is devoutly aetheist, one could easily make the slight leap of judgement and call evolutionism the doctrine of aetheism.

Ok that shows you have never looked at Darwin or the fight that happened when the theory was offered.

You might be able to argue agnostic. But athiesm? Nope sorry.


Heaven knows you people try to convert me every day; advertisements, documentaries, all of them every day attempt to do the impossible and disprove the existence of God via the supposition that we are, in fact, all monkeys.


Ok take the tin foil hat off. Nobody is trying to convert you to anything.

And you should know that we are decended from Apes! We shared a common ancestor with the great apes.


Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. But since God - any God that anyone could possibly believe could create an entire universe - is smarter than any one of you, or me, or anyone who ever lived, I suspect that He could, you know, come up with the idea of evolution.


You can't prove that let alone disprove that so it gets dropped as an argument in science.


Science teacher vs bible/whatever teacher, hm. Well, my science teachers weren't too into being questioned. It usually resulted in my humiliation in front of the whole class for asking 'stupid' questions.


Sorry but I am not buying that. Any teacher that would call a student stupid would not last long. Hell a bunch of us got a professor canned for humiliating a student in lecture hall.


Questions which arose from my reading of articles in various publications such as Nature and New Scientist.


Sorry again either you are a tad sensitive and or you simply had a jerk teacher.


Whereas my Sunday School teacher was quite happy to have me chirping strange and bizarre questions ("Did Jesus have a motor bike?" I seem to recall asking at about age six, heh), and engaging me in in debate rather than directing me to think in a particular, pigeon-holed manner.

Ok this comparison means nothing to the topic at hand.


Evidence of evolution, again. Changing the characteristics of a plant is not significant, especially when it involves directly manipulating the plant itself; that's like respraying a Ford Fiesta and saying you have a new species of car. Err... If cars had species. >.>

However, a big MAJOR HUGE point here - and when I say major huge, I should probably say it like this

MAJOR HUGE POINT HERE

because it's very significant: I don't say that evolution does not exist (never have, in fact) but that it is an exceedingly flawed theory.

To summarize:

(Dog + dog) x 1000 = Dogs

Here we see the equation showing that one dog plus another dog, times one thousand (representing one thousand generations of breeding dogs) equates to... dogs. Humans have been breeding dogs for many, many centuries, but they're still, well, dogs. Take a dog from five thousand years ago into the present, and it would mate perfectly capably with a dog of equal size today. So the same species, still.


Ok do you understand domestication vs wild animals?

Is a wolf simply a dog?


Horse hooves have changed shape over the last several thousand years, but then, so has their ranging terrain. And again, they remain the same species. So that's not really evolution, still, but adaptation inside a pre-existing template.

Hmmmm evolution and adaption hmmmmmmm

*snip*

Well there lies the problem. You argue from the side of faith.

Faith has no place in science.....

>snip to prevent spammyness<

Firstly, could you please organise a response more... well, less spammy, next time? You could have answered whole statements rather than small snippets, too, which is rather bad form, if I may say so myself.

Snipey-remarks aside like accusations of sensitivity or lying, who says I'm arguing from the side of faith?

Further, do you understand the definition of 'species'? A poodle and a St. Bernard are the same species: dog. This is partly because they can breed with each other. Members of different species cannot breed with each other without significant human intervention (you don't get pions or giraffirhinohawks).

And saying there is 'evidence to suggest it' is hardly a good rebuttal to the statement that it (ToE) can currently be neither proven nor disproven.

Further, science is a religion. Sociologically, it bears all the hallmarks. Go find a sociologist and ask them. And bear in mind that they're scientists, too.

Oh, and who's Kent Hovind?

And in particular...

I said, "But polyploidy in animals leads to sexual sterility and therefore asexual reproduction, generally by the female. Therefore it's hard to see how, precisely, we end up with a variety of species with a variety of methods of reproduction, if polyploidy is a key element of the evolutionary process."

Not true. Even though it's very rare but Mules have breeded.

Now, I think I can see what you're answering/debating out of what I said, but it isn't the quote you provided. I assure you that polyploidal animals are asexual (such as various sorts of lizards).

And a pair of mules did recently successfully breed, but it was human-assisted (with labratory), and thus doesn't really count as evidence of natural non-sterility of hybrids.

So why was it that you ruled out the possibility that the flowers used bees to spread their pollen in the past but no longer do?

Well, I personally didn't, but the reasoning would be that there would need to be a dramatic change to render the old method (bee-driven) obsolete, and the only change that that could be would be an alteration of the shape of the bee (thus rendering the shape of the orchid moot).

I suspect there's also evidence to suggest that other insect-shaped orchids are, in fact, wind-propagated, but that's somewhat shaky ground since I don't have the information right here in front of me. Out of curiousity alone it'd be worth looking at, though. :)

*SNIP*
Snipey-remarks aside like accusations of sensitivity or lying, who says I'm arguing from the side of faith?


A tad sensitvie are we?

Dodging questions with comments about posting is bad form as well.

You were the one claiming the teacher was calling you stupid in class. I am not beliving you.

Your own comments of what you belive says you are arguing from faith.


Further, do you understand the definition of 'species'? A poodle and a St. Bernard are the same species: dog. This is partly because they can breed with each other.


I understand that the St. Bernard and the poodle are of the same Genus Canis

You do understand that they are different sub-species right?

And saying there is 'evidence to suggest it' is hardly a good rebuttal to the statement that it (ToE) can currently be neither proven nor disproven.

Actually it does. You simply don't understand or refuse to understand. Evidence suggesting something is happening is miles ahead of taking it on FAITH that it happened.


Further, science is a religion. Sociologically, it bears all the hallmarks. Go find a sociologist and ask them. And bear in mind that they're scientists, too.

Hmmmm a fundi are we? Define the methods of worship then.

Oh, my apologies.

Clearly I'm an idiot. You are correct in all instances. There are no other viewpoints or opinions. I bow before your superior judgement.


(For the linguistically impaired: Yes, that was sarcasm. Frankly, I'm tired of this entire discussion. Draw whatever conclusions you so wish, but a) I object to being insulted frequently (and I take the term 'fundi' as being intended as an insult, as well as insinuations of a lack of intelligence being repeated simply because of my beliefs), and b) there's really no sense in continuing a conversation which, although having intriguing origins and it's high points, is slowly becoming entirely a game of 'slap down the poor backwards fundi.'

If this is seen as flamebait, fair is fair, I suppose, although it's not really intended that way. But in my defence, I did strive for quite a while to be as polite as my own humanity would allow.)

What is the point of this particular debate?
That you're wrong.

Now, prove that I'm wrong...:rolleyes:

Oh, my apologies.

Clearly I'm an idiot. You are correct in all instances. There are no other viewpoints or opinions. I bow before your superior judgement.


No need to be sensitive as I never said you were an idiot. A fundi sure.

Sorry lad but tossing a few bombs and invalid info is a way to probe a person out.

For your final lesson. Religion is about absolutes. Science is not. It can't.

If you want Truth, don't look to science.

At least you didn't say "It's just a theory" ;)

That you're wrong.

Now, prove that I'm wrong...:rolleyes:

You are Canadian! That makes you wrong! :p

when both camps refuse to recognize the evidence used to back up the other's point?

Well what is the ID camps evidence? I am reading Dembskis book on Intelligent Design. I am 1/2 through it and so far it hasn't presented anything other then the plan to seperate God. In fact did you know that Huxley started Agnosticism to avoid having to be responsible for Sin? :rolleyes:

No need to be sensitive as I never said you were an idiot. A fundi sure.

Sorry lad but tossing a few bombs and invalid info is a way to probe a person out.

For your final lesson. Religion is about absolutes. Science is not. It can't.

If you want Truth, don't look to science.

At least you didn't say "It's just a theory" ;)

You know absolutely nothing about me.

1. How many Christian fundamentalists openly admit to having partaken in D/s relationships?
2. How many Christian fundamentalists acknowledge evolution as a valid theoretical construct (albeit with flaws [as with any scientific theory])?
3. And finally, how many Christian fundamentalists say 'I am not a practicing Christian'?

Not... that many.

As for sensitivity...

Yes. I am sensitive. I am sensitive to being metaphorically repeatedly patted on the head by ignorant people who claim great intellect but fail to display it in their actions. I am sensitive to being insulted repeatedly for having beliefs and sticking to them, rather than giving in whenever the wind blows. I am sensitive to having my beliefs called 'superstitions', I am sensitive to being told I am backwards because I believe in God, I am sensitive to all these things.

But society says I shouldn't be.

This is a good reason to be pissed off, I suspect.

As for science, I strongly agree with the sentiment, "Those who seek knowledge will become as fools."

Not because anyone who wants to learn will become an idiot, but because those who strive to learn tend to forget that the world is right there, outside their window. They begin to look to books and people rather than reality; they become centred and focused on humanity alone. Individualism becomes terrifically overbloated, spurring creativity to begin with, but at the cost of an eventual generalised detachment from reality.

This is why so many blindingly obvious things went generally unnoticed by so many for so long; science looks for the right things, but often in all the wrong places - and as it's often proven that it was so only much later, it's hard to convince people that it is the primary flaw of the scientific community as it stands today.

And as a simple 'for your general information' kindof statement, my scientific area of study is sociology. I'm not a theologist, thank you.

*snip the large rant*

Again you need to take a deep breath a few times.

If you are going to hang here, you will have to thicken your hide, I am rather tame as compared to others.


As for science, I strongly agree with the sentiment, "Those who seek knowledge will become as fools."


Ahh there is truth in that because enlitenment comes from knowing you are an idiot.

*snipping the comment on human nature*


This is why so many blindingly obvious things went generally unnoticed by so many for so long; science looks for the right things, but often in all the wrong places - and as it's often proven that it was so only much later, it's hard to convince people that it is the primary flaw of the scientific community as it stands today.


Ok now you have my curiosity. A little more detail please.

So what is blindingly obvious?

Science doesn't have a direction on where it has to go. Defeats the purpose since it allows for asking improper questions. Remember the Bible told people the sun revolved around the earth at one time. It was looking into the "wrong" places that corrected this.

Now I do have to point out. Science can't prove anything. All it can do is offer an explanation for something. In time what we take for granted can change. For example Newton and Gravitation.


And as a simple 'for your general information' kindof statement, my scientific area of study is sociology. I'm not a theologist, thank you.

Hmm? What aspects of sociology?

As an FYI. Primatology is my area.

Political sciences / group dynamics... I could pun but I won't. >.>

Deep breaths? Rant?

I suppose it was ranty, but I wasn't really ranting. I get irritated from time to time, but that's about the limit. Actually, I suspect most of my irritation wasn't directed at the people here (although less of the insulting would be nice, talking to nobody specific). I could go back and edit, but, then, I'd somewhat be hiding my poor reaction, which wouldn't be particularly... fair play, shall we call it?

Science the noun isn't really an entity but a concept, so referring to it as such is obviously an analogy. But science is a society, ie, the scientific community, so it always has a certain degree of inertia in some direction or another. Social inertia can be stated to tend to be focal, ie, tending towards the singularity state when examined mathematically (I'd have to dig for references for this side of things, if you want them). The social group itself is almost inevitably unaware of this, much as psychologists argue that individuals are unaware of instinctive response unless there's obvious physical manifestation (as with anxiety or fear).

Presuming the above to be true, our focal points can be one of two things, within the scientific community: individuals or concepts. Since individuals are inevitably and conclusively tied to concepts in the scientific sphere (say Einstein and many people think 'relativity'; say Darwin, 'evolution'), this leads to those concepts/individuals being our focal points for shifting or guiding social inertia (the tendency of a group to choose a 'path' and follow that path with unity).

In other words, charismatic concepts have stronger symbolic value than logical concepts. This is always true with humans in groups; it's best seen with politics, though, where politicians are rarely elected on the basis of skill, but rather on the basis of likeability. The ugly bald woman with three heads is less likely to be elected than Carol Vorderman. There are always exceptions, of course (sorry, Arnie).

Evidence for the above in scientific circles can be noted in the often-rabid attacks against new ideas; certain theories regarding gamma-ray bursters, for example, were scoffed at for some years before being proven quite recently (to avoid all those cliches about flat planets and all ;)).

So, science is not directed by individuals, it is true, but the concepts proposed by individuals does direct the science. Noted physicists have agreed with the statement (paraphrased from a quote by someone in particular I can't recall - it's 2am here!) "Physics is not the study of the real world, but the creation of a smaller world in the mind of the physicist to aid the study of the real one."

This leads back to my point about 'missing the blindingly obvious'. Social inertia has to be countered (both within the scientific community and without) in order to allow acceptance of a concept; the great minds of history who were spurned in their time were not merely ignored by the ignorant, but by the so-called illuminated too.

This, in turn, explains the modern scientist's attitude to religion. Religion, by virtue of incompatibility but largely due to individual and group efforts to attain more power, suppressed (in many ways) scientific endeavour for many a cold winter. I do not propose that science (as a community) attempts to 'reverse the favour', but breaking social inertia in order to gain the ascendancy gives science a vast 'charisma' as a concept - something which scientists have been forced to take advantage of by economic pressures, whether directly or indirectly. Religion, meanwhile, because of various events over the past several hundred years (dominantly), has gained a tarnished reputation, smoothing this transition from philosophical to logical (or so some would put it - I myself wouldn't usually, but I can't think of better phrasing right now).

Evolution becomes a focal point, then, not because of what it says, but because of timing, I suppose. The emergence of Darwin's ideas, by and large, are a major focal point for providing the additional reversal of social energy, if you like (I don't mean that metaphysical stuff, I promise you), and are thus weighted with great symbolic value - science, after all, is widely viewed to be something of a savour, despite the fact that scientific endeavour is killing the planet on which we live. (That's a whole other kettle of fish, though.)

People are particularly fussy about their freedom, and evolutionary theory represents a certain 'breaking of chains' - in the eyes of those who don't believe in >insert faith system here<. Those people thus push that idea, because of the strong symbolic connection (science = freedom is a common motif seen in science fiction, even though it really isn't in the least bit valid; the average human being in Britain today works more days per year than a serf in the eleventh century).

I'm not sure that was entirely coherent, but hopefully it made some sense. It really IS 2am here.

People are particularly fussy about their freedom, and evolutionary theory represents a certain 'breaking of chains' - in the eyes of those who don't believe in >insert faith system here<. Those people thus push that idea, because of the strong symbolic connection (science = freedom is a common motif seen in science fiction, even though it really isn't in the least bit valid; the average human being in Britain today works more days per year than a serf in the eleventh century).
I'll comment on this first.
Most people that push evolution theory do so in a bid to prevent the mixing of science and religion that is all. They don't care what you believe, they don't care what is taught in Sunday school or philosophy 101. They don't want science corrupted by the introduction of supernatural forces that cannot be measured.

So, science is not directed by individuals, it is true, but the concepts proposed by individuals does direct the science. Noted physicists have agreed with the statement (paraphrased from a quote by someone in particular I can't recall - it's 2am here!) "Physics is not the study of the real world, but the creation of a smaller world in the mind of the physicist to aid the study of the real one."
Exactly and this is WHY creation CAN NEVER be taught in science class. An external designer with absolute control invalidate all scientific theory, thus rendering all uses of it to study the world useless, because an external designer can change the rules at any moment, this makes theories on gravity useless, evolution useless, quantum mechanics useless, genetics useless, optics useless. A building no longer stands because of the knowledge of it's builders in selecting the right materials, and designing the building to be structurally sound, it stands only because the external designer wills it to. When you take a photo it no longer matters what chemicals you coat film with, the is only caught because the external designer will it so.

Science requires a non-supernatural explanation of all things. It can never be allowed to take the easy way out.

This, in turn, explains the modern scientist's attitude to religion. Religion, by virtue of incompatibility but largely due to individual and group efforts to attain more power, suppressed (in many ways) scientific endeavour for many a cold winter.
And yet as many pro-ID arguments go most notable scientists believe in god. This is true, however, they have the maturity to keep their faith in absolute truth out of their endeavour for scientific truth. This is again all we anti-IDers ask. Keep ID where it belongs which is every where out side the science class.

science, after all, is widely viewed to be something of a savour, despite the fact that scientific endeavour is killing the planet on which we live. (That's a whole other kettle of fish, though.)
This is because it is NOT science that is destroying the planet it is corporate and political and social greed. Science is the only hope of reversing the detriment that has been done do far.

To the original post.
Does anyone think that the "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution" arguement can really be proved either way when both camps refuse to recognize the evidence used to back up the other's point? In other words, do we really hope to convince anyone? What is the point of this particular debate?
Intelligent design is not up for being proved, it's puishers what nothing but acceptance without the tests and proofs everyone else is required to have. The reason scientist "refuse to recognize" the evidence for it is because "I don't believe that such and such can occur without external influence" is not a proof, it is a belief. This is the only "evidence" for ID. ID is nothing but a belief. Evolution is a theory, there is some evidence for it, there is a lot of evidence missing yes but there is NO evidence against it.

ID is a theological/philosophical position not a scientific theory. You can't go in to a science class start pointing at all the theories and saying well god is really behind that, that is only your belief because you believe in your god. There is no NEED in this theory which DOES it's job by explaining how species might change over progressive generations AND in to which all observed evidence fits to use have a guiding external hand.

Know what I think? I agree with the following quote from Donald Miller:

"Evolution doesn't explain why we wear clothes."

Try that one for size! (pun intended)

Know what I think? I agree with the following quote from Donald Miller:

"Evolution doesn't explain why we wear clothes."

Try that one for size! (pun intended)

Ok I think my sarcasm/joke meter is off.

How could it? We didn't evolve with cloths? Only reason was to make up for the lack of fur.....

Maybe I'm missing something.
This is by far the easiest part of your post to clarify for yourself.
Suffice it to say that there's *PLENTY* of places to determine the evidence for your line of thinking. As an individual, it would suit you well to remain skeptical about either point until someone provides real evidence for you to deal with, that you can see, handle, prove, et cetera.
Do yourself and everyone else arguing about this a favour.

I do not work to prove this, though. I don't see the point. Why should I? To me, it is the Truth. That's it. I don't need proof.
:)
Well, that pretty much took care of which side of the argument you're on.
Furthermore it disqualifies you from the very crux of the argument itself - ID is philosophical, and evolution deals with tangible evidence and proof.
Apparently you're on of the MANY who don't like the definitions of things as they are, and so you've taken on the idea that you can change the nuance of something to change its meaning and depreciate the very thing you're bastardizing ... so that it suits a delusional and farcicle perspective.
A lot like Republicans changing the names of people in the public eye and repeating the BS until enough people hear it and repeat it too.

The notion that a guiding intelligence developed a planet whose surface is two thirds water for a species without gills isn't very convincing, for a start.
Ka-POW!! :sniper:

EXCELLENT post. *bows*

Maybe it would be more acurate to say that scientists don't hold up their beliefs as immutable truth. For example, if an evolutionist found new evidence that proved beyond a doubt that evolution was false then he/she would gain a lot of respect in the scientific community for their work. If a religous leader said, "There is no logical basis for God so we should stop believing in Him" they would be sacked.

This my friend, is the difference between science and religion.
ANOTHER good post. *bows*

Aetheism is a religion, it's just not theistic.



But maybe I misunderstood.



Well, I'm fairly open to suggestion. :)



Feel free to change my opinions, though. ;)

Save yourself some time and look this up.
You've been provided with reasonable explanations to this subject matter and you've even been provided with a thread that has everything pretty well tidied up for you to deal with.

You could have answered whole statements rather than small snippets, too, which is rather bad form, if I may say so myself.
Discourse comes in many forms, deal with it and don't think that you have a high ground of sorts by attempting this maneuver.

who says I'm arguing from the side of faith?
YOU did. I've since pointed it out.


Members of different species cannot breed with each other without significant human intervention (you don't get pions or giraffirhinohawks).
Well this shoots that whole platypus argument out of the water ... ;)

And saying there is 'evidence to suggest it' is hardly a good rebuttal to the statement that it (ToE) can currently be neither proven nor disproven. This was pretty clearly a subtle inferrence that so far, only one side of the argument CAN provide evidence. Look it up.


Further, science is a religion.
Feel free to provide a dictionary comparison, as i have. Or just use mine, i used two different dictionaries as a source!!!
*hint: type up my name and look at my posts!*

Oh, and who's Kent Hovind?
Just some idiot charletan who purported a challenge he couldn't back up and that couldn't withstand scientific rigmarole. I can't figure why he'd get mentioned .... :rolleyes:




I suspect there's also evidence to suggest that other insect-shaped orchids are, in fact, wind-propagated, but that's somewhat shaky ground since I don't have the information right here in front of me.
Well, this is a good time to supplement your argument, what with the internet and all at your fingertips!
Mime's a-wasting! :)

As for science, I strongly agree with the sentiment, "Those who seek knowledge will become as fools."

Again, you ascertain which side of things you're on.

It was entirely surplus to requirements in the context of the discussion. Since I can spell, construct understandable sentences in my native language, etc, and the scientific method really isn't a difficult thing to understand, the implication that I do not understand it is therefore insulting.

Except for and the scientific method really isn't a difficult thing to understand, the implication that I do not understand it is therefore insulting. this is superfluous detail. Oh and a subtle ad hominem directed at me (implying that I can't spell or construct sentences attacks the person not the arguments).
I don't see anything surplus in the arguments. For the subject at hand it is relevant that you do understand the scientific method, that you understand how that ID butchers it. If not arguing with you is pointless


And nice evasion by not bothering to read my entire post.

Could it be because I started the reply between your original post and your editing of the post. There was nothing else to reply to when I did hit the button.

The original argument is that you do not understand the scientific method. Reading the rest of your post I'm amending that; You either do not understand the scientific method or are willfully ignoring it when it comes to evolution since it doesn't mesh with your beliefs.

To make up for my deficiency of not going through all your arguments here:
Speaking entirely inside my own experience (which is with Christianity) I must say that I find it constantly irritating (but not really much more than irritating) when the accusation is incorrectly leveled that all persons subscribing to ID or some variety thereof are, by default, dependant on theological argument
The thing is that ID and it's variations are based on theological arguments. So anyone using ID or it's variations to attack evolution theory is using theological arguments to try and disprove it.
You might find it irritating as a Christian. I, as a Christian, find it aggravating and frustrating that people are so desperate to confirm they have faith that they are trying to shoehorn God into any place we don't yet understand and say that God did it because we don't understand how this works (and then we find out how it works).
For me, I look out at night and am in awe at His creation and the only way I know (besides prayer) to honor that creation is to try and understand it (and for each step of understanding I learn there is more and more that we don't understand) not to try and declare sections of His creation of limits because studying it might hurt someones beliefs

Then you have the problem that the only thing that the ID belief has are attacks on evolution theory, there is not a single hypothesis or shred of evidence that supports it (and that has not been discredited).

Is it not preferable to have beliefs that carry conviction, rather than drop them merely at the say-so of someone else? Why then should people be punished for having beliefs in the first place?
It is not that the ID people get smacked around for their beliefs. They get smacked around for trying to impose their beliefs on others. Especially when they try to pass of those beliefs as science and scientist either demolish their arguments using the scientific method or say thank you for pointing out another way to test evolution theory.

There are truly scientific efforts to poke away at this problem. It is not exclusively unscientific to begin a project with a dedicated goal; if this were not the case, it would be extremely difficult to prove anything.
You have just proved me correct on my assertion that you do not understand the scientific method with this statement or are ignoring how it works in the case of evolution because the results of doing that don't mesh with your beliefs.

The goal of using the scientific method is to explain observations made.
You don't start out with saying X is true then fit the observations to this assertion. This is what the ID belief does, it asserts that an 'intelligent' designer created us then tries to fit the observations to reach that goal and to discredit any observation not fitting that goal.
Even better I think I can dig up a nice quote from Behe (one of the few scientist really trying to get ID belief to be accepted a theory) where he under oath confirms that the only way to get the ID belief ever accepted as scientific theory is the redefinition of what science means.

And as for directed thinking in the regard of ID... when aetheists/agnostics stop asking 'how could God have created the world' or 'how could He flood the world if there's not enough water to do it now' etc, I'm sure those who believe firmly that they have an answer will stop trying to find ways to explain it in a way that a secular mind can grasp.
Actually all Christians should join in on the questions, and the questions should be asked until the persons that are trying to pass of their belief as science either bring a hypothesis that fits the current observations better then the current hypothesis/theory or shut up.

Well, I personally didn't, but the reasoning would be that there would need to be a dramatic change to render the old method (bee-driven) obsolete, and the only change that that could be would be an alteration of the shape of the bee (thus rendering the shape of the orchid moot).

In case you hadnt noticed the climate goes through massive changes all the time, in geographical timescales. Any number of things could have caused the orchid to adapt to wind propogation. For example if the bee population decreased drastically thereby decreasing the ability of bees to help the orchid or if wind propogation proved more efficient that by bee.


I suspect there's also evidence to suggest that other insect-shaped orchids are, in fact, wind-propagated, but that's somewhat shaky ground since I don't have the information right here in front of me. Out of curiousity alone it'd be worth looking at, though. :)

So to sum up, you suggest this fairly obscure example, dont have all the information to hand, and make an ill informed conclusion that on reflection could be explained by many other ways and ignore evidence that contradicts your conclusion. You're a good IDer, keep it up.

A number of points.

You keep on calling evolution 'flawed' but there is plenty of evidence to show that the general theory is correct. You're so called 'flaws' are just points that show our understanding of the process is not yet complete. These are only minor points which, far from showing that the theory is wrong, are mere anomolies.

In contrast to this, there is absolutely no proof or evidence for ID and there never can be, because all it says is "wow, that's complicated it must have been designed".

In fact, ID does not even exclude Evolution, because Evolution as a process is even more complicated that the species individually. Gee Wizz! Evolution must have been designed too! Intelligently Designed Evolution (IDE) anyone?

Finally, your point about polyploidy is, I think, incorrect. I have never heard of polyploidy having anything to do with evolution. It is the whole process of haploid cells joining to form a diploid zygote that allow basic variation and even evolution. Where genetic errors occur in the zygote (due to errors in the DNA transferred in the parental haploids), this leads to changes, some of which maybe advantageous, some of which may lead to problems (there are lots of examples of the problems resulting from errors in human children see - Genetic diseases). Where errors lead to advantages, this may be some form of adaptation, and the more often this happens, the further removed the final offspring will be from the original adult, so that eventually, speciation may have occurred. So, to my knowledge, polyploidy has nothing to do with the general process of evolution

As far as I'm aware, polyploid creatures mainly occur where there is some sort of human intervention to cross-breed two different species. The reason these organisms are then sterile is because the two sets of Chromosomes are mis-matched and any resulting offspring is non-viable. And even then, that does not mean that all poly-ploid species are sterile.

I think a lot of people's problem's with Evolution is that they fail to comprehend the time involved (to be fair, I don't think that anyone can comprehend the timescale, but I mean they fail to factor it in). Human recorded history is only 2-3 thousand years at best and that in itself is an unimaginable amount of time to us. Not much evolution has taken place in that time, although we have managed to change wolves into the wide variety of domestic dogs in about 10,000 years. Now, life in general is thought to have been around for about 3.8billion years (not entirely clear here on whether this is UK billions or US billions, which are different by a factor of 1000...). Anyway...the point is this is period hundreds of thousands of times greater than the time in which we have 'adapted' wolves to our own needs. Imagine the changes that can occur in such a long period.

Eh.

Sorry, but I've truly lost interest in a debate where the primary purpose appears to have become ignoring the actual point of what I'm saying.

I say 'ignoring' because I wouldn't be so presumptious as to assume that you (or certain amongst you) simply don't understand.

Sorry, but I've truly lost interest in a debate where the primary purpose appears to have become ignoring the actual point of what I'm saying.
If you're conducting your side of the argument by nit picking over miniscule flaws in other people's arguments rather than taking what they say as a whole, are you in a very good position to complain about that, though?

Sorry, but I've truly lost interest in a debate where the primary purpose appears to have become ignoring the actual point of what I'm saying.

I say 'ignoring' because I wouldn't be so presumptious as to assume that you (or certain amongst you) simply don't understand.

Well you have done some ignoring yourself.

For the interests of this debate; why not post what you feel has been ignored. I can guarantee you will get a response.

You mean repeat myself again?

I'd really rather not. It grew tiresome after the third time.

You mean repeat myself again?

I'd really rather not. It grew tiresome after the third time.

So what are you saying?

You offer something, people reject it so they are ignoring you?

I'm going to be frank here; Ma-Tek realises he lost and doesn't want to admit it. Good debate though.

No, actually, I've tried to explain my point over and over again, and in the end, it's switched around to a purely ID debate, which is not what I'm talking about. I don't care if you believe in ID + evolution, ID on it's own, evolution, or that flying chimpanzees co-operated with bee orchids and unicorns to create all that is.

That's not my point, and never was, because I believe it's a thoroughly and utterly pointless argument.

My point boils down to just what I said to start with.

Evolutionary theory is flawed.

I could point to several things, but stock-arguments would be churned out, as they always are, and the debate would lengthen and nobody would yield because I've been branded as a 'fundi' (although I'm not quite sure why, since I've not really aired a wide enough range of opinions thus far to be branded as an anything, so far as I'm concerned), and thus am automatically wrong in any scientific debate whatosever.

But, in a nutshell, since I refuse to acknowledge defeat when nobody really has produced a significant argument against something which cannot actually be argued against (as there is no such thing as a flawless human idea - just what ARE you all arguing with me for, anyway? against the particular points raised, okay, and I've enjoyed that facet - but since evolution ISN'T a flawlessly investigated topic...), I'll sum up my points.

Evolution flawed.

Lack of evidence regarding earliest phases of evolution. Theories posited too reliant on assumptions.

In addition (keeping it very brief to prevent misunderstanding of position):

Soil. 'Tilling' question.

If you wish to acknowledge that I, perhaps, being myself, am somewhat more aware of what my own opinions are than you (questioning is always better than assuming, after all - that's only scientific, eh?), then I'd be happy to continue the discussion, even if it has become rather more drawn out than I'd intended... since we're not really talking on-topic for this thread, if we actually stay on the started topic (ie, evolutionary theory being flawed).

*snip*
I could point to several things, but stock-arguments would be churned out,

Well if you offer "stock" reasons why it is flawed then what do you expect?

All too often we get people that don't understand science (ie "it's just a theory) and or make obvious errors and yet are always right.

So again, please do ofter a flaw that maybe argued.

Also, you never answered the question about the name of the long term process you described.....

Scientific theorys can't be flawed, if someone finds a flaw the theory has to be corrected so that there is no longer a flaw. That's how descriptive laws work.
And obviously evolution has gone through peer review and nobody's found a flaw with the current version. I'd say it works fine.

Well if you offer "stock" reasons why it is flawed then what do you expect?

All too often we get people that don't understand science (ie "it's just a theory) and or make obvious errors and yet are always right.

So again, please do ofter a flaw that maybe argued.

Also, you never answered the question about the name of the long term process you described.....

Please restate the question in... well, question?

And there is the soil question. Soil is amazingly complex in structure, and has never been reproduced from scratch in the labratory, defying our ability to understand the process behind it's original 'creation', if you will, by biota either past or present - only vague theories regarding certain prehistoric micro-flora have been put forward. This is THE missing link, not all that rubbish that you hear about the missing link between humans and apes, etc. That's pretty irrelevant, since it hardly matters where we came from as opposed to the wider question of life itself.

Oh, and, "it's just a theory" says "doesn't understand scientific process"?

I don't think I even need to answer that one, as it pretty much answers itself.

Scientific theorys can't be flawed, if someone finds a flaw the theory has to be corrected so that there is no longer a flaw. That's how descriptive laws work.
And obviously evolution has gone through peer review and nobody's found a flaw with the current version. I'd say it works fine.

Because other people say so?

That's bad science. ID proponents are constantly bashed over the head for using the Bible (a text book, if you will, for Christianity), so why should we pro-evolution sorts get away with it by using science books and pre-existing studies as some sort of ultimate proof?

There can be no ultimate proof, of anything, unless you have visual proof for every single person. Someone will always poke holes - and someone will always poke valid holes.

And since the theoretical science (note the theoretical bit) behind the whole evolution shebang is The Biology Bible these days, how many sharp minds do you think would have the guts to potentially kill their career by attacking THE primary theoretical work in their field?

Not many who survive the fallout, at any rate.

Eh.
Yay!
Eat some hay?
I just may!!

You mean repeat myself again?

I'd really rather not. It grew tiresome after the third time.
....and you're still here .... !

No, actually, I've tried to explain my point over and over again, and in the end, it's switched around to a purely ID debate, which is not what I'm talking about. I don't care if you believe in ID + evolution, ID on it's own, evolution, or that flying chimpanzees co-operated with bee orchids and unicorns to create all that is.

That's not my point, and never was, because I believe it's a thoroughly and utterly pointless argument.

My point boils down to just what I said to start with.

Evolutionary theory is flawed.

I could point to several things, but stock-arguments would be churned out, as they always are, and the debate would lengthen and nobody would yield because I've been branded as a 'fundi' (although I'm not quite sure why, since I've not really aired a wide enough range of opinions thus far to be branded as an anything, so far as I'm concerned), and thus am automatically wrong in any scientific debate whatosever.

But, in a nutshell, since I refuse to acknowledge defeat when nobody really has produced a significant argument against something which cannot actually be argued against (as there is no such thing as a flawless human idea - just what ARE you all arguing with me for, anyway? against the particular points raised, okay, and I've enjoyed that facet - but since evolution ISN'T a flawlessly investigated topic...), I'll sum up my points.

Evolution flawed.

Lack of evidence regarding earliest phases of evolution. Theories posited too reliant on assumptions.

In addition (keeping it very brief to prevent misunderstanding of position):

Soil. 'Tilling' question.

If you wish to acknowledge that I, perhaps, being myself, am somewhat more aware of what my own opinions are than you (questioning is always better than assuming, after all - that's only scientific, eh?), then I'd be happy to continue the discussion, even if it has become rather more drawn out than I'd intended... since we're not really talking on-topic for this thread, if we actually stay on the started topic (ie, evolutionary theory being flawed).
You seem to be struggling quite a bit with what others here are trying to say, so i'm going to post a few links for which you can educate yourself on this topic a little further, it'll help you argue so you don't just feel like you're under attack for your erroneous opinions alone.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11943229&dopt=Abstract

-So you know, this is about the results of some malarial research and the carring vessels.

http://www.athenapub.com/homoflor.htm
-This is about the Lilliputians!!
...and this one...
http://www.nature.com/news/specials/flores/index.html


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/ambulo.htm
And this one is about a transitional fossil regarding sea and land.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/AustralopithecusGarhi.html
Ooh, watch out for this one. And this one especially...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050307214554.htm
That one's pretty important.

Well, bon appetit!!!


EDIT: I've posted on these subjects before, so i'm just putting down links and not spamming.

Because other people say so?

That's bad science. ID proponents are constantly bashed over the head for using the Bible (a text book, if you will, for Christianity), so why should we pro-evolution sorts get away with it by using science books and pre-existing studies as some sort of ultimate proof?

The difference is that those studies can be checked and verified. But obviously you are right in stating that thousands of well documented failed attempts to prove evolution wrong is not ultimate proof that it is right.

The difference is that those studies can be checked and verified. But obviously you are right in stating that thousands of well documented failed attempts to prove evolution wrong is not ultimate proof that it is right.
Did you say thousands?
As in, thousands upon thousands?
:eek:
To be fair and balanced, there are thousands upon thousands of people who don't bother to verify anything on this topic and instead repeat what their administration/preacher tells them to reiterate.

No, actually, I've tried to explain my point over and over again, and in the end, it's switched around to a purely ID debate, which is not what I'm talking about. I don't care if you believe in ID + evolution, ID on it's own, evolution, or that flying chimpanzees co-operated with bee orchids and unicorns to create all that is.

That's not my point, and never was, because I believe it's a thoroughly and utterly pointless argument.

My point boils down to just what I said to start with.

Evolutionary theory is flawed.

Then why defend IDism? I mean the scientific community knows that all it's theories can be overthrown because there might be (probably more accurate would be are) flaws in them. Nothing different with evolution theory. If I counted correctly we are on the sixth major revision of the theory.
But to overthrow a theory it is not enough to say it is flawed. You need to provide a better alternative and meanwhile we'll limp along with the flawed version (Even though evolution is less flawed then you are trying to make it look like).


I could point to several things, but stock-arguments would be churned out, as they always are, and the debate would lengthen and nobody would yield because I've been branded as a 'fundi' (although I'm not quite sure why, since I've not really aired a wide enough range of opinions thus far to be branded as an anything, so far as I'm concerned), and thus am automatically wrong in any scientific debate whatosever.

Oh cut the wounded pride routine. You are not declared automatically wrong because you are branded a fundie. That would be a crime against science, because you could have a valid point to make.
The whole thing is that you are not debating science.
If you want to debate science then if you say X is flawed on several points provide evidence. Then provide a reason why this evidence cannot be interpreted in any other way.
If you do not provide either evidence nor the reason expect people to dismiss your argument. It is the reason I asked for that flower. I was being nice there by not demanding of you to look up if there is an explanation of why that flower would behave like that but merely asking it's name so that I could look it up.
To be honest I think you are arguing from ignorance on that flower seeing that if that flower would have been such a problem for evolution the IDists would have seized it and it would have been discussed on talkorigins
This is why I tore into you with the question of you knowing the scientific method and the difference between the scientific method and butchery needed for IDism to be considered a theory.

But, in a nutshell, since I refuse to acknowledge defeat when nobody really has produced a significant argument against something which cannot actually be argued against (as there is no such thing as a flawless human idea - just what ARE you all arguing with me for, anyway? against the particular points raised, okay, and I've enjoyed that facet - but since evolution ISN'T a flawlessly investigated topic...), I'll sum up my points.

Evolution flawed.

We know, that is why we have scientists.

Lack of evidence regarding earliest phases of evolution. Theories posited too reliant on assumptions.

Assertion without evidence. Provide evidence.

In addition (keeping it very brief to prevent misunderstanding of position):
Soil. 'Tilling' question.


Please restate the question in... well, question?

And there is the soil question. Soil is amazingly complex in structure, and has never been reproduced from scratch in the labratory, defying our ability to understand the process behind it's original 'creation', if you will, by biota either past or present - only vague theories regarding certain prehistoric micro-flora have been put forward. This is THE missing link, not all that rubbish that you hear about the missing link between humans and apes, etc. That's pretty irrelevant, since it hardly matters where we came from as opposed to the wider question of life itself.

Oh, and, "it's just a theory" says "doesn't understand scientific process"?

Argument from ignorance; We can't do it so it can't be possible. Also the 'mere' theory fallacy and yes it indicates you do not understand how science works otherwise you would not go about mere theory or vague theory. Something being a theory means that other people besides the ones who put up the hypothesis verified the hypothesis with tests and finding more evidence that the hypothesis predicted they would find. It also ignores that the soil, as it exists now, can be gradually formed (as most likely one/several or all of the theories you dismissed as a mere theory puts forth). If you subscribe to it has been created as is then the burden of proof is on you to prove that this is true.

If you wish to acknowledge that I, perhaps, being myself, am somewhat more aware of what my own opinions are than you (questioning is always better than assuming, after all - that's only scientific, eh?), then I'd be happy to continue the discussion, even if it has become rather more drawn out than I'd intended... since we're not really talking on-topic for this thread, if we actually stay on the started topic (ie, evolutionary theory being flawed).
The problem being here that your opinion has zero weight in science when you don't have evidence backing you up. For every assertion you make you need to provide evidence and a reason why that evidence cannot interpreted in another way.


Because other people say so?

That's bad science. ID proponents are constantly bashed over the head for using the Bible (a text book, if you will, for Christianity), so why should we pro-evolution sorts get away with it by using science books and pre-existing studies as some sort of ultimate proof?

Because those science books and pre-existing studies you want to toss away contain tests you can perform to verify that what in them is correct where the Bible has been mangled in such a way by humans that it is impossible to accept large parts (of the OT) as true, so how can we know that the rest (of the OT) also isn't allegory by humans. So until you can bring evidence (and a reason why that evidence has to be interpreted in the way you do) that parts of the OT are true the Bible is not something you can bring to a science debate. And even then that evidence would only validate parts of the Bible and not the Bible as a whole.

There can be no ultimate proof, of anything, unless you have visual proof for every single person. Someone will always poke holes - and someone will always poke valid holes.

The thing is that you are not that person from what I've seen so far.


And since the theoretical science (note the theoretical bit) behind the whole evolution shebang is The Biology Bible these days, how many sharp minds do you think would have the guts to potentially kill their career by attacking THE primary theoretical work in their field?

Not many who survive the fallout, at any rate.

Just about everyone who wants to get that Nobel prize and be remembered as the Einstein of biology. And even then the new theory would have to encompass all the prior observations, just like Einsteins version of gravity encompasses Newtons version. And does this to such a degree that Newton is still taught because for most daily uses Newtons version is enough and it is simpler to teach/learn.

There are reasons that the IDists don't get their theories into the real scientific journals.
One is that IDism consists only of attacks on evolution theory. It doesn't have a better explanation of all the observations already made (God is not a better explanation since He's not measurable and that is what science is all about).
A second reason is that IDists do not follow the scientific method. They start out from a conclusion -> life is created then try to force the observations to fit this conclusion (or try to discard them if inconvienent), which is exactly the opposite of how they should work.
Another is that when they try to setup a theory it is so flawed because of reason two that even people who haven't studied biology can punch holes in the entire setup because the method employed is faulty. And if non experts can do that what would the experts doing the peer review do?
A fourth is that the when theories put forth contain things that are testable they fail.
Note that this list is not conclusive there are many more reasons but these damn any attempt by IDists to ever get their belief accepted. Or as Behe admitted under oath that the definition of what science is has to change to allow the ID belief to be included as science (want me to dig this up from the court proceedings?).

There is a reason that Darwin managed to get his hypothesis accepted despite everyone in his day (including himself) being a creationist.
No one could dismiss the observations he made. No one could dismiss the observations made by others that Darwin used. No one could crush the hypothesis Darwin put forth. No one could invalidate the method Darin used to get to this hypothesis. No one could nullify the reason why this hypothesis would be the only valid explanation. People doing tests that would falsify the hypothesis had to admit that their tests on the point they tried to falsify only confirmed the correctness of the hypothesis. The hypothesis was predictive in that it could explain things people found after the hypothesis was formulated.
This is what turned his hypothesis into a theory.

There is a reason that Darwin managed to get his hypothesis accepted despite everyone in his day (including himself) being a creationist.No one could dismiss the observations he made.

And not only that, but the theory was then reinforced in the middle of the 20th Century with the discovery of DNA - the mode for adaptation/ evolution. After that, the relationship between species was confirmed by the close correlation in DNA, eg the less than 1% difference between human and ape DNA.

And the reason that scientists haven't been able to reproduce soil from scratch in a lab is the same reason that they have not managed to recreate the entire process of evolution in a lab - it takes thousands, if not millions, of years.

The first step in pedogenesis is the formation of parent material from which the soil itself forms. Roughly 99 percent of the world's soils derive from mineral-based parent materials that are the result of weathering, the physical disintegration and chemical decomposition of exposed bedrock. The small percentage of remaining soils derives from organic parent materials, which are the product of environments where organic matter accumulates faster than it decomposes. This accumulation can occur in marshes, bogs, and wetlands.

Bedrock itself does not directly give rise to soil. Rather, the gradual weathering of bedrock, through physical and chemical processes, produces a layer of rock debris called regolith. Further weathering of this debris, leading to increasingly smaller and finer particles, ultimately results in the creation of soil.

In some instances, the weathering of bedrock creates parent materials that remain in one place. In other cases, rock materials are transported far from their source—blown by wind, carried by moving water, and borne inside glaciers.

@Ma-Tek:

I've been thinking a bit more about this.
You claim to have evidence that evolution theory is (fatally) flawed. You claim to know how the scientific method works. You imply that the evidence you have is gained through use of this method.

My question are the following:
Why are you debating your evidence in a place where (there is a good chance that) the available people are only laymen with the issue at hand and are therefore not suited to make a judgment regarding your evidence?
Why aren't you working on a PhD thesis that is based on this evidence?
Why aren't you taking this evidence to a scientific journal like Nature?


And the reason that scientists haven't been able to reproduce soil from scratch in a lab is the same reason that they have not managed to recreate the entire process of evolution in a lab - it takes thousands, if not millions, of years.
Actually you can speed it up since most of the time the system exists in equilibrium (the punctuated equilibrium part of evolution theory) and changes little. A good example of this speeding up are dogs (or for that matter any place we perform selective breeding) by artificially simulating an environment change that leaves only select members of the species alive.

-snip-
Just about everyone who wants to get that Nobel prize and be remembered as the Einstein of biology. And even then the new theory would have to encompass all the prior observations, just like Einsteins version of gravity encompasses Newtons version. And does this to such a degree that Newton is still taught because for most daily uses Newtons version is enough and it is simpler to teach/learn.
-snip-

I made a similar post on the second page, unfortunately Ma-tek ignored me and concentrated on complaining about being ignored.

Nice sig btw:)

To be fair and balanced, there are thousands upon thousands of people who don't bother to verify anything on this topic and instead repeat what their administration/preacher tells them to reiterate.

True. But the fun thing is that if you do an experiment that relies on something being true while in reality it isn't - there is a high chance your experiment will fail - forcing you to actually verify your assumptions.

Most importantly, sorry to everyone who hasn't had an answer to a question/point/whatever. Basically it seems that everyone and their auntie's pet rabbit wants to throw something at me right now, so, err, yes.

But. Several points that seem to be, I don't know, running out the door before anyone can see them or something.

I'm answering because you're talking to me. I was taught it's rather rude to ignore people, so I'm still here.

You asked me to restate my point of view, not provide evidence. As someone here said, if I had evidence that evolution was fatally flawed (something I've not actually ever said), then I would not be submitting it for peer-review on the NationStates General forum.

Really I wouldn't.

All points about my lack of presentation of evidence being rather... well, lacking... are quite valid. However, I don't particularly see an internet forum as the best place to do so. Posting endless reams of links to content that can't be validated without lengthy research (paper research, you know, the kind that counts) would really take up a significant part of my day, and, no insult to anyone intended, but this debate really isn't that important. It is, as noted, merely a casual discussion, rather a major international debate which will set down some sort of policy or somesuch. So, (myself included) calm. Peace. Joy. Stuff like that. If you want something specific, point to it, and I'll do a little digging (presuming I remember to amongst all the other stuff people are saying). But since there are few sources online that I would actually trust to be 100% accurate and precise, I'm not sure finding said sources would be that... simple.

On my views. As stated, I am pro-evolution. I do not have any vested interest in disproving the theory (theories, really, since it's more of a field than a single idea), as my understanding of the Bible does not throw up any conflict with evolution whatsoever. You may disagree with that; fine. Good. But this isn't about theology, as some people have said already. REALLY. I don't want a theological debate. And, I observe, it is entirely possible to look at the universe and observe that it is a nifty 'piece of engineering' without the intent towards strict unscientificness; there is, after all, such a thing as metaphor and simile, and contrary to some opinions, life is not science. Unless you acknowledge it as a philosophy, of course.

But we need to consider the definition of soil. I rather suspect you're (person who quoted information thereof) thinking of soil as 'earth', or 'mud', or 'dirt', or any other descriptive word of that ilk. I refer to soil in the more biological term, since, after all, this is a biological discussion, and not a geological one. Soil being living dirt; regolith being dead dirt (although also generally rather more compressed and dense). Soil, as I did highlight in my post, being a fine mineral material matrix for biota and nutrients - a growth medium. As water is a growth medium, and, indeed, even air can be a growth medium (as with airponics). Manufacturing soil is not merely producing a fine dirt, but involves filling the niches in the soil matrix very specifically, creating a fine ecological web to ensure that plant roots can access a particular range of nutrients. There's also, of course, desalination to consider, since many of the micro-flora responsible for biological processes required to maintain pH balance produce sodium as a waste product. I'm sure you're aware that the pH determines what range of uptake of nutrients plant roots are capable of; certain nutrients can only be extracted from soil by plants in soil at a certain pH. Molybdenum, for example, is only made available for use at quite a narrow band of pH values, whereas nitrogen is far more widely available comparitively. Charts describing the various accesibilities of nutrients in varying pH soils shouldn't be too hard find with Google; if you're really not interested enough to type in 'www.google.com' followed with '"nutrient uptake" pH' (exactly that should find something, I'd imagine, with the double quotes but without the single quotes), then please don't argue that particular point.

Okay, so we need a particular pH balance for nutrient availability, and various plants have various requirements. This displays innate complexity, for starters, which comes back to my 'the remarkable is rarely remarkable' point earlier - evolution is slightly suspect even without examination because it is remarkable, as I said. This is why it's remarkable - because you need the balance before you actually have the balance.

As I said: a sensitive dependance on initial conditions. That means that probability of life is far lower than it actually appears to be. Which, if willing to accept the point that soil needed to be complex before it actually existed, suggests in turn that there is a significant (but obviously non-fatal) flaw to current evolutionary theory.

But why do I say it needed to be complex before it existed?

Simple.

What was first to colonize the landmasses of the Earth?

Why, micro-flora.

What did they require for survival?

Mineral food sources/light. Clearly, evolution most often opted for minerals or a photosynthetic/mineral combination, but why? Those nutrients would have needed to be widely available for that selection to take hold and become dominant enough to provide the complex suite of soil services that the micro-floral world provides today. Indeed, it would have had to be exceptionally profitable for those organisms, to prevent them being killed off by their own random adaptations. And the exceptional is suspicious.

It could be argued, I suppose, that the there was some sort of slow build-up of a micro-ecological web, which eventually gave rise to plants colonizing the landmasses, and so on; but this is a flawed argument for a definitively simple reason, in my opinion. Simply put: this is wholly and unequivocably unsupported by lab experimentation. The slow approach to the manufacture of living soil has failed utterly and completely at every attempt, because biodiversity never attains the required 'critical mass' to allow sustainabliity.

That constitutes a major flaw in our current understanding of evolution.

Just to be sure:

I am not saying that this is evidence that God directed evolution.

It could be, with a whole lot more study and a time machine just to make sure, but it would be thoroughly unscientific to paint it as such, even if the idea is deeply intriguing to me.

Is THAT clear enough? :)

There is a reason that Darwin managed to get his hypothesis accepted despite everyone in his day (including himself) being a creationist.

Not one hundred percent sure on the following, but I seem to recall that Darwin revoked his Christianity until shortly before he died, following the death of >insert family member/wife or someone else here<.

Not one hundred percent sure on the following, but I seem to recall that Darwin revoked his Christianity until shortly before he died, following the death of >insert family member/wife or someone else here<.

Well thats not only irrelevant, its also probably untrue. There's an article in snopes about it I think.

Oh, and one little, tiny, tiny thing.

On the ID vs Evolution/Evolution vs ID 'discussion' in general.

I do rather think, that, on the whole, both sides could do with striving for less contempt.

Is it really necessary to say "the so-called" every time? (As in: 'the so-called theory of evolution' and 'the so-called creation model'.) It's really just a cheap way of saying 'This is bullshit' before actually mentioning it, whether it's a creationist or an evolutionist or a couldn'tgiveacrapist who's saying it. Politeness might go a long way towards allowing education of both parties wherever education is due.

Well thats not only irrelevant, its also probably untrue. There's an article in snopes about it I think.

Well, that answers my 'not entirely sure' bit, then. :)

Not one hundred percent sure on the following, but I seem to recall that Darwin revoked his Christianity until shortly before he died, following the death of >insert family member/wife or someone else here<.

He died an agnostic. His daughter Henrietta was present and she said he last words were that he was not afraid to die.

At least you didn't spout the Lady Hope myth ;)


-------------- Some letters-----------

In an 1873 letter to a Dutch student, Darwin wrote,

I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. ... The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty.[2]

In an autobiographical essay written in 1876, Darwin admitted,
By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported ... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.
... I was very unwilling to give up my belief ... But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress. ...
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.[3]

And finally, in an 1879 letter, Darwin wrote,
What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.[4]


[2] 2 April 1873, reproduced in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Darwin (his son), ed., 1905. A full-text version can be found at this link. Other works can be found through the British Library links: Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1859, rev. 1872); Descent of Man, 2nd ed. (1871, rev 1882); Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals, 1st ed. (1872).
[3] Quoted in Life and Letters.
[4] Darwin to J. Fordyce, 1879, published by him in his Aspects of Scepticism, 1883. Also found in Life and Letters.

Oh, and one little, tiny, tiny thing.

On the ID vs Evolution/Evolution vs ID 'discussion' in general.

I do rather think, that, on the whole, both sides could do with striving for less contempt.

Is it really necessary to say "the so-called" every time? (As in: 'the so-called theory of evolution' and 'the so-called creation model'.) It's really just a cheap way of saying 'This is bullshit' before actually mentioning it, whether it's a creationist or an evolutionist or a couldn'tgiveacrapist who's saying it. Politeness might go a long way towards allowing education of both parties wherever education is due.

Thats just people for you. Not many people are polite these days, and all arguments overflow with emotion sometimes. I'm not saying its ok, just that its inevitable. Sometimes I'm surprised how intolerant christians get over relatively unimportant matter like this when as dar as i can make out the core of their beleifs is to love everyone, but then I remember they're just as hypocritical as the rest of us.

True. But the fun thing is that if you do an experiment that relies on something being true while in reality it isn't - there is a high chance your experiment will fail - forcing you to actually verify your assumptions.
The real force is in the wherewithal. I'm not convinced that the kind of integrity required to force someone to verify their assumptions is in high quantity amongst people who want to magically be whisked away from their own problems and the consequences of their actions.
I could go on but i don't really feel it's all that necessary.

You asked me to restate my point of view, not provide evidence. As someone here said, if I had evidence that evolution was fatally flawed (something I've not actually ever said), then I would not be submitting it for peer-review on the NationStates General forum.

However, I don't particularly see an internet forum as the best place to do so. Posting endless reams of links to content that can't be validated without lengthy research (paper research, you know, the kind that counts) would really take up a significant part of my day, and, no insult to anyone intended, but this debate really isn't that important.

On my views. As stated, I am pro-evolution.

Is THAT clear enough? :)
Well i would venture to say that was your best post to qualify your point of view.
I would also say it's a little confusing that you spend so much time arguing this yet spend a good portion of that time pointing out that it would really take up a significant part of your day to explain yourself.

And as per your views, would that mean that you are pro-flaw?

Well i would venture to say that was your best post to qualify your point of view.
I would also say it's a little confusing that you spend so much time arguing this yet spend a good portion of that time pointing out that it would really take up a significant part of your day to explain yourself.

And as per your views, would that mean that you are pro-flaw?

I'd say it would mean I'm a cynic. *grin*

I'd say it would mean I'm a cynic. *grin*
Fair 'nuff. :)
So it would also be fair to say that you would prefer the methodical approach to veracity?

I made a similar post on the second page, unfortunately Ma-tek ignored me and concentrated on complaining about being ignored.

Nice sig btw:)
It's only harming his credibility in my eyes. The same way he weaseled out of having to admit not understanding scientific theory by yelling insult instead of showing he understands it and when I called him on it again ignoring me.

At the moment I'm trying to figure out if he's one of the fanatics against which you can argue all your want to no avail since the fanatic has the truth and I don't.
Or that he's being deceived by one of those fanatics and doesn't want to admit it due to the consequences of having to admit this.
I'm leaning to the he's being deceived hypothesis. Which is the reason that I'm hammering away at him with basic concepts as how the scientific theory works.

About the sig. I'm afraid that the second quote will not be understood by the people it is aimed at.

Oh, and one little, tiny, tiny thing.

On the ID vs Evolution/Evolution vs ID 'discussion' in general.

I do rather think, that, on the whole, both sides could do with striving for less contempt.

Is it really necessary to say "the so-called" every time? (As in: 'the so-called theory of evolution' and 'the so-called creation model'.) It's really just a cheap way of saying 'This is bullshit' before actually mentioning it, whether it's a creationist or an evolutionist or a couldn'tgiveacrapist who's saying it. Politeness might go a long way towards allowing education of both parties wherever education is due.

It isn't contempt when it is the truth (or a party in the conflict thinks it is the truth).
What the ID crowd has is not a theory even though they are trying to push it as one. This merits at the very least the wording so-called attached to it or better yet so-called theory that is actually a belief.
The wording so-called evolution if someone uses that it betrays a lack of knowledge since it is called the theory of evolution regardless of the person thinking it's correct or not. Better would be for them to call it a so-called theory since that would allow people to drag out the definition of scientific theory and prove that evolution fits the definition thereby removing the so-called from the term.

For further proof that the ID belief is not a theory I present the following link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm290). The link is to the transcript of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case. The point is the 11th day (around noon) during the cross examination of Dr. Behe (witness for the defense, in this case the dover school board who approved the teaching of the ID belief in science class) where he admits that the only way to get the ID belief classed as a scientific theory is using a new definition of scientific theory that would allow things like astrology and the falsified ether theory of light to be classed as scientific theory as well.

The moment that the ID crowd presents a hypothesis that can withstand being compared to the definition of scientific theory I'll call it a hypothesis and if it survives the whole testing, further observations and predicting bits I'll call it a theory. But not one second earlier.

Most importantly, sorry to everyone who hasn't had an answer to a question/point/whatever. Basically it seems that everyone and their auntie's pet rabbit wants to throw something at me right now, so, err, yes.

But. Several points that seem to be, I don't know, running out the door before anyone can see them or something.

I'm answering because you're talking to me. I was taught it's rather rude to ignore people, so I'm still here.

You asked me to restate my point of view, not provide evidence. As someone here said, if I had evidence that evolution was fatally flawed (something I've not actually ever said), then I would not be submitting it for peer-review on the NationStates General forum.

Really I wouldn't.

You forgot the () around fatally indicating that I also asked at the same time why you didn't submit what you describe as flaws. Or at least write a bachelor/master/doctorate thesis on your evidence.


All points about my lack of presentation of evidence being rather... well, lacking... are quite valid. However, I don't particularly see an internet forum as the best place to do so. Posting endless reams of links to content that can't be validated without lengthy research (paper research, you know, the kind that counts) would really take up a significant part of my day, and, no insult to anyone intended, but this debate really isn't that important. It is, as noted, merely a casual discussion, rather a major international debate which will set down some sort of policy or somesuch. So, (myself included) calm. Peace. Joy. Stuff like that. If you want something specific, point to it, and I'll do a little digging (presuming I remember to amongst all the other stuff people are saying). But since there are few sources online that I would actually trust to be 100% accurate and precise, I'm not sure finding said sources would be that... simple.

I'm not going to let you weasel out of providing evidence, your behavior here indicates you are arguing from ignorance not with facts behind you.
You ignored the little thing that I offered to do your research (see the flower where I only want the name for) after which you switched argument to something that would probably more difficult to do research on (don't worry I'll dump your argument on talkorigins and let the people there take it apart if I can't do it in the bit of time I have now).
I also happen to be in the position that I don't need internet links. Names of books/research papers work too (please specify pages like any standard references). You don't need to do a lot, for a start the name of this 'vague' theory (you know a hypothesis confirmed by tests and additional observations) you had to dismiss to be able to make the soil argument would be enough.

On my views. As stated, I am pro-evolution. I do not have any vested interest in disproving the theory (theories, really, since it's more of a field than a single idea), as my understanding of the Bible does not throw up any conflict with evolution whatsoever. You may disagree with that; fine. Good. But this isn't about theology, as some people have said already. REALLY. I don't want a theological debate. And, I observe, it is entirely possible to look at the universe and observe that it is a nifty 'piece of engineering' without the intent towards strict unscientificness; there is, after all, such a thing as metaphor and simile, and contrary to some opinions, life is not science. Unless you acknowledge it as a philosophy, of course.

You are not pro-evolution, even your argument in this paragraph where you try to establish you are counters it. From your behavior so far I'm asserting you are anti-evolution. From your attempts to bring in faith into this discussion while at the same time denying it has any relevance I'm asserting you are pro-ID.

<snip – the voluminous argument that is being used to establish that current soil conditions require a specific pH. >

Okay, so we need a particular pH balance for nutrient availability, and various plants have various requirements. This displays innate complexity, for starters, which comes back to my 'the remarkable is rarely remarkable' point earlier - evolution is slightly suspect even without examination because it is remarkable, as I said. This is why it's remarkable - because you need the balance before you actually have the balance.

Point failed on the faulty assumption that the only viable condition in soil is the current one.
Point failed on not taking into account that adaptive evolution and survival of the fittest would be enough to account for the current equilibrium seen.

As I said: a sensitive dependance on initial conditions. That means that probability of life is far lower than it actually appears to be. Which, if willing to accept the point that soil needed to be complex before it actually existed, suggests in turn that there is a significant (but obviously non-fatal) flaw to current evolutionary theory.

Wrong.
Why does it need to be complex at the start? You are just rehashing the irreducible complexity (which is based on reasoning of I can't comprehend how it has happened so an 'intelligent' designer must have done it)
What you are proposing is analog to displacing the entire chain of people (and goods) which are directly involved in insuring I can buy fresh milk at a market to the beginning of the period where people started milking, see the chain collapse (due to it missing essential support structures it has started to depend on as it evolved from the first people milking for their own consumption to the point where milking is done to make money from people who want milk) and then conclude it had to be created as a whole.


Simple.

What was first to colonize the landmasses of the Earth?

Why, micro-flora.

It's not micro-flora unless you want to classify the first single celled organisms as such.
Next bit of info is not evolution but abiogenesis. According to the latests abiogenesis hypothesis the first things that might have lived, 'lived' on the edge of where land and sea met. And these things would have been virus like catalytic self-replicators.

What did they require for survival?

Mineral food sources/light. Clearly, evolution most often opted for minerals or a photosynthetic/mineral combination, but why? Those nutrients would have needed to be widely available for that selection to take hold and become dominant enough to provide the complex suite of soil services that the micro-floral world provides today. Indeed, it would have had to be exceptionally profitable for those organisms, to prevent them being killed off by their own random adaptations. And the exceptional is suspicious.

Why? Wrong question, science deals with how not why.
And you provide your own rebuttal in trying to answer this. That is if you remove the unfounded assumption that when life first appeared it had to be as complex as it is now.
You just describe in a fairly crude for survival of the fittest. A harmful mutation increases the likelihood that it dies, a beneficial increases the likelihood and then there is the possibility of neutral mutations as well (note that harmful, beneficial and neutral are depend on the environment). Also normal soil/clay (not the biological one you defined) contains enough trace elements to get all the nutrients needed.

It could be argued, I suppose, that the there was some sort of slow build-up of a micro-ecological web, which eventually gave rise to plants colonizing the landmasses, and so on; but this is a flawed argument for a definitively simple reason, in my opinion. Simply put: this is wholly and unequivocably unsupported by lab experimentation. The slow approach to the manufacture of living soil has failed utterly and completely at every attempt, because biodiversity never attains the required 'critical mass' to allow sustainabliity.

For this you need to provide me with proof. I want either a link or the name of the book/research that this is in. At the moment all I can read is you saying I don't believe it is possible so it isn't

That constitutes a major flaw in our current understanding of evolution.

Actually you have just shown that you have no clue how evolution works. Your assumption that things have to be the same in the past as they are now gives it away.

Just to be sure:

I am not saying that this is evidence that God directed evolution.

That is the basic tenet of ID, try to avoid using any reference to God (by replacing Him with an 'intelligent' designer) while trying to 'prove' that the only way something could have happened is because He willed it so.
Your whole argument is based on two fallacies. The argument from ignorance and the false dilemma. The false dilemma is basically stating that if not A then B without taking into account that A and B might not be the only solutions nor explaining how not A leads to B. In this case because you don't understand how something happens (the argument from ignorance fallacy) you assume it has to be and 'intelligent' designer.

It could be, with a whole lot more study and a time machine just to make sure, but it would be thoroughly unscientific to paint it as such, even if the idea is deeply intriguing to me.

Is THAT clear enough? :)
No need for a time machine. You just need to educate yourself on how the scientific method works and what evolution really is instead.

Straughn (sorry if it's mispelled, not that great with names - even those I read ten seconds ago! [but got it right this time - yay - ed.]): I'd go with that description, yes, for scientific arena thinking. However, when it comes to philosophy (where I often debate from a position contrary to my own on the grounds that I know my own position all too well), that perhaps doesn't apply so well.

Whallop: I'll post a lengthy answer to your stuff later. :)

Straughn (sorry if it's mispelled, not that great with names - even those I read ten seconds ago! [but got it right this time - yay - ed.]): I'd go with that description, yes, for scientific arena thinking. However, when it comes to philosophy (where I often debate from a position contrary to my own on the grounds that I know my own position all too well), that perhaps doesn't apply so well.

Whallop: I'll post a lengthy answer to your stuff later. :)
I submit that this post occurs ... later.

You got the name right. Most people who want to argue with me don't bother.