[GumbaFish]

Um ok so you don't believe in adaptive changes that eventually lead to new species. What about viruses, they propogate at a high enough rate that we are able to observe their changes. Back to dinosaurs let me get this clear, you believe that untill the age of noah there was no rainfall on the earth...lizards grew without limit in size, and lived unusually long times because the sun did not penetrate the thick atmostphere, is that correct it was a little hard to sort out because I skimmed over it. First question, if the sun did not penetrate the earths thick atmosphere how did plants survive, or did only partial light penetrate. Second the suns rays are not a sole determinant of death, althouth I will not deny that ultraviolet rays can play a part in aging. Cells have a life. Especially noticed in the heart, liver tissues etc where there is generally little cell reproduction. As you age the cells age, atrophy, and eventually cease to function...Then you die. Also I am curious what you think on neanderthals and our other hominid ancestors, how do you explain them?

 

[Pau11y]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Give me evidence of one species turning into another.

Galapagos Islands. Species differentiation exists and is happening, specifically observed in Finches (as one example). Another example is behavioral differentiation observed in (originally in the same species) of wasps. A group of said wasps all of a sudden went from dwelling in cherries to apples. Over time the apple dwelling wasps refuses to mate w/ cherry dwelling wasps, and slowly became physiologically different, so much so that they can't produce viable offspring anymore if they were to mate (a part of the definition of species is the ability to produce viable offspring in reproduction). If you missed this your first time thru college, I'd suggest you go back thru an evolutionary biology class and check it out again. However, IF I was into ID and wanted to go thru a class where ideas are documented w/ quantifiable and repeatable procedures and results...oh wait, I guess I'm sh!t out of luck there ehy?
Now just to give your ID supporter a bone, human influenced evolution (read that last word OUT LOUD now....) IS a proven concept. So, if we are to argue FOR ID, then maybe Earth is the result of LGMs (little green men) making an intergalactic bathroom run WAAAAAY back when...where they "dropped the kids off in our pool" (reads our oceans) where we and the rest of the life forms on earth sprung (you didn't state that INTELLIGENCE had to be God...).
Let's just cut to it. ID is for lazy fvcks too lazy to pick up a damn book and find out, or better yet, learn how and go and TEST to see if the theory of evolution works. Hell, I watched fruit flies change/mutate in several generations in high school. HIGH SCHOOL! Ok, true it was a high school in Canada where education is ranked SIGNIFICANTLY higher than that of the US...so I'll have to give you credit for not knowing. Perhaps it's not your fault, after all the level of education in the US IS so poor that you might not have been taught anything other than the one book. Just FYI, to support the idea of evolution, or science in general, there are uncountable volumes of literature w/ ideas, experiments, results and reproduction of the results documented over and over. Can you show me nearly 1 in a billionth of the literature PROVING intelligent design, or hell, even a theory of it. Now, take out the bible as a source and do another accounting of the available documentation.

Edit: just another FYI - I'm atheist (no duh ehy?). But I'm not sooo blind as to not accept the idea that, once proven w/ quantifiable and repeatable results, Intelligent Design is not an explanation of our world as we know it. The problem is there IS NOTHING quantified or repeated in the claim/idea. And until such a time, to believe in such ideas as "there's a really BIG guy in the sky who knows everything and made everything and loves everyone" is akin to the insanity of me saying my invisible friend's dad can kick your dad's ass. THINK about it! If He is really out there, why in the blue friggin blazes would he let us (humans) do the sh!tty things we do to each other, or better yet, other life forms? - and don't give me "free will" (that's like answering a question w/ "because!").

 

[Silver]

Evangelical Christians believe that truth is objective and universal, which means that there is absolute truth which applies to all people, in all cultures, for all times.

Yeah, sure. Objective truths, like caring for the poor? Giving up your riches to follow Jesus? I didn't even read the rest. After watching the Evangelical Christians in this country do everything they can to keep water fountains and schools segregated, homosexuals in jail or dead, women uneducated baby factories, and the endless spitting on the poor both here and in the rest of the world, and I've just got one thing to say:

Die as quickly as possible so you can be with Jesus and maybe we can make the world a better place without your objective truths. Take the Muslims with you too, if you can. After all, you're only living for the next life. Check out and stop making a mess for those of us who are living this one.

Objective truth, my ass. What the Christian Right really thinks is that they have a hall pass from the Almighty to **** the earth over as hard as they can. After all, Jesus will clean up the mess, right?

 

[Silver]

1) one smart person does not truth make
2) Dr. Wald was a professor of biology at harvard until 1977 (source here), not "the professor of Biology at Harvard". it's little things like this that aren't quite true that the religious right seem to abuse

That Wald quote seems to be from a Scientific American article from 1954.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that it is quoted badly out of context. Almost like the Dawkins one I've seen where he opens a chapter with a rhetorical question that ends up in creationist literature curiously without Mr. Dawkins's laughing dismissal in the very next sentence.

And, take a look see here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

Also, an amazing paper by Wald here:

http://www.elijahwald.com/origin.html

Amazing to see a creationist misquote and quote out of context, isn't it? I never thought I would see the day. Anyways, here is another (apparent) quote from the rest of that article by Wald:

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at lest once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two [sic] billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.

You can make this point over and over again, and Heath still won't ge t it...

If someone has a Scientific American from 1958 they'd like to scan, I'd love the read the article.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

1) one smart person does not truth make
2) Dr. Wald was a professor of biology at harvard until 1977 (source here), not "the professor of Biology at Harvard". it's little things like this that aren't quite true that the religious right seem to abuse
3) don't conflate the unresolved question of how life arose with that of the validity of evolution.

i think that needs repeating:

don't conflate the unresolved question of how life arose with that of the validity of evolution. or, in other words, stop bringing up irrelevant stuff and address the issue directly: what evidence is there outside of human-produced texts such as the bible -- let alone propaganda websites -- that supports intelligent design rather than points out (whether correctly or not) holes in the current scientific understanding of the world?

I'm sorry I wrote "is" instead of "was". Does that change the post? or validity? I don't understand how this is not relevant. If the evolutionist's argument starts with the inconcievable notion of life coming from inordinate matter than shouldn't the argument begin there?

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Name a non-human produced text by the way and the sources you choose to believe if they are not "human produced texts".

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Yeah, sure. Objective truths, like caring for the poor? Giving up your riches to follow Jesus? I didn't even read the rest. After watching the Evangelical Christians in this country do everything they can to keep water fountains and schools segregated, homosexuals in jail or dead, women uneducated baby factories, and the endless spitting on the poor both here and in the rest of the world, and I've just got one thing to say:

Die as quickly as possible so you can be with Jesus and maybe we can make the world a better place without your objective truths. Take the Muslims with you too, if you can. After all, you're only living for the next life. Check out and stop making a mess for those of us who are living this one.

Objective truth, my ass. What the Christian Right really thinks is that they have a hall pass from the Almighty to **** the earth over as hard as they can. After all, Jesus will clean up the mess, right?

And what pray tell are the evolutionists doing to the earth and to each other? You are right though, there are some phonies out there, but you won't find any of those teachings in The Bible. They are doing their own thing, not Gods.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Hey Silver, I answered your post on the other thread but I'll shorten it up for you here, Entropy. As for the link to Wald's quote, I love that man- he says in plain english he would rather believe the scientifically IMPOSSIBLE than believe in God. he states it plainly, it is his choice not to believe. How absurd. As for the rest of the "misquotes" and there is a lot of them. They all have similar responses, like Dr. Ambrose-"We need to remember that the only evidence about the way events occurred in the past is found in the geological records. However sophisticated advances in molecular genetics and molecular engineering may become eventually, the fact that a genetic change or even a new species might be generated eventually in the laboratory does not tell us how new species arose in the past history of the earth. They merely provide possible mechanisms. At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth. My own view is that this does not strengthen the creationists' arguments." Again-his choice. Albeit he was a believer in God, just not of the bible apparently.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Wasn't Johnny Cash a Christian?

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Um ok so you don't believe in adaptive changes that eventually lead to new species. What about viruses, they propogate at a high enough rate that we are able to observe their changes. Back to dinosaurs let me get this clear, you believe that untill the age of noah there was no rainfall on the earth...lizards grew without limit in size, and lived unusually long times because the sun did not penetrate the thick atmostphere, is that correct it was a little hard to sort out because I skimmed over it. First question, if the sun did not penetrate the earths thick atmosphere how did plants survive, or did only partial light penetrate. Second the suns rays are not a sole determinant of death, althouth I will not deny that ultraviolet rays can play a part in aging. Cells have a life. Especially noticed in the heart, liver tissues etc where there is generally little cell reproduction. As you age the cells age, atrophy, and eventually cease to function...Then you die. Also I am curious what you think on neanderthals and our other hominid ancestors, how do you explain them?

Yes Gumba, that's exactly it, light still came through but the harmful rays did not. i did not say they didn't die, I said they lived longer and lizards grow as long as they live still to this day, they just don't live as long now.

 

[jaydee]

Hi jaydee, I think you meant to say something else but you really said that the Bible is not historically correct? or geographically? what are you basing this on?...I think I know what you meant but just to clarify...
The Bible is actually 66 books, written by 40 different authors from 3 different continents, over a period of 4000 years. There were 300 prophecies made about the coming messiah-Jesus Christ-also known as Yeshua Bon Joseph. Mathematically, if you were to have him fulfill even just 8 of those prophecies you would have the same chance as someone filling the state of Texas with silver dollars so that the ground was covered three feet thick. Then you take one silver dollar, mark it with an x and throw it randomly into the sea of dollars and then blindfoldong the guy, spinning him around and dropping him somewhere in the mess and having him finding it on the first try. That's just eight of them, Yeshua fulfilled all 300. Some of them before he could even walk. Oh, and by the way, catholics aren't Christian.

I am no nitpicking bible scholar, so I can't really comment much on the prophesy issue, but I'd like to see the versions of some of the writings that existed centuries before Christ and before people with a political Christian agenda got hold of them and essentially rewrote, massaged, and mistranslated them to suit their story. Shamans have been predicting saviors and claiming to be the agents of whatever god was in fashion since every rock and bush had it's own little god. I also can't make an accurate judgment on your glib, fanciful, but impressive statistical manipulations. Any Statistics 101 student can conjure with numbers and baffle with BS. The bible is possibly as historically, geographically, and factually correct as the current state of mankind's knowledge allowed, which was much more meager than it was by Darwin's time, much less our time. But all this, as a time-honored debating tactic that has no real bearing on the issue, just serves to deflect attention away from the issue of creationism vs. evolutionism. Creationism just is not believable, whether or not you believe that you can prove that Jesus Christ was the prophesied savior and not just a radical Jewish dude with a couple of good commonsense ideas. That's all irrelevant.

I am no apologist for the Roman Catholic religion, but I think a pope or three would take exception to your comment that Catholics are not Christian. I don't think that any organized religion is Christian in spirit or practise, but Catholicism certainly claims to be a subset of Christianity.

 

[GumbaFish]

So if I put a lizard in a room and fed it and gave it water would it live for hundreds of years because it doesnt have the negative effects of ultraviolet light? Come on man, you can do better then that.

 

[ohio]

If that is true then it would also be true that the length of life would be longer because the negative aging effects of the sun would be negated. Thus allowing lizards to live tens, maybe hundreds of years longer allowing them to grow into "terrible lizards".

Hypothesis: Our modern day lizards are the same species as dinosaurs, but with a shortened life-span due to the changes in environment
Expected observable phenomenon: Skeletons of modern lizards will be identical to fossils of adolescent dinosaurs.
Actual observed phenomenon: The skeletal structure of every dinosaur discovered thus far differs drastically from any modern lizard discovered thus far.
Conclusion: The hypothesis is false.

 

[DRB]

Hypothesis: Our modern day lizards are the same species as dinosaurs, but with a shortened life-span due to the changes in environment
Expected observable phenomenon: Skeletons of modern lizards will be identical to fossils of adolescent dinosaurs.
Actual observed phenomenon: The skeletal structure of every dinosaur discovered thus far differs drastically from any modern lizard discovered thus far.
Conclusion: The hypothesis is false.

I thought dinosaurs were birds.

 

[ohio]

I thought dinosaurs were birds.

While I'm being a stickler for scientific method and terminology, I should point out that this is also just a hypothesis. However, it is one that I don't believe has been falsified... at least that many dinosaurs and birds are as closely related as dinosaurs and modern reptiles.

Makes it really easy to prove that dinosaurs weren't just really old lizards, eh? Not to mention that there were dinosaur eggs that are physically larger than any lizard in existence on earth. Man would that hurt.

 

[DRB]

While I'm being a stickler for scientific method and terminology, I should point out that this is also just a hypothesis. However, it is one that I don't believe has been falsified... at least that many dinosaurs and birds are as closely related as dinosaurs and modern reptiles.

Makes it really easy to prove that dinosaurs weren't just really old lizards, eh? Not to mention that there were dinosaur eggs that are physically larger than any lizard in existence on earth. Man would that hurt.

No what would hurt would be a flying rattlesnake. And it would be scary too.

 

[narlus]

No what would hurt would be a flying rattlesnake. And it would be scary too.

fear the quetzelcoatl!

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Gosh, read the thread please, I am not ryin to debate one belief, I am stating that there are two. Teach both.

 

[Changleen]

Gosh, read the thread please, I am not ryin to debate one belief, I am stating that there are two. Teach both.

One belief, one scientific theory. You don't seem to understand the difference.

 

[reflux]

Gosh, read the thread please, I am not ryin to debate one belief, I am stating that there are two. Teach both.

Don't be discriminating.



We also need to include the theories proposed by Islam, Buddhism, etc. If we include a theory (in this case ID) that's based on Christianity, wouldn't be unfair for us to exclude theories proposed by other religions?

 

[GumbaFish]

Teach id in a religion class...fine, dont teach it in a science class. And I don't believe religion really belongs in public schools anyways so I guess that excludes teaching id in public schools altogether as far as I am concerned.

 

[fluff]

Well, if creationism is to be taught in science simply teach evolution in religious education and churches. Then it's even...

 

[firetoole]

One belief, one scientific theory. You don't seem to understand the difference.

actually I don't think you understand

Webster

theory : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

whats wrong with people deciding for themselves?

 

[Changleen]

That's not a scientific type of theory, dude. That's the generalistic definition.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

 

[LordOpie]

"Your belief started out as Creationism, but has now become Intelligent Design, right?"

"Yes, but..."

"So your argument has evolved, thus disproving your own argument."

"Oh bugger."

 

[Kihaji]

That's not a scientific type of theory, dude. That's the generalistic definition.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

And many scientific theories started out as beliefs. In fact one could easily argue that all of science is a belief itself.

A few hundred years ago, Galileo believed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, but couldn't prove it until he created the telescope.

A hundred years ago Henri Becquerel believed in radiation, until he used the right tool (photographic plates) to view them.

For centuries people have believed in some sort of higher power, God, Allah, what have you, but have been unable to prove it. Is it because that power doesn't exist, or because perhaps we don't have the tools to see it? Because remember, absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense.

 

[Silver]

For centuries people have believed in some sort of higher power, God, Allah, what have you, but have been unable to prove it. Is it because that power doesn't exist, or because perhaps we don't have the tools to see it? Because remember, absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense.

Does it matter?

If God is so useless that you can't detect him and he doesn't do anything, then (to paraphrase Epicurus) why call it God?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

And many scientific theories started out as beliefs. In fact one could easily argue that all of science is a belief itself.

A few hundred years ago, Galileo believed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, but couldn't prove it until he created the telescope.

A hundred years ago Henri Becquerel believed in radiation, until he used the right tool (photographic plates) to view them.

For centuries people have believed in some sort of higher power, God, Allah, what have you, but have been unable to prove it. Is it because that power doesn't exist, or because perhaps we don't have the tools to see it? Because remember, absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense.

just like if all A are B, doesnt mean all B are A.

 

[ohio]

Is it because that power doesn't exist, or because perhaps we don't have the tools to see it? Because remember, absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense.

How about claiming an absence of evidence when there is in fact an overwhelming preponderance of evidence? Evolutionists are not (as a whole) attacking the possibility of a God. In fact, many evolutionists (though certainly not a majority), believe in God, recognizing that the two are not mutually exclusive (obviously some specific beliefs are exclusive with evolution, but the general belief in a God is not by definition in contradiction with accepting that the theory of evolution is the best explanation of all the observed phenomenon we have on the origins of species. They are defending a tested theory against claims that there isn't evidence of a phenomenon that we do have the tools to see, and have seen.

Douche.

 

[Kihaji]

Does it matter?

If God is so useless that you can't detect him and he doesn't do anything, then (to paraphrase Epicurus) why call it God?

We can't "see" gravity, only it's effects. Does that mean gravity is useless? For that matter, we can't "see" evolution as it happens, only after it has happened, so does it matter what we call it?

 

[Kihaji]

How about claiming an absence of evidence when there is in fact an overwhelming preponderance of evidence? Evolutionists are not (as a whole) attacking the possibility of a God. In fact, many evolutionists (though certainly not a majority, believe in God, recognizing that the two are not mutually exlcusive (obviously some specific beliefs are exclusive with evolution, but the general belief in a God is not by definition in contradiction with accepting that the theory of evolution is the best explanation of all the observed phenomenon we have on the origins of species). They are defending a tested theory against claims that there isn't evidence of a phenomenon that we do have the tools to see, and have seen.

Douche.

I wasn't trying to argue for or against ID or evolution, merely point out some observations when it comes to science and belief. I guess your designer forgot to give you the trait of reading comprehension and critical thinking. Thats ok, ooooh, look what I have for you, a nice bouncy ball...

 

[GumbaFish]

We can't "see" gravity, only it's effects. Does that mean gravity is useless? For that matter, we can't "see" evolution as it happens, only after it has happened, so does it matter what we call it?

I believe he said detect not see, and you can detect gravity.

 

[Silver]

We can't "see" gravity, only it's effects. Does that mean gravity is useless? For that matter, we can't "see" evolution as it happens, only after it has happened, so does it matter what we call it?

Gravity doesn't exist. It's merely intelligent falling at work.

Idiot.

 

[Kihaji]

I believe he said detect not see, and you can detect gravity.

You cannot detect "gravity", you can detect it's effects, that is how Neptune was discovered. As to what "gravity" is, is up for debate, be it gravitons, a pure force as described by special relativity, or a combination of both.

A force cannot be measured or detected, a force is an abstract thought. What can be measured or detected is its effects.

 

[GumbaFish]

Last time I checked you can measure gravitational fields

Detect:
to discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of.

If you can measure something would or would that not be discovering the presence of it?

 

[Kihaji]

Last time I checked you can measure gravitational fields

Detect:
to discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of.

If you can measure something would or would that not be discovering the presence of it?

You "measure" that field by observation of how it affects other objects. In fact, you can generalize that to almost all, if not all, things classified as forces. It's a technicality of semantics, but it is an important one.

 

[binary visions]

Oh, gee, look, Kihaji is arguing that overwhelming scientific evidence isn't enough for him.

I'm shocked.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Why is it called "Intelligent Design" when so many "intelligently designed" things are so retarded??

Seriously, I want to know.

 

[ohio]

I wasn't trying to argue for or against ID or evolution, merely point out some observations when it comes to science and belief.

You could not be more transparent or predictable.

 

[ohio]

In fact, you can generalize that to almost all, if not all, things classified as forces.

So is it all or almost all, Mr. Wizard? Or are you just making this up as you go along?

technicality of semantics

Preserved for posterity. "Technicality of semantics." That's a good one. Gosh, if only I had known the delicacy of the verbage used in my math, physics, chem, and bio classes, I would have been much more careful to dismiss them wholely as an exercise in speculation and politically charged language.