[quote]IagoMB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
First of all, Intelligent design fundamentally has nothing to do with theism or creationism.
Not according to what’s coming out of the Dover trial. Everyone one should read the transcripts of it, which are availible online. That’s one reason I left the last forum on this subject. I realized no one here really has the facts. [/quote]
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Now, all we have to do is have a PERFECT model of evolution (which we don’t as we are discovering non-darwinian mechanisms all the time) and have a complete understanding of ALL the laws of physics that led to life! Well, if you know all of those I suspect you don’t need to prove that God exists because you would have to be God.[/quote]
Ugh. Mert. You have a choice to make, just like in everything else in life this is something you CHOOSE.
option #1: Supernatural Creation happened. Here’s how I’m probably right.
option #2: Evolution happened. Here’s how I’m probably right.
And then anybody will choose to see whatever they want to see in the two arguments above. Just don’t make the mistake of thinking option #1 has anything to do with science. That’s option #2. Option #1 is religion.
That’s it. End of story. The End.
Option #3: God created the universe knowing it would evolve. The universe evolved, life evolved, we sprang up, the argument goes on.
I’m not saying I prefer this option to any other, but it is an alternative.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
aaaaAAAAAAAAHHH!!!
Oh no! Another evolution vs. creationism thread!!! Kill it!! :)[/quote]
It couldn’t be more ironic that every time you try and kill it, some part survives and comes back stronger and better than the last time! Is it an evolutionary meme or an intelligently designed meme?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
…
That’s right. They are going to teach ID in an elective comparative religion class, not in science class.
…
[/quote]
That is where it belongs. Good deal.
Creationism and/or ID can be taught in sociology class while studing religions of the world and Evolution is taught in science class where it belongs.
The school board in Dover, PA was run out of office as a result of this very same issue.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idmovement.htm[/quote]
Just like wrote, no one here has the facts. Read the transcipts from the trial and you’ll quickly discover that you’re not quoting relavant information.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idmovement.htm
Just like wrote, no one here has the facts. Read the transcipts from the trial and you’ll quickly discover that you’re not quoting relavant information.
[/quote]
Wow! thanks. I have been reading. Interestingly, it appears that what Kansas board approved was not Intelligent design at all, but actually a dyed in the wool young earth creationism-In other words, THEY have no idea what ID is and don’t care probably.
But keep in mind that we had Bush saying publicly a couple months ago that he though ID should be taught in schools. That is why I think my posts are relevant.
Anyway, it seems to me based on what I’ve read of the transcripts, that a teacher could get away with simply having 30 minutes where they formulate a list of “unanswered questions” about evolution such as:
That sounds like “teaching the controversy” to me and none of those issues is “creationist.”
Still reading though
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Wow! thanks. I have been reading. Interestingly, it appears that what Kansas board approved was not Intelligent design at all, but actually a dyed in the wool young earth creationism-In other words, THEY have no idea what ID is and don’t care probably.
But keep in mind that we had Bush saying publicly a couple months ago that he though ID should be taught in schools. That is why I think my posts are relevant.
Anyway, it seems to me based on what I’ve read of the transcripts, that a teacher could get away with simply having 30 minutes where they formulate a list of “unanswered questions” about evolution such as:
That sounds like “teaching the controversy” to me and none of those issues is “creationist.”
Still reading though
[/quote]
No problem. Enjoy. However, that “teaching the controversy” thing, the trial is stressing that there is no controversy.
This is basically what my pastor says. By the way I’m a Lutheran Missouri Synod, which is the most conservative of the Lutheran Churches.
I’m getting married soon and have been conversing regularly with my new pastor. He stated that people take numbers in the bible way to literally. The seven days it took to create the world probably was longer. Gods way is not to be understood and God also created time. If time was created last don’t you think that 7 days could look like billions of years.
captain logic-
how does following one unproven theory over another based on its supposed age make logical sense? In essence, I second what lorisco wrote
ramses-
ugh… bachelors and masters, both with honors, in mechanical engineering. i have physics and math in the bag via formal training and a personal interest. biology has been a passion of mine since i was 13, but i just didnt see the earning potential so I went with engineering. I would hazard a guess that I am every bit as educated about evolutionary theory as you, considering that studying evolutionary theory is what led me to my views on ID.
Mike the bear-
I didnt say all of teh vaticans decisions were political, and you provided fine examples of ones that arent. i just believe that this decision is political in nature, granted it is unproven and untested, which is why it is just a theory.
lothario-
i have been involved in many id discussions on this very board. and it is based a great deal in science (stats), i cite many citations from said previous threads. granted it suffers from the same shortcoming as evolutionary theory in that it is untestible and unverifiable- but it is based in just as much science as evolutionary theory is.
ToShinDo-
that comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. my bad if it wasnt obvious.
ramses-
yes such flaws. like procreation of the new species. at some point in time the shift from old species to new species must happen- no matter which of the popular evolutionary models you follow. Once this occurs, the new species cant procreate w/ the species it evolved from and create viable offspring. that is one of the protocol for a species- it can produce viable offspring w/ its own species and only its own species.
so, new species has no other of its kind to procreate w/, species dies. OR, there is the slight possibility that the exact same random mutation happened to another of the same prior species offsprings at the same time and it is of the opposite gender and there are no other genetic defects in either of the new species that would prevent viable offspring production.
Enter statistics and probabilities- building on on math similar to merts examples- and you get some obsurdly small number, 10^-large number. Then this happens upteen millions or billions of times, and you end up with something that likely didnt happen. that is, if you want to educate yourself on math and physics and statistics along with biology and chemistry. and that is only one example… and as mert has pointed out, ID is a statistical study
marmadogg-
why does evolutionary theory belong in science class? there is actually very little science involved in it. if you want to be comparative, it has about the same amount of hard science in it as ID (maybe less when considering the statistical aspect and not simply the chemical, biological aspects). so why does one thing w/ X amount of science involved w/ it belong in science class and another thing w/ X amount of science involved w/ it not?
exit stage left.
[quote]DA MAN wrote:
lothario-
i have been involved in many id discussions on this very board. and it is based a great deal in science (stats), i cite many citations from said previous threads. granted it suffers from the same shortcoming as evolutionary theory in that it is untestible and unverifiable- but it is based in just as much science as evolutionary theory is.
[/quote]
LOL The statistics used to support ID is the 0.9 banana of science.
PS Evoutionary theory is verified quite readily by a quick peek at the fossil record. Although incomplete (as it will always be), it shows very easily, over and over, how and when species adapted into different ones.
But why am I repeating myself for the millionth time here? You’ve seen the other threads, right? Could it be that you are just seeing what you want to?
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
Why is it that Bible beaters feel the need to defend their idiotic point of view so vehemently? I never saw anything in the Bible about forcing everyone to believe what it teaches.
Maybe it’s because deep inside they know their wrong and it scares the shit out of them. Just so you know, my entire family are Bible thumpers, so I got a degree in Biological Anthropology. Evolution is my name.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
But why am I repeating myself for the millionth time here? You’ve seen the other threads, right? Could it be that you are just seeing what you want to?
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.[/quote]
I’m with you here lothario, I post a joke about the Vatican, White Sox, BoSox, Arnold and the end of the world and DA MAN starts labelling me as dyed-in-the-wool hardcore evolutionist, I especially liked the “evolution as immutable fact” line.
He obviously hasn’t been reading my posts on the other threads or else he would know that I’m not against ID and generally support the ‘Evolution is a theory’ disclaimer that every class I was in used.
He also doesn’t know what he’s arguing about when saying that ToE is “nothing more than a theory” and can’t be verified by the scientific method. Even the Dover Schoolboard itself acknowledges ToE’s validity, testability, and observability.
I think he’s best left to stew in his own juices while the public shoots down the teaching of ID in schools.
[quote]Remz wrote:
DA MAN wrote:
nothing more than a theory
Hence the expression “Theory of Evolution”, which is, unlike creationism, at least based on some facts.
Remz[/quote]
Evolution is an observable fact; it might have been a theory 100 years ago, not anymore. The theories have to do with how specifically evolution occurred, not whether it happened.
As an analogy, 500 years ago it might have been a theory that the Earth is round. Today, the relevant theories deal with how it got to be round, not whether it is so.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
Way to get off the topic of 80+% of my post. My only point about my belief was that despite the fact that I believe the universe to be intelligently designed, I deny that “intelligent design theory” has any place in science or science classes. I guess its just easier to skip to the end.
If you want to get into specifics of the obvious evidence it includes such examples as that the mammalian structural eye genes exist completely intact in the nematode DNA even though nematodes eyes only utilize 10-20% of that genetic material for their eye structure.
Many genes for skeletal mineralization
are present in bacteria even though no bacteria uses or benefits from this gene.
Still, not my point. [/quote]
There is vertical gene flow (parents to offspring) and the oft forgotten horizontal gene flow, accomplished by pathogens, in particular viruses, moving amongst organisms of even different species, while grabbing and inserting DNA chunks. This accounts, according to some, for up to 30% of our genome. So, organisms may have highly complex adaptive structures in their DNA, even though it might never have been used, not even by their ancestors.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Now, all we have to do is have a PERFECT model of evolution (which we don’t as we are discovering non-darwinian mechanisms all the time) and have a complete understanding of ALL the laws of physics that led to life! Well, if you know all of those I suspect you don’t need to prove that God exists because you would have to be God.[/quote]
Non Darwinian mechanisms ?! I am intrigued. Please name or describe one. And please don’t mention Lamarck, I might have a fit. His theory is as dead as he is. I await your response.
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
Remz wrote:
DA MAN wrote:
nothing more than a theory
Hence the expression “Theory of Evolution”, which is, unlike creationism, at least based on some facts.
Remz
Evolution is an observable fact; it might have been a theory 100 years ago, not anymore. The theories have to do with how specifically evolution occurred, not whether it happened.
As an analogy, 500 years ago it might have been a theory that the Earth is round. Today, the relevant theories deal with how it got to be round, not whether it is so.
[/quote]
Microevolution is not the same as evolution of cross species. Dinosaurs turning into birds has not been observed and is not proven as fact. That is why the theory that all life came from a single celled organism is still a theory regardless of how much you may wish it wasn’t so.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
danweltmann wrote:
Remz wrote:
DA MAN wrote:
nothing more than a theory
Hence the expression “Theory of Evolution”, which is, unlike creationism, at least based on some facts.
Remz
Evolution is an observable fact; it might have been a theory 100 years ago, not anymore. The theories have to do with how specifically evolution occurred, not whether it happened.
As an analogy, 500 years ago it might have been a theory that the Earth is round. Today, the relevant theories deal with how it got to be round, not whether it is so.
Microevolution is not the same as evolution of cross species. Dinosaurs turning into birds has not been observed and is not proven as fact. That is why the theory that all life came from a single celled organism is still a theory regardless of how much you may wish it wasn’t so.[/quote]
There have been cases of species evolving into others in the last few hundred years, usually plants, I regret not having the examples handy.
On a larger scale, nobody claims to observe macroevolution (I presume that is what you mean by cross species evolution). What is observed are fossils, which tell quite a tale, and in recent years evolutionary trees have been revised on the basis of molecular evidence. Dawkins makes the argument that even in the complete absence of any fossils, today evolution is glaringly obvious, due to the evidence encoded in our genes.
I recomend “The Ancestor’s Tale” by Richard Dawkins, his magnum opus.
The stuff about what I wish it were so was a cheap shot, so I’ll just ignore it.
As for us originating from single celled organisms, the theory (and I admit it is just that) is more generally described as all life having a common ancestor, incidentally one celled. Not necessarily, since life probably began before single celled organisms.
The argument for a common ancestor has nothing to do with fossils, and everything to do with DNA. Imagine base pairs as letters, genes as words, an organism’s entire genome as a book. We all use the same letters, the same way of making the words, the same codons specify the same amino acids, from arcaebacteriae to mushrooms, viruses and elephants.
If you saw a bunch of languages all using the same alphabet, you might be tempted to conclude that at some point in the past there was only one language that used that alphabet (a limited analogy, I admit, since other languages can and do adopt alphabets, an option not open to life).
Considering that millions of amino acids exist in abundance, and that none seem to be particularly better or worse than the 20 or so that all of life uses, it indicates rather strongly a common ancestor at some point in the past.
Interestingly, this argument does not preclude different beginnings for life, it’s just that all life that survives seems to have come from one ancestor.
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
The stuff about what I wish it were so was a cheap shot, so I’ll just ignore it.[/quote]
Why?
Nice use of a bunch of facts to come to a possible conclusion that hasn’t been proven. There is a word for that…I used to know what that word was…it rhymed with eerie.