[Galemp]

Originally posted by Stealth
and i say, evolution's the same way! (at least on a 4th grader level).  

"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"simple, son:  evolution!"
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"simple, son:  evolution!".

so you can't say that ID's the easy way out.  evolution at this level is just as easy

wait wait wait. You're saying evolution is the 'easy way out' because it has a name? Suppose your son asks you what evolution is?
You'd have to spend a significant amount of time trying to put it into terms he can understand. On the other hand, the idea that a big invisible guy with a beard made the world and everything in it in a week is a pretty easy one to grasp, and makes a good bedtime story. Again, it's just as plausible as the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory--to a four-year-old.

It's apparent that you don't understand (or don't want to understand) the fundamentals behind evolution; chances are you're like that priest in the trials who thinks evolution is a bug turning into fish turning into a rabbit. But I'm not here to argue why it's valid, I'm  here to listen to you argue why ID is valid.

And you still haven't broached what Kara, Aldo and I have been saying--that teaching ID is inherently dangerous to scientific development. What about that?

[Stealth]

Well, you're an idiot then. I'm sorry, but you fail to understand the basic premises of science; exploration and understanding over time.

Wrong.  what i'm saying is that just because science can't understand something, doesn't mean THERE HAS to be a scientific explanation.  it's OK to say "Yeah. that's too complex for us to try to understand now... we'll keep trying of course, but for now we're not going to throw out stupid 'scientific' anything"...i think it's stupid that people subconsciously think that science has an explanation for everything.  science doesn't in this case.  there are theories, but there's no "scientifically proven" fact in creation/evolution... so don't start throwing out "scientific" this and that.  

Provide proof...no, evidence that God exists. Explain where God comes from and why He/She/It existed before life or (in expansion) all other matter. Explain how this concept of an interventionist God meshes with the complete absence of divine intervention in the present day, and why God would create and kill life in mass exinctions.

More importantly, provide any form of evidence that supports this. Not presumption, not attempting to pick holes in theories, but actual evidence for it.
and there's no proof that life is the result of evolution either!  there's no EVIDENCE supporting evolution either!  so why is it evolutionists are always saying "prove that God exists.  prove this.  prove that" when they have absolutely no proof either!  (see the quote i posted earlier)

You say 'it's the easy way out', but you can't provide one single piece of basis for your belief? You can't even find a valid, proveabl;e 'hole' in evolution (only presume you're too dumb to understand it yourself)?
and you can?  In my opinion, evolution is the easy way out, because it means man doesn't have to acknowledge that somewhere out there, there's a higher being.  again: "Man defines what it doesn't understand", and it's so true.  

I'd note that geocentrists claim the bible says the earth does not rotate and the sun, stars, etc rotate around it. There are also lines in the bible, IIRC, referring - literally - to the Sun rising and falling at (IIRC) Joshuas command.

So you're just reinterpreting the bible with the addition of scientific discovery to try and validate it.

What a shame that the notion of the earth orbiting the sun was, as I pointed out previously, condemned by the church. In fact, the Catholic church place Galileo under house arrest after holding an inquistion to question his views and concluding that the Universe revolved around the earth.

So those bible literalists read the same thing as you - devoted their life to studying it - and yet came up with the opposite answer. Catholic dogma actually held the Ptolmaic model as right, despite it (earthcentric) being proven incorrect from observation.

(The bible also explictly mentions the Earth as having ends, 4 corners - and contradictoraliy describing it as a circle, pillars, foundations and being visible from the top of a tall mountain).

Hmm.... it's not exactly a source I'd trust anyways literal interpretation of.

Yeah?

--- Isaiah 40: 22 Isaiah recorded that the earth was round ("circle of the earth") approximately 2,200 years prior to Columbus' claim in 1492.
--- The Bible declares that the earth is round and hangs in space (Prov. 8:27; Isa. 40:22; Job 26:7). Man did not discover this fact until 1475. It was discovered by Copernicus.
--- The Bible declares that air has weight (Job. 28:25). Galileo discovered it in 1630
--- The Bible declares that the earth revolves around the sun (Job 38: 13-14). This was not discovered by man until 1500. Again, Copernicus made this wonderful discovery
--- The Bible declares that the winds have regular circuits and that the rain clouds are only evaporated water (Ecc. 1:6-7). Man did not discover this until 1630
--- The Bible declares that there is great empty space in the north without stars (Job 26:7). Not until Lord Rosse invented his treat telescope did man discover this remarkable scientific fact
--- The Bible declares that messages can be sent forth by "lightnings" or electricity (Job 38:35). Lightning is the only word the Hebrews had for electricity. Modern radio proves the Biblical scientific fact
--- The Bible declares that God has measured and weighed the ingredients of every substance He has created (Isa. 40:12). Only recently chemists have discovered that all substances to combine chemically must be weighed or measured exactly as they will only combine in exact proportions
--- The Bible declares that the stars innumerable (Gen. 15:5; Jer. 33: 22). Hipparchus said there were only 1,022 stars. Ptolemy said there were 1,026. Galileo was the first to teach they could not be numbered
--- The Bible declares that the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev. 14:12). William Harvey did not discover this truth until 1615
--- Earth is round:
------Job 22:14 Thick clouds cover Him, so that He cannot see, And He walks above the circle of heaven.'
------Prov 8:27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there, When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
------Isa 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Circle is also translated as sphere in Hebrew.

Point is, hundreds, or thousands of years before some ideas were "discovered" by science, the Bible had talked about them.  So don't say the Bible's not scientific.  in fact, it's way ahead of science, since many things mentioned in the bible (see the long list above) that made no sense to anyone at the time, were proven BY SCIENCE later in time.

The point is, evolution has depth beyond that. It has a supporting basis. It has evidence in support.

ID has none of that. It can't even answer the question 'why?'

And I say where is the evidence.  if there was evidence supporting evolution, then it wouldn't be a theory now, would it.   even a well known evolutionist stated there was no evidence supporting evolution.  see the quote i posted earlier.

I find your intellectual nihilism to be an abomination against Man and God, whoever he may be. Your cult of ignorance is something that is equally disgusting and frightening.

Also, for your further education: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

and let me tell you what I find an abomination against Man and God:  That man puts so much trust in Science, that they think EVERYTHING at this time must have a "scientific explanation".  I've got nothing against science, i make as much use of scientific inventions than any of you here, and appreciate it just as much, but Science is just guessing here.  There is NO PROOF either way, so how can anything be "scientific"?  Please.  Let science keep probing, trying to find the truth, that's fine with me, i'm all for that, but at this point there is no scientific proof of anything to do with this topic, and man needs to stop thinking that science always has a logical answer, when in fact, right now, they don't.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Galemp


wait wait wait. You're saying evolution is the 'easy way out' because it has a name? Suppose your son asks you what evolution is?
You'd have to spend a significant amount of time trying to put it into terms he can understand. On the other hand, the idea that a big invisible guy with a beard made the world and everything in it in a week is a pretty easy one to grasp, and makes a good bedtime story. Again, it's just as plausible as the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory--to a four-year-old.

It's apparent that you don't understand (or don't want to understand) the fundamentals behind evolution; chances are you're like that priest in the trials who thinks evolution is a bug turning into fish turning into a rabbit. But I'm not here to argue why it's valid, I'm  here to listen to you argue why ID is valid.

And you still haven't broached what Kara, Aldo and I have been saying--that teaching ID is inherently dangerous to scientifiIc development. What about that?

See, that's the thing all evolutionists always pull out.  That's the "ignorant" card they always play.  "Well you're obviously not intelligent enough to understand evolution".

Oh please.

I'm saying that evolution is just as easy as ID.  it's just as "easy" a way out.  And you're quick to play it off by saying "I'm not here to argue why evolution's valid, i'm here to listen to you argue why ID's valid".

and i'm saying why don't you argue that evolution's valid.  why don't all you evolutionists start pulling out some proof, and THUS prove that ID is invalid...

[Mefustae]

My apologies Stealth, I was in the middle of something before, but now I can respond to your dissection of my post;

Recently, I've read many opinion articles on ID from noted Scientists, and all seem to talk of how many believers in ID tend to use quotes out of context or read them incorrectly in their quest to discredit the Theory of Evolution. I'd never really seen it before, but you, my good friend, have done exactly that.

In my earlier post, I was responding to your claim that the Theory of Evolution is simpler, and thus less complex, than Intelligent Design. Therefore, I endeavered to show you that the Theory of Evolution is indeed much more complex than ID, which I did. Unfortunately, you misinterpreted this;

Originally posted by Stealth
OOOOOH I get itttt!  Because evolution is the more complex of the theories, it's GOT to be the right one!  Because you can actually scientifically explain it.  yeah. it's more in-depth.  obviously it's correct.  i understand now.



here's one for you:

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist.

so don't tell me that evolution is correct scientifically.  it's accepted because it's the easiest thing to comprehend.  man doesn't like to believe something that it's not 100% sure of, and doesn't understand fully.  i think that quote pretty much sums it up.[/B]

Wow. You've missed the point of not just my post, but a completely unrelated quote as well! First off, by 'Evolution is quite obviously Science, and thus should be tought in Science class', I was simply stating that the Theory of Evolution is Science. I was not commenting on it being true in any way, nor was I saying that its complexity in any way effects the truthfulness of the Theory.

In regard to the Sir Arthur Keith quote you dragged in, you seem to have completely misinterpreted his statement. He is saying that the Theory of Evolution is indeed unprovable, but then, what exactly is provable in this universe of ours? His statement refers to the fact that Evolution is the best idea we have that explains the development of life on this planet, and that the only other theory that carries any weight with it in our (Western) society - Religeous Creation - is what he believes to be complete boulderdash! This quote has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion, but is used by ID proponents out of context to further discredit the Theory of Evolution, which you have attempted to do quite admirably. I'm not entirely sure why you pulled this up, nor the statement you put forth beneath it, as you seem to be contradicting yourself...Honestly, I have no idea what in the heck you're on about right there...

Originally posted by Stealth
and i say, evolution's the same way! (at least on a 4th grader level).  

"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"simple, son:  evolution!"
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"simple, son:  evolution!".

so you can't say that ID's the easy way out.  evolution at this level is just as easy

I believe it would be more like this;

"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"Well, when a man and a woman love each other veery much..."
"Nonono, I mean life"
"Oh! Simple, son: God."
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"It's all God's design, Son."
"...Ok, thanks anyway, but i'm going to go ask Mommy"

Now, should that same father be versed in Evolution;

"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"Well, son, there's this thing called Evolution, see. Over time, animals and stuff change to fit their environment. You see, people like you and me used to look just like Apes, called 'Primates', but we evolved to look like we do today."
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"They all evolved to look this way, in fact, everything on Earth started out as nothing more than what's called a 'Primordial Soup."
"You mean like we had for dinner?"
"No, son, this soup was special. Now, i'm sure your teacher would know a lot more about this, as it's quite complicated."
"Okay dad, thanks..."

My tired typing hand says that Evolution is not as simple as ID to grasp. Explaining ID can be done in one word; God. That one word in essence describes everything you need to know about ID, which isn't bloody much. 'Evolution' requires elaboration, as it is a complex process, and thus needs to be explained. That's the key word here, Explain. Sure, you can answer somebody 'Evolution', but they won't have any fracking idea what you're talking about if they've never head of it - like a 4th Grader for example - and thus requires an explination of considerable length. ID doesn't need explaining, it's God's will, so that we may blindly obey. I'm sorry, but even blind Freddy driving backwards at night wearing reflective sun-glasses can plainly see that ID is in fact the 'easy way out' as you so eloquently put.

I'm cool with your obvious belief in Christianity. I'm not going to insult your faith, as it is entirely up to you what to believe. But i'm not fond of religeous fanatics - and yes, these people are fanatics - who come up with ideas like ID that prove only to slow our growth as a species. If you want to stick your head in the sand and keep your mind closed that there might be something a little more complicated to the Universe than 'God', that's cool. For myself, I prefer to know how I came to be, and what the future might hold for me, and the rest of the species...

EDIT:

Originally posted by Stealth
and there's no proof that life is the result of evolution either! there's no EVIDENCE supporting evolution either! so why is it evolutionists are always saying "prove that God exists. prove this. prove that" when they have absolutely no proof either! (see the quote i posted earlier)

Listen, i'm sorry, but that's complete crap. Obviously, you've never heard of Urey & Miller's famous experiment, in which they created Amino Acids, the building blocks of life, from Lightning and inatimate chemicals that would be present in a primitive Earth environment.

You've also never heard of Evolutionary Radiation, a single species changing to fit niches in nature left vacant, such as a Sparrow on a desert island (it escapes me where this was observed). You're also ignoring observed Micro-evolution!

There is a rather critical difference between having evidence and being able to prove something. Nothing can be conclusively proven, as Keith pointed in your quote, theories such as Evolution cannot be conclusively proven, but saying Evolution has no evidence is just wrong.

ID proponents want Science to prove Evoltion, I say; after you,,,

[Stealth]

Originally posted by karajorma


The problem is that the theory explains Nothing. It's a sham. Suppose the theory of gravity simply said something pulls objects down. No mathmatical formulae no nothing. What you've posted isn't a theory its an assertion. An unproven and unprovable assertion at that.
but it is still a theory.  so is evolution, which means neither of them hold any more weight than the other.  if it was such a sham, it wouldn't be in existence

My whole point is that if ID is anything other than a sham it must explain how mankind came to be. When he came to be and when all the other animals came to be. Evolution CAN and DOES do that whether or not you agree with it the fact is that only a moron would say that evolution doesn't provide those answers even if you feel they are wrong.
from my standpoint, if you want to understand ID, then read the Bible. that will explain to you where so many people come from

If ID is to stand as a counter-argument to evolution it must explain everything that evolution can explain about how animals got here. The simple fact that it does not explain those things shows that it is a sham and a smokescreen and nothing more.
again.  the Bible explains it.

Overall, what it comes down to, is what you believe in.  If you believe in the Bible, and believe it's accurate, then you'll believe in intelligent design and creationism.  if you don't, you'll believe in evolution.  that's why there'll never be a final undisputed RIGHT or WRONG, until science clearly, FACTUALLY proves evolution


I think you need

1) To read what I wrote again.
2) A better dictionary
reason i said "j/k" there was because i say "diametrically opposite" all the time, and i thought i was the only person that ever said it .  people always tell me they mean the same thing too
 

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Mefustae
In regard to the Sir Arthur Keith quote you dragged in, you seem to have completely misinterpreted his statement. He is saying that the Theory of Evolution is indeed unprovable, but then, what exactly is provable in this universe of ours? His statement refers to the fact that Evolution is the best idea we have that explains the development of life on this planet, and that the only other theory that carries any weight with it in our (Western) society - Religeous Creation - is what he believes to be complete boulderdash! This quote has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion, but is used by ID proponents out of context to further discredit the Theory of Evolution, which you have attempted to do quite admirably. I'm not entirely sure why you pulled this up, nor the statement you put forth beneath it, as you seem to be contradicting yourself...Honestly, I have no idea what in the heck you're on about right there...
no, what he's saying is that people believe evolution simply because they don't want to believe in God.  don't want to believe in creation

My tired typing hand says that Evolution is not as simple as ID to grasp. Explaining ID can be done in one word; God. That one word in essence describes everything you need to know about ID, which isn't bloody much. 'Evolution' requires elaboration, as it is a complex process, and thus needs to be explained. That's the key word here, Explain. Sure, you can answer somebody 'Evolution', but they won't have any fracking idea what you're talking about if they've never head of it - like a 4th Grader for example - and thus requires an explination of considerable length. ID doesn't need explaining, it's God's will, so that we may blindly obey. I'm sorry, but even blind Freddy driving backwards at night wearing reflective sun-glasses can plainly see that ID is in fact the 'easy way out' as you so eloquently put.
that's true, but when i typed out the 'conversation' between a son and his father, i was showing you that all your theories can be summed into one word too:  evolution.  which is simple on the outside, but (as you agree) is extremely elaborate the deeper you dig.  but so is ID... you believe God created life, that's just the beginning.  now go read the Bible.  i just don't like that people say "ID is so simple compared to the elaborate evolution theory".  so what.  just because it's simple means it's incorrect?  

I'm cool with your obvious belief in Christianity. I'm not going to insult your faith, as it is entirely up to you what to believe. But i'm not fond of religeous fanatics - and yes, these people are fanatics - who come up with ideas like ID that prove only to slow our growth as a species. If you want to stick your head in the sand and keep your mind closed that there might be something a little more complicated to the Universe than 'God', that's cool. For myself, I prefer to know how I came to be, and what the future might hold for me, and the rest of the species...
but dude, no one just "came up" with the idea of ID... it's been around since the Bible

EDIT:

Listen, i'm sorry, but that's complete crap. Obviously, you've never heard of Urey & Miller's famous experiment, in which they created Amino Acids, the building blocks of life, from Lightning and inatimate chemicals that would be present in a primitive Earth environment.

You've also never heard of Evolutionary Radiation, a single species changing to fit niches in nature left vacant, such as a Sparrow on a desert island (it escapes me where this was observed). You're also ignoring observed Micro-evolution!

There is a rather critical difference between having evidence and being able to prove something. Nothing can be conclusively proven, as Keith pointed in your quote, theories such as Evolution cannot be conclusively proven, but saying Evolution has no evidence is just wrong.

i had heard of that somewhere.  like i said though, it boils down to whether you believe in the Bible or not.  if not, then yeah, you can see how life would form from a soup, when lightning, and the right chemicals just happened to be in the right atmosphere, and 'life' formed, and then in billions of years, formed the creatures we are today.  for me, that's a stretch.  but i agreed that to an extent i believe in evolution, like, as you mentioned, a sparrow on a desert island.  i just don't believe that evolution explains how life formed.  and there is no rock-solid evidence pointing to evolution, so why are you trying to prove that evolution is the correct theory?  ID has evidence too.

also, regarding their experiment... how do they know what the earth's conditions at the time "life formed" were back then? No one knows.  we have some evidence, but no one's sure exactly.  that's just one inconsistency i thought of off the top of my head regarding Urey & Miller's experiment.

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by Stealth
no, what he's saying is that people believe evolution simply because they don't want to believe in God. don't want to believe in creation
I disagree, and thus believe we should get a third party to decide...

that's true, but when i typed out the 'conversation' between a son and his father, i was showing you that all your theories can be summed into one word too: evolution. which is simple on the outside, but (as you agree) is extremely elaborate the deeper you dig. but so is ID... you believe God created life, that's just the beginning. now go read the Bible. i just don't like that people say "ID is so simple compared to the elaborate evolution theory". so what. just because it's simple means it's incorrect?
I think we're still waiting on a Hypothesis or actual Theory to elaborate on! What is there to elaborate on anyway? God designed all life, we don't know how, why, or anything else, but what we do know, is that God designed it. That's it. That's what you're arguing. That's not a summary, that's ID's entire dang arguement! And you're the one that brought up the whole Simplicity arguement some time ago anyway!

but dude, no one just "came up" with the idea of ID... it's been around since the Bible
Actually, Creationism has been around for a while. Intelligent Design is only a recent developmet. Indeed, Creationalism & Intelligent Design are one in the same, but nobody is considering the teaching of Creationism in Science class, that has been tried, and failed, keeping with the 'speration of Church & State' as the US puts it. To get around this, ID was created. ID is creationism, but is called Science by the people that thought it up. At its core, it's just another attempt to get God into Science Class, which is obiously getting quite a few people riled up...

EDIT:

Originally posted by Stealth

i had heard of that somewhere.  like i said though, it boils down to whether you believe in the Bible or not.  if not, then yeah, you can see how life would form from a soup, when lightning, and the right chemicals just happened to be in the right atmosphere, and 'life' formed, and then in billions of years, formed the creatures we are today.  for me, that's a stretch.  but i agreed that to an extent i believe in evolution, like, as you mentioned, a sparrow on a desert island.  i just don't believe that evolution explains how life formed.  and there is no rock-solid evidence pointing to evolution, so why are you trying to prove that evolution is the correct theory?  ID has evidence too.

That's cool if you choose not to 'believe' in Evolution, but c'mon! Of course there isn't rock-solid evidence, that's why it's a bloody Theory! But wait, you just said you have evidence for ID. Finally! Progress! Let's hear it!

Originally posted by Stealth
also, regarding their experiment... how do they know what the earth's conditions at the time "life formed" were back then? No one knows.  we have some evidence, but no one's sure exactly.  that's just one inconsistency i thought of off the top of my head regarding Urey & Miller's experiment.

All I can say is; Rock Core Samples. You'd be surprised how much they can tell us about the environment of any time going back a surprisingly long way. But I will concede, Urey & Miller's experiment isn't concrete. Amino Acids are only the very, very first stage of life, and by no means provide rock-solid evidence that Life emerged out of nothing. But we've got to start somewhere, and it's a pretty good dang start!

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by Stealth
and let me tell you what I find an abomination against Man and God:  That man puts so much trust in Science, that they think EVERYTHING at this time must have a "scientific explanation".  I've got nothing against science, i make as much use of scientific inventions than any of you here, and appreciate it just as much, but Science is just guessing here.  There is NO PROOF either way, so how can anything be "scientific"?  Please.  Let science keep probing, trying to find the truth, that's fine with me, i'm all for that, but at this point there is no scientific proof of anything to do with this topic, and man needs to stop thinking that science always has a logical answer, when in fact, right now, they don't.

Okay.

First of all: please, please, please,

NO PROOF

science always has a logical answer

it is still a theory

learn the words.

Proof is for maths and philosophy, not for science and everything else. Science doesn't use logic, either; rather than taking a group of statements as true and working down to the facts, science looks at the facts and works up to find the group of statements that are true. A theory is an explanation of phenomena that is supported by verifiable facts. There is a Theory of Evolution, and of Gravity, and of many other things. There is not a Theory of Intelligent Design, because it explains nothing and is supported by a book and nothing more.



Your stance - that some things are magically 'unexplainable', and that this is a failure of science rather than a failure of humanity or even the idea itself - is still reprehensible and irresponsible. It would be very easy to take it to absurd lengths in order to destroy it, and that is its very danger. We may not escape the inevitable apocalypse because we were too busy blaming God and fairies to make the necessary developments to preserve our species.



Also, to reiterate a point many others have made: would you care to provide the evidence and explanation of the mechanics of ID that would make it the viable theory that you claim it is? Note that I will require more than 'the Bible' and 'God just created the world out of thin air'. Or, for that matter, 'WE CANNOT KNOW IT'S TOO HARD JUST DO WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS'.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stealth
but it is still a theory. so is evolution, which means neither of them hold any more weight than the other. if it was such a sham, it wouldn't be in existence

You quoted my post where I explained exactly why it isn't a theory but is instead an assertion, provided no counter-argument why it is a theory and then yet again stated that it's a theory.
 ID is not a theory. It's an assertion.

In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them. Scientific theories are formulated, developed, and evaluated according to the scientific method.

ID does not meet those criteria. It's an assertion that anything that is too complicated to have arisen naturally must have been made by God. How has that been tested? How is that based on observable facts?

ID is NOT a theory. Until you can provide proof of scientific experiments carried out to prove the arguments it isn't even a hypothesis.

Originally posted by Stealth
from my standpoint, if you want to understand ID, then read the Bible. that will explain to you where so many people come from

And here you prove why ID isn't a theory. Scientific theories have nothing to do with anyone's standpoint. They depend 100% on observable fact. How ridiculous would it be to teach the theory of gravity and then say Well from my standpoint this is the equation that explains gravitational attraction but from another standpoint this is the equation and it gives completely different results.

There can only be one correct answer. You might think I'm being picky but what's to stop a UFOlogist coming along and using ID as proof that aliens created mankind 10,000 years ago. After all ID doesn't explain when humans were created so his science is equally valid to yours. In fact you'd have to support his conclusion because the ID part of it would be 100% what you said was true.

(As a sidebar I reckon people who use Spagetti monster as an argument against ID should simply use ID as proof that aliens created humans. There are a whole bunch of UFO nutcases who'd glom on to it and drag it down for us )

[Black Wolf]

Stealth... I'm going to guess you don't know too much about the guy that originally said that quote.

Sir Arthur Keith Died in 1955 and was a strong proponent of Piltdown Man. Not exactly the spokesperson I'd chose for modern neodarwinism. Even though he wasn't speaking in any way to imply evolution was incorrect in the first quote, it should be noted that nothing in science is truly provable. That's the essence of science - fallibility, questionability, disprovability, something ID fundamentally lacks, putting it outside the realm of science.

Urey and Millers experiment - Though not really making up any part of modern biology, they based their atmosphere on the science of the time. We have a better picture of the early earth now through the geological makeup of the rocks we find from that era (and the chemical makeup of gasses trapped within them) as well as a more accurate model for solar system and planetary formation that tells us what would have been floating around in the early atmosphere. Morover, the primordial soup idea isn't neccesary for life - life could just as easily have formed deep underground, or at volcanic vents under the oceans - in fact, these are more likely due to the overall stability of the area (the surface was incredibly hostile at the time life formed - regular impacts by meterorites and comets would have periodically stripped away all or parts of the atmosphere)

"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"simple, son: evolution!"
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"simple, son: evolution!".

[/b]

"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"simple, son: Intelligent Design!"
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"simple, son: Intelligent design!".

You're absolutely right - It's just as simple for both sides if all you're doing is stating a name. Let's keep going though:

"Daddy, what is Intelligent Design?"
"Intelligent Design? Why it tells us that God has designed every single organism on the planet. That's why they're so perfect, and why everything works so well!"

As compared to:

"Daddy, what is evolution?"
"Evolution? Well, first you have to understand about mutation. When animals reproduce, very occasionally, their DNA is changed just a little bit through mutation. Most of the time, this makes the animal somehow weaker, but sometimes it makes the animal just a little bit better adapted to its environment. If the animal is better adapted, then it'll have a better chance of surviving, and the longer it survives, the more likelty it is to reproduce, and when it reproduces, it'll pass on the mutation that made it better adapted, while the animals without the mutation will be weeded out by pressures put on them by their environment. Eventually, over millions of years and millions of generations, entire new species can be formed, which has led to all the diversity we see around us today."

So, tell me again how evolution is the simple way out? To understand even basic evolution you need three concepts - Mutation and Genetics, Natural Selection and Deep time. To understand ID, you need one - God (or, if you like, a designer). How is evolution the simpler of the two? Especially considering that all that explains is pure darwinian evolution with a genetic addon - it doesn't even consider advanced macroevolution, correlated progression, punctuated equillibrium, hox genes, non gentic evolution (it does exist - there's no gene, for example, that tells you to have 5 fingers - finger number is controlled through different processes) etc. etc.

You then state that ID is more complex than it seems and to go read the bible. But then you fall into two problems.

Number 1 - ID isn't mentioned in the bible at all. The bible talks about literal creationism. Bang - God wanted it, it was there. Nowhere in the bible does it say "And Lo, on the fifth day, God created the Bacterial Flagella, for it was too simple to have evolved by chance" (It's not, by the way).

And Number 2 - This whole argument is sparked by the separation of church and state. If ID is outlined in the bible, the religious book of one out of a myriad of different religions, then that pretty solidly contravenes that separation, and thus it doesn't belong in schools.

Lastly, it's important to state this openly, in case the rubbish that's being spouted through here on the opposite side is getting to anyone.

Evolution has been proven.

 as much as any scientific theory can be. It might as well be the Law of Evolution, just  like we have the Laws of gasses and the Laws of Motion. It's not technically called that, because of the nature of science and the nature of the theory itself, but the basic tenets of the theory - mutation and natural selection, are beyond question. This isn't because of any kind of scientific dogma, or because people are somhow too scared to accept a god as the source of all creation (something they were quite willing to do for thousands of years) but because of evidence.

I'll say it again. Evidence. Evidence for evolution exists, thousands and thousands of times over. Far more, in fact, than would be needed to put any scientif theory at the level of general acceptance evolution has among scientists. It is consistenly corelated, by genetics, by palaeontology, by embryology, by anatomy, by virology, by geology, even by physics, chemistry and mathematics. They all point towards the same thing - evolution is right.

If you want examples:

whoops, submitted too early, editing now (Don;t stress, examples are coming)

Palaeontology
- Archaeopteyx - Fossilized representation of a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.
 - Icthyostega - Fossilized representation of a transitional form between fish and tetrapods.
 - Ambulocetus - Fossilized representation of a transitional form between land based tetrapods and whales.

Embryology
- Ontogoney recapitulating phylogeny was disproven as a biological truth admittedly, but it's true around 70% of the time. Watch a human embryo sprout a (highly inefficient and poorly designed I'll note) fishlike Aorta, or a baleen whale embryosprout tooth buds before they vanish under baleen and you'll see why, while not always true, it's still biologically useful.

Anatomy/Embryology
I've already mentioned the fishlike Aorta of humans - rather than having two aortas, we have one, one which heads up towards our heads, sprouts off smaller blood vessels to feed the brain and head, before turning back to do the rest of our bodies. That arrangement makes sense, however, when you're a 7 or 8 week old embryo and you have pouches that look suspiciously like gill pouches in your neck. A fish embryo at this stage has a similar structure and keeps it - ours, as you'd hope, changes.

Virology
Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, fungi to anti fungals, all through natural selection. The processes which form these resistances are the backbone of evolution.

Geology
Go back and look at the makeup of rocks around 3.8 billion years old. Check out the carbon signiatures. Now compare those carbon signiatures to those generated by life. Do we see a coincidence? Check out the oxygen content of rocks as aerobic bacteria evolved. You might be surprised. Go over to Shark bay and check out the stromatolites. Then go dig up the same structures in 2 - 3 billion year old sedimentary rocks. Go look at the structure of diatoms in diatomite and compare them with modern diatoms. You might be surprised.

Chemistry/Physics/Mathematics

Go check out how easy it is to form organic structures from inorganic materials. Go read up on Turing patterns to see how non directly genetic evolution can work. Go read up on comparitive functional morphology and water turbulence patterns, then compare your three major classes of swimming animals to the morphological changes in land based tetrapod to whale evolution.

Once you've done all your reading, come back and provide a similar amount of evidence for ID. Not religious evidence - remember the basis of the argument here - should ID be taught in public school science classes - but scientific evidence as solid as that provided for evolution. Then I'll switch sides, and so would, I'd expect, a lot of the scientific community.

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by karajorma
(As a sidebar I reckon people who use Spagetti monster as an argument against ID should simply use ID as proof that aliens created humans. There are a whole bunch of UFO nutcases who'd glom on to it and drag it down for us )

Oi! I resent that to the highest degree! You're looking...uh...at the words...of a guy who's *seen* a UFO! And anyway, I find the idea that an extraterrestrial race terraformed the Earth, and that Genesis is a tale of that Terraforming, to be much more plausable than a god of some description...

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
Stealth... I'm going to guess you don't know too much about the guy that originally said that quote.

Sir Arthur Keith Died in 1955 and was a strong proponent of Piltdown Man. Not exactly the spokesperson I'd chose for modern neodarwinism.

 

I did try looking him up in Wikipedia cause I knew that the quote couldn't possibly be from any modern scientist but I got no hits.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
You then state that ID is more complex than it seems and to go read the bible. But then you fall into two problems.

Number 1 - ID isn't mentioned in the bible at all. The bible talks about literal creationism. Bang - God wanted it, it was there. Nowhere in the bible does it say "And Lo, on the fifth day, God created the Bacterial Flagella, for it was too simple to have evolved by chance" (It's not, by the way).
the idea that God created life is not intelligent design?  Is God not a higher-intelligence/entity?  

..... what. did you expect the bible to acutally say the words "Intelligent Design"?  


And Number 2 - This whole argument is sparked by the separation of church and state. If ID is outlined in the bible, the religious book of one out of a myriad of different religions, then that pretty solidly contravenes that separation, and thus it doesn't belong in schools.
but if you're going to teach evolution, then why not teach intelligent design.

Lastly, it's important to state this openly, in case the rubbish that's being spouted through here on the opposite side is getting to anyone.

Evolution has been proven.
and I say:

Evolution has not been proven.

So tell me this.  if evolution HAS been proven, then why do people believe in creation/ID?  Why is evolution vs. creationism still an enormous controvery?.... because it has NOT been proven.  it's all theory.

 as much as any scientific theory can be. It might as well be the Law of Evolution, just  like we have the Laws of gasses and the Laws of Motion. It's not technically called that, because of the nature of science and the nature of the theory itself, but the basic tenets of the theory - mutation and natural selection, are beyond question. This isn't because of any kind of scientific dogma, or because people are somhow too scared to accept a god as the source of all creation (something they were quite willing to do for thousands of years) but because of evidence.
And again I say, if the evidence is so evident, then why is there still such a big controversy.

I'll say it again. Evidence. Evidence for evolution exists, thousands and thousands of times over. Far more, in fact, than would be needed to put any scientif theory at the level of general acceptance evolution has among scientists. It is consistenly corelated, by genetics, by palaeontology, by embryology, by anatomy, by virology, by geology, even by physics, chemisry and mathematics. They all point towards the same thing - evolution is right.
And perhaps hundreds of thousands of people believe in the Bible, since it's been proven over time.  Some of the things stated in the bible that were only scientifically proven thousands of years later BY SCIENCE... that carries a lot of weight to me.  therefore if the Bible also talks about ID/creationism, then why wouldn't people believe it

 

[Ford Prefect]

So tell me this. if evolution HAS been proven, then why do people believe in creation/ID? Why is evolution vs. creationism still an enormous controvery?.... because it has NOT been proven. it's all theory.

You're working on the assumption that people believe only what is plausible? If there is any recurring theme of human thought that should stick out like a sore thumb, it's that we believe whatever the hell we want to.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
Once you've done all your reading, come back and provide a similar amount of evidence for ID. Not religious evidence - remember the basis of the argument here - should ID be taught in public school science classes - but scientific evidence as solid as that provided for evolution. Then I'll switch sides, and so would, I'd expect, a lot of the scientific community.

But see that's where you fail to see:  It all comes down to religion in the end.  You can sit here and argue with someone all day on evolution, but if they believe in the Bible, then it will all be for nothing. "Not religious evidence"?  The Bible's considered religious evidence, and religion rules the world now, and has for the last God knows how long... but we must ignore "religious evidence"?  Almost everything that's done in the world is done in the name of religion, not as much in the name of science.  therefore, religious evidence, i would say, is quite appropriate.

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mendel, all believed in, and spoke of God (or some higher-entity they believed were responsible for life).  They're some of the most influential and brilliant scientists of 'our time'.  if they, through all their research (lives dedicated to their research in fact), can come through it and state that they believe in a God/higher-entity... that also should carry a lot of weight to the scientific community.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Stealth

Wrong.  what i'm saying is that just because science can't understand something, doesn't mean THERE HAS to be a scientific explanation.  it's OK to say "Yeah. that's too complex for us to try to understand now... we'll keep trying of course, but for now we're not going to throw out stupid 'scientific' anything"...i think it's stupid that people subconsciously think that science has an explanation for everything.  science doesn't in this case.  there are theories, but there's no "scientifically proven" fact in creation/evolution... so don't start throwing out "scientific" this and that.  

Assuming the unknown is unknowable is the easiest way to stop human progress.  It's the most blinkered worldview possible, too; the difference between science and what you're saying, is that science is never satisfied with ignoring tough questions.  You might be scared of the answers, so you don't even want to look.  When they come, you ignore them, try to dicredit them.  When your own alternative is question, you just ignore the questioning and try to attack the supported theory  -  and then ignore the rebuttal.

Is that what we should teach kids?  That they'll never know anything?  That all knowledge must come instantly or ever atall?  To ignore evidence on the basis of someone elses dogma?

Help, by that standard we'd still be tilling fields on a flat, 5000 year earth that was created in 7 days, has pi value of 3, and which the Moon, Sun and stars rotate around.  Oh, and which has foundations.

Originally posted by Stealth
and there's no proof that life is the result of evolution either! there's no EVIDENCE supporting evolution either! so why is it evolutionists are always saying "prove that God exists. prove this. prove that" when they have absolutely no proof either! (see the quote i posted earlier)

There's plenty of evidence.  An obvious one being the evolutionary traits from dinosaurs to birds, or the fossils showing the development of equines.  Another being experiments on the common housefly that show the working mechanics of genetic inheritence and dominant traits (which show us the mechanics which cause evolutionary mutation).

On the issue of the creation of life, there are experments that have illustrated how amino acids can develop within the primordial soup.

Just look it up with an open mind, and you'll see.  If that's possible for you, that is.

Originally posted by Stealth

and you can? In my opinion, evolution is the easy way out, because it means man doesn't have to acknowledge that somewhere out there, there's a higher being. again: "Man defines what it doesn't understand", and it's so true.

I cannot find a proveable hole in evolution that is inexplicable and voids the whole theory.  AFAIK any discrepanies that have ever been scientifically proven have been incorporated and explained; from the work of Darwin, Mendel, all the way to the present.  This is the difference between science and religious dogma.

 I cannot find any substance to Id theories atall.  They are a big fat hole all within themselves.

You take the option of ascribing anything you don't understand to a higher being, rather than investigating it.  When an explnation is formed - and one that can be supported, tested and evidenced - you seek to ignore it and justify that with falsehood.  So how is that a 'hard' way,  adopting a system which is designed to resist questioning, exploration or expansion.

Originally posted by Stealth
Yeah?

--- Isaiah 40: 22 Isaiah recorded that the earth was round ("circle of the earth") approximately 2,200 years prior to Columbus' claim in 1492.
Again, doesn't say 'sphere'.  The phrase;  
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
       and its people are like grasshoppers.
       He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
       and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Well, can you spread a tent out upon a sphere?

--- The Bible declares that the earth is round and hangs in space (Prov. 8:27; Isa. 40:22; Job 26:7). Man did not discover this fact until 1475. It was discovered by Copernicus.
 
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
       when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

    28 when he established the clouds above
       and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,

    29 when he gave the sea its boundary
       so the waters would not overstep his command,
       and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

Doesn't say hangs in space.  Marking out a horizon kind of indicates a linear end, too.  Does say it has foundations, though.

7 22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
       and its people are like grasshoppers.
       He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
       and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
(see above; tent over a sphere?  Impossible.  But over a circle....

He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
       he suspends the earth over nothing.

Contradicts the foundations bit, doesn't it?

Of course, later on in the King James translation we have;

He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Which implies a finite earth, not a sphere.  So I guess we have a circle in space at best.  

--- The Bible declares that air has weight (Job. 28:25). Galileo discovered it in 1630
Actually, it doesn't.  It declares that god set the weight of the winds (which are distinguished from the air as they are referred to in the singular sense).  Which modern translations equate to 'force';

25To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure. (King James)
25"When He imparted (A)weight to the wind
         And (B)meted out the waters by measure, (new american standard)
25When He gave to the wind weight or pressure and allotted the waters by measure, (Amplified bible)
25He made the winds blow and determined how much rain should fall (new living translation)


--- The Bible declares that the earth revolves around the sun (Job 38: 13-14). This was not discovered by man until 1500. Again, Copernicus made this wonderful discovery

What?

13 that it might take the earth by the edges
       and shake the wicked out of it?

    14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
       its features stand out like those of a garment.

Hey, the earth has edges.  Can't be a sphere then, can it?


--- The Bible declares that the winds have regular circuits and that the rain clouds are only evaporated water (Ecc. 1:6-7). Man did not discover this until 1630
 6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

That doesn't actually mean much.  It's an observation (although one personifying the wind as a singular entity); it doesn't explain any reason for this beyond 'God'.  In short, it's something you, or I, could have written after spending a day outside paying attention to the wind.  Wind came from the south earlier.  Then it was from the north later.  Thus, it must go in circles.

--- The Bible declares that there is great empty space in the north without stars (Job 26:7). Not until Lord Rosse invented his treat telescope did man discover this remarkable scientific fact

New translation; He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
       he suspends the earth over nothing.

King James; He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

The new translation is, of course, made after this discovery.  The old KJ translation doesn't say anything of the sort; isn't revisionism lovely?

--- The Bible declares that messages can be sent forth by "lightnings" or electricity (Job 38:35). Lightning is the only word the Hebrews had for electricity. Modern radio proves the Biblical scientific fact
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
       Do they report to you, 'Here we are'?

Complete rubbish again; it doesn't say that lightining carries messages (although it could be interpreted as divine will in folklore and probably was), it implies that they 'report', which really is just omnipotence; God knows all, etc, etc.  Of course, the idea of lightning being messages or divine will is a very, very ancient idea in any case.  Zeus and Odin spring to mind immediately.

--- The Bible declares that God has measured and weighed the ingredients of every substance He has created (Isa. 40:12). Only recently chemists have discovered that all substances to combine chemically must be weighed or measured exactly as they will only combine in exact proportions

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
       or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?
       Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,
       or weighed the mountains on the scales
       and the hills in a balance?

That says absolutely nothing of the sort.  It just says the earth has been weighed and measured by God.  It doesn't say every substance, it doesn't say exact, and it sure as hell doesn't refer to any form of chemistry.

--- The Bible declares that the stars innumerable (Gen. 15:5; Jer. 33: 22). Hipparchus said there were only 1,022 stars. Ptolemy said there were 1,026. Galileo was the first to teach they could not be numbered
That the stars are 'innumerable' means there's a lot and they're hard to count; I believe the exact quote is "He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars -- if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be"

That doesn't actually require divine intelligence to know (although we have actually began numbering and counting stars with telescopes anyways....), just 2 eyes.


--- The Bible declares that the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev. 14:12). William Harvey did not discover this truth until 1615
"
12Then the priest is to take one of the male lambs and offer it as a guilt offering, along with the log of oil; he shall wave them before the LORD as a wave offering.
13 He is to slaughter the lamb in the holy place where the sin offering and the burnt offering are slaughtered. Like the sin offering, the guilt offering belongs to the priest; it is most holy.
14 The priest is to take some of the blood of the guilt offering and put it on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot.
15 The priest shall then take some of the log of oil, pour it in the palm of his own left hand,
 16 dip his right forefinger into the oil in his palm, and with his finger sprinkle some of it before the LORD seven times.
17 The priest is to put some of the oil remaining in his palm on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot, on top of the blood of the guilt offering.
18 The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed and make atonement for him before the LORD.

What on eart are you on about?  Really?  It doesn't make a single mention of CofD.

--- Earth is round:
------Job 22:14 Thick clouds cover Him, so that He cannot see, And He walks above the circle of heaven.'
------Prov 8:27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there, When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
------Isa 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Circle is also translated as sphere in Hebrew.
the Hebrew word for 'hhug' (IIRC) translates as both circle and sphere, it's true.  However, as the bible also states (I forget the exact location) a man was taken to the highest mountain and saw the entire kingdom of earth - impossible with a sphere - it doesn't even begin to dismiss the flat earthists.  Not to mention many explicit mentions of the earth having 4 corners, and being on foundations

Point is, hundreds, or thousands of years before some ideas were "discovered" by science, the Bible had talked about them.  So don't say the Bible's not scientific.  in fact, it's way ahead of science, since many things mentioned in the bible (see the long list above) that made no sense to anyone at the time, were proven BY SCIENCE later in time.

Pythagoras theorised the Earth was a sphere (albeit at the centre of the universe) in 600BC.  The ancient egyptians also taght (apparently) that the planets were solid crystalline.  Although apparently the herbrew for 'circle' also means 'sphere', so it's a question of your interpretation (which jars with the flat earthists)

Of course, the Bible is in itself a mytholigcal document formed by the collection of folklore, current events and propaganda (the last being particularly relevent vis-a-vis Nero).  So stuff like 'bleeding kills' would just as easily be observational.  

Not to mention the inaccuracies.  You may think '3' is a good enough approximation of pi - except that the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians calculated it to within 0.5% and 0.6% respectively.

some other bible quotes;
 Psalm 93:1
Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...

Psalm 96:10
He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...

 Psalm 104:5
Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

Also the creation stuff that states night and day were created before the sun, and that man was created before the animals, of course.

Of course, could you prove any of this true or false without science?  Nope.  And given that so much is false...well, you kind of need science to prove that any of it is accurate.

And I say where is the evidence.  if there was evidence supporting evolution, then it wouldn't be a theory now, would it.   even a well known evolutionist stated there was no evidence supporting evolution.  see the quote i posted earlier.

Theories are created by studying evidence.

EDIT; actually, no-one has ever found a source for that Sir Arthur Keith quote.  It's most commonly attributed as being written in the introduction of a centenary edition of The Origin of Species (except that edition was published 4 years after his death, in 1959; Keith did write the intro to an edition 30 years prior, I believe)

Here are some other Keith quotes from the introduction he did write;
"And why should each of the islands have its own peculiar creations? Special creation could not explain such things."
(on the Galapagos islands)

"The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most complete demonstration that the law of evolution is true."

and let me tell you what I find an abomination against Man and God:  That man puts so much trust in Science, that they think EVERYTHING at this time must have a "scientific explanation".  I've got nothing against science, i make as much use of scientific inventions than any of you here, and appreciate it just as much, but Science is just guessing here.  There is NO PROOF either way, so how can anything be "scientific"?  Please.  Let science keep probing, trying to find the truth, that's fine with me, i'm all for that, but at this point there is no scientific proof of anything to do with this topic, and man needs to stop thinking that science always has a logical answer, when in fact, right now, they don't.

If you ignore the truth, the evidence, and human progress, then it's your problem.  But don't force that upon people by masquerading lies and character assasination as scientific fact.

I find it an abomination, myself, that people will try to hold back human development because it might not mesh with their own interpretation of a simple, old, book.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Stealth
And again I say, if the evidence is so evident, then why is there still such a big controversy.

There isn't. Go count me all the peer reviewed papers on Intelligent design in serious scientific journals in, say, the last five years. Go count me the number of scientists who believe intelligent design, and then the number who believe evolution. The opinions of people on the street are effectively irrelevant - there's absolutely zero scientific debate on evolution because the evidence is so obvious and evident. It's the religious fundamentalists who attempt to create the illusion of debate by spouting nonsense and then letting the evolutionists answer it, thereby provoking discussion on evolution which they can point to and say "Look! Debate! Controversy! Evolution is falling apart! (Which, I'm ashamed to admit, I've been drawn into in this thread. Sorry Kara ).

Originally posted by Stealth
the idea that God created life is not intelligent design? Is God not a higher-intelligence/entity?

I meant that the Bacterial flagella was not too simple to have evolved via natural selection.

Originally posted by Stealth
but if you're going to teach evolution, then why not teach intelligent design.

Because (and I'm repeating myself here)

 - ID is not science and doesn't belong in science classes.
 - ID has no evidence to support it.
 - ID is based on abrahamic creationism and the christian bible, therefore doesn't belong in state funded public schools since that represents a combination of church and state.

If people want to teach it, sure go ahead. But do it in the RE classes of private schools.

Originally posted by Stealth
and I say:

Evolution has not been proven.

Not all statements are equal you know. Just because you Say evolution hasn't been proven doesn't make it so. You're wrong.

Originally posted by Stealth

So tell me this. if evolution HAS been proven, then why do people believe in creation/ID?

Lots of reasons.

 - Because many people are not very intelligent.
 - Because many people are religious fanatics who refuse to believe anything that contradicts the bible due to the way they were brought up.
 - Because a lot of people have not been exposed to the evidence for evolution.
 - Because many of the people who have been exposed to evolution don't have the neccesary knowledge to understand it.
 - Because the so called evidence for ID and creationism is generally a lot easier to understand despite being factually inaccurate.
 - Because ID ties into religion, and even moderately religious people are more likely to want to follow their religious teachings when they perceive controversy (even though none ruly exists) and assume that, if there's controversy, then both sides may be right, and that the fact that one side has god on its side is a good indicator of where they should sit.

Originally posted by Stealth

Some of the things stated in the bible that were only scientifically proven thousands of years later BY SCIENCE...

So? I could sit here and accurately guess the exact maximum temperature for thirty days in a row, but that wouldn't mean anything on day thirty one.  Moreover, many of the examples you stated were inaccurate - the ancient Greeks understood a lot about the shape and size of the earth, for example.

Now, I've defended Evolution. Do the same for ID or concede. Specifically, give me proof - not vague references to a perceived controversy or to the bible, not "Evolution must be wrong and therefore ID must be right" for no specifically stated reason. I want scientific observation, biological facts that prove ID, or you need to concede defeat. That's how these things work.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Stealth


But see that's where you fail to see:  It all comes down to religion in the end.  You can sit here and argue with someone all day on evolution, but if they believe in the Bible, then it will all be for nothing. "Not religious evidence"?  The Bible's considered religious evidence, and religion rules the world now, and has for the last God knows how long... but we must ignore "religious evidence"?  Almost everything that's done in the world is done in the name of religion, not as much in the name of science.  therefore, religious evidence, i would say, is quite appropriate.

That doesn't make any sense. So what if the world is "run" by religion? A million years ago, before religion existed, was evolution corrct then? Of course it was. Just as it still is today. If people don't want to accept it, that's their problem, but even if every person in the world believes something it doesn't make it true. Besides, while religion is important in the world, it's not all the same religion. There are nearly a billion Hindus who have a very different idea of the creation of the world. Is their religious evidence any less valid than yours? If so, why? If notm then why aren't you campaigning for the ten avatars of Vishnu to be required reading in a biology class as well?

Originally posted by Stealth
Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mendel, all believed in, and spoke of God (or some higher-entity they believed were responsible for life).  They're some of the most influential and brilliant scientists of 'our time'.  if they, through all their research (lives dedicated to their research in fact), can come through it and state that they believe in a God/higher-entity... that also should carry a lot of weight to the scientific community.

None of those people were biologists. Even mendel was really just messing around with his plants - he didn't really understand what was going on (or at least, not its applications on a wider scale). The other two were interested in motion broad scale stuff about motion and the behaviour of particles in space - who really cares what they have to say about a science that falls entirely out of their area of expertise? No matter how clever they were in their own areas, it doesn't make them the oracles of all knowledge in all fields forever (especially when you take into account the fact that none of them worked in the climate of today, nor saw all the modern evidence for evolution).

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


 

I did try looking him up in Wikipedia cause I knew that the quote couldn't possibly be from any modern scientist but I got no hits.

That's because the quote was made up.  See my prev post; it's attributed to the foreword of a book (Origin of Species centenary edition) published 4 years after his death, and which he didnt' write.

Some real quotes are;
"And why should each of the islands have its own peculiar creations? Special creation could not explain such things."
(on the Galapagos islands)

"The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most complete demonstration that the law of evolution is true."

(I believe these are from the 3rd edition of the O of S in the 30s, which he did write a foreword to)

There's another Keith quote floating around that goes something like;
"Evolution is incompatible with the law of Christ"

Of course, that's because they took a long paragraph in a book, and cut out the bits in the middle to form this.  The paragraph was actually referring to how creationists wouldn't accept evolution because it clashed with their literal reading of the bible.

Shows the kind of level these people stoop to.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stealth
Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mendel, all believed in, and spoke of God (or some higher-entity they believed were responsible for life).  

Newton had Asperger syndrome and Einstien spent the last twenty years of his life trying to disprove quantum physics because "God doesn't play dice with the universe"

Not exactly the most stable people to be pinning your hopes on.

The fact is that you can do science and be religious. But what you can't do is what the ID proponents do and ignore everything that they disagree with. Einstein forgot this and wasted his time because of it.

Originally posted by Stealth
Man did not discover this fact until 1475. It was discovered by Copernicus.

Bollocks! The ancient greeks knew it but the early christians decided to burn their knowledge.

Originally posted by Stealth
The Bible declares that the earth revolves around the sun (Job 38: 13-14). This was not discovered by man until 1500. Again, Copernicus made this wonderful discovery

Again Bollocks. For the same reason.



And I'm still waiting for an explaination of what parts of evolutionary theory ID says are correct.