[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Evolution can and has been observed. As I stated earlier, it often depends on the complexity of the organism. Viruses and bacteria are much easier to observe these changes, however, evolutionary changes can be seen in even human primates as evidence of the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation and the ability to digest lactose. Fossiles are a great historical reference to changes in a single and multiple species over millions of years.

Thanks for posting the link to the article on lactose digestion. I had wanted to post it here but couldn't remember where I had read it. It's an interesting read and provides, to my mind, fairly solid evidence of evolution occurring on a short time-frame (by genetic and geologic standards).

[Snow-i]

ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive

Take the idea of extra spatial dimensions (which in many theories involving gravity must exist).
Fourth dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First of all, remember that ID != religion.
ID does not mean having a God or Gods as religion described it.


If gravity is the result of extra dimensional forces, couldn't these be affecting everything aspect of science today? That doesn't neccesarily mean ID but it certianly doesn't point away from it, or prove anything other then my original point which is we don't know **** about ****.

No, coming to a conclusion as you have, without having looked at the evidence first, is REALLY bad science. Those people in the world who actually have done good science all agree that evolution is the conclusion suggested by the evidence. On what grounds do you call them wrong?

Again, you don't seem to understand that we shouldn't be making conclusions at all. "Really good scientist" will establish this through the way they word their findings, and the way they establish the basis of their facts.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

You can experience the vast amounts of evidence for evolution as well, you simply decline to do so before making your decision. What makes the crackpot in my analogy a crackpot is that he made his unlikely decision without even reviewing the evidence against him. If he had argued, for example, that the sky was really black (because it was night), or that it was grey, because he lived in San Francisco, or argued anything based on any kind of evidence he had, true or false, then he would not be a crackpot. But since he blindly takes a stance which disagrees with the consensus without even looking for himself at the evidence, he's a crackpot. And so are you, if you don't have something to say about the evidence. Do you?

you're suggesting that anyone who does not accept evolution as proven fact is a crackpot. Therefore, you are calling everyone who opposed you a crackpot. I don't agree that evolution is a proven theory*. Therefore, you, specifically referencing my arguments, are calling me a crackpot.

I have something to say about the lack of evidence. And, again, referring to my original point. We don't know **** about ****.

*I believe evolution to have alot of merit, however, it is not a proven theory and should not be treated as such.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive

Take the idea of extra spatial dimensions (which in many theories involving gravity must exist).
Fourth dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First of all, remember that ID != religion.
ID does not mean having a God or Gods as religion described it.

I've heard a lot about what ID isn't, why don't you tell us what ID is. This is not a derailment. One of the biggest objections to ID among scientists is that no one can get anyone to describe exactly what ID is, what its predictions are, and how it differs in any way from simply saying either "we don't know," or "evolution is wrong." Before you can argue what is and isn't mutually exclusive with ID, you have to define ID, at least in the context of your own argument.

If gravity is the result of extra dimensional forces, couldn't these be affecting everything aspect of science today? That doesn't neccesarily mean ID but it certianly doesn't point away from it, or prove anything

Ok, 1, so what? If some mysterious force is affecting everything all the time in the same way, how does it matter? And 2, you're talking about something with no evidence, no hope of gathering evidence, and no qualms about having no evidence. That is philosophy, not science. We could sit around pontificating about all kinds of things which may or may not exist and which we have no way of finding out, but that isn't science. Science is about evidence.

other then my original point which is we don't know **** about ****.

Ok, 1, you've just lent more weight to my claim that the only people who object to evolution have difficulty telling the difference between "we don't know everything" and "we don't know anything." Before you say another thing, do you in fact understand this difference? And 2, have you ever had a vaccine? Ever taken any drug? Ever flown in an airplane or looked at a weather report? If so, you're quite the hypocrite to go around arguing that science doesn't know anything, so they should just give up on drawing conclusions until they do.

Again, you don't seem to understand that we shouldn't be making conclusions at all. "Really good scientist" will establish this through the way they word their findings, and the way they establish the basis of their facts.

It's obvious that you've never even read a scientific document, if you're under the impression that they don't. Also, the only circumstances under which evolution is stated as a fact (such as primary school), so are the theories of gravity, electro-magentism, nuclear chemistry, plate techtonics, and a dozen other fields. Do you object to them?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

you're suggesting that anyone who does not accept evolution as proven fact is a crackpot.

<sigh>

I'm suggesting that anyone who denies evolution (or any accepted scientific idea) without considering the evidence is a crackpot. Do you disagree?

I don't agree that evolution is a proven theory*.
...
I have something to say about the lack of evidence.

You mean there is a specific piece of evidence that is lacking? What is that exactly?

You see, it's not logical to say "shouldn't there be more evidence around here somewhere," as if evidence were money in your purse and you needed enough to buy something. If there is a "lack of evidence," that means that the evidence we do have is ambiguous: it can support multiple conclusions (reasonably). To that end, how exactly do you explain the evidence I posted earlier, that the human 2nd chromosome is quite clearly a fusion of 2 ancestral ape chromosomes?

*I believe evolution to have alot of merit, however, it is not a proven theory and should not be treated as such.

It isn't, because there is no such thing as a "proof" of a scientific theory. Scientific theories exist only in one of two states: unproven and disproven. The theories that we use are nothing more than guesses which are consistent with all the available evidence and which make predictions of evidence to be gathered in the future. They are strengthened when later evidence is also consistent, but there is no state at which they are "the strongest" or "proven."

I asked you this before but got no answer; I would really like to get one, so I'll ask again:
"Under what conditions, at what theoretical time in the future, would you consider evolution "proven" enough for you? At what point in the progress of human knowledge would you accept that the "race" is won? Would it be after some crucial piece of evidence is gathered, and if so what piece would that be, and how would you know if it has been already? And otherwise, is your answer that no amount of evidence could ever be convincing enough to make evolution "proven?""

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive

Take the idea of extra spatial dimensions (which in many theories involving gravity must exist).
Fourth dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First of all, remember that ID != religion.
ID does not mean having a God or Gods as religion described it.

Actually, ID is religion. It's just Creationism wearing a new set of clothes. If you don't believe me, read up on the Kitzmiller decision from the Dover, PA case last year. Specifically, the textbook that was to be used, Of Pandas and People was shown to have 1) existed in a prior format that specifically spoke about creationism and 2) the only changes made at the time of the case was to replace all references to "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design."

ID has no scientific basis -- there's no research that's been done, or is being done by the ID advocates. All that they're doing is a PR and spin campaign, as they know they can't produce any evidence to sustain their assertions.

[Dakar²]

If ID doesn't mean having a god or gods, what intelligent thing is there left to design?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Devils?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

One of the biggest objections to ID among scientists is that no one can get anyone to describe exactly what ID is...

Well, that, and its absolute complete lack of evidence to support it.

[lpkmckenna]

Ars has a great entry regarding the ID movement: Intelligent design tries to rally its base.

ID has lost in the courts and in the political arena, and it never went anywhere in the scientific community. As a result, its advocates have given up on any pretenses of addressing those audiences, and are trying to retain the interest of their non-scientific supporters, presumably including those who fund the Discovery Institute.

What tiresome twits these anti-evolutionists are.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Ars has a great entry regarding the ID movement: Intelligent design tries to rally its base.

Behe is a clown, no doubt about it, but I've read ars' coverage of the evolution issue before and their writer (Timmer) is intensely biased and condescending against ID, and Behe specifically. But he is good at giving citations. I haven't had a chance yet to listen to all of Behe's talk, but I certainly will before I give any credence to Timmer's claim that ID and/or Behe is embracing creationism, and I suggest you do too.

What tiresome twits these anti-evolutionists are.

I rather enjoy it. Competition is good, in any area I can think of. Look what it did for the space program in the 60s. I can see this issue leading to more thorough and conclusive work done in the field of evolution, better explanations, maybe even more funding. And an earnest attempt to question (not attack, but question) accepted conclusions can only benefit, so long as the questions are honest and logical*. Also, if this issue can get people interested in science, so much the better. On the other hand, if it glamorizes science it may lead to more frauds of the Hwang Woo-suk variety, so maybe it's not so good.

* One part of Behe's talk that I did catch was utterly inane. He claimed that irreducible complexity was supposed to include the fact that the relevant structure retained the same function. The example he gave was a mousetrap, which Ken Miller debunked by saying the spring can be a tooth-pick, and the base can be a paperweight, but which Behe responds doesn't catch any mice (without all its parts). This arguement is hopeless (there is no way to show what functions were performed in the distant past, and even for necessary functions there's no way to deduce which genes were responsible for performing them), and when Behe clings to things like this he really damages his credibility as a logical thinker.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Ars has a great entry regarding the ID movement: Intelligent design tries to rally its base.

What tiresome twits these anti-evolutionists are.

I love the videos. I originally saw it on CSPAN-2.

[Uncle Skeleton]

These are new. They're from the last few months, and they talk about the Dover decision.

I'm still not finished with Behe, then I have to listen to Dawkins and Judge Jones. So far, Behe has made a reasonable case that Jones either didn't understand the testimony or didn't pay attention (which is why I decided to listen to his speech as well). But Behe has said some other pretty silly things too. New things, not the old silly things. And if this is the best he had at trial then Jones wouldn't have had to pay attention to the other side because it's obvious from these that Behe is a charlatan. I really wish someone would ask him if he would be able to recognize an alien "pocketwatch" as design, if he found it in the forest. Out of all the rehashing of old arguments, the one that Behe gets away with that I think he shouldn't is that we could recognize the old pocketwatch from the story because of its intricacy, or its "obvious" purpose; I would argue that we don't recognize either of those things, what we recognize is the specific object, or its components. We already know about watches, and gears and numbers and all the parts, and we identify them specifically. If an alien's designed pocketwatch found its way to earth, how does he know we could tell it from a rock or a pile of dirt, and what makes him think that we could guess its purpose?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Ars has a great entry regarding the ID movement: Intelligent design tries to rally its base.

What tiresome twits these anti-evolutionists are.

Have you read any of my posts?

Is that really neccesary?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I've heard a lot about what ID isn't, why don't you tell us what ID is. This is not a derailment. One of the biggest objections to ID among scientists is that no one can get anyone to describe exactly what ID is, what its predictions are, and how it differs in any way from simply saying either "we don't know," or "evolution is wrong." Before you can argue what is and isn't mutually exclusive with ID, you have to define ID, at least in the context of your own argument.

The definition of ID for my intents and purposes, and as I argue it as a relevant theory (again i'll reiterate that I am NOT an anti-evolutionist) is that our plane of existence (not just the earth, humans, nature, etc), our universe could have been designed with a purpose. It does not imply a supernatural God, or that one continually watches over us, it does not imply religion exclusively (though creationism and religion fall under ID's general theories). It simply implies that the Universe's existence is not simply a fluke in a vast extra-cosmic nothingness. Imagine if there were no Universe. What would there be? So how'd it start? Why? Did something start us off? There are so many questions as to the origin of our Universe's very existence that to deny ID or confirm that our existence was a fluke is wholly arrogant, close-minded, and generally not "good science." It is equally as arrogant and close minded do the opposite as well.

Designed by whom? It is not specified nor does it need to be specified under the theory as i present it to you. Again, I am not trying to prove it as fact, nor am I denying evolution. However, I am calling for "good science" to recognize other possibilities, not based on evidence discovered so far, but instead based on the vastly greater lack of evidence that humans have yet to discover. That is why I argue that evolution not be stated as a proven theory, and that ID be denied as a possibility of our origin. For all we know, animals were designed to evolve*

*AGAIN! I am not claiming to support this theory I am merely recognizing it as one, read my other posts if you are interested on my personal beliefs on evolution

[TETENAL]

So basically you want to find a purpose to life. That is fine, and you can look for that in religion and philosophy, but it's not the task of science. What you misunderstand is that because science does not look for a purpose of things, you believe it states that there is no purpose. That is wrong. Looking for that purpose is just out of scope for science.

[ebuddy]

*Notice to Christians;

A great many of us have either expressed in this thread or in threads prior an unwillingness to accept the scientifically-defined process of evolution. Many of us have tried to argue aspects of evolution and when challenged on those aspects, are silenced. Some (like I have in the past) will engage 6-page threads with the tenacity of a lion, only to either be silenced or agree to disagree yet will return to the next evolution/Creation debate.

- Do you feel science was designed to refute God?
- Do you feel evolution science specifically, was designed to refute God?
- Do you feel the scientific community is lying to you?

I ask the above because a great many Christians have made themselves adversaries to science. They feel that science has become agendized and therefore, opposition to it is obligatory. What we fail to realize is that those opposing science on this issue are lying to you. Those that oppose science on this issue have fashioned their suppositions not in support of a theory of their own, but in opposition to the Theory of Evolution. They are using unsubstantiated rhetoric and when challenged on that rhetoric are silenced just as many of us have been in threads like this one.

I urge you to consider that while you indict science for lacking humility, Christians need to learn to say "I don't know" a little more liberally. I urge you to consider that the Bible, while stacked full of lessons for living in right-order, does not necessarily call us to reject science nor is it a scientific text in and of itself. It answers questions science cannot and science addresses questions the Bible cannot. If you reject the findings and agendas of man and would like to remain alien to it in accordance with Scripture, I wholly understand. To do so using the findings and agendas of other men is flawed logic.

[Kevin]

[Sky Captain]

One thing that saddened me about Dr. Carl Sagan was that he failed to look at the universe from the outside.
He only looked at it's mechanical workings as a staunch observer.
Are we made of star stuff? Why certainly.
But what is star stuff? And matter itself.

[Dakar²]

Well, I think he was pragmatic about such things.

After all what would the answer to you last question be?

[Sky Captain]

You know, I got to meet Dr. Sagan before he died.
I bought my mother one of his books and he and his wife signed it.
I have the greatest respect for him as an astronomer.
But to interject opinion(as a scientist) on the supernatural and it's possible connection with matter itself, steps one up from being and observer to an "expert" or "authority" on the supernatural.
Perhaps I'm oversteping my bounds.

And to answer the question as to what matter really is or madee of at the smallest level, he didn't know.
It hadn't been discovered yet.

[Dakar²]

I'm not sure I caught the gist of what you meant. 'steps one up'?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The definition of ID for my intents and purposes, and as I argue it as a relevant theory (again i'll reiterate that I am NOT an anti-evolutionist) is that our plane of existence (not just the earth, humans, nature, etc), our universe could have been designed with a purpose. It does not imply a supernatural God, or that one continually watches over us, it does not imply religion exclusively (though creationism and religion fall under ID's general theories). It simply implies that the Universe's existence is not simply a fluke in a vast extra-cosmic nothingness.

Why didn't you just say so from the start? This thread is what happens when you don't define terms.

You are NOT arguing in favor of "Intelligent Design"; you have merely fallen for their propaganda trick.

The term "Intelligent Design" didn't EXIST until it became apparent that creationism had absolutely no argumentative or scientific basis beyond literalist interpretations of scripture. The term "Intelligent Design" is nothing but a rebranding of that, implemented just in the past few years when Christian fundamentalists who argued that this was "science" had become a world-wide laughing-stock. In fact, it has been mentioned numerous times that some of these controversial textbooks are in fact old ones with no edits whatsoever except that the word "creationism" was replaced with the words "intelligent design".

And it appears to work because the term itself is a misappropriation designed to make otherwise sensible people think it worth arguing for. You have been arguing in favor of what you thought "Intelligent Design" might mean.

You're just an evolutionist who believes in God. There is no argument here, because evolution and presence/absence of God have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER. They are neither dependent upon one another, nor are they mutually exclusive.

In fact, the beauty and intricacy that can arise from a few simple rules in a given system can very well be seen as testament to the glory of God.

[Sky Captain]

Goes from being a observer and recorder of information to implying opinion os fact.
As a respected scientific public figure, I believe it's their responsibility not to interject opinion as possible fact.
As a (I believe explorotory)scientist, he is supposed to keep an open mind on the possibilities of things we can't comprehend as possible.
Worm holes, multiple dimensions are possible in his world, yet no all encompassing "spirit" or "soul collective "
No looking beyong matter and the physical. But yet time is not of the physical, only affects the physical.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Goes from being a observer and recorder of information to implying opinion os fact.

Ok, I thought you were saying that but I wanted to be sure.
Honestly, it sounds like you're way more familiar with him than I am. What few shows I watched with him growing up I never noticed it.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

No looking beyong matter and the physical. But yet time is not of the physical, only affects the physical.

It's an interesting thought. All I know is, if it weren't for time, existence would be something very different.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The definition of ID for my intents and purposes, and as I argue it as a relevant theory (again i'll reiterate that I am NOT an anti-evolutionist) is that our plane of existence (not just the earth, humans, nature, etc), our universe could have been designed with a purpose. It does not imply a supernatural God, or that one continually watches over us, it does not imply religion exclusively (though creationism and religion fall under ID's general theories). It simply implies that the Universe's existence is not simply a fluke in a vast extra-cosmic nothingness. Imagine if there were no Universe. What would there be? So how'd it start? Why? Did something start us off? There are so many questions as to the origin of our Universe's very existence that to deny ID or confirm that our existence was a fluke is wholly arrogant, close-minded, and generally not "good science."

So you are re-defining ID as a cosmological term? That's great, but it has nothing to do with ID as defined by the Discovery Institute. Cosmology and biology are separate sciences. Evolution is about the development of species, not the origin of the universe.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*Notice to Christians;

A great many of us have either expressed in this thread or in threads prior an unwillingness to accept the scientifically-defined process of evolution. Many of us have tried to argue aspects of evolution and when challenged on those aspects, are silenced. Some (like I have in the past) will engage 6-page threads with the tenacity of a lion, only to either be silenced or agree to disagree yet will return to the next evolution/Creation debate.

- Do you feel science was designed to refute God?
- Do you feel evolution science specifically, was designed to refute God?
- Do you feel the scientific community is lying to you?

I ask the above because a great many Christians have made themselves adversaries to science. They feel that science has become agendized and therefore, opposition to it is obligatory. What we fail to realize is that those opposing science on this issue are lying to you. Those that oppose science on this issue have fashioned their suppositions not in support of a theory of their own, but in opposition to the Theory of Evolution. They are using unsubstantiated rhetoric and when challenged on that rhetoric are silenced just as many of us have been in threads like this one.

I urge you to consider that while you indict science for lacking humility, Christians need to learn to say "I don't know" a little more liberally. I urge you to consider that the Bible, while stacked full of lessons for living in right-order, does not necessarily call us to reject science nor is it a scientific text in and of itself. It answers questions science cannot and science addresses questions the Bible cannot. If you reject the findings and agendas of man and would like to remain alien to it in accordance with Scripture, I wholly understand. To do so using the findings and agendas of other men is flawed logic.

[Chuckit]

EDIT: Never mind.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*Notice to Christians;

A great many of us have either expressed in this thread or in threads prior an unwillingness to accept the scientifically-defined process of evolution. Many of us have tried to argue aspects of evolution and when challenged on those aspects, are silenced. Some (like I have in the past) will engage 6-page threads with the tenacity of a lion, only to either be silenced or agree to disagree yet will return to the next evolution/Creation debate.

- Do you feel science was designed to refute God?
- Do you feel evolution science specifically, was designed to refute God?
- Do you feel the scientific community is lying to you?

I ask the above because a great many Christians have made themselves adversaries to science. They feel that science has become agendized and therefore, opposition to it is obligatory. What we fail to realize is that those opposing science on this issue are lying to you. Those that oppose science on this issue have fashioned their suppositions not in support of a theory of their own, but in opposition to the Theory of Evolution. They are using unsubstantiated rhetoric and when challenged on that rhetoric are silenced just as many of us have been in threads like this one.

I urge you to consider that while you indict science for lacking humility, Christians need to learn to say "I don't know" a little more liberally. I urge you to consider that the Bible, while stacked full of lessons for living in right-order, does not necessarily call us to reject science nor is it a scientific text in and of itself. It answers questions science cannot and science addresses questions the Bible cannot. If you reject the findings and agendas of man and would like to remain alien to it in accordance with Scripture, I wholly understand. To do so using the findings and agendas of other men is flawed logic.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

There are so many questions as to the origin of our Universe's very existence that to deny ID or confirm that our existence was a fluke is wholly arrogant, close-minded, and generally not "good science." It is equally as arrogant and close minded do the opposite as well.

In other words, it would be bad to deny that our existence is a fluke. You seem to be under the impression that science claims this "fluke." It doesn't. It merely proceeds as if this "fluke" were true, because without evidence to the contrary there is no way to do otherwise. But this is all irrelevant, because without knowing who or what designed the universe and where they are now, there is no difference between how we proceed with science under either assumption. It doesn't matter whether the universe is designed or not, we still take the same steps in investigating the properties of that universe.

It is of utmost importance to this thread however, that you understand this: evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Do you understand that?

However, I am calling for "good science" to recognize other possibilities, not based on evidence discovered so far, but instead based on the vastly greater lack of evidence that humans have yet to discover.

Science is not interested in possibilities that are only relevant in their lack of evidence. It does not confirm or deny the possibility that Scientologists are correct in whatever weird things they believe, nor whether electrons taste like grape-ade. It just doesn't care. But that aside, you're saying that science should present both theories that are supported by evidence and theories that are not. By that reasoning, we should say that the Earth is probably round, but also that it might be flat (if we choose to ignore all the evidence gathered that it is round). Also, it might be all the other shapes. And at any point in the past, it might have changed shape from circle to trapezoid to the shape of the statue of liberty, and we say this due to the vastly greater lack of evidence for or against these things. That's what your statement implies, and it's wrong.

Maybe you need to be more specific by what you mean when you say "vastly greater lack of evidence." What is it exactly? Is this also just something your 7th grade teacher told you, that there is a vast lack of evidence?

That is why I argue that evolution not be stated as a proven theory, and that ID be denied as a possibility of our origin.

Maybe this is the confusion. No one denies ID as a possibility, even the kind of ID that says plants and animals were explicitly created, contrary to evolution. It's in the same boat as the "Earth is really a cube, that simply looks like a sphere when viewed optically and by all the other measurements we have done" possibility. It's irrelevant until there is evidence.

Let me say it another way. If people were denying the possibility of ID, they would prevent people like Michael Behe from doing experiments to try to demonstrate its validity. But they're not. Behe is allowed to do all the experiments he wants. If anything is preventing him from finding evidence of ID, it's reality and the fact that ID is false and the evidence isn't there to be found.

For all we know, animals were designed to evolve*

*AGAIN! I am not claiming to support this theory I am merely recognizing it as one, read my other posts if you are interested on my personal beliefs on evolution

"For all we know" is bad science. It can become good science with nothing more than an experiment, which changes "for all we know" into "by this it is demonstrated." Experiments are what separate science from philosophy. Philosophy is about sitting around coming up with strange ideas about how the world (or universe) *might* be. Science is about testing those ideas to find out how the world *is*.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe this is the confusion. No one denies ID as a possibility, even the kind of ID that says plants and animals were explicitly created, contrary to evolution. It's in the same boat as the "Earth is really a cube, that simply looks like a sphere when viewed optically and by all the other measurements we have done" possibility. It's irrelevant until there is evidence.

Quoted for emphasis.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

So basically you want to find a purpose to life. That is fine, and you can look for that in religion and philosophy, but it's not the task of science. What you misunderstand is that because science does not look for a purpose of things, you believe it states that there is no purpose. That is wrong. Looking for that purpose is just out of scope for science.

Do me a favor and don't respond to my posts unless you actually read them.

Thanks.

Maybe this is the confusion. No one denies ID as a possibility, even the kind of ID that says plants and animals were explicitly created, contrary to evolution. It's in the same boat as the "Earth is really a cube, that simply looks like a sphere when viewed optically and by all the other measurements we have done" possibility. It's irrelevant until there is evidence.

Let me say it another way. If people were denying the possibility of ID, they would prevent people like Michael Behe from doing experiments to try to demonstrate its validity. But they're not. Behe is allowed to do all the experiments he wants. If anything is preventing him from finding evidence of ID, it's reality and the fact that ID is false and the evidence isn't there to be found.

But you say in the same passage that "no one denies ID as a possibility" and "the fact that ID is false". You're denying it right there.

My whole point this entire time is not to do anything other then establish the fact that modern science knows little of our origins. I do not agree with concluding a theory false until evidence supporting it is found, and i also do not agree with concluding a theory true simply because its the only theory with evidence supporting it. It should not be concluded true until it has enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt in it.

Good science will not say a theory is false until they can demonstrate evidence against it. There is NO EVIDENCE against ID. There is also no evidence for it. Therefore, to confirm or deny it is not good science. We simply don't know. That is my argument. I argue nothing else here.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

So you are re-defining ID as a cosmological term? That's great, but it has nothing to do with ID as defined by the Discovery Institute. Cosmology and biology are separate sciences. Evolution is about the development of species, not the origin of the universe.

and the discovery institute's definition has nothing to do with my arguments, why bring it up?

I've laid out the exact specifications for the theory I'm arguing about. I have not stated i believe in the theory, I have not stated that i'm denying the theory, I'm just trying to make a point as I've stated above.


The origin of our Universe could have alot to do with evolution, especially under ID.

[Kevin]

Mods can you lock this please?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Do me a favor and don't respond to my posts unless you actually read them.

Snarky much?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Good science will not say a theory is false until they can demonstrate evidence against it. There is NO EVIDENCE against ID. There is also no evidence for it. Therefore, to confirm or deny it is not good science. We simply don't know. That is my argument. I argue nothing else here.

Nonsensical gibberish. If there is no evidence for it, by onus of proof the theory fails.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

and the discovery institute's definition has nothing to do with my arguments, why bring it up?

I've laid out the exact specifications for the theory I'm arguing about. I have not stated i believe in the theory, I have not stated that i'm denying the theory, I'm just trying to make a point as I've stated above.

The term "Intelligent Design" was created by the Discovery Institute to re-package creationism. You may wish to re-define it, but I'm not interested.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Mods can you lock this please?

Mods, please ignore this request. Some of us are still interested in this subject.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

[b]Good science will not say a theory is false until they can demonstrate evidence against it. There is NO EVIDENCE against ID.

That's because there's no evidence in favor of ID to disprove. ID is in the same place as the "theory" that I am actually standing behind you, invisible, right now with an army of other-dimensional shadow soldiers. We can't disprove things that have no evidence for or against them, but we can generally assume such ideas to be false until evidence is found to the contrary.

Also, I put "theory" in quotes because, with no evidence for or against it, ID is not a theory. It's just an idea with no scientific value. A theory much be testable and, consequently, have predictive capabilities. ID does not fit these criteria.

[vmarks]

Hi.

What you all lost sight of in your rush to defend your positions was that this thread was about a textbook that allegedly took an offensive stance on religion, and a child suing over it.

What has been interesting to watch is the vehemence with which people defend their faith in science, as they deride others for their faith placed elsewhere.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

What has been interesting to watch is the vehemence with which people defend their faith in science, as they deride others for their faith placed elsewhere.

Don't flamebait, dude. You know better.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Don't flamebait, dude. You know better.

Not baiting. Observing what has taken place. It would be different if I had posted that as a prediction on the first page, but it's after the fact on the 6th.

Some folks won't like it because it's placing the two faiths in equivalence, where each party would claim dominance - but then, that's a part of the observation.

That's really a part of what's at the root of this thread: there was no need for the science text to address religion, much less take an offensive stance on it. Just as there was no need for the defenders of science in this thread to flame all over those who place their faith in religion.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Some folks won't like it because it's placing the two faiths in equivalence

Some folks don't like how other folks seem to have lost the ability to distinguish between simple belief and faith — which is a special category of belief that applies to religion but, by definition, not so much to science. People may have faith in science just like they can have faith in anything, but that doesn't mean science is a faith.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

That's really a part of what's at the root of this thread: there was no need for the science text to address religion, much less take an offensive stance on it. Just as there was no need for the defenders of science in this thread to flame all over those who place their faith in religion.

Can you show me where this was happening? Because all I keep seeing is people saying, "Science has nothing to do with religion. Don't confuse the two." I would hardly say that's flaming.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

What has been interesting to watch is the vehemence with which people defend their faith in science, as they deride others for their faith placed elsewhere.

What color is the sky in your world?

Vehemence and derision have been the touchstones of a few anti-science members here, not the pro-science members.

And as Chuckit has demonstrated, "faith in science" is an oxymoron. It's not faith, but confidence in science.

ADDED:

Originally Posted by vmarks

What you all lost sight of in your rush to defend your positions was that this thread was about a textbook that allegedly took an offensive stance on religion, and a child suing over it.

I didn't lose sight of that at all. I haven't seen the textbook myself, and I'm not inclined to accept this complaining student's allegations at face value. Frankly, I expect creationists to be hyper-sensitive about perceived/imagined slights.

"The biology textbook generally refers to religion and the existence of God in a negative way. It infringes on believers‘ rights," she said in comments carried by Russian television stations.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Blasphemy]

You are all misguided. Scientology is the way!!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But you say in the same passage that "no one denies ID as a possibility" and "the fact that ID is false". You're denying it right there.

If you read carefully, I didn't say it is false, I said if anything is keeping Behe from finding evidence of its truth, other people are not keeping him from doing so, it's the error of his hypothesis that is. Regardless of whether or not something can be proved scientifically true or false, some things are objectively false, do you agree?

My whole point this entire time is not to do anything other then establish the fact that modern science knows little of our origins.

It's time for you to put up or shut up on this point. Science knows a great deal about our origins, and it's becoming clear that you simply have no desire to educate yourself on what science does or doesn't actually know before you cast judgement on that knowledge. So before anyone takes your opinion seriously, you had better demonstrate that you actually do know the scientific basis for evolution, and why exactly you think it's inadequate.

I do not agree with concluding a theory false until evidence supporting it is found, and i also do not agree with concluding a theory true simply because its the only theory with evidence supporting it. It should not be concluded true until it has enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt in it.

You're basically saying you disagree with the scientific method. Fine, don't use it. But it hardly puts you in a position to complain about what scientific conclusions are adopted by others.

[lpkmckenna]

One thing is certain: there's a lot of money to be made selling snake-oil.

[vmarks]

I don't think he demonstrated much of anything. He stated something, but there was no demonstration.

But who is anti-religion and derisive?

Lpmckenna does it when he says that any person with a view other than evolution is a tiresome twit.

DCMacdaddy did it when he could come up with no better response than "wow, got some sand in your vagina?"

Chuckit didn't go as far as DCMacdaddy did, but he did say ""These are widely held views" has jack **** to do with science. What's next, we teach intelligent falling in physics classes?

Guess what? Science has given us all the modern wonders we see today. Pretending that we don't know what we know just so some fuzzy feel-goods can avoid any conflict isn't the answer."

Then we watched Uncle Skeleton get into a verbal tussle over 'rising stars' who were unworthy to respond to him. He sets himself up as the defender of civil debate while justifying calling anyone who doesn't adhere strictly and only to evolution (Not because science says it's absolute truth, but because it's the best theory going under supportable evidence) by the label 'stupid'

Voodoo got it correct on page 4 when he noted that the collective hive-mind of MacNN decided to derail the thread completely.



The thread is about a textbook that took an offensive approach to religion.

The best thing to come out of it is wiskedjak's theory of creation, which I will call "The Jackson Pollack creationism theory" -

where wiskedjak wrote "Except that we have multiple painters trying to take credit ... including one claim that the painting isn't really a painting but rather a bunch of paint that happened to splash onto a canvas."

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

But who is anti-religion and derisive?

Lpmckenna does it when he says that any person with a view other than evolution is a tiresome twit.

Uh, read that statement in context. I said "what tiresome twits these anti-evolutionists are," these being the members of the Discovery Institute who I was commenting on.

Even though I'm an atheist, I'm not anti-religion, merely anti-creationist (and other politicized religious movements).

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The thread is about a textbook that took an offensive approach to religion.

Allegedly. As I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I don't think he demonstrated much of anything. He stated something, but there was no demonstration.

I agree. Allow me to elaborate.

Going by the standard definition of "faith" and the standard definition of "science," one cannot be the other any more than a square can be a circle. Faith is a steadfast belief not dependent on evidence — jumping backwards into a crowd of people who will catch you is one overused example. Science, on the other hand, is all about looking at the evidence and applying logic and experimental methodology to it in order to determine what to believe.

It is possible for a person both to have faith and take a scientific approach to things, but it is not possible for your faith to be scientific or for science to be based in faith. If it's scientific, it isn't faith. If it's faith, it isn't scientific. One is all about conclusions derived from evidence, while the other is all about conviction.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Chuckit didn't go as far as DCMacdaddy did, but he did say ""These are widely held views" has jack **** to do with science. What's next, we teach intelligent falling in physics classes?

Guess what? Science has given us all the modern wonders we see today. Pretending that we don't know what we know just so some fuzzy feel-goods can avoid any conflict isn't the answer."

So? What's your complaint with it? I'm not allowed to assert that we know what we know? I didn't flame anybody, I didn't bash religion. I just said that it's not right to feign ignorance just because some people don't want to hear what we know.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

But who is anti-religion and derisive?

Lpmckenna does it when he says that any person with a view other than evolution is a tiresome twit.

DCMacdaddy did it when he could come up with no better response than "wow, got some sand in your vagina?"

Chuckit didn't go as far as DCMacdaddy did, but he did say ""These are widely held views" has jack **** to do with science. What's next, we teach intelligent falling in physics classes?

Guess what? Science has given us all the modern wonders we see today. Pretending that we don't know what we know just so some fuzzy feel-goods can avoid any conflict isn't the answer."

Then we watched Uncle Skeleton get into a verbal tussle over 'rising stars' who were unworthy to respond to him. He sets himself up as the defender of civil debate while justifying calling anyone who doesn't adhere strictly and only to evolution (Not because science says it's absolute truth, but because it's the best theory going under supportable evidence) by the label 'stupid'

So who is anti-religion? None of those things mention religion, even if we take your interpretation at face value. But lets go through them one by one so you can see where you're wrong:

Lpmckenna does it when he says that any person with a view other than evolution is a tiresome twit. He didn't say any person with a view other than evolution, he said "These anti-evolutionists." I won't argue that he meant specifically These ones, although since he was quoting a particular action by an anti-evolutionist group that would be the most reasonable interpretation. I will argue that peope who are "anti-evolution" are not "anyone with a view other than evolution." Because they're not. If you are actively anti-evolution, you've already set yourself up as the devisive one. Any criticism coming your way is exactly what you asked for.

DCMacdaddy did it when he could come up with no better response than "wow, got some sand in your vagina?" That was followed by a well-reasoned and relevant response. It was hardly "no better response."

Chuckit didn't go as far as DCMacdaddy did, but he did say ""These are widely held views" has jack **** to do with science. What's next, we teach intelligent falling in physics classes? Guess what? Science has given us all the modern wonders we see today. Pretending that we don't know what we know just so some fuzzy feel-goods can avoid any conflict isn't the answer." What's even wrong with that, it's the god's honest truth.

Then we watched Uncle Skeleton get into a verbal tussle over 'rising stars' who were unworthy to respond to him. He sets himself up as the defender of civil debate while justifying calling anyone who doesn't adhere strictly and only to evolution (Not because science says it's absolute truth, but because it's the best theory going under supportable evidence) by the label 'stupid'

Of ignorance. Rising star of ignorance. And jumping to the wrong conclusion after declining to look at the evidence is the textbook definition of ignorance. Stupendousman has brought that same tired argument before, it's been destroyed, and rather than even acknowledge this he brings it right back again with no support for it. I however have presented numerous occasions for him to explain evidence which shows strong support for evolution, and he has ignored it completely, Snow-i too.

Meanwhile, the divisiveness started with Doofy: "I'd have hoped that those defending science would be a little more accurate in their observations." Why didn't you mention that? Because you'd decided it was the pro-evolution side's fault?

If you're so keen to nanny this thread, why don't you ask them why they don't care about evidence? Oh yeah, to you evidence is nothing more than another "faith." I'll address my question to you then, sir: on what basis do you claim that empirical evidence is no more relevant to science than blind faith is (to science)?

Voodoo got it correct on page 4 when he noted that the collective hive-mind of MacNN decided to derail the thread completely.

The original topic was discussed to completeness. Several different entirely reasonable explanations were given for why the textbook might be biased, and for why the student might be biased. With no opportunity to gather more information about this case, that's as far as we can go on it. Some people wish to linger and discuss the merits of evolution in general, so what's your problem? Taking up valuable first-page space? It's not like you have anything more to say about the original topic:

The thread is about a textbook that took an offensive approach to religion.

What about it? Do you have anything to say about it, or did you just come in here to cast stones?

The best thing to come out of it is wiskedjak's theory of creation, which I will call "The Jackson Pollack creationism theory" -

where wiskedjak wrote "Except that we have multiple painters trying to take credit ... including one claim that the painting isn't really a painting but rather a bunch of paint that happened to splash onto a canvas."

Yes, that's clever, but it doesn't apply to evolution, since evolution is not a theory of the creation of life. Furthermore, we don't have "multiple painters trying to take credit," we have multiple special interest groups trying to assign credit to others, and we have a mountain of forensic evidence, all of which supports the "paint happened to splash" hypothesis and none of which supports the other painters. Do you ever consider evidence to be different from blind faith, and if so, why not here?

[vmarks]

There you go again.

What was it I said about vehemence and derision?

Couldn't you find any way to voice your rebuttals without the simple rudeness that you have throughout this whole thread?

Please note, I'm not arguing any position on evolution, creationism, ID, or any other funny name that someone should invent. I'm pointing out where it all went off the rails in this thread.

I'm characteristically the first person to reject arguments made out of false equivalences, moral, evidential, or otherwise. I see a lot of the people who make moral equivalence arguments in other threads rejecting equivalence arguments here. Now I'll be able to tell when one of those posters is inconsistent in future threads by their disapproval of equivalence here and their endorsement of it in said future thread. Thank you.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

There you go again.

What was it I said about vehemence and derision?

Couldn't you find any way to voice your rebuttals without the simple rudeness that you have throughout this whole thread?

Please note, I'm not arguing any position on evolution, creationism, ID, or any other funny name that someone should invent. I'm pointing out where it all went off the rails in this thread.

I'm characteristically the first person to reject arguments made out of false equivalences, moral, evidential, or otherwise. I see a lot of the people who make moral equivalence arguments in other threads rejecting equivalence arguments here. Now I'll be able to tell when one of those posters is inconsistent in future threads by their disapproval of equivalence here and their endorsement of it in said future thread. Thank you.

Jigga who?