[quote]lucasa wrote:
Sorry Prof.[/quote]
No problem.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I said I believe in evolution. I didn’t say I believe that we all came from one cell. Evolution within species is what I believe in. I have never written anything more. In fact, were you truly in the dark on this issue? At the point that I start having to repeat myself endlessly, I choose to quit responding. You want to argue. That is all you want to do. [/quote]
I don’t want to argue, I’ve asked for the evidence and as I said, evidence for the knowledge of god better be pretty compelling. Darwinism superceded Lamarckism as Lamarckism became less useful and able to explain what is observed. ID must equally do so. The KSBoE asserts that the proof lies in “design detection” and I’m asking; Where is the design? Can I see it? Can I use it to predict when the next species will be invented (if that’s how it works)? This is what I’m asking for, more knowledge. This is what science is and will be asking for, and if it’s not forthcoming, or if it is forthcoming but useless, it will be abandoned.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Darwinism superceded Lamarckism as Lamarckism became less useful and able to explain what is observed. ID must equally do so. [/quote]
Uh, no, it doesn’t. This isn’t a contest. It is your choice what path to go down. It always has been and always will be.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Darwinism superceded Lamarckism as Lamarckism became less useful and able to explain what is observed. ID must equally do so.
Uh, no, it doesn’t. This isn’t a contest. It is your choice what path to go down. It always has been and always will be. [/quote]
ID is not the opposite of Evolution. They’re two very different things. Evolution is a scientific theory based on observation and measurement leading to hypothesis, experimentation and independant verification of the original hypothesis through further experimentation. ID is a theistic philosophy that tries to explain why evolution happens, I say this because no rational human being can deny that species change, this is observable phenomena.
Evolution Theory does not preclude the possible existance of a creator. The conflict created here is when you try to force philosophy into the science classroom. This entire debate is silly, teach science in the science class, teach philosophy in a humanities class, the end.
[quote]Xvim wrote:
The conflict created here is when you try to force philosophy into the science classroom. This entire debate is silly, teach science in the science class, teach philosophy in a humanities class, the end.
[/quote]
Very nice, Xvim. If only everyone could make as much sense.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
Great article from The Washington Post, on the same topic I posted on before on the Dover trial. Here’s a few excerpts:
[/quote]
After looking it up, it turns out that this is actually a 4 pages article, of which you’ve excerpted only part of the first page.
Many important points are made later in the article, addressing the reason why life appears to be so “well designed” for it’s Earth environment.
For those still interested: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
[quote]Xvim wrote:
As far as I can tell it’s only the small minded, fanatic bigots like throttle who actually see any real conflict. BTW, I call throttle a bigot because demonstrated his hatred and bigotry towards Islam repeatedly in the early stages of this thread.
[/quote]
Now we’ve got some dick-waving going on.
[quote]pookie wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
Great article from The Washington Post, on the same topic I posted on before on the Dover trial. Here’s a few excerpts:
After looking it up, it turns out that this is actually a 4 pages article, of which you’ve excerpted only part of the first page.
Many important points are made later in the article, addressing the reason why life appears to be so “well designed” for it’s Earth environment.
For those still interested: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
[/quote]
Thanks, I forgot to post the link!
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Xvim wrote:
As far as I can tell it’s only the small minded, fanatic bigots like throttle who actually see any real conflict. BTW, I call throttle a bigot because demonstrated his hatred and bigotry towards Islam repeatedly in the early stages of this thread.
Now we’ve got some dick-waving going on.
[/quote]
Not to mention inaccuracies about “hatred and bigotry towards Islam repeatedly in the early stages of this thread”.
[quote]Xvim wrote:
Why do you folks keep putting atheists and evolutionists on one side of the equation and theists and ID’ers on the other? Darwin was a Christian who saw absolutely no conflict between his theory and his religion. In fact, most people in the US at least, are Christians who know evolution happens and don’t have any problems reconciling that fact with their religion.
As far as I can tell it’s only the small minded, fanatic bigots like throttle who actually see any real conflict. BTW, I call throttle a bigot because demonstrated his hatred and bigotry towards Islam repeatedly in the early stages of this thread.
Evolution Theory does not preclude a God that could be guiding the process. Evolution does not seek to explain why things happen, it’s all about HOW things happen. Evolution Theory doesn’t speculate as to the origin of the universe nor does it rule out external guidance along evolutionary paths. Placing the science of evolution in the atheist camp is a red herring that keeps that being perpetuated by people who seem to lack any real understanding of what this discussion is even about.
If you want to debate atheism vs. theism that’s grand, there are threads for that that usually end with both sides agreeing to disagree. That is not the topic of discussion here though. What we are discussing here is the merits of Intellegent Design as a scientific theory. I, and any scientist you ever speak to, will tell you there is no scientific basis for ID theory at the moment. Ignorance is not proof of anything but itself. Not being able to understand or explain something you read about in a biology class is not evidence to support Intelligent Design it’s simply being unable to explain or understand what you’re reading.
Pointing out the gaps that do exist in current evolutionary theory is also not proof of ID. It is simple what the description inplies, a gap in evolutionary theory. With the current knowledge that we have some form of evolution is the best thing going for an explanation and the more we learn the more we find that our new discoveries fit into the over arching concept of Evolutionary Theory. If the same could be said for ID I’d be all for encorporating into the science curriculum, in fact, if the same could be said for ID I’d probably cease to be an atheist, after all the Designer would have to be a God right? The problem is, while Evolutionary Theory has some gaps that need filling, ID theory has absolutely nothing, no foundation, no walls, no bricks, thus not even any gaps that could be filled, it’s nothing. Intelligent Design should be provable and indepentantly verifiable and measureable, it’s none of the above.
You’ve been invited to a dinner party and you’re told to dress formal. You’re choices for an outfit are, your old tux, that’s missing a couple of buttons and a cufflink… or a rubber band-peanut shell jockstrap contraption. Which do you wear to the party?[/quote]
This post is rife with inaccuracies and misconceptions which I will have to get back to you on. Sorry to skip on you right now but the list is long and I gotta work.
You know, now that I think longer on it, it wasn’t very fair of me to assume you’re bigotted towards muslims. I’ll explain where that came from. You repeatedly drew the inference that folks who believe in evolution are fanatics who scream ‘Allah Akbar’ with the ‘best of them.’ The implication here is that saying ‘praise be to God’ in arabic equates to being a fanatic, the first time you said it I figured it didn’t mean anything, the second and third times however, it just kept sound more and more racist. Perhaps that was unintentional on your part and you do don’t see most muslims as being blind fanatics who run around screaming sterotypical epithets. I don’t know you in real life and shouldn’t go so far as to infer such a broad generalization about based on a couple of unPC posts. Sadly that’s exactly what you’re doing in most of your posts in this thread in regards to anyone who is critical of ID as Science but that’s neither here nor there.
All I’m trying to get across is that ID theory is not science, not by any stretch of the imagination, it’s philosphy based in a religious presuposition. Evolution Theory, despite the gaps in it, is a science and is based on scientific principles and it does not rule out the possibility of Evolution being controlled by an intellgence outside the realm of what we know.
Not all evolutionists are anti-ID and not all folks who believe in some form of intellegent design totally dismiss the science of evolution. The folks who are pushing to put ID in science classes however, have a very fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, despite their best intentions, they’re attempting to foist a pretty seriously flawed concept onto children in biology classes.
There is nothing about ID Theory in any of it’s myriad forms that qualifies it as a valid scientific theory and there won’t be until you can come up with some observable phenomena that can be measured, tested and independantly verified and subsequently experimented upon. Until that happens, it’s an interesting idea that has no bearing on the scientific community.
[quote]Xvim wrote:
… it’s an interesting idea that has no bearing on the scientific community.[/quote]
If anybody has any doubts whatsoever about ID’s place in the classroom, re-read the statement above.
The entire Kansas debacle was caused by people who are anti-evolution. That’s it. They don’t want to be monkeys, they want to be special somehow. Sorry guys, but you are monkeys. I mean, knock yourself out with your pronouncements of how God has a plan for you, etc., but don’t try to tell me that there’s no such thing as evolution.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
All I’m trying to get across is that macroevolution theory is not science, not by any stretch of the imagination, it’s philosphy based in a religious presuposition. (It’s faith-based, dude. You have to have hooooooge amounts of faith. You won’t buy into that but it’s true. Read the above posts written by evoutionists like Stephen Jay Gould)[/quote]
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. And it’s not just my opinion. You seem to have some fixation on macro-evolution vs. the general theory of evolution and like to keep separating micro and macro evolution into two distinct catagories, presumably so you sound less foolish when you spout anti-evolution rhetoric despite the evidence. Micro-evolution is easily observable by the average person, you can see it happen within your life time so you can’t really argue that point so you fixate on macro-evolution. To that end I direct you here:
Please provide similar proof for the existance of an Intellegent Designer or stfu.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
All I’m trying to get across is that macroevolution theory is not science, not by any stretch of the imagination, it’s philosphy based in a religious presuposition. (It’s faith-based, dude. You have to have hooooooge amounts of faith. You won’t buy into that but it’s true. Read the above posts written by evoutionists like Stephen Jay Gould)[/quote]
Oops, push. Do you even know what macroevolution is? I think that you might not. Species arises from each other, dude. That is a scientific FACT. Just like the FACT that we are all made up of atoms. I’m sorry, but that’s it. The end.
The only other way for species, which is differing life forms, to exist is for them to have spontaneously arisen independently of each other. The convergent/divergent graphs and timelines for the evolution of different species as found in taxonomy and paleontology has been posted on this website several times – by me at least four times. So that’s out. Horses don’t just pop into existence, dude. There were smaller mammals which changed and adapted into the large and fuzzy steeds of our modern day. The fossil record of the modern horse is really good, so I used that as an example in an older thread about this. Check it out:
Or what else can explain the diversity of life on our planet?
Creationism.
All you have to do to debunk creationism is to show that all species were not coexistent at some point. That is because the creationist view cannot support the idea of change happening by itself. We have a fossil record that although incomplete (and it will always be that way, so get used to it) has provided ample evidence to debunk creationism.
There simply isn’t any other way to explain the diversity of lifeforms on our planet. I’m sorry. Have I ever watched a new species arise from a different one? No. But that’s okay, I can look a little further with reason than past my own nose, so I don’t NEED to see macroevolution happen right in front of me to know that it is true. It’s like doing a puzzle, dude. You do it a piece at a time, and then it all starts to fall in place after a while.
You know what? I’ve never seen an atom, either. I know that they are out there, though. That’s not FAITH, that’s reason – supported by evidence. There is a very very large difference between the two.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Xvim wrote:
… it’s an interesting idea that has no bearing on the scientific community.
If anybody has any doubts whatsoever about ID’s place in the classroom, re-read the statement above.
The entire Kansas debacle was caused by people who are anti-evolution. That’s it. They don’t want to be monkeys, they want to be special somehow. Sorry guys, but you are monkeys. I mean, knock yourself out with your pronouncements of how God has a plan for you, etc., but don’t try to tell me that there’s no such thing as evolution.[/quote]
Lothario, they are not monkeys. They may have monkeys for cousins though.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Xvim wrote:
All I’m trying to get across is that ID theory is not science, not by any stretch of the imagination, it’s philosphy based in a religious presuposition. Evolution Theory, despite the gaps in it, is a science and is based on scientific principles and it does not rule out the possibility of Evolution being controlled by an intellgence outside the realm of what we know.
All I’m trying to get across is that macroevolution theory is not science, not by any stretch of the imagination, it’s philosphy based in a religious presuposition. (It’s faith-based, dude. You have to have hooooooge amounts of faith. You won’t buy into that but it’s true. Read the above posts written by evoutionists like Stephen Jay Gould)[/quote]
Are you even reading the articles being posted here? The ID argument for proof of macro evolution has been shoot down many times now. Some of the following rebuttals to your post are pretty good too.