Topic awaiting preservation: The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design

http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/05/02/1059247.shtml?tid=146&tid=191&tid=14

This controversy is making SlashDot now. You will see a whole lot more responses posted here than I think you will find anywhere else. It is a bit (horribly) slanted against the ID viewpoint, but that is what happens when you publish to a forum of nerds. However, I still think that a lot of good ideas will pop out of here.

My thing with SlashDot is that with the number of people who post you are bound to stumble upon one or two good ideas.

Dan @ Code Town

"Intelligent Design" has no foundings in Science as a Theory.

Evolution does.

Just because some cannot "accept" that things have evolved to how they are now, doesn't make Evolution false.

ID is just the Trojan Horse being used by the Religious Right to try to accomplish what they failed to do before - replace the Theory of Evolution with Creationism.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-02-2005 17:23)

I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning ID in a science class. I guess it depends on how its being taught.

When I was in school, I remember our book having a paragraph about Creationism (which I guess is now termed ID). It said something to the effect of:

There are many faiths that believe that a god or gods created the earth and the universe as we know it. Many people believe in these ideas, but as they can not be tested scientifically we will not discuss them further.

I believe that it also listed about 10 different faiths that all had different ideas.

Creationism or whatnot, if it can not be tested scientifically, it does not belong in a science class. I don't see why that is so hard to accept.

The bullshit about "The Science of God" is just crap, it isn't science if you don't use the scientific method.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning ID in a science class. I guess it depends on how its being taught.

---

IT'S NOT SCIENCE! In fact it's practically the antithesis of science "We can't explain it so it has to be some sort of God"



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

(Edited by bitdamaged on 05-02-2005 20:34)

Wow, a bunch of ignorants opposing another bunch of ignorants.

When will people realize WHAT EVOLUTION IS. It is not a theory of creation, it is a theory of EVOLUTION - that's why it's called that.
Anyone who's spent five minutes in a half-decent science class knows this.

quote:

---

Anyone who's spent five minutes in a half-decent science class knows this.

---

Well, that is the whole point, isn't it? If ID starts getting teached in Science class, it's free-fire for the Religious Right to pump more Creationism into Science class...

Bye-bye, Evolution. And then you don't have a "half-decent" Science class anymore...

This whole ID stuff isn't about real Science. It is about politics and control over what children are taught.

No, that's not the point. The point is that people so ignorant to think the theory of Evolution and the concept of Intelligent Design are explanations for the same thing are so ignorant that it doesn't matter what they do. They apparently didn't understand Evolution, so it won't matter if they start teaching Intelligent Design - they won't understand that either.

While personally I think discussion about Intelligent Design is more appropriate in a philosophy class, it's certainly not inappropriate in a science class. Teaching both in a science class is fine if the instructor knows what he's talking about, and not if he doesn't; and if he doesn't, then the problem is that the instructor is ignorant, not that he's teaching the 'wrong' thing.

(Edited by reisio on 05-03-2005 12:44)

quote:

---

The point is that people so ignorant to think the theory of Evolution and the concept of Intelligent Design are explanations for the same thing are so ignorant that it doesn't matter what they do. They apparently didn't understand Evolution, so it won't matter if they start teaching Intelligent Design - they won't understand that either.

While personally I think discussion about Intelligent Design is more appropriate in a philosophy class, it's certainly not inappropriate in a science class. Teaching both in a science class is fine if the instructor knows what he's talking about, and not if he doesn't; and if he doesn't, then the problem is that the instructor is ignorant, not that he's teaching the 'wrong' thing.

---

Blocks are mine.

That is utter nonsense. ID has nothing scientific about it (re: Scientific Method of establishing a Theory).

As for not understanding Evolution or ID - that is really not the point. Those pushing this agenda want ID in for political and religious reasons, not because they understand or do not understand either it or evolution.

Past discussions (and this thread) are evidence enough of this - it is not a problem of understanding, it is more an agenda resulting from not wanting to accept Evolution fact.

To me, mentioning ID in a science lesson, is about as relevant as talking Maths in an English lit. class!

I don't see why they should mention anything about ID in a Science lesson when talking about Evolution. They're not relevant to each other as far as i'm concerned, leave ID to Religous Education or Phylosophy.

Yes, but the Religious feel that you should take about Religion in Math, English, Science and Gym. To religious people, religion is everything, it is not something that has bounds, it affects every area of their life.

When you present an idea that is contrary to their beliefs, they are going to attack it with all abandon. You all like to harp on the idea that the Theory of Evolution doesn't disprove God. And you are right it does not. But it does make two allusion that are very contrary to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

1) Man is probably descendant of monkeys
2) Evolution would have taken millions of years

These directly contradict the idea that the Earth was created and populated with all things as they are now in a literal 6 days, or 518,400 seconds, and the idea that Adam and Eve were created, like we make a computer, by God.

You can't tell me that these ideas are not contradicting. It doesn't surprise me that these ideas come to a big ugly head.

The solution is also rather easy, but requires work. The solution is more education. You don't like an idea, learn more about it, then learn a shit load more about it, and after that continue to learn about it, and if you still don't like it, come up with a contradiction and disprove the bitch scientifically. Science is really easy to work with, you have a bunch of ground rules that are designed to make it possible to disprove something, actually it is designed to disprove things, it isn't really all that capable of proving anything.

It is easy for those who understand Science to say that religion shouldn't be in a science class, but it is just showing our ignorance of religion.

And it finally comes down to power. Those in power using Religion do not want to have to deal with peoples doubts because of Science. Science is a big obstacle for Religion, it goes on to give rational explanations for things which were before attributed to their god. Those in power will do anything to remain in power, and if they have to step on Science to do it, they will, without hesitation.

Dan @ Code Town

Not that I plan on being very active in this thread, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents (on the off chance that someone might care ).

I would agree that ID does not belong in science classes--not necessarily because it is wrong, but because it isn't science. As others have mentioned, it belongs in philosophy classes instead, because that's what it is--a philosophy. "Intelligent Design" is the underlying premise behind the teleological argument for the existence of God. Of course, the way it is being presented in this case is more as following from an a priori argument for the existence of God, and thus it is a natural consequence rather than a proof. Whichever way you look at it, though, it is philosophy, not science.

Question: do high school kids even study philosophy? I don't remember studying philosophy in high school in the States. In fact, I didn't study Western philosophy in any depth until I came to Korea, and even then it was only because a) I needed to compare it to Eastern philosophy and b) everyone expected me to be an expert on it (kind of like how they expect me to automatically be a big whiskey fan because whiskey is "Western liquor" and I am a Westerner... can't stand the stuff, by the way).

Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I happen to believe in "Intelligent Design," if that's what the kids are calling it these days.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

I studied Philosphy in High School. I don't know if it is teached these days, though.

One thing, WM -

quote:

---

1) Man is probably descendant of monkeys

---

Man did not descend (evolve) from monkeys. Evolution says that Apes and Man both have a common ancestor.

That is something totally different.

ID is such a broad topic, and there are so many different theories on it, it isn't really a question of whether it should be taught, but if it can be taught. My thing is that if you are going to teach something, you better do it so that the students can hear all angles. If a classroom just taught Evolution and Big Bang (or whatever) that would be bad, because there are other views. If a classroom just taught ID or Genesis, that would be bad because there is no Evolution in there. I think that they should at least touch upon the others, because like it or not, there is science in the ID and Genesis stuff. You can disagree all you want, but the fact is that there is good evidence on both sides, and if only one is taught, then children are not getting their monies worth.

BTW, no philosophy now.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

If a classroom just taught Evolution and Big Bang (or whatever) that would be bad, because there are other views. If a classroom just taught ID or Genesis, that would be bad because there is no Evolution in there.

---

And this is the problem with the fucking world.

Intelligent design and bilbical creationism are not sicence.

Intelligent design and biblical creationsim are not equatable with evolution. They cannot be taught as alternatives, because they are not alternatives.

They are entirely seperate concepts.

Philosophy and mythology have no place in science class.

Period.

Religion belongs in the home and in the church. Every parent has the right to teach their children whatever personal belief system they desire. The public school system has the obligation to not teach such things.


Any claim of scientific evidence in support of either intelligent design or biblical creationsim is purely ignorant.
As we have shown repeatedly in these discussions.

amen.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Philosophy and mythology have no place in science class.

---

Just like English has no place in a math class, right? Unfortunately I just took a course of Statistical Analysis, and guess what one of the key factors in Statistics is? English.

Like it or not, DL, you cannot seperate science from Creation. If that happens, then there is no way whatsoever to either prove or disprove that Creation happened. In that instance you leave a possibility of Creation, simply because it was ignored. Science plays a key role in Creation because there have been Archeological finds, historical documents, statistical analyses, etc. suggesting that an Intelligent Design was possible.

I understand that from your perspective the idea of the Earth and everything on it being formed in 6 days is as ludicrous as some of the stories from Australia or the Natives of North America are to me. If someone would suggest putting those in a science class I would suggest it better in a History class. That would be the same for Creation, however, some scientists in their respective fields are now using their scientific knowledge to uncover interesting facts that the world may not be as we have thought. And yes, these are scientists with all their training, Phds, and experience behind them.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Philosophy and mythology have no place in science class.

---

True, and religion does not belong in schools. But, I don't want to see religion forced upon kids at schools, I want to see the science behind those beliefs suggested as a possibility. What you are implying is that since Creation cannot happen without a supernatural being, then it is not science and should not be taught in school. That would be like saying that the Declairation of Independance is related to God and should therfore not be taught in a history class.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Gideon:

quote:

---

True, and religion does not belong in schools. But, I don't want to see religion forced upon kids at schools,

---

I'm glad to hear that from you. Though personnaly I don't want to see religion, or any irrationnal state of mind, forced on anyone.

quote:

---

I want to see the science behind those beliefs suggested as a possibility. What you are implying is that since Creation cannot happen without a supernatural being, then it is not science and should not be taught in school.

---

He's not implying that all. He -- and actually many inmates before him -- said -- a countless number of times -- that Creation and ID has no scientifical fundings and thus does not have its place in a Science class. Actually it can be evoked during few minutes as a concept that was taken for granted in the dark age of science before introducing the students to "real" science and facts. At best those concepts have a place in a philosophy or a history class.



(Edited by poi on 05-03-2005 23:12)

quote:

---

Just like English has no place in a math class, right?

---

Wrong.

English, being the language we speak, is essential for every subject of study.

Properly expressing oneself and properly understanding what is being expressed are functions that are necessary for all disciplines.


I won't address the rest of your drivel because it is just that - drivel, and we have covered all of that ad nauseum in other threads.

quote:

---

That would be like saying that the Declairation of Independance is related to God and should therfore not be taught in a history class.

---

No, it would not. The declaration of independence has nothing to do with god or religion, first of all.
Second of all, no matter what it is related to, it is an important historical document.

Thie relationship has nothing to do with the relationship you want so desperately to exist between biblical creation and science.

quote:

---

IT'S NOT SCIENCE! In fact it's practically the antithesis of science "We can't explain it so it has to be some sort of God"

---

Thats just extremist nonsense bit.

Both are two theories on the origins of creations. One happens to be considered scientifically correct. Neither one disproves the other. Regardless, both are science - you're just partisan. You wouldn't be typing in all CAPS if we were talking about banning Darwin's work in schools. If you'd have studied him you'd know that a good portion of his work turned out to be scientifically incorrect. His theories on genetics are worth as much as garbage. Should he and his work be left out of science classes?

Reisio is entirely right. If the instructor knows what they are talking about it there shouldn't be a problem. Intelligent Design cannot be scientifically proven, which is different then not being science.

As you say much of what Darwin theorized has been proved false and supplanted by better ideas and quantitative data. And the work that he did that was proved wrong should 100% be left out of the classroom. The part that holds its water should be what is taught. The history of his work is often discussed, much like the misconceptions of the history of the atom are discussed.

Not much can be proved, I don't think that anything can be proved. The law of gravity could be disproved tomorrow if say a graviton is discovered, or we discover a region of space where the traditional laws of gravity do not apply. You can not prove anything in science, you can only disprove something.

ID is not science because they do not any science. They are a propaganda machine, and a group of politically oriented lairs. They take random statements from self appointed "leading professionals" and use them as the basis of their arguments. They then go on to backup their position by claiming that nature is too complex, therefore it must be created by some higher power. There is no science, just propaganda.

ID is not science it is politics, it is not even Religion. There is absolutely no science on the ID platform, unless lying is considered a science now. For every argument that ID presents there are valid counter arguments that actually disprove the ID position.

It is a bunch of political lies, and you faithful masses are buying into their propaganda machine. It is really sad.

Dan @ Code Town

Jestah - you are completely incorrect on this issue.

Please re-read the rest of the thread if you are unsure why...

What am I incorrect about DL?

quote:

---

I think that they should at least touch upon the others, because like it or not, there is science in the ID and Genesis stuff. You can disagree all you want, but the fact is that there is good evidence on both sides, and if only one is taught, then children are not getting their monies worth.

---

There is no evidence on the side of ID and Genesis. We have covered this, and you have never been able to present one fucking iota of evidence!

Drivel.

quote:

---

Both are two theories on the origins of creations. One happens to be considered scientifically correct. Neither one disproves the other. Regardless, both are science - you're just partisan.You wouldn't be typing in all CAPS if we were talking about banning Darwin's work in schools. If you'd have studied him you'd know that a good portion of his work turned out to be scientifically incorrect.

---

Jesus fucking christ! One "happens" to be scientifically correct, tested, has evidence for it, has been studied, proven, and re-evaluated ad nauseum. The other is a politically driven bit of religious nonsense, that has no scientific basis in fact.

And we are not talking about just Darwin here. We are talking about the Theory of Evolution (which should be the Fact of Evolution, seeing as how some in this thread seem incapable of distinguishing the difference between a Scientific definition of Theory, and a plain theory, like ID, Philosophy, etc).

I am personally stunned and dismayed by some of the responses here.

No, I am shocked.

I used to think bringing my Daughter to America, to let her learn in the American School system, would allow her access to a great system, one free of religious influence and classes (like those here in Germany).

I am sickened and appalled with what I am reading in some posts here.

Science is NOT a subject of belief and faith!

ID is trying to "roll back" the last 100 years of progress.

In the years I've been a member of the Asylum I don't think I've ever taken part in a religious discussion WebShaman. Nor do I believe I've ever been asked to provide "one fucking iota of evidence!" so why don't you turn it down a notch. At best I could give you circumstantial evidence much like you could give me. No one knows for sure how creation came about, hence why its theory and not laws being discussed here.

You're drivel, your argument is worth less then drivel.

Go easy guys. By "you", WebShaman certainly meant 'the people in favor of creationism, ID or any other "science" influenced/driven by religious opinions'.

I've taken part to several religious and scientific discussions in the Philosophy and other Silliness and I gave up counting the number of time Creationnism and ID have been debunked though some zealots stood still and tried again and again to find a single evidence of the things they claimed.



(Edited by poi on 05-04-2005 11:46)

First of all Jester, get a grip - I was not talking to you with the "drivel" remark - I was talking to Gid (and that is the reference to the religious stuff as well). So the Iota evidence remark is not for you specifically.

Second,

quote:

---

No one knows for sure how creation came about, hence why its theory and not laws being discussed here.

---

That is true.

But Evolution has nothing to do with that. All Evolution states, is that things evolve from other things. It does not state how things originally came into being, nor does it attempt to.

But the Theory of Evolution is much different than the theory of ID. Even the definition is different.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific Theory, with all that it entails. The theory of ID is just a theory, which is like every other general theory (including mine that there is a planet beyond Pluto that is made entirely of cheese that we haven't discovered yet).

That is a very big difference.

[offtopic]
WebShaman: I thought it was the moon that was made of cheese
[/offtopic]

[offtopic]
WebShaman: I thought it was the moon that was made of cheese
[/offtopic]

Yes, but that is easily disprovable - we've already been there! - my planet cannot be disproved/proved - that is the point (well, someday we might be able to prove/disprove my theory, but until then, it is just a theory...just like ID)

Now on with the topic.

Jestah:

as stated, biblical creationsim and the idea of intelligent design simply have no scientific basis, period.

But this is the important part:

Evolution is *not* something that attempts to explain how the world was created. What it explains is the diversity of species on this planet, and the manner in which they arrived.

Creationsim and Evolution are *not* simply alternate theories on the same subject.

Evolution happens. We know this because we have observed it, and because we have a great deal of fossil and genetic evidence for it in the past.

The scientific principle of evolution which we know to be true does not exclude the philosophical concept of intelligent design, or the mythical concept of biblical creationism.
It does not exclude precisely because they are not equatible concepts.

Nobody knows for sure how creation came about.

But when we teach science classes, we stick to science - not mythology, religion, and philosophy.

As has been said over and over, if we are going to start teaching biblical creationism in science class, we then need to be sure to cover all the other mythological creation stories - the greeks, norse, egyptians, several series of african myth, a slew of asian myth, south american, etc etc etc.

None of them are science either.

So we won't be teaching them in science class.

^Amen!

Echo that!

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

poi said:

Though personnaly I don't want to see religion, or any irrationnal state of
mind, forced on anyone.

---

Me neither. I like choices, and forcing people to think in certain ways is totally depriving the person of any individualistic qualities.

quote:

---

poi said:

He's not implying that all.

---

Well, I apologize, then. There I go jumping to conclusions, again. I don't know if Creation or ID is only an archaic form of science and philosophy. Esp. with some of the findings that are pointing to a young earth. Now, granted, there are few, but if there is even one, doesn't that open the door for at least the possibility?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

English, being the language we speak, is essential for every subject of study.

---

English is not the language that the entire world speaks, however. Just America (even though I think the language is changing here), England, and a few other, less prominent countries. Granted most people in other countries learn English as a second language, but Mathematics is a universal language. Everyone uses math, and everyone can understand it. But not everyone uses English. I guess you could make a parallel with religious philosophies and Science. Not everyone has the same religious philosophies, but Science goes to extreme lengths to become universal, and I think that it is doing a pretty good job.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The declaration of independence has nothing to do with god or religion, first of
all.

---

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created Equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."(going off memory there, hope I got it right)

Actually Jestah, if someone says what that quote says, then they would be right. If you can't explain it, then attribute it to God, that is the "God of the Gaps" theory, and a very bad theory at that.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

One "happens" to be scientifically correct, tested, has evidence for it, has
been studied, proven, and re-evaluated ad nauseum.

---

Caps mine. I thought you can't prove anything in science?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The other is a politically driven bit of religious nonsense, that has no
scientific basis in fact.

---

I don't know about political, but the Creation theory is a "religious nonsense" base. It is not based in Science, but in Genesis. I believe in Creation because of my belief in the Bible. Now it is hard to convince others who do not believe in the Bible that Creation happened, especially when they just dismiss scientific and archeologic findings as "drivel" or "political lies." Oh well. As for the general ID, however, there are Atheists who confess that it would be difficult for there not to have been a designer for this planet.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Science is NOT a subject of belief and faith!

---

Correct (I could argue that, but I really don't feel like it). But the extrapolation of science into a past that is not documented is not science, it is guess work. That guess work is taken on the prior belief systems of the guesser.

The problem that theologists have with evolution is time...

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

I think I've said this before, but I normally just read these things, as my viewpoint is pretty well covered by others much more eloquent than me, so I try not to add to the noise.

But at this moment, I feel compelled to jump in. Perhaps it's the fact that I haven't been sleeping well, or that a favorite Web site I created is slowly being turned to crap by some third-party idiot, or that I'm tired of the moron next door turning up his subwoofer at nine in the morning ... I'm just easily irked right now. So things like this ...

quote:

---

quoteL-44 said:

English, being the language we speak, is essential for every subject of study.


English is not the language that the entire world speaks, however. Just America (even though I think the language is changing here), England, and a few other, less prominent countries. Granted most people in other countries learn English as a second language, but Mathematics is a universal language. Everyone uses math blah blah blah blah BLAH BLAH BLAH ..............

---

... make me wish I were too stupid to follow an intelligent discussion.

Gideon, do you ever have any bloody idea what the hell anyone's talking about? This response of yours is so nonsequiter it makes me want to kick my own dog and take away his yummy treats.

The fact the the whole world doesn't speak English hasn't one thing to do with what DL said -- not even anything to do with what you said originally! Most of what you say has nothing to do with the course of any known debate.

Construct a logical set of paragraphs that poses a point relevant to what is being discussed; stop simply listing quote after quote taken out of context, following each with an aberrant reponse you've plucked merrily from your anus.

OK -- sorry, folks, I know I'm just adding to the noise. I'm just getting tired of intelligent exchange being interrupted by Gideon's verbal dysentery.

^ You are right - Awesome!

^ ROTFL!!!

Something else I want to point out, that I think is missed by a few.

ID and Creationism are not the same.

ID might be a jumping point at putting creationism back into schools.

But right now ID is just a political movement to spread lies about science. It is a movement that is setting the groundwork for a scientific backlash. It is not about facts or truths, it is about propaganda to invalidate current scientific works.

You mention your Young Earth Theory. Discussing this can be valid science. This might be something that could some day make it into school texts. But, it needs more work, it is not ready yet, especially since there is a lot of evidence that would lead to a contradiction (and the Apparent Age Theory does not add evidence).

However, ID has nothing to do with the Young Earth Theory. ID is a political movement, that looks to invalidate the tried and tested validity of the Theory of Evolution with propaganda. Do not confuse the two. That is their goal, to confuse the two so much so that people don't know what is up and down. Do not let them do this.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

I don't know if Creation or ID is only an archaic form of science and philosophy. Esp. with some of the findings that are pointing to a young earth. Now, granted, there are few, but if there is even one, doesn't that open the door for at least the possibility?

---

No, there aren't any credible findings pointing to a young earth.

Thank you wes.

you've saved me from pulling my hair out trying to respond to that...

Gideon - when you have the faintest idea what you are talking about...feel free to post something worth responding to. All of your "points" are either totally irrelevant or things we've proven wrong over and over in these discussions.

You may enjoy going round and round in pointless circles....I've got better things to do.

DL, I think you are a bit harsh, but I can understand why.

Gideon. You have some ideas that do have some merit. But you pesent them in such a fashion that they all appear foolish. I would say that your excessive use of responding to individual quotes is what does this. Pick a focus and then spend some time really thinking about the one topic and respond to it. Also, things like the small retorts don't earn you points. This is a heated discussion and you have to make some allowances (my spelling and grammar for instance). I do believe that you have a lot you could contribute, but you fail to do this on more occations than not.

Dan @ Code Town

Warmage - when you have already been round and round on the same circle, explaining the same thing to the same person, the definition of 'harsh' changes a great deal. What I said was rather kind in comparison to the way most have put it

^Amen to that!

How you managed to remain so patient, for so long, is beyond me!

Thank you Warmage. I think you are...can't come up with the word right now, but it is good. You actually gave me advice and helped me, instead of just pointing out faults. Thanks, I will defintily take into consideration what you have said.

About the whole ID vs Evolution, though, I think you are mistaken. You do realize that ID is just a melding of the two, don't you?

BTW, wes, you are right. I need to follow things more closely. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I did have a point, but I guess I forgot to put it down. It had something to do with how people interpret mathematics into their own languages, and the parallels to religion and science, but I guess I won't mention that.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Yes, let us let WM go the rounds with Gid...should be amusing to watch WM melt down...

^I have no intention of attacking WM, I am just confused, because I always thought ID was a melding of Creation and Evolution. Apparently I was mistaken, and I would like to know why.

BTW, WM, the main reason I have so many comments (besides the little retorts, I should cut down on those) is because there are so many points being discussed. Perhaps I should just cut down, but then some get angry at me for not responding to them. Kinda a dilemma. Can't really please everyone, though, can you?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

I have no intention of attacking WM, I am just confused

---

Exactly!

Web, you faith in me is inspiring

I am sorry but I really just have to restate the ID is political. All ID says is that we do not believe in chance so there must be something intelligent who created this complex stuff. You will also find the proofs for ID to follow in a similar fashion. They are a faulty proof by contradiction. They normally follow, we do not understand how to do X, therefore ID. A lack of understanding, means you do not understand something, it does not imply something else.

Back to you not understanding why. I would think it has to do with it coming somewhat in line with what your beliefs are, and because it is a powerful political force you jumped on. This does not mean that it is right or in line with what you might really believe. Any time someone trys to politicize science you are probably not looking at science.

If you like your Young Earth Theory stick with it. You are in the majority (44% majority) who believe in that. There is some work in science on it. I can't say it is good science. Anyways, make sure to read the following article in its entirety. It covers the 4 belief areas, and is a really good overview. Make sure to read the introduction.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm

Onto the other issue. There might be a lot of points being discussed, as in this post I am touching on two of your points, along with attempting to slight Webshamam. If you want to respond to someones statements do it much like you would do any other expository essay. Start by having your thesis, and then work from there to explain it. Your thesis can often be implied by an above post by who and how you are responding.

And I think you are correct, you can not please everyone, you shouldn't try to. Respond to the things that you believe are important. If someone asks you for clarification, or "gets angry" for you not touching on something, let them know that you didn't think it was important enough to respond to at the time, and if you think it has its merits then respond to it in a later post. Not everything that is said has import, a lot can and should be ignored.

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 05-05-2005 17:26)

quote:

---

If you like your Young Earth Theory stick with it. You are in the majority (44% majority) who believe in that.

---

That is an appalling thing to say!

If you "like" the theory, stick with it? Because the mass of ignorant people agree with you???

That is, honestly, shocking advice coming from an intelligent person such as yourself, Dan.

As was stated earlier, there is simply no credible evidence to support the religious notion of a young earth. None.

As for 'ID' being a melding of the concept of evolution and creationism - it can be seen that way, yes. But that is not the point whatsoever.

The point is, evolution is a scientific principle that explains a natural process.

Intelligent design is a philosophical issue that states that whatever the natural process, "God" is behind it.
You want to beleive that? Fine. You want to teach your children that? Fine.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to pay tax money to have you teach *my* child such things!

It simply has *no* place in science class. Period.

Thanks Warmage.

I read a book recently about Creation vs Evolution that took arguments from both sides. Good arguments, too. But I read one that was by a lawyer who had gathered info in support of ID (not Creation or Evolution, but both). His view was pretty much the Creation by an intelligent being b/c of the statistics, and then from there accepted the old Earth theory, so in fact he accepted Evolution from the start of the world being made by a god. This basically says that with the small window it is so highly improbable that life could arrive on its own. I know it is jumbled, but is that the Id belief you have been talking about, or is it different?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

I am not telling him that it is correct. I am telling him that if he believes in it that he should continue to research it. You will notice that my next sentence points out that I don't think that it is good science. As with anything, further study helps in the understanding of an issue.

My pointing out of the statistic was useless and has no real bearing on the important issues. I see that as a mistake, and as a justification for faulty reasoning. You are correct on that, and were I to spend a little more time thinking on how that factoid might be interpreted I would not have presented it.

I will go on to point out that I would much rather that Gideon stuck with the Young Earth Theory than the ID dogma because the Young Earth is IMO the lesser of two evils. ID does not lead to further understanding, it is a dead end. The Young Earth Theory can lead to a better understanding of the real science that is out there.

I can see how you might have misunderstood what I was saying. I often do not state my real ideas correctly. I am not as good with my words as you are, but I try.

Dan @ Code Town

Even if you did read a book on the two I would still point you back to the ReligiosTollerance page and have you read that. You can never have too many contrasting viewpoints on an issue.

That kind of work with statistics is the core of the ID belief. And it does not make it correct. I coupd throw statistics like that out all day. You will see statistics like this used to attempt to prove and disprove many things, but that is not a proof, nor is it even a good representation of reality.

This kind of statistics is the same that is used to present a probability that there is life on other planets. These problems hang on one or more values that are at best guesses, and poor ones at that. We do not have the scientific knowledge to make those kinds of guesses.

Dan @ Code Town

WarMage: You seem to forget Gordon Shumway aka ALF, who lived on melmac until it blow up.

And don't forget Mork from Ork!

Melding ID with Evolution is still not science.

Warmage - i can see your point, but clarification was certainly needed to illustrate it.

Gideon - all I can say is to repeat the suggestions that been made over and over to you:

Read up in the *real* sicence behind the principles of evolution and the age of the earth.

Read books by *real* scientists, reflecting known sicentific truth - as opposed half-educated people with a religious agenda to push.

Every source you talk about "learning" from in regard to scientific events is presented by somoeone who is either baltantly unqualified or blatantly biased in the cause for religion.
I am quite certain that you can read them, and their arguments make sense to you. Anyone can be persuasive to someone who already wants to believe what they have to say...

Get the facts - from qualified scientists who are not fighting to uphold an ancient belief system but are devoted to their subject.

Way too many generalizations of me DL. I have read different books by different authors. I don't know if you read it, but elsewhere I posted that I came from a strict Big Bang/Evolution up-bringing. I loved all the stories about a long time and dinos, and I read all the books I could and watched all the movies I could about EVOLUTION. I had a pair of friends who are twins and they were infatuated with the ancient Earth, and they pulled me in further. I have gone through a course where I had done research on Evolution and the timeline of the dinosaurs...

I have read material about Evolution. I will agree, though, that there is always room to listen to new ideas, and accept new thoughts, but I thought that reading things from the Creationist point of view was something I should try (I used to be one of those who put God as the one who started the big bang then sat back and watched...). I have only been researching the Creationist stand point for about 10 months in comparison to the rest of my life on Evolution. I am having a hard time cutting the crap away from the true scientfic findings, but I am also finding that there are some out there that could be true. When stuff like that is found, then there should be more investigation, not cover ups.

Okay, enough of that rant. Thanks WM, and I do agree on the statistics partially. I have been taking a course in Statistics and Probablilities, and those intrigue me. But, I know, more than many others, the chances that they are flawed some how. I am paranoid about people who use stats and just rely on them to prove a point. Stats aren't used that way. They are used to suggest. And with the suggestion that it is mathematically impossible that life arose on Earth spontaneously, I perk my ears. I will not accept that as a fact, but I will accept it as a possibility.

BTW, DL, you do know that Evolution taken without ID is atheistic, right? You do know that theists go to the same schools that your children go to, right? So do you think they feel any less strongly about the opposing argument than you do? Do you think that they will fight less than you to have their children the education that they want their children to have? What is the compromise, then?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Anyone can be persuasive to someone who already wants to believe what they have
to say...

---

Looking back I paid more attention to this part of your post DL, and you do know that it doesn't only apply to me, right?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

BTW, DL, you do know that Evolution taken without ID is atheistic, right?

---

Science class does nto exist to promote any religious view.

It does not exist to counter any religious view.

It exists to teach science, seperate from any concept of religion.

In that sense, it is a-theistic, in that it does not address the issue of god or gods.
It is not atheistic in the sense that it denies the existence of god or gods.

It is not a matter of the education I want my child to have.

It is a matter of the education that the public school system is obligated to provide - and that is one that does not endorse any religion, and does not promote religious philosophy and mythology as science.

There is nothing to comprimise.

quote:

---

you do know that it doesn't only apply to me, right?

---

Obviously.
But it applies very strongly to you.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

and that is one that does not endorse any religion, and does not promote
religious philosophy and mythology as science.

---

Is Atheism not a philosophy, then? Wouldn't making an agnostic compromise be the better of the two, so that neither has the upper hand, and neither can complain?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

But it applies very strongly to you.

---

Et tu, amicitiam.
[I think that word is correct, my Latin needs some work...]

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

I have been reading this thread very closely and currently I am absolutly speechless....I don't know how many times people, especially DL and Webs tried to spoon feed Gideon pretty much on any subject that has been covered here... but with every new replay Gideon comes up with, will surely lead me to blow my nuts off with the shotgun....it's actually becoming more and more painful to read anything he writes....

To Gid:

Please, go back and re-read what DL has stated....

quote:

---

Science class does nto exist to promote any religious view.

It does not exist to counter any religious view.

It exists to teach science, seperate from any concept of religion.

In that sense, it is a-theistic, in that it does not address the issue of god or gods.
It is not atheistic in the sense that it denies the existence of god or gods.

---

I remember some time ago, DL has explained to you the definition of "a-theism"

try to remember....(in the meantime am going to search for it)

----

the sad part is, I feel that so much time and effort has been wasted on Gideon, this leads me to believel that he is incapable or not interested(regardless of how much he pretends to) open his eyes and see the obvious.

I believe he comes here to argue topics in order to make himself feel better about his beliefs. I noticed that Gideon never really keeps up with the subject but really really tried to avoid them and brings up irrelevant discussions....as if he has his mind made up and no matter what you say or present to him, it will be deflected.

I dont know what else to say....it's all been said so many times, yet the nature of Gid is that to forget...so it must be repeated every morning....

My best advice is, do not guide the traveler if he is not going anywhere.

quote:

---

Is Atheism not a philosophy, then? Wouldn't making an agnostic compromise be the better of the two, so that neither has the upper hand, and neither can complain?

---

An 'agnostic compromise'??
what the hell are you talking about?

Nobody has any upperhand.

Evolution happens. We know this, and we can explain it in scientific terms.

"intelligent design" is a concept that has nothing to do with the science of evolution, and has no bearing on the science of evolution.

Inserting god into the equation (or attempting to prove that the process is free of god) is well outside the scope of science class.

What is it that you fail to understand here?

The sense in which all of our scientific principles are atheistic is in it's complete seperation from the concept of deities. It is not atheistic in any philosophical sense.

Atheism itself is not a philosophy, no.

Let's attempt to put this in better perspective for you Gid - how would you feel if you had a child in public school, and that school decided that it needed to start teaching the "real" truth, in accordance with the teaching of our great greek prophets, and let the science classes teach our children not about evolution, but about the role the Titans played in the creation of man? Rather than physics, we'll learn about how pleasing the gods can gain you favor by which you might earn a nice pair of winged sandals to fly around in. Instead of astronomy, we'll learn to appreciate the hard work of appollo, towing the sun across the sky every day.

How would that work for you? Would you support that alteration to our public schools? After all, it *would* please Zeus - the very king of the gods himself!

I consider him a prime example of fanatic belief.

This is the type of mentality that we are having to deal with in America on a number of subjects and among radical groups of fervent believers (like certain terrorist groups).

They beleive that they are right, and that a higher power is giving them that right to believe so. They believe that they are "helping" us lost sheep with what they are trying to do and furthermore, that a higher power has blessed their actions and is pressing them to do more.

Thus, they ignore all logic, all reason, all historic presidences, that are contrary to their belief.

These threads have served to prove this.

This quote says it all

quote:

---

Wouldn't making an agnostic compromise be the better of the two, so that neither has the upper hand, and neither can complain?

---

Obviously, Evolution says absolutely nothing about a creator, or god. It merely explains a process of life. Obviously Gid doesn't want to accept this (after all, we have spend threads ad infinitum attempting to teach him this).

It is because Gid believes in a Young Earth, and Evolution (and the rest of Science, for that matter) without a reasonable doubt proves that the earth is not young. To acknowledge this, Gid will have to either change or lose his faith.

So instead, he blocks it out.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-06-2005 07:44)

Typical fanatical, fundamentalist religious attitude;

quote:

---

Wouldn't making an agnostic compromise be the better of the two

---

The operative word being 'make'.

Force the religious POV upon all those who dare to differ.

Crusades anyone? Hey, where's my stake and dunking stool? We're off top Salem for the annual witch burning, bring you bibles.

Atheism, my version of it anyway, does not deny the existance of gods. One does not deny that which does not exist.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

For some wonderful reason, the scene from Airplane just popped into my head where all the passengers are lined up, some with crowbars, trying to snap the inconsolable woman out of her hysteria.

You've hit it right on the head, Ruski. That's why I don't post responses to his posts much anymore. Just a waste of time!

quote:

---

For some wonderful reason, the scene from Airplane just popped into my head where all the passengers are lined up, some with crowbars, trying to snap the inconsolable woman out of her hysteria.

---

Oh! Can I be the guy with the boxing gloves?

Pass that crowbar, first ya got to get his attention!

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Inserting god into the equation (or attempting to prove that the process is free
of god) is well outside the scope of science class.

---

But proving that He is not in the equation is outside of the whole scope of Science, too, isn't it? I think we have said that before. That is why I would like to stand by my previous assertion. Science classes should not say that there is a God, true, but they should not say with certainty that there isn't.

Thus a compromise, where they confess of the possibility, but do not elaborate. Such as the case with the comparatively OE. They should say that the evidence they have complied points to an OE. But as a few have asserted before in Asylum, science is full of uncertainty.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Force the religious POV upon all those who dare to differ.

---

No E-man, force them to accept that some believe that way. Found anything on Lucretious yet?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

But proving that He is not in the equation is outside of the whole scope of Science, too, isn't it?

---

you fucking idiot...Read what everything has been said to you over again and again until you "get it"

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH! For fuckers sake Gideon, why are you so stupid? Why drag everyone for a ride about the same and same thing that has been covered! Why???


We have said many and many times over and over again...The concept of Diety/Gods/God do not belong in science curiculum, the END!

no discussions about Gods in Science class!

Go to philosophy/literature/theology...


why dont you ever listen/read/take into concideration whats been said to you? shizz....

^ exactly. And this has been said over and over, and in fact teh quote you pulled from me says explicitly that proving that god is not part of the process is outside the scop of science class.

So the only question is this: are you really this ignorant? Or do you simply enjoy being a troll?

It is obviously one of the two, if not both.

God should not be a part of science class at all.

No "comprimise" is necessary because no matter how you look at it, god is not a matter of science.

So again the answer is "absolutely not!"

{{edit - and as for your 'statsitcal' approach, this says all that neds to be said about it:
http://www.eskimo.com/~spban/bread.html
as summed up in #12 =)




(Edited by DL-44 on 05-10-2005 18:33)

quote:

---

you fucking idiot...Read what everything has been said to you over again and again until you "get it"

---

Priceless. Simply priceless.

I'm saving this quote, Ruski. I hope you don't mind

quote:

---

So the only question is this: are you really this ignorant? Or do you simply enjoy being a troll?

It is obviously one of the two, if not both.

---

You know, I remember the days when Yannah was "terrorising" the forum. At least she had the excuse of not speaking or understanding english very well back then.

Unfortunately for Gid, he has no such excuse. And if he is being a Troll, then either he is a fucking genius, and is TwItch^ in disguise (which would be the joke of the century ), or he is the stupidest troll ever to attempt trolling.

Facit :

Gid is just ignorant, and perhaps the most ignorant Asylum member we have ever had.

I mean, just look at this "logic" - first he quotes DL with this

quote:

---

Inserting god into the equation (or attempting to prove that the process is free
of god) is well outside the scope of science class.

---

and then goes on to say

quote:

---

Science classes should not say that there is a God, true, but they should not say with certainty that there isn't.

---

Which is the same thing, really, since Science class makes no attempt to even try to answer the god question and therefore, does not say there is a god, or isn't. In fact, nothing is said about god one way or another.

I mean, no troll could be ignorant enough to attempt to troll in such an inane manner, right?

Or maybe Gid thinks that Science class says that there is no god with a certainty?

That is new. Maybe you can be more specific here, Gid. What do you think in Science class is saying that there is no god with certainty?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Gid:

Try this on for size.

In a science class you might learn 'why & how water boils.'(Much condensed of course) You need water, a vessel to contain the water. An energy source to first, heat the vessel...which in turn heats the water. When the water reaches a certain temperature the H2o molecules start dancing about producing the 'bubbles.'

A science class/teacher presents the 'details' of why & how water boils.

Now if you want to insert the 'god-factor' you start with 'in the beginning'... explaining the creationists theory on how water was 'created'...and all other components/materials required to conduct that little experiment.

That sort of 'instruction' & 'attribution' belongs in philosophy/theology classes NOT in a science class.

The existance or non, of a god, plays no part in explaining the pain associated with sticking your hand in boiling water. Just like you don't need a god to explain in detail just why chocolate ice cream tastes so damn good. Well to some of us anyway) =)

Science is all about.... 'mmmm that tastes good.... Fuck... that hurt!'

Now if you want to find out just how god does all that.... pick up your books go across the hall to Theology/Philosophy. Take the boiling water with you.... leave me the ice cream please, I have 'experimenting' to do.

Whis is it so hard for some Christians to believe that God created the earth, and that through life, evolution has been hapening and is also true? Why do Christians have to be so one-sided about everything? Does it say in the bible somewhere that evolution is not true? To quote Darwin: at the beginning of his paper that everyone now quotes as some evolution vs creation thing...

quote:

---

Darwin Letters - "He considers that the theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but that you must remember that different persons have different definitions of what they mean by God."

---

Darwin, like a lot of people, was not sure whether or not there was a God, but he did not try to, or did not intend this idea to be in conflict with God.

Well,,
Can't really finish..
Have to go...
Super Busy...

----| Asylum Quotes

Gilbert to answear your question....


think of it this way...you believe in salvation of mankind through Jesus simply because there was a damnation of mankind in first place...and that exactly what Genesis is about...remove the literal interpretation...accept the evolution and you have no damnation of any sort (eden/paradise was supposedly on earth), just a biological development of mammal whose brain developed faster than anyones else and came to self awarness....

So yes even for me people who accept contemporary ideas on evolution/humantities and natural history...I am still puzzled what kind of "sin" are they trying to be saved from? As far as I am concerned....there is no such a thing since survival is a race and everything has it's cost.

So it's not just fitting in the grand designer of the universe...it's actually corrupting the core beliefs itself....

and that is why it's such a threat to them....


P.S. sorry for crappy spelling and composition.

Sorry about that DL. There was no excuse for missing that. I was so stupid. Again, my apologies. Thank you for catching it. I guess I didn't catch that because I was going so fast. Again, I am sorry.

You are correct NoJive. In that kind of instance, God would not really come in a factor for public schools. Unfortunately, that was not the kind of science I am peeved about. I am peeved when it is accepted as fact that the age of the Earth is millions of years. That is something disputed, and I am disturbed that classes don't even teach that there might be evidence other wise. I understand that God should not be forced upon younger children, but He should not be abdicated, either.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Holy fucking shit!!!

quote:

---

I am peeved when it is accepted as fact that the age of the Earth is millions of years. That is something disputed, and I am disturbed that classes don't even teach that there might be evidence other wise.

---

This is just not true. It is not disputed, it is a FACT. Just because you and a small band of religious nuts cannot accept it, does not disprove it.

It is taught in school, because it is a FACT. That is why it is taught. Not because it is "disputed" but becasue it is a fact. Schools don't teach that there might be something else. That has absolutley no fucking value, whatsoever.

We have proven this on this forum alone over, and over, and over again. You have lost every single time. Lost. Every single time.

WM, he's all yours.

Gideon:

quote:

---

I am peeved when it is accepted as fact that the age of the Earth is millions of years. That is something disputed, and I am disturbed that classes don't even teach that there might be evidence other wise.

---

Again gideon, we cannot teach every view point that exists.

We are talking about teaching SCIENCE.

There is no credible scientific evidence for any young earth view - none at all. Yes, there are people who feel otherwise.

It is 'disputed' by deluded religious nuts, and nobody else.

There are also people who still beleive the earth is flat (yeah...they're out there....), that the mothership is coming back to pick us up on its next trip through the galaxy, that Charles Manson is the messiah, that the Holocaust never happened, etc.

We cannot teach such wing-nut postulations in science class. And a 'young earth' theory is exactly that.

I agree, DL, that we cannot teach all the view points in science. I am just a little disturbed at what view points were chosen to be discussed.

Hey WS, you say that there is no evidence for a young Earth, none at all, correct? Has science ever been wrong because it had too little information? I am just saying that there is a possibility of it out there.

Even if a few people decide it is "religious," and only for "nuts," some of those "nuts'" sons and daughters are sharing the same schooling as yours. You have claimed over and over that you do not want your children to have religion down thier throats, well guess what? Many of these religious "nuts" don't want their children to have the point of view that there is no God shoved down thier throats. So what is the solution? Do you want the very thing you hate, the destruction of freedom of choice and decisions, to be destroyed in schools? Do you want others to have your opinion forced upon them? If you do, then you are no better than the image you have of those "fundy" Christians.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

(Edited by Gideon on 05-12-2005 16:13)

Never is "there no god" shoved down anyones throat.

And I do not worry about this. Were I to want my children to get a religious education I can send them to a relgious school. There are many of these. If I want my children to get a religious education I can send them to a church. You do know that their are churches in almost every city, you do know that their are religious schools in almost every city.

On a further note, this has been said before and you seem to continue to ignore it.

Are you attempting to be obtuse on purpose?

<edit>I just wanted to be honest and point out that I almost did melt down at this previous post. I took about 10 deep breaths, inhale, exhale. Erased everything I had written and tried again. I was close, but I don't think it would have been as exciting as predicted.</edit>

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 05-12-2005 17:10)

Correct. I agree about the schools and education, etc. But I don't agree about the shoving. That does happen. I will admit that some Christians do it too much, but others should be accused in the same respects. If anything, I don't see too many people talking about Jesus at all in public schools. Even between students, in casual conversation. Nada. Debate, maybe, since I have not been in there as of yet.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

[I am just a little disturbed at what view points were chosen to be discussed.

---

The issues that covered are those pertaining to science.

The young earth issue is not supoported by any scientific evidence, and so it is not taught in science class. Same goes of 'intelligent design'.

Sicence does not teach that god could not have been involved in the scientific principles taught.
But since god cannot be shown to have been involved, stating that some people hold certain religious beliefs is not relevant to a science class.

PERIOD.

There is no debate to be had here.

Start a new thread on religion in schools, for that discussion if you want to have it. It might be important.

As for this scientific issue, about young earth and ID, I think it has run its course. It is time to move onto other things that are going to be more worthwhile, and offer up better oportunities for us to learn from one anther. Thanks everyone for all your contributions. It has been fun.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Start a new thread on religion in schools, for that discussion if you want to have it

---

eh........that's what this discussion has been about since the start - the article you linked to was in direct relation to the teaching of religious dogma in science class...and the conversation has revolved around that ever since...

I was refering more to Gids remarks about peer discussion of religion in schools.

quote:

---

If anything, I don't see too many people talking about Jesus at all in public schools. Even between students, in casual conversation. Nada.

---

This quote is far outside of our discussion, as it has to deal with the social interaction of peers in school, and not about the mandated teachings in a science class. These two issues, are very distinct. As conversation about Jesus is and should be allowed between students in their casual conversations. It might be interesting to see others takes on what occurs in schools. But again, is well outside the scope of the ID debate, and Religion in Science, and only acts to muddy this current debate.

Dan @ Code Town

gotcha.

quote:

---

Hey WS, you say that there is no evidence for a young Earth, none at all, correct? Has science ever been wrong because it had too little information? I am just saying that there is a possibility of it out there.

---

Ok.

So what?

Since when has Religion the high ground, O all knowing one?

Shall we devote the rest of this thread to Religious accuracy vs Scientific Fact?

We are not debating whether or not Science has been wrong before.

You still do not get it, after ALL THE FUCKING FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN AI MED AT YOU!

We are debating, that with the evidence given, and the facts as we know it, the most reasonable answer is...

TADA! The Earth is old.

Ok, Gid...I've been saving this one. I've got your hammer, right here in my head. I've saved it for a long time. It's the one I've used to drive Jehovah's Witness's screaming from my house, cursing my name, and calling me the spawn of Satan.

Gid - explain to me, How it is possible, for Antartica to have such a thick sheet of ice, and yet, it has fossils under that that prove that its climate was once tropical. And that, within 20,000 years. Of course, this is the debate about continental drift, which you must also, as a YEC, deny. You ask why? Well, obviously, the Ice there must have existed before the great Flood - Antartica is at the center of the South Pole. So there is no way that animals could have gotten under the Ice sheet. And obviously, drillings have proven that there are more than 60,000 years of layers there in the Ice sheet itself.

Good luck.

Dumb ass.



I really enjoy doing that, btw.

WebShaman: Simple. God with all his über powers put some fossils in Antartica and made the world in a way to make it look really old to our eyes of dumb homo sapiens sapiens.

Poi, that is cheating. We all KNOW god wouldn't cheat.

Introducing miracles into the equation really forfeits everything. Then anything is possible.

Yes Web, and you continue to miss that point.

Anything is possible! Anything, as long as it doesn't disagree with their religious teachings!

That is why it is almost mute to have any kind of argument about science with the fervently religious. They are not logical, they do not follow any basic tenants of this reality, they follow only what is taught to them by their religious leaders, and the media specifically ordained by them.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Yes Web, and you continue to miss that point.

---

WM, do you really take me for that ignorant?

Sorry to hear that.

I think that the miracle angle has been debated before, and dismissed as inconsequent. That is what I am referring to, when it comes to the mention of "miracles".

If one includes miracles into the equation, then anything is possible, including that the moon is really made out of green cheese. Now, I don't particularly care what the believers think about miracles, etc. I'm pointing this out from a point of logic, and from a basis to discuss from.

If you are going to ask a question, at least wait for the answer.

I do not think you ignorant at all. I might think you a bit impulsive, maybe to have a little too much faith in certain types of people to be capable of logic and reason.

As for the rest, I can not even comment anymore. These past weeks have been stifling. The horror that is being visited upon this nation by the fundamental zealots who allow themselves to be lead by the corrupt are killing me. I feel like a shaken bottle, the carbonation having no place to exit.

How can we allow this to happen? How can so many be so completely unaware of it? How can so many embrace it?

It just does not make any sense to me.

Dan @ Code Town

The major problem even mentioning 'creationism' in a Science class, I don't think, the creationists even dare consider.

I'll boil this down as best I can...but don't hold your breath. =)

Generically speaking...the objective of a PUBLIC School system is to produce a National, State and Local 'population' that meets certain standards of 'literacy' in Reading, Writing, Math and so on.

In a PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM people 'elected' to a school board, in School District "X", execute a curriculum that supposedly and hopefully results in a populace meeting those levels of 'competency.'

If 'Christian Fundamentalists' enjoy a STATE majority and order that in Science Classes their version of creationism be taught in detail or merely mentioned, in PUBLIC SCHOOLS, they make the perilous assumption they will 'always' enjoy that majority.

In the US, If I'm not mistaken, Hispanics are the fastest growing goup. Again, if I'm not mistaken, Catholism is their religion of choice. Forget the Catholics for a minute. Say Jehova Witnesses...followers of Islam or Budhists or Satanists enjoy a majority.

You now have a situation where any of those groups can change the curriculum, for Science in this case, to reflect their version of creationism.

You don't need a crystal ball nor be an oracle, to see that in some communities this is a very real scenario.

And to you Gideon, and other 'Christian Fundamentalists' this is why ALL FLAVOURS OF RELIGION MUST BE KEPT OUT OF ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.

Christian Fundamentalists would set their hair afire if, in a PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, it was even 'suggested' to their children there "MIGHT BE" another explanation for creationism.

In some areas there are Catholic Schools. There are Christian based Universities. There are all sorts of 'Faith-based Institutions.' Those are PRIVATE places of learning and you enjoy the Right and Priviledge to have your children attend those PRIVATE 'faith-based' institutions. It is in those settings where your, '...might be another possibility' can be taught unimpeded and clearly without, objection. Whether I agree with it or not.

Schoolboards are Government. ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT ARE PUBLIC INSITUTIONS. As such, ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT MUST IN NATURE AND BY DEFINTION BE ""SECULAR.""

If you and other Christian Fundamentalists do not want your children, in a PUBLIC SCHOOL SETTING.. hearing anything 'other', than your version of how this great big spinning ball of dirt and water came to be, you should be,.... it is in your best interests to do, everything possible to ensure YOUR version does not become part of the PUBLIC CURRICULUM.

Well...., Get ready for this one. I heard this past week they are going to include the study of the bible as a part of curiculum in schools. Has anyone else heard this? I don't know what state they were referring to. I really don't believe this is necessary. Children should be taught this at home or church school. Or as private study.

quote:

---

Children should be taught this at home or church school. Or as private study.

---

Holy Moly Jade... something we agree on. I have to sit down... you've made my knees weak. =)

As for 'which' State, I can't remember, and it really doesn't matter.

What really matters is 'those' who would have their particular brand/flavour of religion taught in a PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM do not seem ACCEPT the fact they are opening the door for a devil other than their own.

I say ACCEPT because I 'personally' do not UNDERSTAND how anyone
can beleive in any 'flavour.' I MUST however ACCEPT that you DO, because you have told me so. (not isolating you out here...speaking generically)

As I said in another thread.. 'Stupid is a Natural State - Ignorance is Self-Induced. I can only assume those wanting 'their flavor' in a PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM are "STUPID" because they choose to IGNORE the ramifications of their desire.

To paraphrase somebody '...The best way to show a fool the error of his ways is to let him have his way.'

Nice paraphrase, I like it.

I don't know if I have posted this anywhere before, but I am all for separation of church and state. I believe that religion belongs in the home and church, while teaching belongs in the school.

That being said, public schools are public. I like facts, I like truth. I HATE it when people hide facts from me, or falsify their data. Whenever someone gives me falsified data, I feel betrayed. I also feel betrayed when someone does not give me the whole story. "Suzie went to..." raises a bunch of questions. Telling me about natural selection, but then passing over irreducable complexity is not giving the whole story.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

Telling me about natural selection, but then passing over irreducable complexity is not giving the whole story.

---

What is not Science, does not belong in a Science class.

It is that simple.

We have patiently explained that, again, and again, and again...

I haven't been following this thread that closely as of late, so if this has been posted already, I apologize. I took a quick look through and didn't see it, though, so here you go:

Why intelligent design isn't

It's a New Yorker article that covers and refutes the main arguments of intelligent design. I was not too familiar with the specifics of intelligent design, so I found it an interesting read.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

Great artical. Covers a whole lot of ground.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Whenever someone gives me falsified data, I feel betrayed. I also feel betrayed when someone does not give me the whole story.

---

One day, hopefully not too far in the future, you are going to feel very betrayed by the pseudo-scientists you have been so faithfully following lately.

Very betrayed...

Excellent article. Thanks.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Great article, going to have me some thinkin'. Thanks.

So, DL, you want me to feel betrayed?

BTW, I do not follow pseudo-scientists. I follow truth. If truth and fact contradict Creation scientists, then their science is not truth. If truth and fact contradict ID, then that is not truth. If truth and fact contradict Evolution, then that is not truth. However, I seriously doubt the debate is over between Evolution, Creation, and ID.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

BTW, I do not follow pseudo-scientists. I follow truth. If truth and fact contradict Creation scientists, then their science is not truth. If truth and fact contradict ID, then that is not truth. If truth and fact contradict Evolution, then that is not truth. However, I seriously doubt the debate is over between Evolution, Creation, and ID.

---

The "debate", as you see it, never even began for Scientists.

It is a moot point.

If you truly follow truth, as you say, then you would know and acknowledge this.

*shrugs*

Thanks for the link, Master Suho.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-27-2005 16:39)

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Great article, going to have me some thinkin'. Thanks.

So, DL, you want me to feel betrayed?

---

No.

But given your earlier statement it is inevitable, since all these sources you quote so often in support of your pseudo-scientific views are doing exactly what you said: misrepresenting the facts and giving partial stories.

I understand that you do not accept this truth. Hopefully you will, and hopefully it won't be too far in the future.

quote:

---

BTW, I do not follow pseudo-scientists. I follow truth. If truth and fact contradict Creation scientists, then their science is not truth. If truth and fact contradict ID, then that is not truth. If truth and fact contradict Evolution, then that is not truth. However, I seriously doubt the debate is over between Evolution, Creation, and ID.

---

You have posted reams and reams of writing by what are *at best* pseudo-scientists, and at worse complete frauds. Your "truth" as presented by such people is simply not truth, it is fiction.

quote:

---

You have posted reams and reams of writing by what are *at best* pseudo-scientists, and at worse complete frauds. Your "truth" as presented by such people is simply not truth, it is fiction.

---

Sadly, DL, Gid does not realize this. He is much to young, and has no basis of experience from which to draw from.

But I suspect that you realize this, as well

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The "debate", as you see it, never even began for Scientists.

---

Well, what do you call all the ranting about YEID, OEID, and OEE then?

Let me ask you both a question, who would you consider a scientist?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

Well, what do you call all the ranting about YEID, OEID, and OEE then?

---

You'll have to be more specific...

quote:

---

Well, what do you call all the ranting about YEID, OEID, and OEE then?

---

Ranting, obviously. Young Earth ID, Old Earth ID has NOTHING to do with Science (we have patiently explained this to you many times before - again, you always come full circle back to these points - I call you what you are, Gid - you are a Troll. No-one is ignorant enough to have "forgotten" what we have posted before so many times - we have been back to this point ad infinitum with you. Always must we point out the same thing, again and again.)

Old Earth Evolution does have a solid basis in Science, obviously, as we have pointed out again, and again, and again, and again...

quote:

---

Let me ask you both a question, who would you consider a scientist?

---

It has already been defined for you, many times, in previous threads. Again, I name you for what you are - Troll.

Are you really so forgetful, or is it that you just cannot accept what we post to you?

Gid, either -

A) Quit posting the same old circular "reasons", and remember what was posted before in answer to your "points".

Or stop posting, period.

It is getting very tiresome, having to point out again, and again, and again, and again....the SAME FUCKING INFORMATION TO YOU!

It has gotten to the point, that I can only label you as a Troll, because I cannot picture anyone being as dense as not to have realized that.

Troll.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-29-2005 12:55)

Moved and seconded...all in favour?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Aye.

I agree WS. Looking back at some of my posts, what I wrote. I apologize. I have excuses (God knows I have excuses), but there are no excuses. I have been a troll, and I realize it. I don't think you are the first to tell me this, although it was more discreet in the past. Just goes to show you how many kicks in the butt this giant oaf needs to get going. Even God has been giving me kicks in the butt, trying to tell me how much of a jerk I have been.

For the past few months, I have fought, argued, threw punches, and recieved them, all in a vain attempt to try and make people think the way I think. I believe now I have come to the breaking point. Just to show you how slow a learner I am, it took me that long to realize that I can't change people. I can argue, spit, fight, growl, hurl insults and names all I want, but I can't make people change. Only people can make themselves change, and a lot of times, my way is not the best way and it is me who needs to change.

WS, DL, and even E-man (D-man now), I think that I have learned the most from you these past few months. All the while I have been trying to make you see my point of view, even without considering yours. I have used rhetoric, underhanded questions, and just plain dirty tactics to try and make you all think the same way I think.

You know what guys? I was wrong. You know what, through all this I found out that it isn't you guys who need to change (even though I think change, even a little, is always good), but it was me. I needed the overhaul, and it was you guys who stayed on my case.

Thank you. Thank you for not giving up on me. Thank you for not sugar coating anything, and telling me like it is.

For all intents and purposes, Ruski was right. You all should just ignore me, for all the trouble I have caused. But, if you can find it in yourselves to forgive me and put up with me, I will try my hardest to not force my beliefs anymore. I understand that you all are not here to get things shoved down your throat. You are here for intellectual purposes. I will do my best from now on to respect that, and keep my thought shoving to myself, whether or not you decide to speak to me anymore.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

I am pretty much convinced we have seen this sort of mea-culpa from gid before, yet always he returns to the same narrow path.

Beware of xians bearing apologies.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

And now you are making a victim out of yourself....right and wrong, such a narrow view on life you have Gid. This is the biggest cause of your circular reasoning .

I was simply trying to stop this mindless cycle of blabble and for you to shut up, reread and think. But, with the philosohphy you have chosen to uphold and base your life on (which is that of Paul), so little can be exspected from such closed minded fanaticism...surely I was loosing hope for you to ever understand anyone here with more sophisicated and complex interpretation of life where there are no absolutes...

Although I do respect someone who can admit that they are wrong, my alarm bells go off when someone is doing it on a regular basis.

Especially when it comes because of the same situation, again and again!

That shows that the person in question really hasn't learned, and is using an apology as the "easy way out", instead of learning.

Gid, you have apologized so often before over exactly this type of behavior, that I find it impossible to attach any seriousness to it.

The boy who cried wolf.

See, you are still very wrong. You can change people. You can help people, and you can make people better (towards whatever you think better is). But you can not immediately force this. Change is a process.

Coming to fisticuffs over an ideal based on peace, turning the other cheek and love? Sound like you are really fucking up. If you can not seem to follow your own path, how could you ever expect to lead others down the same one?

You might want to look into meditation, I think you might call it deep prayer or something. Meditation is an opposite of prayer, instead of talking you are listening, and it sounds like you need to do a bit of this. From what you have written and continue to write it sounds like you are not living in congruence with yourself. You have many personal juxtapositions which need to be righted, and you need to spend some personal time with these.

You are bound to fail with others when you are not right with yourself.

Dan @ Code Town

Gid: Got that 'can't win' feeling?' Don't sweat it. I'm sure however, you understand the skepticism. Even those who seem to win all or most of the time.. don't.

I'm off in a bit of a different direction here but you first have to
accept that your religous beliefs don't matter to me one bit.

If however you are going to 'study', study as many different religions
as possible including 'athiesm' which, when organized under an
umbrella group is, imo, just another religion. Dogma is dogma.

So.. the different direction.

Of the many mental notes I've made of you through various posts I see
someone who is clearly searching for answers to many many things.

Why do I do 'this?' Why do I even 'want' to do this? Why do I have these
feelings these urges?

Someone who is clearly frustrated and on 'some' matters...clearly and very confused.

Perhaps the most telling tho' is, your age. (Somewhere between 16 & 18 yes/no?)

Well Gid a whole lot of that frustration and confusion will continue for a few more years. Probably till your mid 20's.

It's all about 'Brain Maturation.'

There 'was' a time when the 'thinking' was the brain at 18 Months or so, started a steady
decline.'

Today the thinking is - " The brain's center of reasoning and problem-solving is among the last to mature,..." some time in our 20's.

In my late 20's and early 30's I often said '.... I didn't know who the hell I was until I was 24.' I'm now in my late 50's.

Ages 12 thru my early 20's were for me not just, confusing and frustrating. I was, most of the time, hell-bent on destruction. Myself, others, things.

I was the kid many mothers told their kids...'I don't want you hanging around with him he's a bad influence on you and don't you ever bring him home!'

Other times however I was quite the opposite. And it was during these 'other' times I was perhaps most confused and frustrated.

Suicide was big on my mind. Had a barrel in my mouth at one point. I was 14 or so. Why didn't I pull the trigger? Who knows and it doesn't matter. What does matter however was the 'thinking & understanding' of the day. There wasn't much of either when it came to the juvenile brain.

About the only 'word' heard was 'puberty' and about the only phrase heard was... 'Don't worry about it... he'll out grow it.'

Years later the word 'Hormones' surfaced. Just what 'those' were and what they did was not clear and even less clear yet was, what all these chemical reactions were doing to the juvenile brain. The problem solving and reasoning part of the brain were not even on the radar.

Fortunately 'today' this is not the case. And fortunately again, because of this Internet thing, =) a whole lot of information is right at our finger tips.

Follow this big ugly link or throw 'Brain Maturation' into google. Study some of those for a while... Some findings are very controversial. Others are accepted.

I think, and sincererly do hope, that after you read up at least a bit, on what your brain is now going thru, on this journey of maturation, you will have something of a better understanding of where some, but clearly not all your frustrations..confusion...searching etc.. 'stem' =) from. But just as clearly a lot of it is going on in your brain and will continue to go on for several more years yet.

The way I figure it... the more you know about what's going on up there the better you'll be able to deal it. Just wish this info had been accessible back when. =)

You also have to accept that many of the 'brains' you deal with here..are indeed 'mature' others may indeed be over-ripened and others yet perhaps even pickled. =) As 'individuals' however, none of us, hopefully, will get toooo mature.

Don't want 'the smell of old people setting in' now do we.


http://www.google.ca/search?q=Brain+maturation

-USfficial

(Edited by WarMage on 06-02-2005 01:04)

I understand that you are wary, guys. If I were in your position, I would be very wary as well. If that is truly how you see me, and what you feel, then so be it.

WS, you are right. I have before apologized for various things, yet to only return to them a few weeks later. In all intents and purposes, you really don't need to listen to me, and you don't have to accept my apology. It's up to you. If you want to give me one more chance, it's your choice.

WM, that is my philosophy. Could be wrong. Can change. But that is how it stands as of this moment. It makes sense to me, so that is why I believe it. I realize that people can be influenced, but I believe that only people can truly change themselves.
BTW, I did try meditation. It really didn't take too long for me to figure out what was wrong either. Nor did it take too long to find a solution. That makes me a little wary, because I see people meditate for hours and only attain a little scrap of info. Am I that easy to figure out? Maybe.

Thanks NoJive, and yup you are correct in all of your assumptions: age, maturity rate, confusion, even touched on the suicide thing. You must either be really good at reading people, or I am just that transparent. Either way is cool.

Yeah, I'll look into that brain maturation. I have been taught a little about it in school, but I never really gave it too much thought.

I'm glad for the frankness too, about religion & personal beliefs. I will look into the other religions and beliefs. I have tried before, but I have an issue with time and reading. They don't really match up too well. I will see if I can get started on it soon, though.

I'm not really worried about other religions as of this moment, I'm more interested in figuring out the depth and nooks of my own, but I may have been going about it wrong. I have a pretty good (although somewhat shaky) base in Christianity by now, maybe I can figure out how it is similar and different from other religions. I just don't like rushing into things without all the info, is all. I don't want you to think I'm not interested in learning as much as I can about what and how others believe. It's fascinating to me.

Well, this is starting to turn into a ramble, so I think I will just say thanks to all you guys, and say that this time, I will do my best to be respectful.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

It's not a matter of being "wary", as you have demonstrated that you possess little to be wary of, quite frankly.

It's a simple matter of "same old shit".

You constantly switch between half-ass pamphlet-fed attempts at baiting and apologetic gibberish.

It is actually pretty laughable that you call what you do as trying to shove your views down anyone's throat, since your views have been so completely incoherent throughout. You can't shove something down someone's throat when you can't even present an argument that can stand...

the problem that you seem to have has less to do with the specifics of what you beleive than it does with the fact that you consistently go off 'half-cocked'. You hear an idea presented by some kook and you're ready to prove to the world that it's true, without even understanding it.

The only actual advice: *learn* what you are talking about before you decide to try convincing the world...

Thanks DL, I'll remember that.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

Ruski said:

I was loosing hope for you to ever understand anyone here with more sophisicated
and complex interpretation of life where there are no absolutes

---

There are absolutely no absolutes, right?

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Perhaps this thread and several others, should be more accurately titled "The Pseudo-Intelligence of Gid's design"?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Well its seems to me: Intelligence Design/Creationist/Evolutionist theorist could all be lumped together as one package all working together as one. Why does it have to be either or? Are we a product of intelligent design created by something or someone to evolutionize into whatever we are or are to become? What's wrong with that theory? It involves all three beliefs. That way everybody is happy. This, I am right and you are wrong mentality is not leaving the mind open to other possibilities in regard to why we are here. Not one scholar or studied person on this planet has solved the mystery or found the scientific truth. If we haven't found the missing link yet, chances are it will never be found. Scientist do not have all the answers. They are not intelligent enough to figure it out. If we are to believe in intelligent design, why are we not made all perfectly intelligent already, without going thru the process of evolution? Why do we have to evolutionize into intelligence? Doesn't make sense. What would be the purpose? And if science has determined the origins of our physical evolutionary development thru the past ages, why have they not determined our physical evolutionary stages in the ages to come thur scientific experimentation. Can we see a picture or drawing of what we will look like as a species 5000 years from now? Will we experience retro evolutionary stages and revert back to tadpoles? Who has all the answers?

jade:

quote:

---

What's wrong with that theory? It involves all three beliefs. That way everybody is happy.

---

What's wrong, is that you call evolutionism a "belief" while we know it's a fact and witness it everyday. Let's say it one more time with feelings : Evolutionism is a fact, contrary to ID and Creationism. That way, not everybody ( far from it ) is happy.

I hope you know that mankind, and more precisely the homo sapiens sapiens, has almost not changed since its apparition ~130,000 years ago so your 5,000 years projection is a little short. Anyway if you want a picture of a human some 5,000 years in the future, wrap some sheets of aluminum around your head, put a tea spoon in your mouth and look in a mirror. More seriously, determinig the shape of our ancestor is rather easy since all we have to do is to dig and rebuild their skeletons. On the other hand envisioning the shape of our grand-grand-grand-children is a radically different task. Nonetheless if we follow the "pattern" of evolution leading the pre-humans to us, the overall size of the genus homo and the size of its skull should continue to grow slowly. That's a subtle change, and will probably not consitute a new species.

I don't see what you mean by "retro evolutionary stages". Evolution is evolution. It is exent of the notion of forward or backward. It is the accumulation of many subtle changes ( due to genetic mutations/crossing emphasized by environmental pressure ) that make new species. To answer you question, it's likely that mankind will extint and tadpoles spread. But I seriously doubt mankind as it is will undergo the many subtle changes leading us to reach the state of tadpole. I don't see neither what kind of environmental pressure could lead us in that direction. The homo sapiens sapiens have been able to colonize many environments and resist to many predators for more than 100,000 years now, so the way it is seems quite viable. In that it's not unique. Several other species have remain almost the same for millions of years.


NB: I don't remember if you believe in Creationism, so 5,000 may be like forever for you, since it'd be almost the age of the earth.



(Edited by poi on 06-15-2005 01:50)

You like to spit out the "science doesn't have all the answer" crap whenever possible Jade.

Let me remind you, yet again, that science does not claim to have all the answers.

Science is a process. It is not a holy book or a guru sitting in a desert cave.

Nobody has all the answers. Plenty of religious people think they do, and think they should push those 'answers' into science classes.

Evolution is science. Evolution is known to occur - we've observed it.

Everything else you talk about in your post is gibberish...

quote:

---

I hope you know that mankind, and more precisely the homo sapiens sapiens, has almost not changed since its apparition ~130,000 years ago so your 5,000 years projection is a little short.

---

Well...that is not exactly true. The new find, the "hobbits" (as they are being called) seem to represent evolutionary changes in Homo sapiens sapiens responding to the environment (and that within the 130,000 years projection).

Nice post, DL. I agree with it 100%.

^ sure. As you say, the "hobbits" were stuck on an island, thus a strong environmental stress eased the expression of new genetic alterations.
Today it's hardly possible to be stuck anywhere on the globe, unless you decide to.

Ah Poi, THAT would explan Texas!

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Are you acrediting me with the design of life on Earth D-man?

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

Ah Poi, THAT would explan Texas!

---

Huh?

Okay Poi, I would like to clear one thing up, there are two thoughts to Evolution. I believe you are entertaining one, and Jade is another.

quote:

---

poi said:

Let's say it one more time with feelings : Evolutionism is a fact, contrary to
ID and Creationism.

---

Either way, this statement is wrong.
If you take the statement from the point I hope you were trying to argue that since evolution happens and has been recorded, it is a fact. That is a sound statement, but that statement does not in itself discredit ID or Creation which both allow plenty of time for Evolution (just not on a grand scale in Creation's case).
If you are taking the statement from what I hope Jade's view is, then the second part of the statement is correct. Evolution is the Atheistic approach to life evolving randomly over a long period of time. That contradicts Creation with the long periods of time, and that also contradicts ID with the Atheistic approach. Unfortunately, the first part of the statement is wrong in this case. Extrapolating Evolution into the past and adding Atheism is a belief, and it furthermore cannot be proven (or disproven). Thus in this instance Evolution is not a fact.
[Just wanted to clear that up, because I have ran into this trap in arguments before, and it becomes very confusing. I don't mean to be rude, I just didn't want this to turn into a shouting contest, again.]

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

Either way, this statement is wrong.

---

Nope, sorry. It is completely accurate.

quote:

---

but that statement does not in itself discredit ID or Creation which both allow plenty of time for Evolution

---

Which has nothing to do with anything.

You can beleive whatever you want about unprovable reasons for evolution. But those beliefs are not facts. Period. There are no two ways about it. There is no hint of evidence to support those belief systems scientifically. No amount of "yeah, but it could have happened" will change that.

quote:

---

Evolution is the Atheistic approach....

---

Whoah! Backup there.....
Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with theism/atheism. It is not an 'atheistic' approach - it is the explanation that is supported by science to explain the way that organisms grow and change. Any religious or anti-religious dogma you choose to attach is seperate and irrelevant.

quote:

---

Extrapolating Evolution into the past and adding Atheism is a belief, and it furthermore cannot be proven (or disproven). Thus in this instance Evolution is not a fact.

---

I am certain that you think this somehow makes sense.

It doesn't.

As stated above, evolution has nothing to do with theism on any level.

It is this simple (yeah, what the hell...i'll say it one more time ): evolution as a scientific principle is completely seperate from the notion of god. Any involvment you feel that you god may have in the process is completely unsupported by evidence. This does not prove that god is not there. We are forced to exclude god from consideration due to lack of evidence.

Once scientific evidence of god is found, then we can include it in our science class.

Until then - no.

For the sake of clarity, the condensed version:

evolution: fact. it happens. we've seen it, and we've documented it throughout the prehistory of our world.

biblical creationism: story. we have a text from thousands of years ago, sounding much like all the other creation myths in the world, which is somehow supposed to be considered as true simply becuase it is written. There is no evidence of any kind to support the idea that it is true.

intelligent design: simple concept that somehow has turned into a movement to call belief science. there is no shred of evidence whatsoever to support it.

ID is the Evolution of Creationism.

The problem Gid has, DL, is that Evolution contradicts the YEC standpoint, which he believes in.

And because it is belief, no amount of factual reasoning with him will work, as uncountable threads of yore and this one shows.

He must attempt to refute Evolution, and do everything he can to continue doing so, to keep and hold his belief in YEC. That is why he cannot accept Evolution as fact - despite the huge amount of evidence that has been paraded under his nose by members of this board.

He is irrational.

It is a waste of time trying to make that horse drink. He has been led to water so many times before, but still complains about being thirsty and having nothing to drink.

Don't water the troll!

Gideon: I'll just waste 2 more minute to comment this quote:

quote:

---

Extrapolating Evolution into the past and adding Atheism is a belief,

---

Please bear in mind that when I'm talking about Evolution, I'm not adding Atheism or removing Deism or who knows what. I'm talking about Science, and just Science.

WebShaman:

quote:

---

Don't water the troll!

---

Some times I wish we could flush him



(Edited by poi on 06-24-2005 00:39)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, WS.
AHH! PUN! AHH!
Where did I try and refute Evolution? I said that Evolution is a fact:

quote:

---

Gideon said:

it is a fact. That is a sound statement...

---

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The problem Gid has, DL, is that Evolution contradicts the YEC standpoint, which
he believes in. And because it is belief, no amount of factual reasoning
with him will work...

---

I have no problems with those who believe in Evolutionism. I used to believe in it. Evolutionism is the creation story of the Atheist, simple as that. Sure that is not limited to Atheists, but you cannot deny that the majority are Atheistic.
I listen to all factual reasoning, but from over here, there are questions and gaps and miscalculations and lies. I will be frank and say that there is the same thing on the Creation side of things, but I chose which belief I would believe. I would really like you to respect that.

WS, you keep saying over and over how I am an evil troll who is irrational and conceited. I think you really should take a look at what you just wrote, in addition to several other posts I have read. I will agree that I have been rash, irrational, self-righteous, and close-minded at times. But if you call me those things, I am a firm believer that you are only calling out the parts of me you understand best because you identify with them. That happens a ton in name calling and insulting. I really hope that someday you can see that name calling does hurt others, and they cause rifts between people that are hard to repair. In arguments like that, the defeated walks away crushed and broken, while the victor walks away bitter. There is no winner when name calling starts. Please WS, don't do it anymore.

Okay, DL, I think you took this way too wrong. Evolution is a fact, as I have noted. Extrapolating Evolution into the past is not a fact, but a guess. Educated guess, but still a guess. That guess is centered on the belief that God did not intervene to create anything. It is centered on randomness and gradualness. You can label it what you want, but I label it Atheistic, because there is no God in the equation.

My condensed point of that DL, is that Evolution is a scientific observation, like photosynthesis. We know it happens because it has been documented. The problem is when people lump that point and try to pass it on to the belief that the Earth is billions of years old, and that people took millions of years to evolve from apes, without the help of God.

I agree that Evolution is science, but when Evolution is viewed throught Atheistic eyes you get one version of the Creation, and when it is viewed through Theistic you get a totally different one.

Please don't confuse Evolution and OE-Darwinian-Atheistic Evolutionism.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

poi said:

I'm talking about Science, and just Science.

---

Is it science with God - Deism
or science without God - Atheism?

There are only two answers. You cannot be in the middle, unless you want to pronounce ID or the "God of the Gaps," or something like that.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

How many times shall we say it ?

Science and religion are two different/separated things.

If it helps you rest in peace, you may consider that Science is agnostic.



(Edited by poi on 06-24-2005 01:06)

quote:

---

That guess is centered on the belief that God did not intervene to create anything. It is centered on randomness and gradualness.

---

No. This is where you are totally, completely, indisputably WRONG.

It is not centered on any belief that has anything to do with god - for or against.

It is based on what we KNOW from EVIDENCE.

quote:

---

Is it science with God - Deism
or science without God - Atheism?

There are only two answers.

---

This is logic doomed to fail.

Get this one simple fact through your head: Science is not with or without god. Science is science, pure and simple. Until god can be quantified scientifically, god is not part of science.

You can 'believe' whatever you want. You can put god as the foreman, driving these scientific principles, if that makes you feel better.

But there is no such thing as 'science with god' because science has no evidence of god. 'science with god' is Religion.

Religion != Science

And for the record: evolution is most certainly not a 'creation theory'. It does not explain the creation. It explains the evolution. Thus the name. Convenient, huh?

quote:

---

I said that Evolution is a fact: -Gid

---

quote:

---

We know it happens because it has been documented. The problem is when people lump that point and try to pass it on to the belief that the Earth is billions of years old, and that people took millions of years to evolve from apes, without the help of God. -Gid

---

You don't even know what Evolution is!

Humans DID NOT evolve from Apes, to start with. Evolution says that Man and Apes had a COMMON ANCESTOR!!

quote:

---

And for the record: evolution is most certainly not a 'creation theory'. It does not explain the creation. It explains the evolution. Thus the name. Convenient, huh? -DL

---

Since this explanation has been presented to the troll so many times, in so many different flavors, and the troll still does not wish to accept it, I name it for what it is :

Troll.

quote:

---

That guess is centered on the belief that God did not intervene to create anything. It is centered on randomness and gradualness. -Gid

---

Evolution says nothing about how things came into existence originally, nor does it in any form attempt to "disprove god".

Troll.

quote:

---

WS, you keep saying over and over how I am an evil troll who is irrational and conceited. I think you really should take a look at what you just wrote, in addition to several other posts I have read. I will agree that I have been rash, irrational, self-righteous, and close-minded at times. But if you call me those things, I am a firm believer that you are only calling out the parts of me you understand best because you identify with them. That happens a ton in name calling and insulting. I really hope that someday you can see that name calling does hurt others, and they cause rifts between people that are hard to repair. In arguments like that, the defeated walks away crushed and broken, while the victor walks away bitter. There is no winner when name calling starts. Please WS, don't do it anymore.

---

Blocks are mine.

First of all, since I don't believe in the concepts of good and evil (and have stated that before, and the troll is aware of this), I certainly wouldn't label someone as "good" or "evil".

Second, I never, ever suggested that the Troll was evil.

Third, I never suggested that the Troll was concieted.

Obviously I understand the Troll much better, than the Troll understands either us, or itself. And though at times I may be guilty of trolling, I am certainly not a Troll.

I will not stop calling things what they truly are.

Troll.

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-24-2005 07:16)

Good, evil, conceited....nope, just plain, downright, unadorned, butt-ugly stupid.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I have to backtrack a little here to answer this quote with my opinion:

Jade said:

quote:

---

Well its seems to me: Intelligence Design/Creationist/Evolutionist theorist could all be lumped together as one package all working together as one. Why does it have to be either or?

---

These three "systems" can't be lumped together because they don't fit together. It's either "creationism" or "evolutionism". ID, in my mind isn't even really a choice-- it's a cop-out. It's a wishy-washy theory developed by wishy-washy people who in truth just can't make up their mind which road they want to take. Look, if you believe in creationism, then you can NOT believe in evolution. Because to believe in creationism, then you must place 100% faith in the exact words of the Bible, (as it IS a biblical and religeous belief) and there is no evolution in the Bible or any other creation story. Period. If you believe in evolution, then you can NOT believe in creationism. This whole concept of Itelligent Design is crap, it should NOT be taught in school or anywhere else other than home--for those who choose to "not choose" instead of stand up for what they really believe, or in most cases even KNOW what they believe. Teach the creation at home, teach evolution in science class, and let each child make up their own mind. Of course, all that is only my humble opinion.

What do I believe? I believe in creationism. I said elsewhere that the bible is a history book, with a few moral truths mixed in. And I stick by that. But I also think that Genesis is one of the few books of the Bible that has not been fundamentally changed or influenced by other sources--in other words, that the HISTORY in Genesis is correct. I'm not going to get into the argument here of why I believe that, because it's pointless--most of you probably won't care why I believe that. And that's cool with me. If any of you do, then I'd be happy to discuss it with you off the message boards. All that being said, I don't scoff at those who believe evolution, it's a free country and your opinion is just as valid as mine and I respect it. What I don't respect is the decision not to decide. It becomes a pattern of behavior. Keep Itelligent Design OUT of schools.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Well, I would be intersted in hearing your explaination in why you believe the story of Genesis as opposed to other books of the bible? Do you take it literally? If so, what is your concept of the seven days of creation?

I think the thought of intelligent design should be explored further.. If there is a course one would want to take in school to discuss or discover as opposed to darwin's evolution theory which still lacks the key scientific discovery of mans link to the ape, I thinks it ok. Research and development is always the best avenue.

(Edited by jade on 06-24-2005 15:22)

ID is creationism just dressed up.
"Wolf in sheeps'..." A skunk-cabbage by any other name would smell just as foul.

Jade - did you read the article that started this thread?

It is a pretty good summation of the 'further exploration' of ID, and demonstrates why it is such a flawed concept.

On a side note:
http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2005/06/23/

I've been to Wales, and it's not that bad!

Jade, that's too much to go into here, and is way off topic for this thread

If your'e really interested, is there a way I can cantact you off the boards? e-mail? Instant Messenger?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

WebShaman said

quote:

---

You don't even know what Evolution is!

Humans DID NOT evolve from Apes, to start with. Evolution says that Man and Apes had a COMMON ANCESTOR!!

---

I find this statement very confusing. If man did not evolve from apes, which did not happen, then how can apes and man have a common ancestor? You are basically saying that one species split into two different species, and I'm sorry, but there is no iota of proof from fossil records that show any evolution from one species into another different one, much less into two. (That I can find, anyway, and I have searched extensively--please show me or point me in the right direction if I have missed anything) If apes and man had a common ancestor, that ancester would have to be an Ape-Man, with the characteristics of both a man and an ape. So if this ape-man split into two species--one becoming man and the other becoming apes--wouldn't that mean that evolution actually went backward for the ape while going forward for the human? Or in the case of a common ancestor that was more primitive than either an ape or a man, that evolution was greatly speeded in the case of man and/or greatly slowed for the ape? In which case given millions of years (from now) the ape would then evolve into man also? Which you already agree in your statement did not happen in the past, so why should it in the future? I can find no logical explanation for man and ape having a common ancestor--other than aliens coming down and splicing genes into an ape long ago. A theory many believe, but I find as rediculous as man evolving from ape in the first place, or from a common ancestor.

Also, if man and ape had a common ancestor, what did that ancestor evolve from? To say that that two species split off from one, then that one had to split off from something else. Which brings us back to Macroevolution which is shown through fossil records NOT to have happened. A frog will remain a frog no matter if his size, color, or texture of skin changes over time to adapt to an environment. In order to believe that macroevolution does happen, then you also would believe that all life forms evolved from one small source of a simple life form millions of years ago. And that would go against the statement that has been made that evolution does not try to explain creation, that it just explains evolution.

Microevolution and Macroevolution are NOT the same thing, and one does not lead to the other. If that were the case, then we should technically have some apes that are looking more human these days, or some geckos that have feathers and beaks....but we don't. In other words, if one says that man and ape do have a common ancestor (macroevolution) and then states that evolution does not prove origins, only evolution (microevolution) then that person is contradictiong themselves.

Microevolution happens. It is small scale--and is easily observed in all living things. It is directed by dominant genes and survival of the fittest.

Macroevolution does not happen. It never has and never will. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
(and don't throw hybrids at me, such as the mule or the Liger, or even in plants--hybrids are sterile and don't occur naturally. If they do ever occur naturally, it's so rare or infrequent that it would still not explain the large variance of life forms today--even in a trillion years)

Im sorry, this is kind of off topic for the thread, as it was not intended to question origins at all, but to discuss what should be taught in a science class.... but the statement I quoted was made and I'm just looking for an answer to some confusing beliefs stated on this board.

I could direct it back to it's topic by asking: Which do you believe? Microevolution or Macroevolution, and which of these should be taught in a science class? Should Macroevolution be taught at all, since it is not proven, and in fact is DISproven--yet is being taught, (I remember it from school anyway--only it was just called "evolution"). And if it (mAcroevolution) should be taught, should it be taught in science or in philosophy, since it is a theory?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 06-25-2005 22:08)

quote:

---

If apes and man had a common ancestor, that ancester would have to be an Ape-Man, with the characteristics of both a man and an ape. So if this ape-man split into two species--one becoming man and the other becoming apes--wouldn't that mean that evolution actually went backward for the ape while going forward for the human?

---

You are very confused.

Humans and apes come from a common ancestor.

This means that a primitive species of primate spawned a variety of descendent species, which continued to branch off in different directions. One branch became us. Other branches became various species of ape.

It's not like there was an 'ape-man' who one day split into his component parts, creating man and ape in one fell swoop.

To say that a previous ancestor must have had traits of all species that descend from show a huge lack of understanding of the process. It is not difficult to see why you say it never happened....when you don't understand what the process being described even is.

quote:

---

If that were the case, then we should technically have some apes that are looking more human these days

---

Why the hell would we have that? This again shows a severe lack of understanding. Just becuase one species evolved a certain way means that all similar species must also evolve that way? That makes no sense at all. We gone along our path, and apes down there's. Evolution does not have an ultimate goal.

It is also important to note that evolution does not have anything to do with the subjective concept of improvement. It is about adaptation to the environment and conditions, and it doesn't always work out; thus there is no "forward" or "backward". There can be no direction when there is no destination.

I would be very interested in knowing what it is you think has disproven macroevolution?

quote:

---

In order to believe that macroevolution does happen, then you also would believe that all life forms evolved from one small source of a simple life form millions of years ago. And that would go against the statement that has been made that evolution does not try to explain creation, that it just explains evolution.

---

No. It still does not attempt to explain the creation. Taking it back as far as is possible to theorize still does not attempt to explain (nor can it at this point) what started life. It deals with what happened after that point.

As for it being a theory - it is a theory with a great deal of evidence to support it. Something being a theory does not mean that it is just an idea that someone randomly imagined, and called it science. It is a theory with 150 years of research by the global scientific community to back it up.

Evolution is a process that we can (and have) observe in lesser organisms - viruses, bacteria, and some insects.

It is very sound science, and belongs in science class.

Belladona: Gosh, it seems jade is not the only one to not understand Evolution.

As DL-44 just said, and myself before, the concept of forward and backward ( or upgrade and downgrade if we take a computer program analogy ) makes no sense in Evolution, and nature in general. The term evolution may be misleading to some people, because you're not the first one to misunderstand it and take it for it's daily meaning while it must be taken in the sense of changement/differentiation. Well, the same goes for the term scientific theory that many zealot fail, or refuse, to understand.

quote:

---

Also, if man and ape had a common ancestor, what did that ancestor evolve from? To say that that two species split off from one, then that one had to split off from something else. Which brings us back to Macroevolution which is shown through fossil records NOT to have happened. A frog will remain a frog no matter if his size, color, or texture of skin changes over time to adapt to an environment. In order to believe that macroevolution does happen, then you also would believe that all life forms evolved from one small source of a simple life form millions of years ago. And that would go against the statement that has been made that evolution does not try to explain creation, that it just explains evolution.

---

Since you consider that Evolution does not work on macroscopic scale, how do you explain the mutations of some insects ? More importantly, do you think the thousands of skeletons of hominid species have no relation among them and to us ?

Back to macroscopic evolution, is it that hard to consider that a species can evolve thanks to microsopic evolution affecting the way some cells, organs, limbs work ?

If you consider that life spawned by a bearded man living in the heavens, then I get why Evolution hurts you and that you can't accept the origin of the species as explained by Evolution. Yet Evolution does not explain ( no wonder since it's not its purpose ) the origin of the first bricks of life. For that you'll have to look at biology, physic and cosmology.


NB: Before roaming in the Asylum, I had never heard of Creationism, nor that some people question Evolution. It simply is beyond me. Among the co-workers I work with daily, there is a jewish, a budhist and a fervant chatolic ( that even took some unpaid vacation to assist the funerals of John Paul II ), and guess what ... they all raised an eyebrow when I told them about Creationism.



(Edited by poi on 06-25-2005 23:24)

quote:

---

To say that a previous ancestor must have had traits of all species that descend from show a huge lack of understanding of the process. It is not difficult to see why you say it never happened....when you don't understand what the process being described even is.

---

So are you saying that genes aren't passed on? That genes just create themselves? If a common ancestor split into various branches, why are we the only one to advance as far as we have mentally? Mutations alone can explain this?

And you still did not answer the second part of my question: If man and apes had a more primitive ancestor, why then are apes so far behind us? Don't say that they are not, that they are just different species and develped that way. If that kind of evolution happened in the past, then it should be happening today, and continue to happen. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

quote:

---

Why the hell would we have that? This again shows a severe lack of understanding. Just becuase one species evolved a certain way means that all similar species must also evolve that way? That makes no sense at all. We gone along our path, and apes down there's. Evolution does not have an ultimate goal.

---

Because. If evolution happened in the past, it is happening today. True, that kind of evolution would not happen over night. But there would be some evidence of animals in the transitional phase of evolving from one species to another. We don't have that anywhere on this planet that I am aware of. A bird is a bird, a reptile is a reptile, a mammal is a mammal. An ape is an ape, a man is a man. I would love to be able to travel into the future, and watch people dig up our skeletons and the skeletons of Gorillas. They would say the same thing about us and apes that we are saying now. Again, this is only my opinion, and it could be wrong. But please don't say I don't understand what I'm talking about. I may see it from a different view than you, but I understand it very well.

quote:

---

It is also important to note that evolution does not have anything to do with the subjective concept of improvement. It is about adaptation to the environment and conditions, and it doesn't always work out; thus there is no "forward" or "backward". There can be no direction when there is no destination.

---

I agree with this statement 100% That is why apes are still apes and man is still man. And will be a trillion years from now, barring destruction of the earth. For example: Man did not have to develop morals in order to adapt to his environment. On the contrary, in view of all of history, and in watching the evening news, it would seem that morals would have been the worst trait we could develop when it comes to adaptation. However, as distructive as it has been in ways, we are still around and our numbers are growing. Adaptation of a species is microevolution.

quote:

---

I would be very interested in knowing what it is you think has disproven macroevolution?

---

A number of reasons. For one, Living Fossils. There are still animals and organisms around today that are the same structure as they were long long ago. Clams, turtles, even alligators and crocodiles. There is fossil eveidence of those things changeing in size, or color or whatever, but again, these are microevolution--adaptations within the species. And no fossil records of these animals having evolved from something else, or of evolving into something else. A clam is still a clam, a turtle is still a turtle, a croc is still a croc. What? did they just "stop evolving"? If macroevolution happened, it is still happening. And it can't be said that they are "recent evolutions" either because clams, for instance, (or very clam like animals, having two shells that are hinged) have been found in what is supposed to be the oldest layer of earth with fossils in them.

For another, the layers that fossils have been found in. Fossil remains of homo sapiens have been found in the same layer as some of the more primitive types *we are supposed to have evolved from*. How could a more primitive form evolve into something that was already there? Did we kill off other human type evolutions? To say that says that homo sapiens were already there too.

quote:

---

Evolution is a process that we can (and have) observe in lesser organisms - viruses, bacteria, and some insects.

---

Viruses and bacteria are a very good example of why macroevolution does not happen. We do observe the extremely fast mutations of these organisms. We have for a very long time. And in all that time, a virus is still a virus and bacteria is still bacteria. And it's safe to say that they have been mutating just as long as all other life, only much much faster. They adapt, become more resistant to our medicines, for sure. But for all their mutations, they are still just viruses and bacteria. Nothing more. Nothing less. And there is no reason to think that they ever will be.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

You seem to have skipped over the important piece of all of the above refutations.

There was a common ancestor.

That common ancestor split, into many different species. We have records of a huge variety of apes, a couple of different varieties more human like creatures.

They are all very different. And they all probably came from a common ancestor or more than one common ancestor.

You say that there are no links between the species and where you see no link, I see many. You have turtles and tortises. You have clams and oysters. You have a huge number of different kinds of horses.

You say that you see no link between them, and there is no great fossil record for the link. You first have to stop and remember that there are no gaint leaps. It happens so slow you would hardly notice. These slight differences would be the difference between the bone structure of a very fat tall person, compared to the bone structure of a really skinny short person. These people would still be considered part of the same species. But if the short skinny person went of to have 20 kids, and the fat man didn't have any, we are going to have a lot more short people around who are going to be reproducing. It is common for someone to say that if you have two short parents, you are most likely going to be short. There are exceptions, and this might be called a mutation.

If you want to talk about fossils, we might find a whole a ton of fossils, but in the grand scale, we have found what would be statistically so close to 0 as to be called 0. Lets just look at the number of humans who die in a year. The total numbr of fossils that we have recorded of really prehistoric creatures might come close this number give or take a magnitude of 10. So, when we look at things we might find big jumps and really close things, but when we look at these differences, it might be significant, but we wouldn't know if it were that different, to be another species, or just the difference between a tall fat person or the short skinny person.

There is not enough data.

There is much more to say, and maybe I will say it later, or maybe someone else can pick up on this trail. But it boils down to you are just glossing over the important aspects of this theory, and are looking critically at things that are not really a part of the theory.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

why then are apes so far behind us?

---

You obviously either did not read, or did not understand my post.

Evolution has nothing to do with 'ahead' or 'behind'.

quote:

---

Because. If evolution happened in the past, it is happening today.

---

Which has nothing to do with anything whatsoever.

As stated: there is no ultimate goal in evolution. Apes are not on their way to becoming us, any more than chickens are.

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-26-2005 02:39)

Poi--the idea of evolution does not hurt me in any way whatsoever. Believe it or not, I'm actually looking for answers that will prove the evolutions of species in the magnitude you suggest. It would be a lot easier to prove that than to prove there is a God. Yes, I believe in God and have lots of faith and pray and all that jazz, but believe me when I say that it is not a blind faith in that I seek answers to hard questions. I do struggle with it a lot and and question the existance of God more often than I question the "facts" of science. Science, at this point in time, is much easier to believe than in God. There is no doubt about that. My career is in the field of medicine, for Christ's sake. I live, breathe, and do science every day. I understand about heredity, genes, mutations, and cellular structure. But I also understand that miracles do happen. I have seen them in my work. I can't explain them, and neither can anyone else who I work with who has seen the very same cases. I realize that that doesn't make me an expert in evalution, but I am not someone who does not "understand" it's workings. I understand it very well, in my view.

quote:

---

Since you consider that Evolution does not work on macroscopic scale, how do you explain the mutations of some insects ? More importantly, do you think the thousands of skeletons of hominid species have no relation among them and to us ?

Back to macroscopic evolution, is it that hard to consider that a species can evolve thanks to microsopic evolution affecting the way some cells, organs, limbs work ?

If you consider that life spawned by a bearded man living in the heavens, then I get why Evolution hurts you and that you can't accept the origin of the species as explained by Evolution. Yet Evolution does not explain ( no wonder since it's not its purpose ) the origin of the first bricks of life. For that you'll have to look at biology, physic and cosmology.

---

Please go back and read this statement carefully. It is a contradiction unto itself. Especially the last paragraph.

And let me clarify myself. I did not say that the human species has not evolved at all. But again, this is MICROEVOLUTION. Yes, we've found fossils of what we call more primitive man with stone tools and living in caves. But we were not there, we don't know that they were not as SMART as we are now. People just the LAST CENTURY didn't have planes, computers, cars. And would have laughed you off the face of the earth if you went back and told them they would. Do we say that they were more primitive than we are? No, we say they didn't have the knowledge yet. Size of brain then? Primitive man had smaller skulls, so they must have had smaller brains, so they must have been more primitive in their thinking. Not true. Just a guess. That cannot be proved. Neanderthal man actually had larger brains, but it seems that mitochondrial DNA has proved we DID NOT evolve from them, not even related really. Yet they MUST have been smarter, having larger brains and all. So where are they? Extinct, at least that's the word from the science world. But these fossils, these more primitive men, are NOT apes. They are by all accounts, men. We don't know that they could not have built an airplane if not given the technology. We don't know that at all. We DO know, however, that they COULD think and reason. They thought to sharpen stones. They thought to control fire. They thought to protect themselves from the cold with the skins of animals that they had to cut and sew and fit together. They LEARNED to use different materials, and that knowledge coupled with curiosity and the desire for better ways to do a thing led to more knowledge, and we are still learning and leading to more advanced technology for the very same reasons today that they advanced from stone to metal back then!

Mankind has indeed evolved, but from other mankind--in environmentally adaptational ways. And in very small ways at that. Like fur. Man lost his "fur" to adapt to warmer climates, right?. Nope. Gorillas that still live in the tropical rainforest still have fur. Oh, they developed wider nostrils to cool off better. Africans have wider nostrils than caucasions, supposedly they "evolved" this feature to cool off better. But they don't have fur. And those who migrated north to colder climates? They didn't "evolve" fur again. They've had plenty of time, but haven't done it. They are no more hairy than the rest of us. Why is this? Easy. Mankind NEVER had fur. Think about it. That's all I ask.

Believe it or not, I am an open minded person. And I realize that discoveries are being made all the time. But there has been no true definitive "no questions" evidence that man and ape has a common ancestor yet. I think I have some very valid questions to the theory. In my opinion, there never will be. But that doesn't mean I don't respect the continued search for one. I agree that mankind should continue the search.

As for the mutations in insects, give me a little more detail. Not quite sure which mutations you are talking about.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

Mankind NEVER had fur. Think about it. That's all I ask.

---

For starters, our bodies are covered with hair. There is a pretty clear trend that those wose ancestors are from cold climates have a great deal more body hair than those from warm climates. I have seen a great number of men that I would describe as furry, too

You have a great deal of flawed logic going on here. All three of your last posts throw out a lot of questions based on very flawed assumptions. I've pointed some of them out, but I urge you to re-read them, as you seem to have brushed them off pretty quickly.

Also, when we speak of evolution on the scale that we are, we are not talking about the state of primitive man 15 - 20,000 years ago. We had pretty much reached the stage we are at now by that point. You need to go back a *whole* lot further than that


As for the insects - I will see if I can dig up the article I had in mind. We have observed exactly the type of mutations that we talk about in evolution in certain species of insect (I don't recall which), as well as in bacteria and viruses *all* the time.



(Edited by DL-44 on 06-26-2005 02:54)

And let me add a little more here. About Africa. There are tribes in Africa today that still live in little more than huts, that still make their own tools, that still paint their faces with pigments made by hand. That still go around naked from the heat or wear some clothes made from grasses. Are you going to tell me that they are a more primitive form of human than you or me? We know that they are not. They are just as capable as we are. Especially since all life evolved from Africa? Can you not see that a million years from now, that if someone dug up all the fossils from this era, that they could come to the same conclusion that we are now?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

There are tribes in Africa today that still live in little more than huts, that still make their own tools, that still paint their faces with pigments made by hand. That still go around naked from the heat or wear some clothes made from grasses. Are you going to tell me that they are a more primitive form of human than you or me?

---

Which, again, has *nothing* to do with *anything*

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-26-2005 02:56)

Sorry, I'm trying to cook dinner, carry on a conversation with company, and post all at the same time, so I can't keep up.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I don't think my logic is any more flawed than anyone else thinks theirs is. I do understand scientfic theory. But macroevolution has really not been proven, and ALL theories are still being researched. If you say macroevolution has been proven, please show me the proof. That's all I ask.

And thanks for looking up the articles. I'm really interested to see them.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are tribes in Africa today that still live in little more than huts, that still make their own tools, that still paint their faces with pigments made by hand. That still go around naked from the heat or wear some clothes made from grasses. Are you going to tell me that they are a more primitive form of human than you or me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which, again, has *nothing* to do with *anything*

---

<------shakes head and walks away from this discussion (for now)

I must say that I admire your stance. Unshakable. I respect that totally.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Whew, what a lot of reading...got some of it...I think.

Just don't have the credentials to get nose-to-nose on a scientific level.

However, I suggest Bella you don't see "miracles" happening every day, but that your religious training cause you to interpret them that way, you merely see reality occuring as it has since the begining of time.

As for research into insects, I seem to recall Mayflies are the basis for many genetic and evolutionary studies.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Oh, and I know some men that could be called almost furry too. Very cuddly they are.

But explain the women? No woman anywhere could be called furry. But female apes are just as furry as their male companions.

Sorry, I had to come back and throw that in for thought.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Belladonna - please explain to me what african tribes how dress and live in ways that some would call primitive has to do with a process going back millions of years?

Time frames like a few thousand years are relatively insiginificant with what we're talking about.

My stance is not 'unshakable', you are simply talking about things that have nothing to do with evolution, and using them as some sort of evidence against evolution...

quote:

---

For another, the layers that fossils have been found in. Fossil remains of homo sapiens have been found in the same layer as some of the more primitive types *we are supposed to have evolved from*. How could a more primitive form evolve into something that was already there? Did we kill off other human type evolutions? To say that says that homo sapiens were already there too.

---

Don't make yourself sound stupid. Many species and sub-species can exist at the same time. We see that everyday. When a new sub-species arise in a species, other sub-species do not extinct by this simple fact. Make the analogy for a new race of dog, mice, worm, rose, .... Therefore it's not surprising to find 2 breeds of a species in layers of equal age.

Don't forget that evolution has been studied for about 140 years, and speciation takes longer than that. Evolution within species, or micro evolution if you prefer, happens on a shorter time scale than macro evolution. Unless you also question the age of the earth, there is no wonder we have much more records of micro evolution than macro evolution, yet we do have some of both. Check 29+ evidences of macroevolution and some more observed instances of speciation.

quote:

---

In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved. This occured within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendents of two separate diploid parent species.

Here's how it happened. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilized by either of it's two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the definition of a species (well, the most common definition, at least.) The paper I have corresponding to this are great. One new species, T. mirus has arisen at least three separate times.
source (including the References to the articles)

---

Regarding your interogation about someone 1 million year ahead digging the fossils of an African tribe with stone tools and whatnot, don't worry it won't be rocket science to figure the African tribe in question is of the genus homo sapiens thanks to its physical characteristics that are similar to yours, mine and that of all the humans of our time. I'm surprised you fall on that though your career in the field of medicine.



(Edited by poi on 06-26-2005 04:05)

quote:

---

No woman anywhere could be called furry.

---

I beg to differ

Damn right. I have dated a number of women who are downright furry and moan and complain piteously that modern day attitudes are so narrow that they are forced to shave, pluck and wax almost daily.

My personal observation, though off topic, is these women also all seem to have a much more enthusiastic libido than their relatively 'hairless' ststers.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I've heard two different theories about horny and hair.

The first is hormonal. Gregarious amounts of body hair can be an idication of hormanal levels. More hair = more hormones = high libidio. Not so say that women with naturally smooth skin can't be a force to reconed with.

Then there is the Ugly Woman theory. Undesirable or 'less then perfect' women don't get it as often, but when they do . . . watch out!

Could be evolution at work. Don't know. But might be fun to kick around the next time you're hanging out with your buds.

Sometimes I like to open up these really long P&oS threads and scroll down to the very last post to see to what weird tangents the discussion has taken...

...and I'd like to say that I have yet to be disappointed. You folks are doing a fine job here. Carry on.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

This link might also help you get your head around the whole concept of evolution by looking at this tree representation, which you can dig down through.

http://tolweb.org/tree/

Also the red sections on this page help explain the main picture.
http://tolweb.org/tree/home.pages/aboutoverview.html

Dan @ Code Town

Ok, Belladonna...(and all the rest of you "anti-Macroevolution" freaks) - then answer this, please.

Explain what logical or biological barriers would prevent microevolutionary changes from becoming macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time.

You admit that microevolutionary changes exist, and happen. (given)

Please explain how such cannot become macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time. Please carefully consider your answer - it must be a) Logical and/or contain b) Biological Barriers in the explanation.

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-27-2005 10:06)

/me picks up a bag of pop corn , and lie in the sofa to enjoy the show. There's some seat nearby, does anybody want to join me ?



(Edited by poi on 06-27-2005 09:46)

This is just too interesting. I am learning lots from you beladonna. I have been accused of not understanding evolution by some here, just because I believe God could have a hand in evolutionary in that he works in the physical as well as spiritual evolution. I have always understood evolution in its very basic study, but Beladonna really has done her homework.

Beladonna, I would really be interested in your explanation of the evolution theory of the eye. How you see the cell formation working together in its mechanics to produce vision in the human eye. We all hear our eyes are the windows to the soul, but they really produce human images like photos in the brain that we can look at like going thur a family picture album. I know this works together with the memory part of the brain, but I just find it amazing in that we are like computers. Cameras take pictures too and now thru technology they can be stored in the memory of a camera. So we have developed the artifical eye. But the artificical eye can't feel. Can you see a relation to the human eye and artifical eye in that the development of the human species could of been designed by intelligence of a higher form of the intelligence of Man himself?

[uber_quick_note] If bella donna had done her homework she/he wouldn't tell that much bulls**t about Evolution, like the African tribe thing or the denial of macroevolution. [/uber_quick_note]



(Edited by poi on 06-27-2005 15:50)

quote:

---

but they really produce human images like photos in the brain

---

Nope, way I understand it the brain creates the 'pictures' eyes just provide the input.

Intelligent design?

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Vertebrate_eye

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/63/72016.htm?z=4051_00000_7001_to_22

quote:

---

But the artificical eye can't feel.

---

Aside from the pain one might feel from an injury, neither can our eyes. The implication in your statement is that the eyes have emotions, they don't.

Neither do they convey emotions nor are they any sort of window. They are a sac of slightly viscous fluid and have no motility save that granted them by the muscles attched to them.

The eyes are credited with all manner of communication abiulities where, in fact, it is the facial muscles which actually create the body language which carries those messages.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Still waiting for an answer...

No takers?

quote:

---

but Beladonna really has done her homework.

---

You can see form the issues I raised for Belladonna, that she has not done her homwork well enough. We are talking about basic assumptions which are being used as a basis for a view, which are severely flawed.

If I have the time I may consolidate and clarify those issues, as I would like to hear a response still.

I actually get a kick about this issue. Intelligent Design triggers a knee-jerk reaction about Creationism, neh? Let's leave creationism and religion out of it for a moment; kind of as an intellectual excercise.

My own pet theory that I've always loved toying with revolves around the inroduction of the cro magnan species. I like to think we came to earth as more of "accidental design" - think Hitchhikers Guide; a spcaecarft full of doofuses (doofii?) crash land here, wipe out the neanderthal, and become... us. Man, if I was a student dealing with a poor teacher espousing a religious slant to the ID process, I'll bet I could make their life hell! It would be fun.

So! I see two seperate issues here. (1) Where did life come from originally, what does it all mean? And (2) how did life originate here, on this planet? The first question belongs in a philosophy class, the second can be approached scientifically, and may possibly include "Intelligent Design". Who says that intelligence has to be divine? Suppose it's just really old, and really smart? The universe has been around a long time, it's a bit arrogant thinking we're the first and smartest beings in the history of the universe. Maybe we're just a million year old science experiment gone awry.

Or, it could be evloution too. =) Science advances by posing awkward questions and then postulating unlikely, yet theoretically "proveable" answers to those questions.

Your pal, -doc-

(Edited by DocOzone on 06-27-2005 19:10)

Hey, it's the Doc! Or, at least, that was the Doc. Must've been passing through.

I've always toyed with the idea that we terraformed this planet, then populated it - that we are re-designed versions of ourselves (adapted to the gravity and environment peculiar to this little rock).

Perhaps that is an ID theory? I certainly don't believe in God, but I have little patience for the constant 'trimming' of facts to successfully fit the theory of evolution.

Reading back on this, and seeing how many seem to jump all over ID as a religious idea, I am not sure what to think. In fact, I'd say this deebate has me thoroughly confused.

ID looks to me to be a possible alternative approach to the origins of life (on this planet) without resorting to "God did it" - the suggestion that it wasn't all an accident, but without simply dumping the whole bucket through the intestines of religion with a good dose of salts.

From what I've read here, I'm way off the mark.... maybe... I think. Um.

People jump on it as a religious idea because that is how it is being wielded, as a way to get biblical creationism into the science class.

It is also being used to discredit the science behind evolution without using science, but by using politically motivated speach, and faulty statistics.

It is also being used to discredit the scientific process as a whole. It is a means to limit further exploration. What it says in a nutshell is, "We can not adequitly explain things, so it must have been done by a higher power." It does not say, "We can not explain these things so lets keep researching these things." It is a brick wall against science.

These types of anti-scientific and religious focused should not be allowed into a government (secular) scientific class, let alone mandated into a science class.

Dan @ Code Town

^ yeah.

The problem comes in because the idea of some higher power having a hand in our creation/evolution is far different from the 'Intelligent Design' outlook.

ID, as an organized movement revolving on a biblical creationist view is becoming a very dangerous thing. It uses a great many falsehoods to sway public opinion for the sake of essentially hijacking our science classes in the name of christianity.

Which is far different than saying, as a general view, that we could be someone's neglected experiment or that god made us.

quote:

---

The eyes are credited with all manner of communication abiulities where, in fact, it is the facial muscles which actually create the body language which carries those messages.

---

For sure the eye is then window to the inner spirit. Wouldn't you agree to that. Yes the brain tells the eye to moisten with tears, to wince, to glare, etc, but the eye still shows the emotion. The eyes convey meaning. What I am trying to say here is the eye is the window to the heart, which in the metaphysical is the spirit of a person. They brain cannot function without the heart muscle. Try to tell me how this can this can be explained by evolution in mutation of cells in selection and adapt theory?

What are you talking about?

Dan @ Code Town

One thing I always wonder about is why nobody mentions the fact that we question our origins because we are.

To take an analogy, imagine we all play Russian roulette with a machine gun. At the end you are surprised to be alive and question the reasons of your presence here. On the other if you had lost, you wouldn't be here, and wouldn't wonder why you're here.

I mean: life -- and intelligent life in particular -- may well be due to "random", the known universe may well be just one with its specific fundamental values ( charge of the electron, mass of the quarks, forces, extended/curled dimensions, ... ) among many other universes with different fundamental values. Some having similar laws of physic and utlimately some forms of life, some others radically different with, for instance, more extended physical dimensions, fewer forces ( in the sense of the ElectroWeak, Strong and Gravitation forces that we are familliar with ). In such a multiverse, the physic of each universe would be specific and would lead to a huuuge variety of outcomes, among which we are ... and since we are there and able to reason we question the hows and why of our presence.
But there may be no why, just some how.


DocOzone: Glad to read you!

WarMage: God only knows.


Whatever, I'm impatient to hear Belladonna's answer to WebShaman's question. And to avoid her some unpleasant scrolling through this thread, and help her answer faster, let's quote the question :

quote:

---

Explain what logical or biological barriers would prevent microevolutionary changes from becoming macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time.

You admit that microevolutionary changes exist, and happen. (given)

Please explain how such cannot become macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time. Please carefully consider your answer - it must be

a) Logical and/or contain b) Biological Barriers in the explanation.

---

That's a very good point, poi, and one that I have considered often. It is what Americans might refer to as "irony" on a universal scale, methinks.

If there is a "why", short of finding a message somewhere from "Ms. G. Od, creator of The Universe" revealing the world's purpose* we really couldn't possibly determine what it is - not by thumping and slapping eachother in arguments about it, anyway.

*(assuming that it wouldn't be hidden, burned, buried, or smashed into oblivion by some religious authority or other, intent on maintaining ignorance)

For me, it highlights the absurdity of speculating on the "why" of it, when the ascertainable truth of the universe is simply "how". We may not even have any of the right answers to the way of things yet, but scientific understanding is certainly a more plausible goal than theological persuasion.

Surely there have been enough discussions about the divide between science and religion for this not to be a prevailing issue?!?

Putting aside ID/Creationism for a moment...

What I have a problem with is the way science has been tainted by belief systems already (of a sort). I've always thought that the Origin of Species was fundamentally sound in its observation of geographical diversity in animals, and evolution itself is observable in a wide range of organisms in a wide range of circumstances - but over the short space of time that the Earth has supposedly been inhabitable, the theory falls far short of convincing me of the origin of all life on this planet, or at least of the accuracy of its timeline.

So many holes have cropped-up since its inception that the widely-believed Theory of Evolution has become practically biblical in its nature - defended to such an extent that even demonstrable contradictions and new scientific understanding are fervently rebuked.

So, unfortunately, there is an absence of contention. Perhaps nothing much grows in the shade of such a fundamental scientific establishment, heralded to the forefront of popular thinking by its audacious heresy at the time of publication.
Maybe the theory of evolution will be realised when the technology has been developed to adequately prove it* but I want a scientist to think about- rather than to believe their scientific theory.

Just like obsessive belief, when you are absolutely convinced something is true, you will find the evidence for it - whether it exists or not.

*(as maybe we'll invent time machines - if they're fashionably plausible rather than an axiomatic impossibility this year - as it seems even carbon-dating is a discredited science in the face of contradictions to the established timeline)

Critical thinking seems to be an elusive concept when it comes to evolution, but a little imagination could go a long way, too.
The founding priciples of science were born from certain people's ability to think beyond traditional constraints. The very cause of science was furthered by those brave enough to take a stand against the oppression of perceived heresy in view of what they saw as incontravertible logic/proof.
Look at us now - even some children know that an alchemist could not have turned lead into gold, but that it is theoretically possible* - yet we still cling desperately to compellingly discredited scientific beliefs, further compounding otherwise sound (though incomplete) scientific laws and hindering the advancement of scientific theory.

*(but highly impractical due to the scale of the reactions that would have to be initiated, and the expense of the technology that might be required)

Where are the pioneers? Where are the advances in science born of theoretical physics dreamed-of over a century ago? Why have we become bogged-down by arcane science while refusing to theorise on greater possibilities?

This is NOT a religious argument (being essentially atheist, as I am) but the complete opposite - a cry for sanity! Keep religion out of science, and FFS, keep science non-religious!

If ID is a stepping stone to religion in science, then we're all doomed - but there is already something gravely wrong with the establishment, of which The Established and Inarguably True Theory of Evolution (as opposed to evolution theory) is just a humble example.

_________________________________
And yes, I completely lost the plot again, but typed too much to throw it away. My bad.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

Edit: a little more clarity (this means very little) and a little less repetition.

(Edited by White Hawk on 06-28-2005 02:06)

I have to disagree.

I think that we are making astounding advances, and I think that we are challenging the established ideas daily.

Shit slashdot was reporting Zombie Dogs today. People are still fighting for cold fusion, we are getting rail-guns, and solar sails, and positive estimates on quantum computers as opposed to the still 100 years away stuff I have been hearing in the past.

We are on a logarithmic scientific curve. A century ago they would have never dreamed of the things we have to day. A century ago people who thought we might fly were still crazy. 50 years ago people who thought we might get to the moon were crazy. 30 years ago the idea of a personal computer was crazy, and the internet was something noone would have even thought of.

We are right now in the beginnings of an information revolution. The internet was just the beginning, look at the storm that Wifi is creating. We will soon be connected anywhere we go, every second of everyday.

We are devoloping far more advanced augmentative technologies, and we have a robot acting as a receptionist, and minuture robots that a wealthy person could purchase wo do bailet. I think we are flying, and we are only going to get faster.

They have the prototypes done for $50,000 flying machines that are the size of a car.

We have private citizens building their own space ships.

We have a space station.

We are working on a multinational fusion power plant.

What more could you be looking for? Where should we be going? Why with all these advances do you think we are slowing down?

Technology doens't flow in the way it was envisioned, it takes its own course, and I think it is doing pretty good for itself.

Dan @ Code Town

I have to disagree as well. Won't go into more detail at the moment, but WM did cover some of my points.

There are certainly those who approach science with a religious mentality. But that is the minority...

Fair enough, point taken (esp. as regards scientific engineering and electro-mechanical inventiveness).

But the moon? How does one get to the moon nowadays?

(Edited by White Hawk on 06-28-2005 03:08)

On that topic, a giant book written by James Mitchner called Space is a great read on the topic of space the moon and why we did and do not continue to go there. He does great historical fiction, but it gives you some real background on the space race, the look at its motivation, and the reasons that it failed. I highly recommend that anyone interested in the cosmos read it. It is a tough read but well worth it.

My own take on the issue. It is a big rock right next to us that we have already been to, and doens't hold any huge gains. Probes to mars and to titan and other earth like bodies is much more interesting, and can have a whole lot more scientific value.

Putting a human into space is a waste of resources, is dangerous and does not get as much benefit for cost as putting a probe down on the planet. Putting people into space is just for show, and has little to do with science.

It is exploration, but we have better methods of doing that given the enviornment out there. You can not put a person into space have him travel a bit and then sit down, set up a house and study the area. When you put a human out there you expend a vast amount of energy, and by the time the human is there you are already starting to worry about getting the human back.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

and doens't hold any huge gains.

---

WHAT!!??

Yes it does! It holds enormous amounts of helium-3! And that, my friends, is the cheap energy source of the future!

Because of the Gravity Well that the Earth produces, it is relatively easy to use rail-gun techniques, powered by Helium-3 (which the Moon has more than enough of) to very economically send Helium-3 in large amounts to the earth.

The only real thing holding such an endeavor back is a) Lack of Water (which they may have solved - searching for water on the Moon) and b) Privatisation of Space.

That is one of the reasons that I was so excited with the civilian attempt into Spcae succeeding! It opens a way...it points in a direction - UP!

Oh, and for the record - I vehemently disagree with WH.

As for the comments from the Doc (Hiya Doc - been awhile) - well, I leave that open in my belief. But irregardless of whether life evolved naturally here, on Earth, or is part of a greater natural scheme of Evolution (or was "terraformed" or "cultured" on earth) - the path from that point STILL follows a path of Evolution.

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-28-2005 08:15)

Sorry I opened such a can of worms with the Micr/Macro thing. But it is facinating stuff no matter if you are for it or against it.

Poi--thanks for those links up there in your post. Most of that stuff I've read before, but it lead me to a lot of other new things and angles to look at. Great link

WarMage--those links? you insult my intelligence. But I forgive you.

Jade-- I have know idea how the eye developed. It's remarkable, no doubt about it.

And I agree, the whole african thing was stupid. I myself dismissed it almost as soon as I posted it. The truth is, technology has it's own evolution going on, and you can trace it's path. And it's headed back toward all third world countries.

Now to answer the question. No WS, I can't give you and logical or physical reason why microevolution can't lead to macroevolution. And even if I could, it wouldn't mean squat, because it would still be an assumption on my part.

But before you jump for joy, read on.....

First I want to say, some seem to make assumptions that my "religious background" keeps me from accepting evolution. Don't make assumptions. My background was not in the least bit religious. Quite the opposite is true. My background from childhood is science. This is why I went into medicine. Science led me to God. So don't assume.

I have read and researched a LOT on evalution in my lifetime. From our point in history now all the way down to the microscopic world. (In case you never heard of it, some interesting reading for all you scientists out the would be the theory on the RNA world--look it up. Very interesting theory) I'm no expert by a long shot, but I'm no "babe in the woods" either. And I don't want to get into some "great debate" here on a message board, because truthfully, it's too hard to debate this kind of thing unless you're in a face-to-face situation, where back and forth ideas can flow easily. Simply becasue there is so much information to discuss.

So I'm going to kind of sum up why I don't believe in the "universal common ancestor" or macroevolution. First I'm going to say that I see science "big wigs" as no different than polititions. Science is supposed to be totally unbiased, and they will ALL swear that they are and point to the Scintific Method, and how "it's not the outcome, but the proof, that matters". But think about it folks. When you realize that we are ALL human and want to be right about things, mix in the HUGE egos of "learned" and "degreed" scientists, and mix in political funding which can make or break a career depending on if your'e researching the thing that being funded or not, and making breakthroughs to continue getting funding....well, you can see how a lot of science can get very biased. Please don't deny it. How can experiments be biased? They can't, in and of themselves. If done the way they ought to be done. But laypeople put a lot of faith in a scientists word. Be he a doctor of medicine, or a microbiologist. Because we don't have the means of getting in a lab and seeing "first hand". If you read enough material, from enough different sources, it's not hard to see how scientific jargon, just like legal jargon, can be used to "lead the sheep".

They also like to say that if something is NOT "scientifically" proven then it's not a fact, it's an assumption. But there are a lot of genuine assumptions made when dealing with evolution that haven't been proven scientifically as fact, yet the whole theory of evolution is presented as a "scientifically proven" . One big one is in the question of thermoregulation. Now there are good arguments to logically say that it could have happened. But if you read enough material, and keep in mind the climate of the time, and just how much random developing would have to be done in order to pass it on, and the size of a lot of dinosaurs and how thermoregulation would affect them, and which lines led to the birds and mammals, you will see that it is a very big assumption. And scientists know this. So now they are redefining what cold-blooded and warm-blooded mean. DON'T LET THE JARGON FOOL YOU FOLKS. Laypeople can easily be fooled if you use big enough words and start breaking things down into smaller and smaller "sections" within "sections".

I am not saying that it COULDN'T have happened. I'm not even saying that it DIDN'T happen. I'd have to prove that, and I can't. But at the same time, it can not be proven that it did happen. The assumptions made are sketchy at best, but they say it HAD to have happened because it is the only LOGICAL explanation for birds and mammals to evolve from reptiles. Sadly, it can't be shown how it may have happened or came about with any degree of certainty because tissues don't fossilize. And scientists jump all over that.

There are bone progressions, very few, that show that how reptiles evoved into mammals. Look them up, trace them for yourself. But when you step back, and look at ALL the body systems, and how diverse they are. And take into account all the things that would have had to happen simultaneously in a whole lot of different species to take effect and "move on", then throw in the statistics of "random" and it gets really mind boggling. And to base that on a few fossil progressions is mad.


Anyway, there are other questionalble things. If you look down the right lines, you can find them. Science has made it such a maze that it gets hard to follow the right lines, but it can be done. I can not possibly write long enough to go into them all. There are huge assumptions made by fossil data....that turns out to be just a tooth, or bone fragment. There are gaps that get ignored or explained away. There are so many things that could be found out about the beginnings of evolution with bacteria and single celled organisms that could be proven correct. Those simple cells are still around. And they multiply fast enough to be able to watch the very beginnings of evolution happen under a microscope. They can recreate environments in labs if they needed to. But in literature that we can get our hands on and read, it's still all just theory and assumption on how simple one cell plant and animal life and bacteria formed. Or how separate sexes came to be. Those are things we could see in a microscope. And if anyone says they can't, I'd like to know why they say we couldn't. Because the fact is that we know simple one-celled organisms still exist today. Even the most simplest, the retro virus, is still around. And if they are still here, then they should still be mixing it up in the same way they did in the beginning. Evolution you say? They are still here, but they aren't the same as they were way back then? They are just as evoved as we are? Yes, they are just as evolved as we are, but they are simple one celled structures. How much different can they get? There structure is still the same, no matter if it's now or a billions of years ago. And no matter how much there genes may change. One cell can make a billion more in no-time flat. The whole idea of evolution is that life will find a way, albeit "randomly" if you like, but there should be no end to evolution. So, scientifically speaking, it should still be happening.

Experiments are being done on the molecular level. Since the 1950's. And they have all failed.

Anyway, I'm sure all I just said will be argued and explained away, and my thinking will be called ignorant and uninformed. And that could be true. I'm still researching the microscopic world, so we'll see. I'm not going to sweat the small stuff, but there is a God. Somewhere. And I will continue to believe what I do, and so will everybody else here. And that is cool with me. I don't call any of you ignorant and irrational for your beliefs, please don't call me that for mine.

Now I want to propose a theory that's very far fetched, but could happen if evolution is correct. It's nothing new, a whole lot of people have thought up and thought about this theory before, and some of you even mentioned it in a few of the posts above. I'm just going to turn it into a sequenced story in my own words here. Modern humans should continue to evolve. We know that we are more obese now as a whole than we were. Technology has done this. Some are becoming more health conscious, but still on the whole we are unhealthy as a species on the whole. But technology is increasing. We are learning more and more, computers are becoming more efficient. One day, machines will do all of our work, So we'll be running the computers more then than we are now. Our heads will get bigger as our brain grows--we eat better becasue we know all the bad stuff good food does to you. Our brains reap the benefit. Our bodies however, atrophy. Disuse. Can you see that it COULD happen? It could, according to evolution. Our skin becomes paler and paler from being inside running all the computer to farm and build and everything. Aren't we beginning to look like the little grey men from outter space? Technology has increased to the point of distant space travel. More and more distant is reached as centuries go by. OOPS, we've used all our planet's resources. There is something gone that we need. No problem, we've found other planets that have the same materials. We send a few hundred out to go do the job. So these few hundered go to this distant planet to get what we need and bring back. Can't take all the technology that we know and use, too many computers. Can't build the stuff on the knew planet because all materials are raw, so we have to go back to the very basics of manually digging down in the earth. Oh, we can't do that. Are bodies aren't strong enough. Or we just don't want to. Or we can but get tired of working so hard. Let's say we can do it, we just get tired of all the labor after awhile. The "laborers" are on the verge of mutiny. It's not fair, they say. Hey, there's apes around here. Let's get them to do it. They try, but they just can't think well enough to do the job. Hey, lets splice our genes with theirs and create something that can think a little better. Boom. Humans and Gods come into existance on a planet far far away.

Of course, I am very very sleepy right now, been up for about 36 hours for work, and this could all be drivel evolving right out of my delerious-from-sleep-deprivatied-mind. But as I said, it's not anything new, that hasn't been thought of by a lot of other people.


Lot's of holes. Lots of different things that could happen to make it turn out different. Lot's of twists and turns that could happen that could explain away religious beliefs such as a savior and the promise of a return at the end of days to rescue you, because we created you and put you in this predicament please believe in me when I say that I'll be back and all that. But it could happen. And when you think about that, you have to think, maybe it did happen. Right here on earth. Personally, I don't believe that it happened at all. Still, even if it did and is destined to happen again, it all had to start somewhere, somewhen. So there is a God no matter how you look at it. That's my belief. Please don't berate me for it.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 06-28-2005 12:37)

(Edited by Belladonna on 06-28-2005 13:12)

(Edited by Belladonna on 06-28-2005 13:14)

(Edited by Belladonna on 06-28-2005 15:07)

Whew, I am sure glad she didn't want to

quote:

---

And I don't want to get into some "great debate" here on a message board

---

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

This may prove instructive to some, confounding to others and damnable to a certain few; Google Search

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

(Edited by WarMage on 06-28-2005 17:56)

I am still waiting for an answer, not an attempt at avoiding the question.

quote:

---

No WS, I can't give you and logical or physical reason why microevolution can't lead to macroevolution.

---

Then I rest my case.

quote:

---

Please don't berate me for it.

---

But we must...we live for this... it is what we do... =) As for, there is a god and, that is your belief... well that is the point precisely...your 'belief.' You can of course provide no proof of existance. As someone recently pointed out there is more evidence to support the existance of the mythical King Arthur of roundtable fame than there is to support the existance of jesus christ. And as for 'it all had to start somewhere' well sure but why do 'suppose' something of a higher order must be involved. Why not just plain old and not-so-simple chemical cosmic soup?

On the matter of scientific 'ishkabibble' (goobledeegook) designed to garner further research money or a confused & uninformed acceptance of a notion... Yes,certainly, that element is present and most certainly in the field of medicine particularly in the development of 'medicines.' That said it's been my observation that when 'questionable'findings are 'published' other.. perhaps more dilligent members of that community will tear it apart in short order.

quote:

---

that could explain away religious beliefs such as a savior and the promise of a return at the end of days to rescue you.

---

For me... nothing ever... could explain this away. =)


[edit] Would one of you MS's please correct whatever it is that's giving us that horizontal scroll.. I'm off the right side by about 5 feet. =) thnks... and if it's me... sorry. [/edit]

(Edited by NoJive on 06-28-2005 17:13)

quote:

---

I am still waiting for an answer, not an attempt at avoiding the question.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No WS, I can't give you and logical or physical reason why microevolution can't lead to macroevolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then I rest my case.

---

It's like this. It is all going to come down to the microscopic world. If micro led to macro, then we will be able to recreate it and prove it in a lab under the microscope. So far all experiments have failed without question. One day it MIGHT happen in a lab. But so far it hasn't. And until it does, the whole theory of common origin is up in the air IN MY EYES. If simple cells cant do it, then larger complex organisms can't do it. So nothing is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not yet, and quite possibly not ever.

So don't rest your case just yet, the real jury is still out on evolution.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Climb a tree. You might be closer to the moon, but you're no closer to landing on it.

Um - that was probably a brain fart.

BD, you still have not answered the question - and your "tiptoeing" around it is not what was asked for.

Either answer it, or don't.

If you can't answer it, then your reasons against Evolution are not based on sound reason and/or logic, and also not on the evidence at hand.

And thus, I rest my case.

Just because you can not currently show something in the lab does not mean the science is bad.

I work with algorithms. They have tons of them, and the really good ones can not yet be applied. It doesn't mean that the science behind the algorithm is bad or that the jury is still out, it means that our mechanics have not yet caught up to our thinkers.

We can theorize about a number of things, and have great proofs about them, it doesn't mean we can do it in the lab.

The fusion power plant that is going to be constructed in France. The theories and the math behind it is really solid, and has been for years and years. But applying that knowledge is a whole lot harder than one might think.

That is why you have titles like theoretical _x_ in so many fields. I know a ton of theoretical physisists. They do great work on things that they will never be able to actualize in their life times. They are working using solid mathematics that can prove many a thing that we can not even see yet. We will be able to see these things one day, it is just that the math and physics are so much more percise than engineering.

Dan @ Code Town

Wait wait wait fellas.

I never said the "science was bad because it hasn't been proven yet". I clearly wrote that one day, it MIGHT JUST HAPPEN in a lab. Didn't I? I did say that, right?

WebShamen, you ARE a shamen. You weave magic with words. I think I love you.

I DID answer your question. I cannot give any physical evidence or logical reasoning why microevolution can not lead to macroevolution. Because the physical evidence isn't there yet.

There are some fossil proofs, but I've already went through how those can be perceived as misguided proofs for some people. Still, for some, that is enough proof to say and believe that macroevolution DOES happen, and all life is decended from one universal common ancestor. To me, it is NOT enough proof. For you, it IS enough proof.

But THE proof, the microscopic proof, that a single simple life form can macroevolve into something entirely new and different, has not been shown yet. And the fact is, if simple cells can't do it, then there never would have been any larger more complex organisms to evolve in the first place.

To see it happen would be CONCLUSIVE proof! And it is a proof that IS within our grasp to realize! Unlike theorizing about dinosaurs, which we will never have the specimens necessary to study in a conclusive way. It would not be able to be denied by ANYONE ANYWHERE. And if it happens in my lifetime, I will happily eat all my words and change my opinion to the view of common origin! This is the piece of evidence that "I" need in order to change my beliefs. And if it doesn't happen in my lifetime, I will go to the grave believing that life was created seperately, not all from the same simple organism.

So, again for emphasis, I answered your question. I can't give you any proof that it didn't happen, and you can't give me any proof that it did. You can point out all the fossil records you want, I've looked at them all, studied them all, and to me, it's not enough proof to say that it did happen for sure, that all life came from one single simple life source.

I'm not saying "I'm right and you are wrong". And I am not trying to force my belief that there is not enough evidence to proove it on you! If you look back on my posts, I have really done nothing but accept your view as your own and respected it as a VALID opinion. I'm not out to proove you wrong and me right. I am just stating my beliefs-based on the evidence as I perceive it. Key word being "I". I'm the one who believes in God, but you're acting more the zealot than I am! You are demanding proof that I can't give you, and you know that I can't give you. Therefore, in your eyes, and in the eyes of science everywhere, the opinion that there is no common origin is viewed as NOT VALID.

I'm demanding more proof from science before I will believe the view of common origin. And that proof CAN be found in microorganisms. I am not totally disregarding the possibility of it. I am saying that right now, I don't believe it. I don't think it happened, nothing anybody says at this point will sway me, I can think for myself and draw my own conclusions of "my truth" based on the evidence available. I am no sheep that will be led by either science OR religion blindly by the nose with my eyes closed.

So BBBAAAAAAHHHH, BBBBAAAAAAHHHH

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

And I should point out, in case it wasn't clear, that my reasonings for not believing it have NOTHING to do with religion. I am looking at only real live proof that I could see with my own eyes. Period. And right now, there's not enough proof FOR ME.

Even if it is prooved that we all are from a single common origin, I will still believe there is a God. And that is a totally separate issue, I think we all agree on that. How I perceive God may change, but I will always always believe there is a God.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Hey Belladonna

As far as I am guessing your ideas of "god" obviously originate from Judeo-Christian theology, correct?
If so, how do you look at the fact that Judaism was no different that any other cultural belief that sprang out of ancestral pagan beliefs? We have pretty solid historical backgrounds how Jews were influenced by different cultures how they adopted ideas from other cultures and how different tribes of jews worshiped different dieties, most of them being nature dieties at first.

Obviously you will agree that pagan beliefs are false ones and there are no fertility goddess of some sort or white muscular man with a beard throwing thunders on Mt. Olympus...

I know that philosophy and ideas are far more complex in Jewish mythology rather than Greek. But you know...they are really not that different in terms of purpose and developent.

And as I read your thoughts, I can see that you futher yourself interpret your personal definition of what diety/god should be...

and it's really confusing why people do that, maybe it is hard to cope with reality...perhaps it is hard for most to see world without concept of "right" and "wrong" or some sort of "divine justice"...just maybe.

BD, you obviously passed up the link that PO1 posted - 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, so I am posting it here again.

There is evidence of Macroevolution.

But that is besides the point. My question was to provide proof that microevolution could not become macroevolutionary changes over a long span of time (Time being measured mostly in generations here).

The scientific community can provide proof that microevolution can lead to macroevolutionary changes (and has - just click the link).

By not providing proof to the contrary, that leaves one arguing that namely microevolution cannot lead to macroevolutinary changes over long periods of time pretty much without legs to stand on.

And I don't consider myself all that good with words - I can name a number of Members on this board who dwarf my meager skills - DL-44, twItch^, DarkGarden, Master Suho, Michael, and I am sure there are others, that I have left out.

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-29-2005 22:40)

WS, Do you even read half of what I write?

I thanked poi for that link. Meaning I used it. Meaning I read it. And it was nothing new to me. I have read most of that stuff before. The link in and of itself is very impressive. I don't disagree with that. But I have stated why I don't think the evidence is conclusive. Read my big long post again if you are confused about that.

I'm going to say it again in much simpler terms, and then maybe you can grasp it. I have read the 'FEW' proofs from fossil records that point to micro leading to macro. I have followed the lines of taxology down thier many twisted and turned lines, looked deeply into the question of thermoregulation. And I have been looking into it for a pretty long time. And all those few proofs show me is that science is scrambling hard to make their proof fit their theory.

Does my point of view make the theory wrong? NO! I freely admit that the theory may prove to be dead on!

Why do you keep talking in circles and ignore my statements about the experiments going on today? Are you afraid to go there? Afraid that microbiology may prove your precious theory wrong? Because it CAN go either way at this point. You don't even acknowledge that fact.

Yet you "claim" to deal in reality.

Say it. Say the fact. Say out loud that if microbiology fails to prove macroevolution, then the whole theory of common origin crumbles to dust. It's not that hard to say and accept really. I can accept that if it proves out correct, then I'm the distant, distant kin of a chimpanzee. You know why? Because it's really not going to make one hill of beans of difference in my life. But you now. If the theory is proven wrong, it's going to mean you and all the other scientists of the world will have to consider a God of some sort.

Am I the only one who is relying on proof that we can actually do and see to give me an answer instead of a hugely incomplete record of long dead dinosaurs that we can only ever guess and make "logical" assumptions about??

I don't have anything more to say here. But I hope I have given you all something to chew on for awhile.

I doubt it, but a girl can hope. Don't be sheep.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Ruski--

I guess you could say that my beliefs NOW started with the Christian God.

But my first introduction to religion was a four year stint as a wiccan in my late teen years. And I happen to believe in a lot of THEIR beliefs too. And that's entirely Pagan.

I guess you could say that I'm more a spiritual person than a religious person. In that I believe there is a spiritual realm and things that we don't understand that guide us and help us from time to time.

Not becasue I can't face reality. But becasue there are many unexplained things in reality.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

See, if it does not pan out. It does not mean we have to believe in a god. It means that, that theory did not work out. It does not mean that there is a god. It means that there is another explaination, might be god, might not be. We can say right now that there might be a god following that evolution occured and we can say there might not be. We can say the same about young earth, or any of the other millions of scientific theory.

God and a belief in god has nothing to do with science.

Could you elaborate on your microbiological reasoning for evolution's possible failing? Maybe a link or two. I honestly have no idea what part of the theory you are attacking. Maybe I missed and I will feel foolish but I would like to get on the same page with what you are talking about.

Dan @ Code Town

Belladonna: I understand some one may be critical and appreciate how you emphasize that the fossil proofs does not make it to YOU.

However, you admit that there is 'FEW' proofs from fossil records that point to micro leading to macro. Isn't it more than enough to vanish your doubts about the theory of Evolution ? If there was absolutely no proof, then ok, the theory of Evolution could be dismissed, but the existence of even a single proof makes it valid and sound. Yet, there is more than a single proof.

As for reproduction the transition from micro evolution to macro evolution in a lab, let's make some *coarse* estimates :
The Homo habilis lived from ~2.4 to 1.5 million years ago, the Homo ergaster lived from ~1.8 to 1.25 MYA. So it took ~ 600.000 years to evolve, that is ~ 24,000 generations ( of 25 years ). If a mitosis happen every day, 24,000 generations of eukaryotes still represent ~ 65 years. Therefore it's not surprising that no one managed to cultivate some eukaryotes in a lab for enough time to witness macro evolution in such conditions.



(Edited by poi on 06-30-2005 02:46)

WarMage--you are, of course, right. The failure of microbiology would not mean that anyone would have to consider a God. I jumped the gun in the heat of the moment, and I apologize for that.

And I am not attacking any part of evolution per se really. I'm sorry if I sounded that way. I am merely pointing to microbiology as a source of difinitive proof that will not be able to be denied if it is shown. And the fact that that is what I need to embrace the whole thing.

And poi--it doesn't matter what organisms lived millions of years ago. The ones that are living now should be able to do the same thing. They are all and all, right down to the nitty gritty, the same organisms they were way back when.

And a lab can greatly speed up the process. Scientists ARE working on it.

Here is a link. I chose to post this link from Wikipedia becasue it is an unbiased source for info, has all the basic info on different methods and so can point you in the directions to look elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#.22Genes_first.22_models:_the_RNA_world

I hope that link works. I'm not sure I'm doing it right. But if not, go to widipedia and find "origins of life"

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

So it seems you are talking about the origins of life as opposed to evolution.

These are completely different topics. Evolution is the process that occurs after life exists. You know the speel. I am pretty sure that we all know that we do not know how life started. That kind of stuff is way up in the air. They are in the theoretical stages with that, and do not have any proofs, or really solid math to back up any of what they are trying to show.

What this is all about is evolution. And evolution has been shown to happen. Most recently with a type of fly. I believe this has been pointed out.

I can not claim anything about the origin, and I wouldn't try. Not yet.

But evolution does happen. It is observable, it has been observed. It doesn't even happen on just a small scale. It happens on a pretty big scale. The fossil records show that. And there is a ton, a ton of science to back that up.

Could we have been placed here, sure, could we have come out of a pile of goo. I don't know, I will let someone with a whole lot more time and focus hash that one out.

I can see that as a point of contension. I can not see evolution as a point of contension.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

... it doesn't matter what organisms lived millions of years ago. The ones that are living now should be able to do the same thing. They are all and all, right down to the nitty gritty, the same organisms they were way back when.

---

Am I missing something here?

The organisms living now should be able to do what? Evolve? What do you consider "way back when"? Perhaps millions of years ago? ... when the organisms were different than they are now? ... which you are dismissing?

Seriously, someone tell me what I'm missing.

quote:

---

Say it. Say the fact. Say out loud that if microbiology fails to prove macroevolution, then the whole theory of common origin crumbles to dust. It's not that hard to say and accept really. I can accept that if it proves out correct, then I'm the distant, distant kin of a chimpanzee. You know why? Because it's really not going to make one hill of beans of difference in my life. But you now. If the theory is proven wrong, it's going to mean you and all the other scientists of the world will have to consider a God of some sort.

---

Oh, the cry of the desperate.

Even should the theory be proven wrong (and contrary to what you seem to think - I leave the door open, as I have suggested - obviously it is you who cannot read), that still doesn't mean that anyone has to consider a god of some sort.

That is very flawed reasoning. And it nails your thought process down. Because it identifies your true motives here. Get rid of the theory of Evolution, and bam! You think the only other alternative is a belief in a god!?

You say "don't be sheep"?

No sheep here. We don't need a shepherd.

You might want to take your own advice.

As WM pointed out, Evolution says nothing about how things got created, originally. One really shouldn't get that confused.

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-30-2005 09:10)

I think I'm still with Belladonna on this one (without the religious bit) - there are just too many holes in the Theory of Evolution (caps intentional) to convince me of the timelines that are so vehemently defended by those who choose to ignore years of contradictory evidence.

I'm not discounting the possibility of Common Origin, but that doesn't make glaring irregularities any less significant to me.

As I stated before, it seems that a major (despite claims to the contrary) portion of the scientific community are unwilling to examine the subject with a critical eye - choosing instead to call scientific methodology into question.

"So, it looks like Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals lived alongside eachother - that must be because carbon dating is inaccurate, as everyone knows [believes] that one evolved from the other..."

I can't really add anything at the mo' (at work - and the boss is hovering) but just wanted to say to Belladonna, I may not agree with everything you've stated, but stick to your guns girl!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

WH - ok. Enough.

quote:

---

"So, it looks like Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals lived alongside each other - that must be because carbon dating is inaccurate, as everyone knows [believes] that one evolved from the other..."

---

I don't know where you got this idea from.

It is believed (and evidence supports) that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are splits in the genetic tree - they did not "evolve" from one another, in that sense - they evolved alongside one another, they competed with one another, mainly in Europe. For reasons not yet known, Neanderthals lost, and went extinct.

See Human Evolution

Please present your other "evidence". I'm curious to see it.

As for

quote:

---

As I stated before, it seems that a major (despite claims to the contrary) portion of the scientific community are unwilling to examine the subject with a critical eye - choosing instead to call scientific methodology into question.

---

, that is just plain rubbish, pure and simple. "Examine with a critical eye" is what it is all about! However, one needs to bring FACTS and RELIABLE EVIDENCE to the table, and not half-cracked hypothesis and mind-farts.

One should also know the material soundly, that one is trying to critically examine.

Scientists have been working on the actual model of Evolution the whole time. It has undergone quite a few "shake-ups", from various different sources and reasons. All by scientists who critically examined things.

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-30-2005 14:36)

Damn, if it wasn't for mind farts, I wouldn't be able to function at all. You should smell what it smells like inside my head!

^ I'm sure you'd find someone quite willing to pay for the experience... but ...No thanks I'll take you at your word on this one. =)

quote:

---

You should smell what it smells like inside my head!

---

Hehe...I've seen a bit of it on the boards...mostly very well said, btw.

quote:

---

If the theory is proven wrong, it's going to mean you and all the other scientists of the world will have to consider a God of some sort.

---

This is just plain silly and ignorant.

One has nothing to do with the other.

There is nothing to say that 'god' and evolution can't coexist. There is nothing that says the world needs either 'god' or evolution to exist.

Evolution is by far the most highly supported scientific theory to explain the course that life took on this planet.

That is entirely seperate from any notion of some higher power that may or may not have created life in any number of ways described in early mythologies.

quote:

---

"So, it looks like Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals lived alongside eachother - that must be because carbon dating is inaccurate, as everyone knows [believes] that one evolved from the other..."

---

This is a prime example of basing a conslusion on a totally false premise.

The basic idea in evolution is that species split form one another. It starts with a genetic mutation. That is not the kind of thing that effects the species as a whole - that is not possible. It starts with one. It gets passed along. If the change enables better survival, the change concitnues to be passed along (if not, the offshoot dies and the line ends).

Therefore you can't have evolution without the descendant species and the origin species coexisting.

Thanks for the compliment, WebShaman

I'm glad that the whole timeline thing has (recently?) been revised, discrediting my 'majority' assertion. I don't doubt that my science teacher was a bit of a nutter (he blew himself up on at least two ocassions, requiring hospital treatment) but he wasn't the only one who taught what was held as established theory at the time, I suppose.

Dammit - I forgot about the date of this (1999) - which is a bit of a knock to my postulations, and also indicative of just how long it is since I went to school (to my horrified realisation)!

As for evidence, I'll obviously provide evidence if I manage to coherently offer an opposing view on something more specific, rather than basing a statement like "years of contradictory evidence" on something that requires far more research and possibly a lot less typing on my part - not that there isn't something to say on the matter.
I find I'm currently far from fit to argue convincingly on anything more than my preference for buttered bread in sandwiches, but I cannot help but continue to take a somewhat different stance on the significance of the arguments presented in relation to the evidence, especially when science really is so young, and prone to sudden spurts of its own evolutionary growth.

Don't misunderstand my meaning at this juncture, as I continue to respect your opinions in all matters, Webshaman, DL-44, even when I don't absolutely agree (which is incidentally, notably rare). You have posted some interesting and compelling sites in this thread that appear rather conclusive, but I can't say that all of it is entirely accurate or objective in its determination either. It is fairly easy to take a view on such evidence, throw a few established facts in, argue compellingly, and make a seemingly sound case of it (even if I don't bother doing that here ).

Incidentally, I also have a BBC link that I found interesting. It is an excellent site, though it should be for all that the TV license fee covers.

'Spin'; it's what politicians, salesmen, and marketing companies do with statistics all the time, and a mode of presentation often adopted by scientists and pseudo-scientists alike. It can be further compounded by a lack of understanding of- or popular contention to- the physics involved in the founding priciples of the argument. As pointed out by DL/WS, something I should be wary of in my own posts.

An exemplary example might be something like Steiger's - that anyone should quickly be able to knock a few holes in.
I should point out that the linked sites are not representative of my view on the specific issue of doubt and, as such, are not being presented here as evidence in support of an argument previously- or herein- expressed other than that in relation to modus confero. Anyway, the idea of "Creation Science", as expressed in previous discussions, is utterly anathema to me.

The earlier brain fart (re: climbing) was actually intended to mean something, but I've been collecting new links at a far greater rate than that at which I can adequately absorb their contents, so I'm going to digest a little more before before I run-off at the mouth (yet) again. If I am going to present any sort of evidential argument, it will be when I've finished reading... *quickly examines a list of bookmarks and turns slightly pale* ...um, rather a lot more, and finished that thought.

I get easily side-tracked - more than most people, in fact. It means that I start looking for a particular lens to fit a friend's telescope and end up (hours later) with theoretical physics, hyperspace theory, and Hawking's conclusion that black holes don't lead to alternate universes; how this is a relief to proponents of the E=data model of the universe, and supporting the plausibility of the extreme hypothesis of data mega-processors being made from short-lived, artificial black-holes... *takes another breath* ...it also means that I spend more time thinking about things and less time actually remembering to form a conclusion on them - as I do, say, tinker with various hobby projects but never really finish them.

Perhaps it is an irritating disorder I have - but this is an asylum after all.

I'll go continue reading now (perhaps even learn something). There goes any hope I had of sleeping tonight.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

(Edited by White Hawk on 06-30-2005 23:58)

The way you are being side tracked is commonly referred to as yak shaving. Yet more things for you to look into.

Dan @ Code Town

According to catb.org:

quote:

---

"yak shaving"; [MIT AI Lab, after 2000: orig. probably from a Ren & Stimpy episode.] Any seemingly pointless activity which is actually necessary to solve a problem which solves a problem which, several levels of recursion later, solves the real problem you're working on.

---

And here I found an example.

The meaning of that seems almost exactly like my daily life! Thanks Warmage, that's not the insult I almost expected!

I read articles until about 4am this morning ( ) and just keep finding more to read - I think I'm going to be shaving a few herds before I'm finished. All compelling stuff.

^Sorry about the somewhat irrelevant monologue last night...^

^NP!!

Hey, don't get me wrong here! As briggl already mentioned, Brain Farts, brain storming, and free thinking are great and important processes - they should not be under-estimated. But they do need to be coupled with a sound understanding of the material in question.

Imagine Einstein having said Gravity is a result of the curvature of Space - and then provided no mathematical support, whatsoever!

Or, "Hey, do you realize, that Energy equals Mass times the speed of light squared?"

"Uhhh...how did you come to that conclusion?"

"Oh, it sprang into my head one day..."

If we didn't have a structured way of measuring, and proving such "mind farts", brain storming, and free thinking, if there wasn't a peer review process, etc, etc, then we would be back to where we used to be - where a "Central Authority" dictated what was and what was not - and dissenters, free thinkers, etc were simply denounced as traitors, or worse, and either imprisoned, or outright put to death.

Something to think about, maybe?

Well guys, It's been a fun debate with you all. And very informative on both sides of it, I think. Thanks for the support there White Hawk, it's really nice to feel someone behind you when you are in a minority (in my case, a minority of one, it would seem). Who am I kidding? It's nice to feel someone behind you no matter what the circumstances are!

Consequently, it was not the origins of life itself that I was talking about. That article was meant as a jumping off point, and as an unbiased view.

WebShaman--I'm curious to know why you think my "real motive" was to proove evolution wrong so that people would have to believe in God? I know that it would NOT mean that--and stated an apology for my outburst. I am who I am, and that is a passionate person. Sometimes my mouth runs before I can stop it. If my whole argument trully showed my real thought process, then you would understand that I never wanted anyone to agree with me, never wanted to undermine any theory, never wanted to change anyone's belief. The only thing I wanted was the recognition of having a VALID opinion on the whole matter based on scientific evidence rather than just "I believe God created the world" and nothing else.

I can see that won't happen. Not among people who deal in math and computers. Although, a lot of biologists that I have talked to share my opinion, or at the very least view it as a VALID opinion,
becasue like myself, they understand and grasp the intricate details of how cellular life works and the huge number of changes that would have to occur. Many of whom, I might add, were very staunch believers in "common origins" until we got to the point in science where we COULD understand the detailed workings of cellular life.

Anyway--no hard feelings guys. Really. You are all very intelligent and formidable people.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

WebShaman--I'm curious to know why you think my "real motive" was to proove evolution wrong so that people would have to believe in God? I know that it would NOT mean that--and stated an apology for my outburst.

---

I wouldn't know what your true motive was, or is. I can only go by what you post. When you make such a remark, an "this or that" type of remark, it normally shows intent. If you post as you did, one can only come to this conclusion. Thus, if your intent was not to do this - then you need to re-examine the method that you use to communicate your intent - otherwise, it will be misunderstood.

quote:

---

Not among people who deal in math and computers. Although, a lot of biologists that I have talked to share my opinion, or at the very least view it as a VALID opinion,

---

A valid opinion, is not necessarily factual. I'm sure your opinion is valid. However, in light of the facts in this case, it is not very accurate or factual.

That doesn't make it any less valid an opinion as an opinion that I hold. It does, however, make it less factual.

Do you understand the difference?

a note that fits in here somewhere -
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/04/shrinking.lotuses.ap/index.html

Thanks for the link, DL. Fascinating.

^ What he said. I never really considered the impact humans have directly in terms of natural, or in this case "human" selection. Kinda makes you think that since we can affect other species directly by interaction, then what are the long term effects on us as a species through our interactions with environment?

It doesn't seem like that big a deal thinking about it like that though, because we know already that a species' environment, which includes humans, causes adaptation. So if it was a different animal eating the plants would it then be "llama"-selection or something? Just kick me a little if I have commited some type of logical fallacy.

And also, why hasn't grass "adapted" in such a way? I mow that stuff every week and only seems to grow faster and longer.

*looks around and realizes he is in a creation/evolution type debate thread* *runs out*

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

I just thought this was a humorous aside to this topic. Our local news station today had this headline on their website... What should kids be tought about evolution? You'd think that on a topic about education they might bother to check their spelling... :P
The article itself is not terribly enlightening, it's just bringing to light a topic that really hasn't been covered much as far as I know in our local media.

Webshaman - Einstein actually did say something very much like that.

His theories were almost entirely composed in his head with a limited understanding of the math involved, then worked out (sometimes with a little help) on paper later. He was reknowned for not writing things down.



I know what you mean though, and I do have an understanding of the underlying science - I just wasn't so up-to-date on my information.

I'm still reading, but not necessarily any less convinced that evolution theory is flawed - or at least, far from complete.

We're still discovering contradictions to our established view of the universe every day (at an ever-increasing rate) which cause us to question everything from the age of our planet, to the life-span of our universe, or the formation of stars and planets to the interaction of stellar bodies.

Still reading, reading, reading... ...stuck on White Dwarf formation for some reason.
___________

quote:

---

Who am I kidding? It's nice to feel someone behind you no matter what the circumstances are!

---

Ooh, you are naughty. The pleasure's mine.

You seem to not have a full understanding of science and how it works. Science does not have an established view of the universe. If you research it there are many competing views founded on a whole lot of data.

You will not find a contradiction, what happens is that another discovery is made, more evidence is discovered, and some theories are discarded and others become more plausible.

What you are calling contridictions is actually the scientific process.

There might be contridictions to some theories, but these are boons for other theories.

You all seem to have so many problems with evolution, and I think it comes from its popularity. The reason evolution is so popular is because it is so simple, and it applies to so many different situations.

The biological definition is pretty simple

quote:

---

A change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.

---

And generally the definition is even simpler

quote:

---

Any process of change over time

---

The problem people have is that it is so simple it can be applied and extrapolated in so many different ways that it does touch eveything.

Dan @ Code Town

Warmage touched on the key point that MANY people need to get a grasp on, and which I stated many many times -

Science does not have all the answers.

Science does not claim to have all the answers.

Science is not a destination, it is a process.

When someone claims to have all the answers, and that the answers don't change, that they are set and that is all there is to it, you have Religion, not science.

Yes - it is true that there are people who treat science like a religion. These people are fools.

^Amen!

quote:

---

Yes - it is true that there are people who treat science like a religion. These people are fools.

---

...and my life would have been so much easier if I'd just said that in the first place.

Still reading...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

=)

quote:

---

Yes - it is true that there are people who treat science like a religion. These people are fools.

---

There are many persons? There are billions and into the billions .


That would mean all religious or simply non-religious free thinkers who do believe in a God creationism ideology are fools too since they believe all the Sciences are attributed to God? Right DL? They are all in denial? And this would mean most of the populated earth are fools too. Even though not all believers are affiliated with an organized church, most still believe a God is the designer & sustainer of all created things in our cosmos and the earth. What face believers decide to give God by their own specific beliefs does lead us all to be in communion with one another. Yes, because we don't know all the scientific answers of our origins, we choose to wonder how God and the cosmos came together. The fact is there is an answer and meaning to all things. Some entity along with time knows everything. To deny this would be is to be ignorant.

If the creator wanted us to have all the answers, why be created in the first place? Since we all relate as social humans, why would we not relate in that same way to the maker. This is the only way we can relate to the comos. We give the cosmos a name and have a personal relationship with it. We call it God because it cannot be denied.

So where does that leave the small number of atheist who are not fools? Do they have a higher degree of intelligence as opposed to the believers? This way of thinking seems so bias.

Even though your own ideology tells you science and the creative God are not related. There is no proof of it. If we all believe like you in that: " I only choose to believe what is scientifically proven," it shows a closed minded individual. We believe the study of the sciences thur the process of experiment, observing, elimination is trying to understand God's handiwork. The study of trying to understand the creative force which may or may not lead to all the answers in our lifetime indeed is a great task. It is seeking a creative origin of all things. How can it not be thought of as a scientific religious endeavor. So if you choose not to see a creative God, who many may believe is the designer, you may very well be seeing a small picture of the larger grand picture.

quote:

---

Some entity along with time knows everything. To deny this would be is to be ignorant

---

To accept or believe this IS ignorant.

More circular reasoning Jade, no proof, no evidence, no cogent argument.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

jade - when you have a point......let us know.

^ Hehehe...

Man, that was good!

To elaborate, as this was not meant as simply a snide pot-shot, I simply am past the point where I will sift through your misunderstandings, your twistiing of words, and your irrelevent tangants and ramblings to find something that may be valid enough to respond to.

Whether my patience has simply eroded, or your posts have become less and less coherent lately I'm not sure.

But your pattern of "you said X which means you really think Y and so Z must be the case" is getting very old indeed...


FWIW

Havent't followed the latest post here, but I felt on a news : President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design. As if we needed one more proof that GWB is a weirdo who has lost contact with reality. ID is a religious view. EO is a scientific theory. In a country where the state and religion are ( supposed to be ) separated, religion has no place in school. Period.

Yup, he went way off his rocker on this one.

Now, The President is allowed to have his/her beliefs, obviously.

But The President should NEVER forget that when he/she speaks publicly, it is as the head of government, and not as a private person.

Mr. Bush is way out of line with this one, and quite frankly, I am very surprised and shocked that his advisors didn't do a good enough job guiding him.

I can't wait for this oaf to finally get out of office.

Of couse he's perfectly right to have his own belief, but as you said he is a public figure with high responsibilities. He's supposed to represent the US citizens and governement. And that kind of statements is clearly off.

quote:

---

"People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."

---

Priceless.

quote:

---

WarMage said:ID and Creationism are not the same.

---

Sort of. Intelligent Design is a euphemism for Creationsim.

For intelligent design to be a scientific theory, it would have to be disprovable. That's what makes a scientific theory...well...scientific.

If a theory isn't disprovable, it isn't science.

Now roll that beautiful bean footage!