quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Actually he has only recently rejoined it, he left the thread and the forum many pages ago (page 3 or such, I can't remember) apparently because the forum wasn't "challenging" enough. This was right after he refused to read my posts or visit my supporting links that refuted his claim that Punctuated equilibrium had no evidence for it.

well he stays longer than DS

quote:oparin/haldane theory in the 1920s and the miller/urey experiment in the 1950s were never requiered to solve abiogenesis.

The sole purpose of the inquiry was to solve the seemingly insoluble in purely materialistic terms. Consider what other applicable purpose it could have possibly served? And to be sure that the study was out of morbid interest to supplant the need and role of an Intelligence beyond us through some capricious force:

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

quote:over fourty years earlier darwin and wallace proposed the idea of natural selection and evolution which stand regardless of how and when life began.

The obvious question stemming from the ToE was how could have ever taken place without the need of Special Creation? Darwin, writing to Lyel who was concerned that a Creator would be unduly supplanted, comforted Lyell by explaining that if he had any reason to believe that none of the alleged transitions were neccessary for any Higher Power to impel those actions.

quote:if nothing happens without causation, doesn't god also need a cause?

Did you even read the syllabus I provided? If you keep reducing the material universe into nothing, then something by neccessity must be eternal. If the universe itself is composed of material units, then something must be eternal for anything to exist. And again, we don't have to define the something, only recognize that it must exist. And that line of thinking is what ID is all about, NOT about promoting YHWH. That aspect comes from personal belief.

quote:of course, this suggests that there was always something. keep in mind that that something has to be part of the universe.

The universe does not need matter or energy to exist neccessarily, however, matter and energy must have time-space. So for it to come from absolute nothingness, then a force that exists outside of the time-space domain is required for anything to be actual. Some people think that if God exists, He needs the universe to exist. But this logic breaks down. If someone destroys a painting, the Painter won't cease to exist without the painting.

quote:first off, most evolutionists are not atheists but believe in god. second off, big bang theory and the origens of the universe do not effect evolutionary theory.

Without cosmological evolution, there could be no chemical evolution. Without a chemical evolution there could not be a biological evolution. So if you are missing step one, the whole deck of cards will fall. Like I said, its only be a recent advent that evolutionists decry that the origin of life is inconsequential to its propagation. And this is only because they have a difficult time accounting for a purely naturalistic explanation that doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics. In other words, they don't like the implications so they simply dismiss it as if it doesn't really present a problem.



quote:currently scientists believe there was a 'singularity.' but we certainly don't "know" this from observation. this really illustrates a lack of scientific competence.

Well, then I guess we should all be Nihilists instead of using inductive and deductive reasoning.

quote:this thread is about id/creationism being taught in the science classroom as scientific theory, not in a religion or philosophy course where it would be quite welcome.

Right, and how many times did I mention that only to have people ask me to provide some logical evidence for ID. Now that I've done that in the simplest way possible without recieving an actual refutation by anyone, its suddenly a problem.

quote:this is ridiculous. can an infinite function only have one value for the range?

If you can demonstrate if anything has an infinite set of numbers outside of an abstract mathematical theorem, I will concede that an actual infinite can exist. But if not, then it shall remain that such cannot exist in actuality. And before you go thinking that all the stars just might be infinite because no one has ever been able to quantify an amount, this argument fails because an actual infinite cannot be subtracted from either. And we've witnessed stellar death.

quote:because of the overwelming geologic, biological, and genetic evidence that suppors evolution from a common ancestor?

There isn't overwhelming evidence that supports any macroevolutionary model, though I would agree that if such a process existed, as Darwin said, assuredly if his theory were true there would be innumerable evidences of such. Well, that 137 years ago and we're still waiting for one unambiguous, undeniable, and indisputable evidence of such a series of gradations.

quote:keep in mind that we asked for emperical evidence for a scientific theory that opposes evolution.

I just did. There are only two choices from which to choose from. Life is either intentional or unintentional. If life was some sort of capricious and arbitrary, abstract force, then how is it that it wins the lottery every day?

quote:apply the analouge of P1 to P2 and you have an infinite regress, which P1 and P2 claimed was not possible. therefore P1P2 is not valid.

Which subset of P1 and P2 are you referring to, being that they each have many units. They are number for your convenience, i.e. 2.1, 3.11, 4.12, etc.. I don't understand your objection. Can you elaborate?

quote:wait a minute. darwin said complex organ. that's because darwin was never concerned about the begining of life.

All of life is composed of DNA strands, which Darwin was unaware of at his time. But if you'd like to start with a more conventional approach, I suppose we could start with whatever component exists on any organsim. He understood the basics about heredity, but even he made some serious errors concerning it. For instance, Darwin believed that if a man, for instance, grew strong musculature, that his offspring would inherent the fruits of the father's labor. But that's far from being true.

quote:yes, it is incredible. can you provide me with some mathematical numbers for the likelyhood of god?

Mathematical numbers for the liklihood of God? That's a non sequitor. I could no more mathematically prove the existence of God any more than I could mathematically prove the existence of love. What I can do, however, is provide the quantification of the liklihood of life originating at random. And I've just done that.

quote:evolution is not unfounded. as has been said many times, an evolutionist can believe in creation by god and also in evolution.

I believe in an evolution of sorts. What I don't believe in is the classical theory of evolution that all living organisms ultimately spawned from one specie to the next. The reason I don't believe that is because there is no evidence that would compel me to believe as such. Given the fact that are easily over a billion extant species available, arguably as many extinct, and over a million fossil remains housed in universities and museums worldwide, that they should be unable to give a logical exegesis of such an evolutionary process, is insuperable

quote:it is clear from fossils, comparative anatomy, and dna that we all share a common ancestor.

No, this is a typical logical fallacy. What we know is that all organisms are composed of DNA, and that DNA/RNA and Homeobox protein sequences will determine what an organism will look like. The flaw in it is, if a Dolphin's configuration was more similar to a humans, then the Dolphin would appear to be, both visually and genetically, similar to one another. In other words, appearance means nothing as far as lineage, only a percieved lineage. It could easily be said that simians just so happen to the organisms that are most closely sequenced as humans. That does absolutely nothing to prove that one came from the other. That is a true, blue logical fallacy from head to toe, and an evolutionist argument from incredulity.

quote:irreducible complexity is about a complex organ like the eye or something. who attacks what? what are you even talking about? evolutionists don't attack anything.

From the moment I stepped back in here I've been bashed over the head for my beliefs. I think my initial post was unassuming and polite. I thought a two to three month hiatus from you guys make quell any animosity that you feel towards me, but I was wrong. As well, you have routinely attacked my wife. Now that I am gone, that leaves her being the sole proprietor of the attack. She enjoys answering all of your guys questions, but if you are too close inside the forest to see the trees, so to speak, you guys tend to ask the exact same questions. In lieu, she gets to repeat herself constantly. So, to answer your questions, she asked if I would come back for a few days, or whatever, to alleviate the daunting task of answering 50 posts by herself. But, I suspect that it still won't help. Whenever a creationist comes in, its a veritable feeding frenzy in here. I, myself, have upwards of 20 posts to answer. DS and I simply can't go to work, raise kids, clean the house, make dinner, go to school, and maintain everyone's happiness on Totse. So, the nasty remarks that she is "running away" is ridiculous, especially when she actually researches the information in her posts as opposed to some slippery slop argument.

I'm already growing disenchanted again.

...

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 08-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Has it ever crossed your mind that you are just ignorant to the facts and that the people who reject evolution reject it on scientific merit and not because of a religious belief?

And good sir has it ever crossed your mind that I just made an observation about Christian Evengalicals based on the information that I got based on what I observe, gather research, and deduce based on pure simple logic and nothing more or nothing less? Oh wait a minute that is called scientific deduction. Sorry, my bad for using science in a supposed religious thread started by your wife.

I am far from ignorant from the facts of evolution and I know for a FACT that the majority of what people dismiss evolution on religious, and not scientific dogma. Evolution is a theory, and a strong one at that because it has the backing of the fossil record. I have yet to see any sound evidence backing Creationism or ID for that matter and so has the scientific community.

quote:There is a large number of people who are simply imbued by the notion of evolution but know nothing about it themselves outside of some nominal academic understanding.

Science and academics usually go hand in hand. Since the theory of evolution is a scientific theory of course a large number of people are not going to know about it outside some nominal academic understanding. That is why buddding scientists go to universities and veterans stay and teach them in universities as professors. Oh and one other thing, most universities in the united states have been either founded by or supported by the religious community. Norte Dame and Brigham Young for example. Heck Willamette University was founded by Jason Lee, a Methodist and it is the oldest University west of the Mississippi.

quote:And so, they end up appealing to authority and taking their faith concerning evolution on the basis of whom they consider 'expert testimony.'

What's this expert testimony? Is it uhhh....Hmmm....Fellow scientists perhaps? You sure do not see scientists appealing to an authority figure such as a pastor or God for that matter. That would be foolish. Scientific faith and religious faith are both different faiths, Scientific faith questions and grows, religious faith does not do either.

quote:But most evolutionists feel that the word 'faith' is some sort of dirty epithet even though upwards of 95% of their knowledge derives from an informed faith.

Where is this 95% of evolutionists derive their knowledge from an imformed faith and what is this informed faith you are talking about? Sounds like hersey to me.

quote:Evolution is a powerful dogma and the adherents have been force-fed propaganda, consequently, the same kind of propaganda they charge Christians with.

Christians are hardly innocent of feeding their own propaganda to the masses by attacking the scientific community because it is well known that when scientists come up with a strong theory that is backed with scientific evidence that Evenglengical Christians consider blasmephous because it does not agree with the bible, the word of God. Galleo Gallei and John Scopes are prime examples of what happens to scientists who come up with and the teachers who teach scientific theory to the masses.

quote:I grew up believing in evolution because it was taught to me, not a Creator. Through experience, I came to realize that I was taught a lie.

I was taught the theory of evolution as well and it has always made sense to me and I believe that it is a strong theory. Evolution is, and never was, implied as the be all on the orgins of life and I was never taught as such nor do I believe it to be as such. The evidence of the theory of evolution does not exist of how life orginated on this planet.

quote:So, perhaps you just don't know any better.

Perhaps I do, and perhaps I do not. Perhaps I do not care what you think of me or what I think of you. To be honest, totally irrelevent in this thread of if I do or do not know any better. But the fact is that I am a very observant person who is never satisifed with just believing in something or taking it "as is." My observances and opnions are just that, opnions and observances that I make of the world around me. Whatever you agree to them or not, think I am right or wrong does not matter to me one bit. But do not think for a second that I will not voice my opnion or defend myself when I am being attacked. If my opnion and observations are wrong, then it is wrong and I challenge anyone to tell me what is wrong with it. I can admit that I am wrong and change my observations, opnions, and theories to what I think is right.

So, maybe you do not know any better? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

look, i'm not going to sit here and argue philosophy with you hyro. all you have posted is philosophy. what we are after is emperical scientific evidence. if you can provide some scientific evidence for id theory, then perhaps it should be taught in the science classroom.

arguing that the universe had to have a force outside of space and time to create it doesn't imply an intelligent creation, and even if it does it is well outside of the realm of the science classroom.

Hyro:

"answer the questions given to you."

-Hyroglyphx

So, do you follow your own statements?

(I will laugh if the answer is "What questions?" or "I already have.")

quote:Originally posted by hyro: The sole purpose of the inquiry was to solve the seemingly insoluble in purely materialistic terms. Consider what other applicable purpose it could have possibly served? And to be sure that the study was out of morbid interest to supplant the need and role of an Intelligence beyond us through some capricious force: http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html



And the results supported the theory of abiogenesis.



quote:The obvious question stemming from the ToE was how could have ever taken place without the need of Special Creation? Darwin, writing to Lyel who was concerned that a Creator would be unduly supplanted, comforted Lyell by explaining that if he had any reason to believe that none of the alleged transitions were neccessary for any Higher Power to impel those actions.

And the obvious questions stemming from ID are what is this designer and how did this designer arise. Notice how the questions stemming from evolution can actually be supported/refuted though (and have been supported thus far), while those from ID cannot.



quote:Did you even read the syllabus I provided? If you keep reducing the material universe into nothing, then something by neccessity must be eternal. If the universe itself is composed of material units, then something must be eternal for anything to exist. And again, we don't have to define the something, only recognize that it must exist. And that line of thinking is what ID is all about, NOT about promoting YHWH. That aspect comes from personal belief.

You have basically just reduced ID to saying that "causality must be true in all cases." Let's assume you are right on this for the moment, then what is to say that is eternal "something" is "intelligent?"

quote:The universe does not need matter or energy to exist neccessarily, however, matter and energy must have time-space. So for it to come from absolute nothingness, then a force that exists outside of the time-space domain is required for anything to be actual. Some people think that if God exists, He needs the universe to exist. But this logic breaks down. If someone destroys a painting, the Painter won't cease to exist without the painting.

Why are you engaging in these non-ID related discussions, while ignoring criticism specific to ID?

quote:Without cosmological evolution, there could be no chemical evolution. Without a chemical evolution there could not be a biological evolution. So if you are missing step one, the whole deck of cards will fall. Like I said, its only be a recent advent that evolutionists decry that the origin of life is inconsequential to its propagation. And this is only because they have a difficult time accounting for a purely naturalistic explanation that doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics. In other words, they don't like the implications so they simply dismiss it as if it doesn't really present a problem.

Logical fallacy. God could simply have acted in any of those steps. Besides evolution does not violate the second law 9f thermodynamics. Have you actaully study the mathmatics behind the second law, have you manipulated its equations, how you solved real life problems with it? I have studied biochemistry intensively, and my professor for thermodynamics even specialized in self organizing systems. Life poses no problem at all for thermodynamics, this is pure creationist propaganda that has been refuted repeatedly and yet you continue to spread it.

quote:Well, then I guess we should all be Nihilists instead of using inductive and deductive reasoning.

Accepting the fact that there is no good explanation doesn't make one a Nihilist.



quote:Right, and how many times did I mention that only to have people ask me to provide some logical evidence for ID. Now that I've done that in the simplest way possible without recieving an actual refutation by anyone, its suddenly a problem.

How about my refutation on page 10? It was an argument SPECIFIC to ID in the classroom.



quote:If you can demonstrate if anything has an infinite set of numbers outside of an abstract mathematical theorem, I will concede that an actual infinite can exist. But if not, then it shall remain that such cannot exist in actuality. And before you go thinking that all the stars just might be infinite because no one has ever been able to quantify an amount, this argument fails because an actual infinite cannot be subtracted from either. And we've witnessed stellar death.

Again, engaging in off topic commentary while ignoring on topic commentary (my post).



quote:There isn't overwhelming evidence that supports any macroevolutionary model, though I would agree that if such a process existed, as Darwin said, assuredly if his theory were true there would be innumerable evidences of such. Well, that 137 years ago and we're still waiting for one unambiguous, undeniable, and indisputable evidence of such a series of gradations.

You have had this evidence explained to you numerous times and you ignore it every time and then make these creationist assertions. I will ask you a simple question that will settle this: Assuming evolution true, What evidence would you expect for it to be present? If you answer is "every single fossil that ever existed" then I think you have shown your true colors. Did you know that only a very small percentage of living organisms will become fossils and then get dug up in tact?



quote:I just did. There are only two choices from which to choose from. Life is either intentional or unintentional. If life was some sort of capricious and arbitrary, abstract force, then how is it that it wins the lottery every day?

That's exactly what evolution explains in simple and elegant terms.



quote:wait a minute. darwin said complex organ. that's because darwin was never concerned about the begining of life.

quote:All of life is composed of DNA strands, which Darwin was unaware of at his time. But if you'd like to start with a more conventional approach, I suppose we could start with whatever component exists on any organsim. He understood the basics about heredity, but even he made some serious errors concerning it. For instance, Darwin believed that if a man, for instance, grew strong musculature, that his offspring would inherent the fruits of the father's labor. But that's far from being true.

First off, life is not composed of DNA strands. Life CONTAINS DNA. There is a difference, because the DNA is just the instructions. Darwin knew far less of heredity than you realize. He also believed in mixed inheritance.

quote:Mathematical numbers for the liklihood of God? That's a non sequitor. I could no more mathematically prove the existence of God any more than I could mathematically prove the existence of love. What I can do, however, is provide the quantification of the liklihood of life originating at random. And I've just done that.

The only reason love cannot be mathmatically defined is because everyone has a different definition for it. If you narrow the definition down it is possible.

Anyways, what scientific theory states that life originated at random? I see you keep beating that straw man. I have explained to you numerous times that neither evolution nor abiogenesis is random.

quote:I believe in an evolution of sorts. What I don't believe in is the classical theory of evolution that all living organisms ultimately spawned from one specie to the next. The reason I don't believe that is because there is no evidence that would compel me to believe as such. Given the fact that are easily over a billion extant species available, arguably as many extinct, and over a million fossil remains housed in universities and museums worldwide, that they should be unable to give a logical exegesis of such an evolutionary process, is insuperable

Again, I asked you what evidence you expect. Apparently is IS every single fossil from every lifeform that existed. This is total unreasonable. We expect there to be gaps in the fossil record for the simple reason that fossil formation is very rare and recovering the fossils is even more rare. But every single fossil that HAS been found fits with the theory of evolution and THAT is remarkable for a theory that you claim is false.

quote:No, this is a typical logical fallacy. What we know is that all organisms are composed of DNA, and that DNA/RNA and Homeobox protein sequences will determine what an organism will look like. The flaw in it is, if a Dolphin's configuration was more similar to a humans, then the Dolphin would appear to be, both visually and genetically, similar to one another. In other words, appearance means nothing as far as lineage, only a percieved lineage. It could easily be said that simians just so happen to the organisms that are most closely sequenced as humans. That does absolutely nothing to prove that one came from the other. That is a true, blue logical fallacy from head to toe, and an evolutionist argument from incredulity.

How about full genome sequences? How about sequences of specific genes like the 16s ribosomal subunit. I see you know very little of phylogenetics. I have contrusted a phylogenetic tree myself based on 16s ribosomal RNA sequences so I do know a little something. But that is really an aside... genetic similarity suggests not that one oganism came from another it suggests that the two organisms are closely related and thus shared a common ancestor.

Do you find it interesting that we can insert human DNA into a microbe or plant or other mammal?

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 08-02-2006).]

quote:And good sir has it ever crossed your mind that I just made an observation about Christian Evengalicals based on the information that I got based on what I observe, gather research, and deduce based on pure simple logic and nothing more or nothing less?

Your 'observations' largely come by a very biased media outlet that happens to distort and twist the truth to make Christians and creationists appear like a bunch of slack-jawed yokels holed up in the Ozarks. I mean, look who they choose for their interviews? They pick the most bizarre, most over-zealous, Christians they can find to paint this imaginary picture that all, or most behave in such a bizarre fashion. Its just not true. And so, if you are incapable of discerning whether or not AiG or ICR uses 'real' science to corroborate their claims, then I have to assume that you are ignorant. Its baseless and its mean-spirited.

quote:Oh wait a minute that is called scientific deduction. Sorry, my bad for using science in a supposed religious thread started by your wife.

Actually, this is a unique thread that has aspects of law, religion and science incorporated into the overall tone. So, I suppose if a Moderator came by, we'd still be on topic.

quote:I am far from ignorant from the facts of evolution and I know for a FACT that the majority of what people dismiss evolution on religious, and not scientific dogma.

If you really were ignorant then you

d have no way of knowing whether or not you were ignorant. So, you just might be ignorant to the fact that you're ignorant. But hey, the word ignorant was not initially intended to be a dirty word. It just means that you don't know a particular aspect about something. I'm ignorant to the engine of a car, at least when juxtaposed by a mechanic. Its nothing to be ashamed of. We all are ignorant in one way or another.

quote:Evolution is a theory, and a strong one at that because it has the backing of the fossil record.

Well, you're right that its a theory, but how strong it is, is a matter of your interpretation. But as an author that I admire once said, "Some things are true, even if you don't think they are." As for the backing of fossil evidence, I'll kindly ask you to show me a consistent stepwise sequence of gradations.

quote:I have yet to see any sound evidence backing Creationism or ID for that matter and so has the scientific community.

The neat thing about Intelligent Design is that there are only two viable options in the universe. Life is either intentional, or it is not. Proving that life could not be a mere happenstance, over, and over, and over again with such precision is all that ID needs to confirm itself. It does not prove the existence of God by doing so, it simply proves that a higher Cognizance is at work in the universe. The Design inference, is an inference. So by demolishing the competitor of a wholly naturally driven, guideless, purposeless universe, Intelligent Design wins by default. The crux of the matter is this: Empirically proving the existence of God is as impossible as empirically disroving the non-existence of God. But, then again, ID isn't trying to prove the existence of God, nearly as much as they are appealing to the sensible notion that we are the product of purpose, intent, intelligence, and a cognizance beyond our immediate and full comprehension.

quote:Science and academics usually go hand in hand. Since the theory of evolution is a scientific theory of course a large number of people are not going to know about it outside some nominal academic understanding. That is why buddding scientists go to universities and veterans stay and teach them in universities as professors. Oh and one other thing, most universities in the united states have been either founded by or supported by the religious community. Norte Dame and Brigham Young for example. Heck Willamette University was founded by Jason Lee, a Methodist and it is the oldest University west of the Mississippi.

Why do you assume that I am theologically aligned with Notre Dame, a once Catholic-established institution or Bringham Young, a Mormon institution? Do you think that I believe in all religions? Furthermore, the composition of those institutions are very secular, which shouldn't surprise anyone. I mean, if you wanted to draw a conclusion, Harvard was started under the pretense of religious affiliations. But it is almost entirely secularized today.

quote:What's this expert testimony? Is it uhhh....Hmmm....Fellow scientists perhaps? You sure do not see scientists appealing to an authority figure such as a pastor or God for that matter. That would be foolish. Scientific faith and religious faith are both different faiths, Scientific faith questions and grows, religious faith does not do either.

Clearly you misunderstood me. Your 'faith' (and it is by faith that you believe) in evolution comes from your trusting that whom you might otherwise refer to as, "an expert witness," must know what he/she is talking about. You don't 'know' that we've landed on the moon in the same sense that you 'know' whether or not your shoe lace is tied. Likewise, you don't 'know' that evolution is true unless you have been out in the field and have personally witnessed such a transmogrification. You 'believe' what you've been taught is true, and that belief is only because you have 'faith' that they know what they are talking about. But you don't 'know,' in a classical sense. You believe. And i'm merely pointing that out to you.

quote:Where is this 95% of evolutionists derive their knowledge from an imformed faith and what is this informed faith you are talking about? Sounds like hersey to me.

No, I wasn't merely speaking about evolutionists, but about everyone... even me. At least 95% of our 'knowing' comes from, what we call, 'expert testimony.' If you really think about it, it puts faith in to perspective. So, this being the case, why do you suppose that the word 'faith' is considered a dirty epithet by most atheists when they use it just as much, and if not more, than a theist?

quote:Christians are hardly innocent of feeding their own propaganda to the masses by attacking the scientific community because it is well known that when scientists come up with a strong theory that is backed with scientific evidence that Evenglengical Christians consider blasmephous because it does not agree with the bible, the word of God.

Christians can be theistic evolutionists. the Bible could be viewed as mostly allegorical and it would not present a problem for them. So, a creationist must take there beliefs on matters of science that coincide with the matters of the Bible. But this still misses the point that evolution at the core, is an atheist doctrine. And that's fine. If you want to believe in it, then you have that right afforded to you. But I have a right to recognize that its an atheistic tool just as much as you have the right to disagree.

quote:Galleo Gallei and John Scopes are prime examples of what happens to scientists who come up with and the teachers who teach scientific theory to the masses.

The funniest thing about evolutionists using the Scopes Trial as ammunition is that they don't even realize that it backfires in their face. The tone of the trial had to do more with the alleged suppresion of evolution, than it did with the actual theory. And what are evolutionists doing to the Intelligent Design movement? They are suppressing evidence and trying to demonstrably demonize them as being apart of psuedo-science. If you want to learn about the Scopes Trial, watching 'Inherit the Wind' only gives the romanticized version.

quote:I was taught the theory of evolution as well and it has always made sense to me and I believe that it is a strong theory. Evolution is, and never was, implied as the be all on the orgins of life and I was never taught as such nor do I believe it to be as such. The evidence of the theory of evolution does not exist of how life orginated on this planet.

The ToE made sense to me too. It's not a stupid theory. It couldn't have recieved as much attention as it has if it were like, you know, Scientology. And I don't blame Darwin as much as I blame neo-Darwnians as the main culprit. We must remember that all the good lies have a measure of truth. And when I use such strong affectations, like, "lies," that isn't me saying that the average person who believes in evolution is a liar. I don't believe that. What I do believe is that people such as, Stephen Jay Gould, for instance, knows enough about its problems and enough about the theory to know better. He knew of the outright lies of Haeckel's theory on recapitualtion. And the fact that it took him 20 years to uncover that, even while knowing that 20 years earlier that it was falsifiable, makes him liable... and the average joe is just being duped and dumbed-down by it.

still waiting on that scientific evidence that disproves speciation.

Hyro:

quote:Proving that life could not be a mere happenstance, over, and over, and over again with such precision is all that ID needs to confirm itself.

I know for a fact the complex design of snowflakes is not happenstance. So you are suggesting snowflakes are intelligently designed?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Hyro:

Proving that life could not be a mere happenstance, over, and over, and over again with such precision is all that ID needs to confirm itself.

I know for a fact the complex design of snowflakes is not happenstance. So you are suggesting snowflakes are intelligently designed?

Either snowflakes form intentionally or unintentionally. Probability dictates that random forces cannot create such complexity. Thus, it must be design.

P.S. It would be nice to also see mathematics from hyro to back up his statement that evolution and/or abiogenisis violates the second law. Shouldn't be hard to do, if true.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 08-02-2006).]

Yep a snowflake must be intelligently designed, as randomness could never produce such a complex shape time and time again.

It's also amazing, how come IDists never question whether evolution is intelligently designed to produce an adaptive species through mutation and natural selection? Why is it assumed that evolution wasn't designed?

I wonder how many creationists know many companies have used evolution simulation programs to better their products. Boeing used one to help design some of their newer planes.

Speaking of the 2LoT, I would love to hear an accurate and detailed explanation of entropy, let alone the actual math.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Yep a snowflake must be intelligently designed, as randomness could never produce such a complex shape time and time again.



In what does the possibility for randomness exist?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

John 1:1 - 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

Please tell me how that can possibly be taken as a metaphor, and where I said I thought it was a metaphor.

Torah mysticism. The author of John was trying to work with Genesis as the beginning of his Gospel/book. According to Torah mysticism the first thing God created was the Torah, which in turn created everything Alphabetically-wise. The Torah creating everything Alphabetically-wise is reasoning behind the Creator being called "The Alpha and Omega." He could have said I am the Beginning and End, but he chose to say it in the form of Alphabet.

quote:Just because the name "Jesus" wasn't used in the Old Testament doesn't mean anything. Jesus wasn't named until just before his birth, by an angel that appeared to Joseph..

Wrong, his name wasn't Jesus until the Biblical texts were translated from whatever to Greek to Latin/Deutsch. His name was Yehushua Bar Yosep.

quote:Jesus didn't come into being at conception in Mary's womb. He always existed, as God. He is not a separate entity, but rather a separate personality of God. Since he has always existed as God, it is ridiculous to claim that the lack of use of his name in human form is proof that he was never mentioned in the Old Testament.

Give me a fucking break. The only books that say Jesus was God is one passage in John and Paul's Letters and Epistles. And even Paul opennly admitted his Gnosticism, that probably came along with him from Tarsus, saying that he didn't believe Jesus actually existed as a human like us all.

quote:Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

You should really study the origins and orignal mysticism that came along with the Torah while it was being rewritten after the Babylonian captivity. As I said before, the Torah was created before anything else and together with God did they create existence. Thats where the plurality comes from.

quote:I also recall you claiming that God would not defile Himself by becoming flesh, and I feel obligated to direct you to this scripture in the Old Testament:

Genesis 3:8 - Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

It is apparent that God, the omnipotent Creator of the Universe, can do anything He pleases, including "walking" in an earthly garden. Pray tell, how can God, a spiritual entity, encompassing all things and having no rigid form, WALK ?

Where does it say he became flesh? If you want to take the Bible literally, where does it literally say he became flesh?

All I have to say is this: This ID/Creationism thread was started in the Religion forum, not the science forum and it STILL doesn't hold water.

Why is it so hard to understand that lack of knowledge does not mean God?

He discredits evolution because it doesn't mention a beginning. So I must conclude that he doesn't go to the doctor at all, because the doctor will merely explain the natural processes to you without starting out 'LIFE BEGAN..'

quote:"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it.

Okay.

quote:How the light traveling distances farther than possible in the amount of time given by the creationist model, could occur.

Well, first you need to understand that this only presents a problem for Young-earth creationists. I ask for the distinction to show that not all creationists are alike, just as all evolutionists are not alike. The astronomer Hugh Ross is a creationist, but he believes that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is roughly 11 billion years old. Having made that distinction, this argument made against the YEC probably is the single argument that presents the most difficulty for them to reconcile. But the dichotomy may only appear insoluble. The first premise of a refutation would be to ask how such a deduction ever came to be.

If you are looking at a photo of a bird in the sky, and there is nothing to distinguish its size by comparing it relatively to another object, could you tell if the bird in the photo was a large bird, and the snapshot was taken far away, or could you tell that it was a small bird, and the snapshot was taken close up? Or if you were sailing and suddenly on the horizen you see a land mass in the distance. Could you tell if it was a large island far away, or might you surmise that it was a small island closer up? This is the question that I asked myself years ago, and it prompted me to find out what measurment they used to deduce the distance of stars.

Could you use triangulation on stars to ascertain their distance? Some astronomers say that you can depending on the parallax angle. The criteria is that you must have an imaginary line going to a remote, inaccessible point, such as a star would be. Measuring from two other points, both that we would be able to access in order to measure the distance across, if we measure the angles between the baseline formed by the accessible points, and the lines from the two ends of the baseline to the inaccessible point, then a measurement might be accurate. And then again, it might not. Its all dependent on where the earth is in its rotation. As well, its been noted that when looking at stars, you might not even be looking at where the star is actually situated. Think of two mirrors facing each other from opposite ends. If the alignment is off-kilter, the image can distort, and it will appear as though the hallway in the background of the image is curving to the left or to the right in an incremental sloping effect. So its a bit decieving. Or I should say, triangualtion can be decieving. And how are we able to know for sure if that's the case unless we are able to access all three points of the triangle?

So, I think its safe to say that stars are indeed very far away. But perhaps they are not millions of light-years away, but that they are millions or billions of miles away. It is said that it takes the sun's light in realtime, appoximately 12 minutes to reach us. That brings me to the other theory held by creationists, that perhaps God sent the starlight immediately so that Adam could see the stars because Moses said that God gave us the starry host for reasons of distinguishing time and seasons. But this theory lacks any scientific backbone. Particularly because there is no way of proving it or disproving it.

The theory that is most sensible to me is that the speed of light was not always constant (c). The reason I see this as the most plausible scenario is because Einstein’s general theory of relativity demonstrates that gravity can distort time. When matter becomes so dense, the gravitational distortion can be so strong a force that not even light can escape. This is apart of what Hawking calls, "Event Horizon." Among such proponents, is João Magueijo, who has expanded the "Variable Speed of Light" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

As well, it has already been proven by two separate teams, that the cessation and aggregate speed of light can be manipulated. So, if we know that it is at least possible to slow or speed up light more or less than its constant, then this serves to give it more credence than just a presuposition.

quote:Why the universe is constantly changing and new stars and galaxies are being born at this time if the universe was born in about it's present state 6000 years ago?

Well, I'm not sure why this would present an argument that refutes a creationist model. Things change all the time. Live things go to dead things, order goes to disorder, and heat goes to cool. As far as the birth of a new star, I don't think that has ever been witnessed, not that it should present a problem. There has been discussion about protostars and proto-nebulae, but I don't think that any one has recieved confirmation on such a discovery. But if stellar births do exist, then that puts to bed the idea that universe is, itself, an infinite property.



quote:This has to do with why if the universe was created in it's present state 6000 years ago, how could it be changing so much that it would be logical to think it has been changing forever.

I'm not following your argument....? I don't believe the universe has been around forever so I can't really answer that question. But maybe I'm not understanding what you are arriving at. Can you expound on your argument?

quote:Why no non-creationist/non-religous scientific source agrees with your age of the universe?

That isn't true. Jaoa Maguijio, Halton Arp, Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, etc, are not creationists at all. And they disagree with much of the mainstream beliefs concerning cosmology.

quote:This has only to do with scientific integrity. For example why would nasa, and the majority of scientists all over the world have using scientific techniques determined the relative age of the universe that is commonly agreed upon, yet the only people who don't agree and "theologist scientists" who found what they call science based on thier own belief system.

As I stated earlier, not all creationists are of the YEC persuasion.

"So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age."

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

See, this is the circular logic that I've spoken about before, except now you get to hear about it from an unbiased source... (or at least a source that is not in my favor.)

And this goes into the dating methods which is a whole other topic in itself.

quote:Please answer these questions with the mathematics backing up your responces, and or claims.

I'm not a mathematician. I only understand equations that aren't hyper-complex in nature, and I highly doubt that if I layed out a theorem for you that you'd understand it. But if you'd like to delve into complex mathematics that deals solely with theological aspects then peruse gematria and theomatics. I don't know enough about it to make an informed decision. But, see, here's the problem... You only want me to give you complex theorems so that you can appeal to authority, while not understanding it yourself. But if you want to post your own theorems, by all means do so. My only prequisite is that you explain every integer and the meaning of the variable you propose in a stepwise fashion so that all us laymen can understand it too.

quote:Thank you.

You're welcome...

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Proponents of ID see that the universe and all that is contained therein is far too complex for there to be chance after chance of a wholly chaotic universe constantly 'getting it right' so often. So where does that leave us?

Logically, one would think that complexity makes chance possible. When complexity is lacking there is no chance, only more of the same.

quote:At the same time, evolution smacks of atheism and an anti-theological stance.

Actually evolution is still called theory, so it is theological. It just has scientific evidence in comparison to every other theory that sets it apart.

quote: the opinion that the majority of detractors simlpy don't understand what ID really is; that they are making knee-jerk reactions and jumping on the bandwagon. This is an appeal to authority, an authority they scarcely know anything about. They automatically equate ID to Christian Creationism.

Alright there Psychiatrist, you want to post a picture of your Doctorate to give some credibility to that assumption you just made?

quote:Some of you may know that I object to theology playing a role in the science classroom. And my belief comes not from them being diametrically opposed or incompatible in any way, but rather I feel that it bears no immediate relevance to the subject. On one level, I think it was the Creator that bestowed upon us the ability of mathematical reasoning, but that doesn't mean that the Creator should play a role in solving any given theorem. However, if there really is "Creator," or a "Greater Mind" behind the choreography, then we cannot in any sense get around discussing the Creator on some level.

I agree with you here except when you say Religion and Science should be apart. Albert Eistein himself said Science is the language of God. I'm a man that believes in God, so I openly admit that I do have my bias on this.

So, what is everyone's true objection to ID? [/B][/QUOTE]

No scientific evidence to support any of its claims. It belongs in a philosophy class and nothing else. That means the only way it can be taught along with evolution is if a student choses to take the philosophy class. Until this theory can provide scientific evidence on not just "maybe this and maybe that because I think it makes sense", its just philosophy.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Because you seem to be bringing up the First Cause quite often, maybe we'll just start there instead. Being that all of the chemical processes are all a product of matter, if you reduce the components down far enough, you are left with nothing. If there is nothing that exists then how can everything come from nothing?

They are not only the product, they are the reactants. Law of Conservation, d00d. Chemicals are always moving from one reaction to the next all originating from an intense energy source.

BTW, you cannot reduce all the components down to nothing. There is always something. The uncertainty principle, proved by Bell's theorem states that the most sub of sub atomic levels is in constant flux with our plain of existence to another. Being that I am a beleiver in God, this brings me to believe this is what Jesus was talking about when he said we are all connected to each other and God.

This sub of all sub levels is almost pure energy that is in constant flux and not localized to just one particle but all making it universal. Thus, we have it being called the Uncertainty Principal because it never has a certain 4 dimensional existence (3 dimensions physical and 1 dimension temporal).

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Evolution is a god-of-the-gaps theory, but it hasn't stopped you from worshipping it.

I find it funny that you spent alot of your replies on pointing out fallacy in logic, when you yourself have one. People worship evolution? Good one.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Among such proponents, is João Magueijo, who has expanded the "Variable Speed of Light" theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light



Aft3r ImaGe should be able to deal with your post easily enough, but I'd like to comment on this particular "argument" of yours.

As it has already been explained to you in another thread before, João Magueijo proposes that light was faster in the very early stages of the universe (i.e. that immediately after the Big Bang, light was faster for a extremely short period of time).

He does this not to prove that the universe is "younger", but as an alternative to the inflation theories that has been proposed in the past.

Hence, this "Variable Speed of Light" theory, doesn't come close to explaining the age of the universe as Biblical Literalists see it, and therefore fails to be any evidence of their claims as you are using it right there.

Not only does it not apply after the Big Bang, but it has not been confirmed at all (to the best of my knowledge at least).

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

No, this is a typical logical fallacy. What we know is that all organisms are composed of DNA, and that DNA/RNA and Homeobox protein sequences will determine what an organism will look like. The flaw in it is, if a Dolphin's configuration was more similar to a humans, then the Dolphin would appear to be, both visually and genetically, similar to one another. In other words, appearance means nothing as far as lineage, only a percieved lineage. It could easily be said that simians just so happen to the organisms that are most closely sequenced as humans. That does absolutely nothing to prove that one came from the other. That is a true, blue logical fallacy from head to toe, and an evolutionist argument from incredulity.

Hi, I'm not sure if Digital has told you about me, but I am Totse's new Biochemical/Molecular Biological Scientist. If you want to get into DNA/RNA and Proteomics we could go there since that is my field of study and what pays my bills.

Oh, and your logic there has a little bit of a flaw. Replace Human and Simian with offspring and parent. If a parent's DNA sequence matches it's offspring's sequence more than anyother parent not of the offspring's, that doesnt mean that the offspring came from that particular parent. You get what I'm saying?

Plus Evolution is occuring on a macroscalular level. Most scientist never talk about it, but it has been happening ever since DNA existed. Look up the word copy numbers. Its an ongoing evolution within DNA strands themselves that have carried themselves throughout time through all species and are constantly evolving.

The theory is that at somepoint these copy numbers will start effecting what becomes Intron sequences in our RNA and thus negating any protein that can come from it. But this is barely talked about because they are still within Exon domain and have a long way to go to hit what will become mRNA due to the extensive chains of telomeres in our DNA strand.

Seriously if you want to get scientific, you can call me out anytime. But I do believe in God, so I may not hold all beliefs contrary to yours.

Hyro:

quote:As well, it has already been proven by two separate teams, that the cessation and aggregate speed of light can be manipulated. So, if we know that it is at least possible to slow or speed up light more or less than its constant, then this serves to give it more credence than just a presuposition.

Remember c is not the speed of light, it is the speed of light in a vacuum.

We can slow light down less than c by passing it through matter (how you get refraction and prisms) and we can speed it up faster than c but it can't carry any information.

Both still show c as a constant.

Most creationists forget c is more than just how far away stars are, its value has an effect on a number of things such as the energy contained in an atom. A higher value for c also means stars burn brighter and faster (among other things) something that is not only dangerous for Adam and Eve but should be visible to us on earth.

Although there are some propositions c has changed the amount of that change is many many magnitudes smaller than what creationists propose.

wow, we tackled the change in c argument pages ago.

well, i'm still waiting for emperical evidence for a literal creation of all life into it's current form.

quote:Originally posted by postdiluvium:

Hi, I'm not sure if Digital has told you about me, but I am Totse's new Biochemical/Molecular Biological Scientist. If you want to get into DNA/RNA and Proteomics we could go there since that is my field of study and what pays my bills.

Oh, and your logic there has a little bit of a flaw. Replace Human and Simian with offspring and parent. If a parent's DNA sequence matches it's offspring's sequence more than anyother parent not of the offspring's, that doesnt mean that the offspring came from that particular parent. You get what I'm saying?

Plus Evolution is occuring on a macroscalular level. Most scientist never talk about it, but it has been happening ever since DNA existed. Look up the word copy numbers. Its an ongoing evolution within DNA strands themselves that have carried themselves throughout time through all species and are constantly evolving.

The theory is that at somepoint these copy numbers will start effecting what becomes Intron sequences in our RNA and thus negating any protein that can come from it. But this is barely talked about because they are still within Exon domain and have a long way to go to hit what will become mRNA due to the extensive chains of telomeres in our DNA strand.

Seriously if you want to get scientific, you can call me out anytime. But I do believe in God, so I may not hold all beliefs contrary to yours.

I like you alot and wish you had MSN Messenger, http://messenger.msn.com , and wish I had you on it!

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

wow, we tackled the change in c argument pages ago.

well, i'm still waiting for emperical evidence for a literal creation of all life into it's current form.

lol that'll be quite a wait.

Don't worry, I'm sure all replies about it are already forgotten. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

To expand slightly on the life "intentional, unintentional" claims, most IDists forget other possibilities. Like mentioned before, evolution could be intentional but produce unintentional life. Life could look one way but be another. Another answer is we really don't know.

Intentional vs unintentional seems to revolve around how randomness could produce the species, but we know evolution is not random. When evolution is taken into account the diversity of the species becomes a lot less complex, and driven by a force.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

lol that'll be quite a wait.



that's the point isn't it? without scientific evidence there is no reason to teach id theory in the science classroom.

quote:In the Stanley-Urey Experiment, The molecules produced were simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life; they demonstrated that a more complex molecule — a few simpler amino-acids — could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals.

Here was the problem with the experiment. The entire premise of the inquiry was to prove that life could have originated at random via a few simple compounds in a prebiotic soup, of sorts. (Pay no mind where even the simple chemicals came from). The claim was that miller had succesfully synethized proteins, such as adenine and guanine, but that he failed to produce cytosine and thymine. What's the first problem? Neither of those four bases are even proteins. Those are the four base pairs of a DNA molecule. So what did Miller actually produce and how did he produce it? Miller took what he thought must have been earth's early conditions, which in itself, is pure, unadulterated conjecture. He assumed that the earth's atmosphere was composed of very high concentrations of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, etc. From this volatile mixture, he used a spark ignition in attempt to make a combination that would allow life to come from non-life. What Dr. Miller atually created ws 85% tar, 3% carboxylic acid, and 12% non-living amino acids.

What does it take to arrive at just one protein? It takes 20 specific amino acids, placed in sequential order just to produce one protein. This means that Miller just took a wild guess as to what earth's atmosphere was actually comprised of and assumed that his pristine laboratory must have resembled those conditions. I mean, with his mixture, we could assume that a dirty diaper is a breeding ground for a prebiotic mixture, not just the propagation of bacteria. But perhaps my wording of failure was a bit execessive. It was a success on one level. Where as Louis Pastuer was officially credited with demonstrably proving that abiogenesis is impossible, perhaps it was Miller that sealed the deal once and for all. In those regards, the experiment was a success.

quote:In the early decades of the 20th century, Aleksandr Oparin (in 1924), and John Haldane (in 1929, before Oparin's first book was translated into English), independently suggested that suggested that the organic compounds could have undergone a series of reactions leading to more and more complex molecules. He proposed that the molecules formed colloid aggregates, or 'coacervates', in an aqueous environment. The coacervates were able to absorb and assimilate organic compounds from the environment in a way reminiscent of metabolism. They would have taken part in evolutionary processes, eventually leading to the first lifeforms.

So they weren’t “failures”.

If they didn't create life from non-life then, yes, it was a complete failure, being that that was the intent of the experiment.

quote:The theory of evolution concerns only the changes in populations of living organisms on the earth. It assumes that the earth and life already exist. (Kenneth S. Saladin, Ph.D. of Biology) It never became an unimportant aspect, evolution never discussed such.

If evolution can't even get off the ground by a purposeless and meaningless direction, then it first came by a supernatural force. Is that what you are tacitly giving recognition to? If so, perhaps ID and evolution can coexist hand in hand, aye?

quote:"Cause" is a temporal concept - by definition, it requires time; things which exist outside of time do not have to be caused. However, time is merely a property of the universe, and so the laws of time (ie. cause) cannot be logically applied to the universe itself as a whole Similarly, time can begin, but not require a cause, since all human concepts of a caused beginning have something before that beginning (including the cause); this is not true of time itself. If one believes that time is infinite, and then indeed there is no need for a "first cause" and therefore no need for God.

Nothing that happens, happens without causation. Its called "cause and effect." That's the first law of motion, and incorporates the second, and the third in its explantion. As for time, time doesn't exist without space, and matter doesn't exist without time-space. And that puts a damper on your theory and hope for nothingness.

quote:However, it is not yet certain whether science agrees or disagrees with this - some scientific models continue to suggest a eternal, cyclical, or oscillatory universe rather than a one-time event.

If there is an oscillating universe, then it has at some point a finite capabilty, because nowhere in the universe does a perpetual motion machine exist. And until you can prove otherwise, the laws of physics will remain just as they are, immutable, absolute laws.

quote:1. The claim that the beginning of our universe has a cause conflicts with current scientific theory.

It doesn't conflict with scientific theory, it conflicts with the personal interests of atheists because they cannot account for such an inequality. Are you telling me that cause and effect, along with the laws of thermodynamics, special and general relativity are in disrepute???

quote:The theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause.

Highly probable? Show me how this is highly probable, and who agrees with you that it is highly probable? If you can name me one action that happens apart from a cause or even multiple causes, I will reconsider my position.

quote:2. It supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10^-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe? No. For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. http:/ /www.qsmit hwmu.com/s tephen_haw king's_cos mology_and _theism_(1 994).htm

That was theoretical gobbledegook that is no more empirical than assuming that you can fit an elephant on the head of a pin. I don't deny the possibility of different dimensions, indeed, if a heaven, the "third heaven," as Paul says, exists, then I believe that such a place exists outside of time/space/energy/matter. But that's just a belief of mine. It isn't supported by data.

After watching all the floundering and flailing about, I'm going to throw you all a bone here to get around the Kalam argument, because as it stands, there is no decent refutation. There might be an alternate universe, perhaps a parallel universe that exists on another dimensional plane of existence. The beginning of the this universe, could be the parallax of that universe, or the beginning of this universe could be the end of that universe. And the alternate universe could have laws of physics that differ from our own. Its a very safe position for the atheist, because he need not defy the laws of physics for this universe, and there is no way of refuting it empirically. The alternate universe theory is the only reasonable way to bring the Kalam argument into a stalemate.

quote:Within Big Bang Cosmology, the initial singularity is depicted as the ontological consequence of the thermodynamic expansion of the universe. If Craig wishes to deny the ontological existence of the singularity and still remain within relativity theory, he must also deny the thermodynamic contraction of the universe which leads to the singularity.

Pffft. How so? The expansion is the beginning that leads to the Big Crunch. Where exactly is the contradiction?

quote:You fail to notice that the singularity is not a mechanically operating set of conditions, but rather, a lawless and in deterministic point which can potentially emit any configuration of particles at any time with equal likelihood.

This is an awful lot of hand waving. A lawless and indeterministic universe could and would concievably configure particles in any given direction. But what consequence does that have to how it began? There might not be any discernable patterns in the universe, which to us, really means nothing. Butthis still fails to answer the biggest question: How can the universe come from nothingness, and without a cause, even when a potential cause doesn't even exist?

quote:In other words, if God wills the universe to exist in a timeless state of eternity, then the existence of the universe could not have a beginning, but would have always existed, since the intention of God to create the universe would have existed from eternity. Additionally, if God creates the universe outside of time, then there is no time at which the universe does not exist and thus, the universe always existed. It seems that regardless of whether a mechanical set of conditions or God caused the universe outside of time, the universe 'always existed', since there is no time at which it did not exist.

You keep glancing over the obvious, which is, that neither Craig, nor I, believe that the universe will trek on for all of eternity. I thought I made that abundantly clear. As for God's thought's being eternal, that He always had the universe in mind somehow must mean that universe would always be eternal breaks down. Please tell me why He could not have always had the thought, and yet has made a finite time when He acts to manifest that thought? That's like assuming that if I had the thought to buy a car, that the car was always mine prior to the action.

quote:You have to prove how the universe shows “design” and “incomprehensible fine-tuning”.

The fact that physical constants exists gives ontological reasons to assume that capriciousness could not create order, nor could it sustain that order if it was indeed purposeless and capricious. A strong nuclear force binds particles in the nucleus of an atom. If that nuclear force were even nominally weaker, by as little as 2%, the nuclei of protons could not remain intact. If that were the case, then ony hydrogen would exist, and nucleofission could not create heavier elements. And supposing that the force were slightly more attractive, by as little as 1%, hydrogen would be the rarest element in the universe. A magnetic constant property is what fuses electrons to protons. If this phenomenon were to be inconstant, then different atoms and molecules wouldn't just be marginally different, they'd be completely different. And if life is capricious, we should expect to see no patterning of this kind, and arguably, no patterning of any kind so as to allow for even the basic building blocks of life.

The next argument, I have used before. If I am being redundant, its only because I agree that its implications are staggering to the opposition. If a weak nuclear force were ever-present, then neutrinos and electrons would decay at a rapid pace, possibly to the point of extinction. This would cause there to be no helium, and this element is critical. Because without helium, heavier elements would not exist, which means that stars wouldn't exist.

Those are just two anthropic reasons of many on how there is a delicate and observable instances of homogeneity.

quote:Conclusion: Craig believes that if he has shown this premise to be true, he has proven the existence of the theistic God. However, it is rather obvious that this is not the case. Rather, we arrive at the conclusion that the initial Big Bang singularity is the cause of the universe. And even if God created the universe..."Now, it's really irrelevant, the whole thing is really irrelevant to evolutionary theory because if God created our planet, if we grant that, it doesn't affect evolution one bit." (Kenneth Saladin)

What? Don't you get it? The argument presents the problem for the big bang without the intervention of a special, creative act. How can nothing explode?

“They've found that such systems produce nearly every one of the 20 amino acid proteins are made of, all five of the bases that DNA and RNA are made of, and many other organics {16}. What has really impressed the chemists is how easily these organics form {17}, so easily their spontaneous formation on the primeval earth seems almost inevitable. They even form in interstellar dust and have been found in meteorites called carbonaceous chondrites. Even high school students have successfully repeated the Miller-type of experiment for science fair projects.

[SLIDE 37: Flow chart of protobiogenesis] I won't have time to go into details, but I want to point out that every single step that would be required for the naturalistic origin of cells has been shown experimentally to be not just possible, but probable, in complete contradiction to the wishful thinking of creationists that one or more of these steps would prove impossible. The basic building blocks like amino acids and nucleotides polymerize spontaneously to form short peptides, proteins, and nucleic acids {18}.” Evolution vs. Creationism-The Saladin-Gish II Debate (1988)[/quote]

I don't know much about Carboniferous Chondrite, so I can't make a determination on it. AiG poses these problems on the reliabilty and plausibility of such:

One of the key evidences against contamination, the presence of non-biological sugars and their relatives, also seems like good evidence against chemical evolution. That is, that natural processes tend to produce gunk with little relevance to life.



The amounts of these chemicals were tiny—far too low to contribute to biological processes. So this can also be interpreted as evidence against chemical evolution, by showing that under truly natural conditions (as opposed to unrealistic laboratory simulations), only trace amounts of these compounds are formed.



The wide variety of compounds in itself counts as evidence against chemical evolution. Most of the alleged prebiotic simulations use pure compounds, and even then, the results are meagre, so how much worse would they be with the contaminated gunk produced in the real world?



Sugars are very unstable, and easily decompose or react with other chemicals. This counts against any proposed mechanism to concentrate them to useable proportions. See Origin of Life: Instability of building blocks.



Living things require homochiral sugars, i.e. with the same ‘handedness’, but these ones would not have been. See Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem.



Even under highly artificial conditions, the result of intelligent investigator interference, there is no plausible method of making the sugar ribose join to some of the essential building blocks needed to make DNA or RNA, let alone into RNA or DNA themselves. Instead, the tendency is for long molecules to break down into their building blocks. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem and The RNA World: A Critique.



Even DNA or RNA by themselves would not be life, since it’s not enough to just join the bases (‘letters’) together, but the sequence of the letters must consitute meaningful information. The information depends on the letter sequence and this sequence is not a function of the chemistry of the letters. Information: A modern scientific design argument.



Even this letter sequence would be meaningless without elaborate decoding machinery to translate this into amino acid sequences. I.e. the DNA stores the instruction code to form the enzymes and structural proteins needed for life. Unless the decoding machinery already existed, those instructions can never be read. Similarly, this article would be useless to a non-English–speaker, who lacks knowledge of the code of the English language to convert alphabetical letter sequences into concepts in the mind (information).

quote:Under cross examination (in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,) Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".

That shouldn't surprise you that no one wants to give ID a fighting chance. It wouldn't surprise me that right after he made that statement, that he went on to explain how whenever a thesis is submitted, that its rejected and ruled as an a priori and not on the basis of an academic ruling.

quote:During this testimony Behe conceded that definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would would qualify as a theory by definition as well.

Yeah, its called slick-haired attorneys who know how to manipulate a conversation to direct their cross-examined witness in whatever direction they want. Heh. I'd like to see the full court transcripts.

quote:Proponents (of ID) assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen.[/qs]

By proposing a hypothesis on the Designer's identity, they would be doing the one thing that you claim you don't want, which is bringing theology into the science classroom. So, I applaude them on that and abhor the tone of the inquiry.

[quote]We've refuted your claims, try again with something valid

Heh. Only in your mind, kiddo.... You're in check by the way.

[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 08-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Here was the problem with the experiment. The entire premise of the inquiry was to prove that life could have originated at random via a few simple compounds in a prebiotic soup, of sorts. (Pay no mind where even the simple chemicals came from). The claim was that miller had succesfully synethized proteins, such as adenine and guanine, but that he failed to produce cytosine and thymine.

Okay. Stop, just stop. An error that large is just ridiculous. You really have no clue do you. Did you even graduate highschool?

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 08-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Yeah, its called slick-haired attorneys who know how to manipulate a conversation to direct their cross-examined witness in whatever direction they want. Heh. I'd like to see the full court transcripts.

http://forums.randi.org/index.php?page=dover

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

If evolution can't even get off the ground by a purposeless and meaningless direction, then it first came by a supernatural force. Is that what you are tacitly giving recognition to? If so, perhaps ID and evolution can coexist hand in hand, aye?

that precisely what many evolutionists believe.

still waiting for scientific evidence of intelligent creation however. can't find any? then mabye we shouldn't teach id in the science classroom.

Damn them slick lawyers.

Of course where is the complaint of the slick board member who testified under oath he didn't know how the money for the "ID" books was raised, even though he purposefully funneled it through his Father so it wouldn't be known a church raised the money?

Or the complaints about the slick christian book company who once they heard creationism was illegal in schools, did nothing to change their creationist book beyond changing "creationism" to "intelligent design"?

Obviously those are perfectly moral people. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 08-02-2006).]

"Present provable evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism, whichever you believe in, specifically the act of creating and intervening, how it is scientifically possible and observable, with the mathematics supporting it."

You said OK but you never presented any mathematical, scientific, or verifiable evidence of any kind backing up your unfounded belief that god intervened. This is because there is no proof. In order for this to be true you would not only have to prove god exists, but prove god altered the universe. Two things with no scientific proof backing them.

quote:Well, first you need to understand that this only presents a problem for Young-earth creationists. I ask for the distinction to show that not all creationists are alike, just as all evolutionists are not alike. The astronomer Hugh Ross is a creationist, but he believes that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is roughly 11 billion years old. Having made that distinction, this argument made against the YEC probably is the single argument that presents the most difficulty for them to reconcile. But the dichotomy may only appear insoluble. The first premise of a refutation would be to ask how such a deduction ever came to be.

I am asking you to verify YOUR belief not someone else's. There are certain creationists who believe that god made the illusion of time and only 20 years have passed since Jesus. Aside from being scientifically unfounded, I'm not holding you responsible for making this claim because you didn't. But on the other hand you constantly switch your claims while trying to prove creationism/ID. How old are you claiming the earth to be? Are you now saying it is now 4.5 billion years old? I'm asking you to prove your beliefs, which should be at least be consistent if they have any substance at all to them.

quote:If you are looking at a photo of a bird in the sky, and there is nothing to distinguish its size by comparing it relatively to another object, could you tell if the bird in the photo was a large bird, and the snapshot was taken far away, or could you tell that it was a small bird, and the snapshot was taken close up? Or if you were sailing and suddenly on the horizen you see a land mass in the distance. Could you tell if it was a large island far away, or might you surmise that it was a small island closer up? This is the question that I asked myself years ago, and it prompted me to find out what measurment they used to deduce the distance of stars.

You can't tell by looking at the picture alone, but there is ways to tell. If you took high school geometry you would have learned these methods. In the study of space the method used is called the "TRIGONOMETRIC PARALLAX". This is the direct way of measuring that allows measurement of stars within about 400 light years to be measured. Method 2 is the Moving cluster parallax which works when : "stars are in a stable star cluster whose physical size is not changing, like the Pleiades, then the apparent motions of the stars within the cluster can be used to determine the distance to the cluster." On the site below it lists 26 methods of measuring the distance of stars. Having multiple methods if finding a star's distance serves a second purpose. Checking the integrity of the results. Consistency also further proves the actual distance of the stars. So unless you are suggesting that ALL the methods developed by scientists are wrong, then your metaphorical bird argument is wrong.

Link (http://tinyurl.com/om79f)

quote:

Could you use triangulation on stars to ascertain their distance? Some astronomers say that you can depending on the parallax angle. The criteria is that you must have an imaginary line going to a remote, inaccessible point, such as a star would be. Measuring from two other points, both that we would be able to access in order to measure the distance across, if we measure the angles between the baseline formed by the accessible points, and the lines from the two ends of the baseline to the inaccessible point, then a measurement might be accurate.

In geometry this method is used to find accurate results all the time.

quote:

And then again, it might not. Its all dependent on where the earth is in its rotation.

The fact that the earth is rotating actually adds to the integrity of the results in the fact that then the results can be compared between to spots along the earths orbit. Also if you are implying that because the results change it is wrong, then you forgot the earth rotates along the sun in the first place so the results should change accordingly, and the amount in which they change can be predicted ahead of time so it is easy to verify the results.

quote:As well, its been noted that when looking at stars, you might not even be looking at where the star is actually situated. Think of two mirrors facing each other from opposite ends. If the alignment is off-kilter, the image can distort, and it will appear as though the hallway in the background of the image is curving to the left or to the right in an incremental sloping effect. So its a bit decieving.

I'm not sure how that proves triangulation is at all deceiving, or if that even applies to triangulation. It is possible the star moved in the amount of time it took the light to reach earth but that wouldn't present a problem when showing where the star was when it produced the light we are seeing.

quote:And how are we able to know for sure if that's the case unless we are able to access all three points of the triangle?

As I said earlier HIGH SCHOOL GEOMETRY. Not quantum physics, or anything remotely complicated, but high school geometry shows triangulation to be an accurate form of measurement. I remember using it and it is not inaccurate like your claiming it to be. Now when applied to space it can only measure things to a certain distance, but there are 25 other methods of measuring provided to you in the website I posted above.

quote:So, I think its safe to say that stars are indeed very far away. But perhaps they are not millions of light-years away, but that they are millions or billions of miles away.

The conclusion is only as accurate as the methods and logic used to reach it.

quote:It is said that it takes the sun's light in realtime, appoximately 12 minutes to reach us.

8.3168708 minutes actually http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:That brings me to the other theory held by creationists, that perhaps God sent the starlight immediately

This as a scientific theory is, well not a scientific theory. Science exists without assumptions and this assumes:

A. God exists

I could go further but there is no experimental way to conclude god exists. Even if there was this wouldn't prove god altered the laws of physics to allow this to happen.

This from a scientific viewpoint, is not at all scientific.

quote:But this theory lacks any scientific backbone. Particularly because there is no way of proving it or disproving it.



Thank you for acknowledging that.

quote:The theory that is most sensible to me is that the speed of light was not always constant (c). The reason I see this as the most plausible scenario is because Einstein’s general theory of relativity demonstrates that gravity can distort time. When matter becomes so dense, the gravitational distortion can be so strong a force that not even light can escape. This is apart of what Hawking calls, "Event Horizon." Among such proponents, is João Magueijo, who has expanded the "Variable Speed of Light" theory.

Well relativity says time is a dimension just like space so of course gravity distorts time. Luckily for me not having to waste more time than I have to replying rust has kindly already shown a flaw in your reasoning.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Aft3r ImaGe should be able to deal with your post easily enough, but I'd like to comment on this particular "argument" of yours.

As it has already been explained to you in another thread before, João Magueijo proposes that light was faster in the very early stages of the universe (i.e. that immediately after the Big Bang, light was faster for a extremely short period of time).

He does this not to prove that the universe is "younger", but as an alternative to the inflation theories that has been proposed in the past.

Hence, this "Variable Speed of Light" theory, doesn't come close to explaining the age of the universe as Biblical Literalists see it, and therefore fails to be any evidence of their claims as you are using it right there.

Not only does it not apply after the Big Bang, but it has not been confirmed at all (to the best of my knowledge at least).



Thank you rust.

quote:As well, it has already been proven by two separate teams, that the cessation and aggregate speed of light can be manipulated. So, if we know that it is at least possible to slow or speed up light more or less than its constant, then this serves to give it more credence than just a presuposition.

It has also been shown that no information is transfered when electromagnetic waves are sped up. In the experiments I read about they used microwaves, something which would not even be visible to humans. Of course thats a convieniant detail to leave out.

quote:I'm not following your argument....? I don't believe the universe has been around forever so I can't really answer that question. But maybe I'm not understanding what you are arriving at. Can you expound on your argument?

Creationists normally claim the universe was created 6000 years ago in about it's present state. What I am suggesting, and something you have already admitted to, is that the universe changes, and probably has been constantly changing from it's birth, forming planets and stars, contrary to the bibles account that the earth was created before the stars. Think of it as stellar evolution, a process you have basically admitted to in your last reply.

quote:Well, I'm not sure why this would present an argument that refutes a creationist model. Things change all the time. Live things go to dead things, order goes to disorder, and heat goes to cool. As far as the birth of a new star, I don't think that has ever been witnessed, not that it should present a problem. There has been discussion about protostars and proto-nebulae, but I don't think that any one has recieved confirmation on such a discovery.

So the earth, solar system, and universe was made through natural processes, nothing mystical, or supernatural about that.

quote:

That isn't true. Jaoa Maguijio, Halton Arp, Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, etc, are not creationists at all. And they disagree with much of the mainstream beliefs concerning cosmology.



Are you saying they agree with the creationist model? That is what I was asking.

quote:As I stated earlier, not all creationists are of the YEC persuasion.

"So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age."

htt p://pubs.u sgs.gov/gi p/geotime/ age.html (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/ geotime/ag e.html)

See, this is the circular logic that I've spoken about before, except now you get to hear about it from an unbiased source... (or at least a source that is not in my favor.)

And this goes into the dating methods which is a whole other topic in itself.



"So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks"

So this means the age of earth cannot be determined by other means? Even so this would not be proof of creationism.

quote:

I'm not a mathematician. I only understand equations that aren't hyper-complex in nature, and I highly doubt that if I layed out a theorem for you that you'd understand it. But if you'd like to delve into complex mathematics that deals solely with theological aspects then peruse gematria and theomatics. I don't know enough about it to make an informed decision. But, see, here's the problem... You only want me to give you complex theorems so that you can appeal to authority, while not understanding it yourself. But if you want to post your own theorems, by all means do so. My only prequisite is that you explain every integer and the meaning of the variable you propose in a stepwise fashion so that all us laymen can understand it too.

Aside from the fact that you don't know whether or not I have the ability to understand something, a major assumption on your part, you forget that I could consult a mathematician.

As for whether or not you understand the theories your beliefs state are true is irrelevant, because they could still be verified by someone other than you.

Nice excuse though.

Also as for gematria and theomatics, I asked for you to present proof for your belief on creationism and do not have the time, or patience to sift through creationist literature riddled with propaganda and strawman attacks, looking for something proving it true. If you feel the need to provide proof of your claims and actually start being taken seriously I provided you the opportunity. Just please provide sources as well.

Edit: Had to fix Rust's quote, and a link

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 08-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Yeah, its called slick-haired attorneys who know how to manipulate a conversation to direct their cross-examined witness in whatever direction they want. Heh. I'd like to see the full court transcripts.

Like before, I'm sure that the rest of your post is going to be dealt with easily by the person you're replying to, so I'll comment on this delightful statement of yours.

----

First one has to wonder why you ask for the transcripts if you are already laying down judgment on the issue. Wasn't this an example of 'slick-haired attorneys' manipulating the conversation, or are you admitting that you were being a false witness about an issue your not actually familiar with? Your apparent ignorance aside, one then has to wonder what your objection actually is. Are you suggesting that these lawyers forced Behe to make his testimony; that Behe made his testimony under duress? Are you suggesting that Behe was forced to say what he did? If not, then I fail to see your point. The job of the attorney is to guide the conversation in manner that helps his case of course, but that definitely does not include forcing the witness to say what he did. If Behe was forced, then you could definately say that he said something he didn't mean. But if he wasn't forced, and he knowingly admitted that astrology would fit under his definition of scientific theory, then that is Behe's problem. Behe was either saying the truth, lying or forced to make his statements. Which one is it?

Since you require the transcript, lets examine them:

"

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories."

- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

Behe was asked twice if, by the definition of scientific theory he was using, Astrology is considered a scientific theory and Behe twice answered "Yes".

It should be obvious that there is no manipulation in that testimony. Behe was asked twice, first initially, and then a second time to confirm if that is actually what he believed, and both times he answered "Yes". Behe does define scientific theory in such a way that it allows Astrology to be a scientific theory; there was no manipulation.

So yes, his definition of scientific theory is so loose, that it allows Astrology and other pseudosciences to be considered scientific theories. He deliberately defines it this way, ignoring the clear definition offered by the National Academy of Sciences - which he admits is the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States - because it is his only hope in making ID seem on par with actual Science.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.



Albert Einstein would be disappointed if these standards became the standards of education, considering he had a part in proving the ether theory wrong.

1:

quote:Here was the problem with the experiment...

The Stanley-Urey experiment was tested for the occurance of chemical evolution

. 10-15% of the carbon in the system was "organic compounds". 2% of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 21 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant

. "The original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids

than the current one." Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere. The new atmosphere probably contained ammonia, methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, as well as smaller amounts of other gases. (Wikipedia) so the experiment was indeed successful in the origin of life theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

2: quote:If evolution can't even get off the ground by a purposeless and meaningless direction, then it first came by a supernatural force. Is that what you are tacitly giving recognition to? If so, perhaps ID and evolution can coexist hand in hand, aye?

Again, Evolution concerns itself with the changes of organisms over time. The origin of life "is not a part of biological evolution". Either you claim that the origin of life is influenced by a supernatural force (which is not falsifiable) or not, it doesn't affect the theory of evolution one bit. ID is pseudoscience, Evolution is not.

3: quote:Nothing that happens, happens without causation. Its called "cause and effect." That's the first law of motion, and incorporates the second, and the third in its explantion. As for time, time doesn't exist without space, and matter doesn't exist without time-space. And that puts a damper on your theory and hope for nothingness.

"Nothing that happens, happens without causation". Explain the fact from quantum physics that shows "subatomic particles such as electrons, positrons, and photons, can come into existence, and perish by virtue of spontaneous energy fluctuations in a vacuum". Besides causation is a property of the universe, along with space and time, so your assumption that the universe is caused is like asking "What is North of the North Pole".

4: quote:If there is an oscillating universe, then it has at some point a finite capabilty, because nowhere in the universe does a perpetual motion machine exist. And until you can prove otherwise, the laws of physics will remain just as they are, immutable, absolute laws.

The oscillatory universe, known as the cyclic model- "The cycles can continue indefinitely into the past and future, and the solution is an attractor, so it can provide a complete history of the universe" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Our understanding of the laws of physics will advance as our knowledge increases, just as Newtonian Physics gave way to Relativity.

5: quote:It doesn't conflict with scientific theory, it conflicts with the personal interests of atheists because they cannot account for such an inequality. Are you telling me that cause and effect, along with the laws of thermodynamics, special and general relativity are in disrepute???

Relativity stated that "Time and the universe are coterminous." They came into existence together. If there was no time before the universe and causation "requires time", therefore there was no cause.

6-7

quote:Highly probable? Show me how this is highly probable, and who agrees with you that it is highly probable? If you can name me one action that happens apart from a cause or even multiple causes, I will reconsider my position.That was theoretical gobbledegook...

I already mentioned quantum physics. Stephen Hawking, Sir Roger Penrose, the persons that made the theory and the majority of scientists who believe in the Big Bang. Hawking's claim is supported by relativity and mathematics. You might call it what you like but the theory stands.

8: quote:Pffft. How so? The expansion is the beginning that leads to the Big Crunch. Where exactly is the contradiction?

Craig denies the existence of the singularity "The initial cosmological singularity is not an existant...The initial singularity is thus the ontological equivalent of nothing". If he denies the singularity, the he denies the modern scientific explaination that as the singularity, which contained "huge temperatures" expanded (not exploded) the temperature dropped, placing "the forces of physics and elementary particles" into their present form. He takes out singularity, he denies the thermodynamic contraction.

9: quote:This is an awful lot of hand waving. A lawless and indeterministic universe could and would concievably configure particles in any given direction. But what consequence does that have to how it began? There might not be any discernable patterns in the universe, which to us, really means nothing. Butthis still fails to answer the biggest question: How can the universe come from nothingness, and without a cause, even when a potential cause doesn't even exist?

As this thread stated, the universe didn't come from nothing, there was nothing from where the universe came from. Causation and the Universe are coterminous. The unpredictability of the singularity shows that the universe couldn't show any form of "design" and that the expansion/exponential growth of the singularity is feasible. Hawking stated "Because all known laws of physics are formulated in a classical space-time background, they will all break down at a singularity."

10: quote:You keep glancing over the obvious, which is, that neither Craig, nor I, believe that the universe will trek on for all of eternity. I thought I made that abundantly clear. As for God's thought's being eternal, that He always had the universe in mind somehow must mean that universe would always be eternal breaks down. Please tell me why He could not have always had the thought, and yet has made a finite time when He acts to manifest that thought? That's like assuming that if I had the thought to buy a car, that the car was always mine prior to the action.

The statement was to show how your claim for a supernatural cause contradicts your own claims. I never mentioned "thought" so your claim is invalid. If God created the universe "outside of time", then time and the universe are separate, and therefore the universe would be timeless (synonym: eternal). Without the notion of time, nothing can "begin to exist" or "be created" because these terms are all dependent on time. Your logic creates unintelligiblity.

11: quote:The fact that physical constants exists gives ontological reasons to assume that capriciousness could not create order...

The fact of the matter is that, given our current knowledge about the origins of the universe, nobody has the slightest idea how likely and unlikely our universe is. You cannot prove that the probability of life-permitting conditions by "capriciousness" are unlikely. Besides, Life as we know it may not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. The most powerful "laws for physics" the conservation laws were shown to be against design rather than for it. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/stenger_intel.html

12: quote:What? Don't you get it? The argument presents the problem for the big bang without the intervention of a special, creative act. How can nothing explode?

I answered this in this post.

13: quote:AiG poses these problems on the reliabilty and plausibility of such:

To give context to this "Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on Young Earth Creationism, and a literal or plain [1] interpretation of the first chapters of the Book of Genesis.

Answers in Genesis believes that "the scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge," and that "[t]he doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

•Amino acids are selective about the order in which they will combine. They do not combine randomly in a Miller-type of experiment.

Now it should be obvious that even modern proteins don't have to have the structural specificity that you claim they do. You can shuffle a lot of those amino acids around and replace them with others, and still have a fully functional enzyme. For example beta-hemoglobin and frog hemoglobin differ in 46 percent of their amino acids, but they both transport oxygen perfectly well. So a second fallacy of his argument is that you have to have just one particular sequence of amino acids for an enzyme to do its job. That evolutionary theory requires a completely random process of amino acid polymerization, whereas the literature shows they do not join together randomly any more than a snowflake results from random assembly of water molecules.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html to learn more.

14-15: quote: That shouldn't surprise you that no one wants to give ID a fighting chance. It wouldn't surprise me that right after he made that statement, that he went on to explain how whenever a thesis is submitted, that its rejected and ruled as an a priori and not on the basis of an academic ruling.Yeah, its called slick-haired attorneys who know how to manipulate a conversation to direct their cross-examined witness in whatever direction they want. Heh. I'd like to see the full court transcripts.

And you would believe him without question? Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data, and which require explanations to be based upon empirical evidence. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that they asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice president, said that "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review."Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters. (Wikipedia) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision3.html#p210 http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

For the trial documents.

quote:Heh. Only in your mind, kiddo.... You're in check by the way.

I take offense. Prove your "theory" than you can become arrogant. It seems that in this thread it is only in your mind that ID is correct."All shine, and no substance! [Turning to Cates] Bert, whenever you see something bright, shining, perfect-seeming—all gold, with purple spots—look behind the paint! And if it’s a lie—show it up for what it really is!" (Inherit The Wind) You're in check now.







[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-03-2006).]

quote:How to get a scientific theory into school textbooks.

Step 1) Have your hypothesis.

Step 2) Research. You need to test your hypothesis through experiments.

Step 3) Peer-review. Your collegues must review you experminents, data, and conclusions

Step 4) Gain a consensus. After going through the peer-review process, other SCIENTISTS need to agree with the theory.

Step 5) Publish in textbooks.

ID has attempted to jump straight from step one to step 5. It has certainly skipped the peer-review and scientific consensus steps and thus should not be included in school textbooks as science.

So, I've spent a large portion of my day reading the court transcription of the Dover trial. After reading the first portion of Behe's cross-exam, the question of peer review came up. He had this to say about it:

(the format will not allow a copy and paste, so try and follow the dialogue.)

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day10AMSession.pdf

you should provide some key words we can run a search for so we are all on the same page.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

So, I've spent a large portion of my day reading the court transcription of the Dover trial. After reading the first portion of Behe's cross-exam, the question of peer review came up. He had this to say about it:

(the format will not allow a copy and paste, so try and follow the dialogue.)

http ://www.acl upa.org/do wnloads/Day10AMSession.pdf (http: //www.aclu pa.org/dow nloads/Day 10AMSessio n.pdf)

<sigh> i read all that (not ALL of it, but a lot) and then realized the document contained no cross examination.

Care to actually provide an argument?

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 08-03-2006).]

I don't even know why he linked to it in the first place really. The only thing that the discussion of peer-review did was set up one awesome cross-examination.



Behe points out that he has had only one article dealing with Intelligent Design, succesfully pass peer-review. One. Not only is that a pathetic number, but the article itself only ended up embarrasing Behe in the cross-examination. If you guys haven't read the cross-examination, please do.

Basically, Behe, in that article that passed peer-review (http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps.04802904v1), was trying to give an example of irreducible complexity. His argument pretty much depended on a computer simulation on how long it would take a population of bacteria to develop a novel protein feature through mutations. But as the attorney so brilliantly pointed out in his cross-examination, the scenario Behe constructed for his simulation was utterly absurd and ultimately failed miserably.

Behe's calculation showed that if we only take a population of 1 billion bacteria (which is much less than the number of bacteria in a ton of soil, which in turn is much less than the number of soil on Earth) and if we assume there is no mechanism to preserve these mutations (as there is in real life) and if we only consider point-mutations (ignoring any other possible mutations, like those cause by insertion, deletion, frame shift, etc.) they would develop a new 'protein feature' in 20,000 years. And that is supposed to be an example of irreducible complexity.

Here's a link to part of Behe's cross examination I'm talking about above:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

So, I've spent a large portion of my day reading the court transcription of the Dover trial. After reading the first portion of Behe's cross-exam, the question of peer review came up. He had this to say about it:

(the format will not allow a copy and paste, so try and follow the dialogue.)

http ://www.acl upa.org/do wnloads/Day10AMSession.pdf (http: //www.aclu pa.org/dow nloads/Day 10AMSessio n.pdf)

Did you happen to see this right here:

quote:From the linked article, page 29

"Q. Now, sir, you've been described as an advocate

for intelligent design, is that accurate?

A. Yes, uh-huh.

Q. And you stated that you are a Catholic, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is Darwin's theory of evolution inconsistent with

your private religious beliefs?

A. No, not at all.

quote:I quoted it above. The claim that evolutionists are atheists is a lie.

That isn't a lie, Beta. If I knowingly stated something that was false, that would be a lie. I could be incorrect about something and that wouldn't be lying. But I stand by my argument.

quote:Bingo. Congratulations on refuting your own claim. Theists accept evolution. Evolution is not atheism nor does accepting evolution make you an atheist.

I said that evolution, at the base level, is tantamount to an atheist doctrine. I believe its true for all of the reasons I listed. I also said that theistic evolutionists exist. To me, they are compromising out of ignorance. People do that in a number of ways and maintain views that irreligious all the time, yet they still refer to themselves as being religious. If evolution has no need for a Creator to do anything, then there is no need for a Creator period. A Creator would be a superfluous element to the story, as opposed to having any kind of central role, suporting role, or any role of any kind, other than perhaps being a witness to the event. The underlying tone in the whole theory, as recorded by so many evolutionists, "No God's, no Master's." As humans piously try to affirm that they are the masters of their own destiny. That's atheism through and through.

quote:That is unknown and beyond science.

If being guided by purpose and direction is beyond science, then so is something being purposeless and guideless by the premise. But, being that every creature exhibits a purpose in everything they do, to somehow arrive at the conclusion that the conglomeration of all things not having a purpose undermines itself. Its kind of like the philosopher who searches for meaninglessness. Is he not finding meaning in the meaningless search? His preference for banality is undermined by the fact that the search serves a meaningful purpose in itself. So he actually pwns himself. I feel the same about the ToE.

quote:The theory says that evolution can occur through what appears to be natural mechanisms. Rain can also occur through natural mechanisms, do you believe that means God didn't cause the flood?

God causes the rain through natural means, through His designed natural Law. If there were no God, there'd be no rain, nor would there be any avenue or platform for anything to have emerged. That's what I believe.

quote:If by "cause all that is actual?" you mean the creation of the universe, then you have again ignored what evolution really is.

What if you were talking to someone and no matter how many times you explained christianity to you, they kept repeating "Christianity is the worship of Muhammad as God" how long before you wrote them off as ignorant and blind?

If I'm understanding your question, you are basically asking whether or not God could have used evolution as a means for His creation? Yes, He could have used evolution, because God can use whatever natural means He so desires. But this begins to defy logic, defies observation, and defies a deep intuition on the philosophical, biological, and spiritual level. And being that the ToE has been used to undermine God doesn't give me any compelling reason to assume that it happened in this way.

quote:Obviously I did not reply "no" to both. Nor have you shown where the theory of evolution specifically says there is no God. Remember just because it says it happened different from what you believe doesn't make it anti-God (unless you are God).

It doesn't need to specifically say there is no God. Just like the campaign to take God out of every public institution is an obvious way to demonize God. No one needs to specifically shout that they hate the notion of God for me to understand that they do hate the notion of God. Its obvious, its transparent, and so is the premise of evolution. Its blatantly obvious. Are you teling me that the ToE doesn't give you a satisfying reason to assume that no Creator exists? Does it not tie in to your overall philosophy? Is it not the foundation of your irreligious philosophy?

quote:The manual to my car doesn't explain how it was built, thus I guess my car doesn't exist. The obvious answer is, the manual deals with owner operation and not building. Do you need to know how every part of the car was made to drive it?

That's an asinine argument. That's like finding a spaceship in the woods and not wondering where it came from, who built it, why it was built, how it got here, how its technology is so advanced... You don't wonder how this all came to be?

quote:Evolution deals with the origin of the species but not the origin of life. Another theory deals with that.

But it all ties in together, doesn't it? Without a cosmological evolution there could be no chemical evolution, and without a chemical evolution there could be no biological evolution.... Hence, there could no evolution, nor anything else. The origin of life for mankind is a biggie, listed high on the totem. If you are content with not knowing, that is certainly your right. But I, as Einstein once stated, 'want to know the Mind of God.' Everything else is just backround music and white noise.

quote:Please quote where I said the creator must be defined beyond being an "intelligent designer"?

You don't need to define it because the dictionary has already done that. If a Creator doesn't create, then it can't really be a Creator at all, now can it? I can't be a painter unless I paint. I can't be a drummer unless I drum. Same principle.

quote:So, you are saying you do not believe the earth is only 6000 (or round abouts) years old and that neither of you have ever brought up topics dealing with the age of the earth (a belief ID doesn't support)?

I believe that it is possible for the earth to be any age. The only way we are going to ascertain something of that nature is through more testing. I'm not currently satisfied with the methodology because it employed circular reasoning from its inception. That's a problem for me and it should be a problem for all scientists. Dating methods are first calibrated on the presumption that the universe is billions of years old. Could it be that old? Sure, it could be. Could it be 6-7-8,000 years old. Sure, it could be. I think we need more data and I think we need to refine our methods, because our imaginations on evolution and all of its baggage might creep in our minds and spoil the integrity of the scientific inquiry.

quote:I find it quite ironic you question my ability to grasp a "simple concept." It would seem many IDists can't grasp the concept that if we don't know, that's it, we can't go making assumptions and pretending they are science.

But come on Beta? It is simple. If life isn't unintentional, then it is intentional. Ascertaining the answer might not be so simple, and indeed, I would agree with you on that. But the concept itself is very simple and it gives us a satisfying starting point.

quote:If the car is not red that doesn't mean it must be blue.

There are many more options as there are many more colors. But life is either intenional or it isn't. Only two options.

quote:If the sky is not black that doesn't mean it must be blue.

The color of the sky is dependent on many factors, such as the time of day in relation to the sun, cloud cover, whether or not the sun is shining on that part of earth... But life is either intentional or unintentional. It narrows our possibilities down to two options. That's 50/50 shot that we are either right or wrong.

quote:If science can't explain it, it doesn't mean God/Aliens/demons did it.

No, you are right. It doesn't absolutely verify any of them. What it does do is give us more reason to examine the possibility. But some people have ruled those things out as an a priori. Imagine trying to solve 1 + 1 with the number 4, 5, 6, or 135. If you rule out the number 2 as an a priori before ever giving it a chance to possibly solve the theorem. That's what ID does. It examines the scientific causes for this and that. You and I are studying the same information. The only difference is our interpretation of that evidence.

For fuck sake, man, give us some evidence that proves there is an intelligent designer and stop making claims about evolution - you know jack shit about evolution. FUCK, what is wrong with you?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

If I'm understanding your question, you are basically asking whether or not God could have used evolution as a means for His creation? Yes, He could have used evolution, because God can use whatever natural means He so desires. But this begins to defy logic, defies observation, and defies a deep intuition on the philosophical, biological, and spiritual level. And being that the ToE has been used to undermine God doesn't give me any compelling reason to assume that it happened in this way.

so, it i am understanding you, you think god could have created through evolution but you disagree with it scientifically?

would you like to present an alternate theory besides "god did something, but i don't know what."

if you don't believe evolution is the way it happened, then how did it happen?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I said that evolution, at the base level, is tantamount to an atheist doctrine. I believe its true for all of the reasons I listed. I also said that theistic evolutionists exist. To me, they are compromising out of ignorance. People do that in a number of ways and maintain views that irreligious all the time, yet they still refer to themselves as being religious. If evolution has no need for a Creator to do anything, then there is no need for a Creator period.

All the reasons you've listed have been thoroughly refuted.

1. Just because some atheists use evolution to support their position does not make evolution an 'atheistic doctrine'. If that were the case, then mathematics and logic - both used by atheist to support their position - would be considered 'atheistic doctrines'. This "argument" of yours is illogical and unreasonable.

2. Similarly, just because evolution does not need the existence of a god, does not mean that it is an atheistic doctrine. The same examples can be used again. Take Logic, Reason, Mathematics, Education, and Engineering as examples; in all of those, there is no need for a creator to do anything. By your "logic" those are 'atheistic doctrines'.

3. You purposely ignore, it seems, the fact that evolution doesn't need a lack of a Creator either. It needs neither a lack or a presence of a Creator in the universe for it to be correct; just as "2+2=4" doesn't need a creator, or a lack of a creator, for it to be true propositional statement. So because it doesn't need a creator, it is 'atheistic' but because it also doesn't need a lack of a creator, it isn't 'theistic'?



Your argument fails by all accounts, yet you still desperately cling to it. Why? Because you need to demonize evolution by any means, however ludicrous those means become. Ignoring what was said (which is evident in your reply to Beta) and making ridiculous allegations such as this one, are part of this ploy.

Hyro:

quote:If evolution has no need for a Creator to do anything, then there is no need for a Creator period.

Do you always put your creator in such a small box?

What created evolution?

Let's put the same logic to other theories.

If Germ theory has no need for a creator to do anything, then there is no need for a creator period. Thus Germ theory is atheistic doctrine.

If the hydrological cycle has no need for a creator to do anything, then there is no need for a creator period.

But wait...

quote:God causes the rain through natural means, through His designed natural Law. If there were no God, there'd be no rain, nor would there be any avenue or platform for anything to have emerged. That's what I believe.

So which is it? Is Rain/Evolution an atheistic doctrine that removes the need for God, or is Rain/Evolution a natural means which God can act. You can't have both.

quote:If being guided by purpose and direction is beyond science, then so is something being purposeless and guideless by the premise.

You misunderstand. Being guided by an untestable unfalsifiable supernatural "purpose" is beyond science.

I role a die, it lands on 6, I win a bet. Was the die guided by God? Use science to prove yes or no.

I'll wait... ... ....can't be done. Same goes for ID. (and this isn't even getting into the fact ID makes an assumption about nature we know isn't true. It would be like assuming the die must be completely random.)

Let's try another experiment with dice. Let's say I throw 100 dice and they all land on 1. Lets say I do it 10 more times and the exact same thing happened. Was it pure chance or supernatural forces?

quote:If I'm understanding your question, you are basically asking whether or not God could have used evolution as a means for His creation? Yes, He could have used evolution, because God can use whatever natural means He so desires. But this begins to defy logic, defies observation, and defies a deep intuition on the philosophical, biological, and spiritual level.

Bingo God Could have used evolution.

Please tell me what logic and observations this defies?

We are talking about science here, not intuition or philosophy or spirituality. Just because a theory makes you uneasy doesn't make it wrong.

Did you know Fred Hoyle (you listed him earlier) didn't accept the big bang because it made his atheistic philosophy uneasy? Did you know his opinion of cosmology was looked down on by the scientific community after that?

quote:And being that the ToE has been used to undermine God doesn't give me any compelling reason to assume that it happened in this way.

Logical fallacy, appeal to emotion/opinion. Genetics was used to try and prove blacks were an inferior race. Do you not believe in genetics because they were used in someone's philosophy?

How a theory is used in peoples philosophies doesn't change whether it is right or wrong.

Personally I like flying, gravity makes me feel uneasy. That doesn't mean gravity is now false.

quote:That's an asinine argument.

No it is not.

If you can prove to me you need to know how every piece of a car was put together before you can drive it, I will admit you need to know how life came together before we can claim it evolved.

You seem to be dodging this point because it hurts your claims, don't become like atheist Hoyle.

quote:Could it be 6-7-8,000 years old. Sure, it could be. I think we need more data and I think we need to refine our methods, because our imaginations on evolution and all of its baggage might creep in our minds and spoil the integrity of the scientific inquiry.

Lots of people like to say "we" when they really mean "I".

No, scientists do not need more data to know the earth is older than 8000 years. It is you that needs to understand the current data better. That means you need to go far beyond the simple, false and half-truth claims of creationist papers to the actual data, tons upon tons of it, collected by real scientists.

Until you do that, you shouldn't be speaking for "we".

quote:But come on Beta? It is simple. If life isn't unintentional, then it is intentional. Ascertaining the answer might not be so simple, and indeed, I would agree with you on that. But the concept itself is very simple and it gives us a satisfying starting point.

I've already given other possible answers.

quote:No, you are right. It doesn't absolutely verify any of them. What it does do is give us more reason to examine the possibility. But some people have ruled those things out as an a priori. Imagine trying to solve 1 + 1 with the number 4, 5, 6, or 135. If you rule out the number 2 as an a priori before ever giving it a chance to possibly solve the theorem. That's what ID does. It examines the scientific causes for this and that. You and I are studying the same information. The only difference is our interpretation of that evidence.

Nope, science hasn't ruled out the possibility of a creator, it just understand it can't make any statement about such a thing. ID is attempting to claim 1+1 = apple, when scientists know apple is not a mathematical concept.

Which brings us back to where we started, IDists are trying to claim that if we don't know, then "Intelligent designer did it." Scientists on the other hand take the more honest answer, if we don't know, then we don't know. (notice, they don't say "If we don't know, God didn't do it).

Please read over that twice before replying.

quote:still waiting for scientific evidence of intelligent creation however. can't find any? then mabye we shouldn't teach id in the science classroom.

I'm not sure why it is people think that Intelligent Design is a new movement. It isn't. In fact, this has long been the belief that the universe and all that is contained therein is the product of some higher cognizance. Its a strong inference. The other competing argument was that everything always existed for an inexplicable reason. William Paley, the 16th century apologist argued in favor of an Intelligent Design, particularly with his Watchmaker argument. Where does that factor in with Darwin. Darwin was no doubt familiarized with the debate and evolution was his answer. Many eminent evolutionists agree on that point, including Gould and Richard Dawkins, who authored his refutation of Paley, with, "The Blind Watchmaker."

The point that I'm trying to make is that in modern times, we've been so indoctrinated by evolution and its become such a powerful dogma, that few people can understand how any other explanation could be given. But this has always been the inference. Its common sense. So much so, that its difficult for me to grasp how I could have missed that for so many years. But now, I feel that we are right at the cusp of a paradigm shift, right or wrong.

I cannot find a single html format on the web of the Dover trial. So, I am going to give Behe's testimony under oath on the ID argument of the "Blood Clotting Cascade Mechansim" argument. Here, Behe is being challenged to support how the blood clotting mechanism can be construed as an example of irreducible complexity. Please note that I had to type this out by hand, so if you could not instantly flame me, it would be much appreciated. Just present a counter-argument without conjecture. Thank you.

Tammy Kitzmiller et al

v

Dover area school District

Questions are asked by Defense attorney Robert J. Muise, questions are answered by Dr. Michael Behe, PhD.

Q. Now, sir, we've put up on the slide a figure, 6-5, that appears on page 142 in the Pandas text. Can you explain what we see here?

A. That's right. This is an electron micrograph of some red blood cells caught in the meshwork of a protein called fibrin, which forms a blood clot. And most people, when they think about blood clotting, if they think about it at all, it appears to be a simple process.

When somebody cuts themself, a minor cut slows down, stops, and heals over, and it doesn't seem like -- it doesn't seem like much at all. But thorough investigation over the past 40 to 50 years has shown that the blood clotting system is a very intricate biochemical system. And I believe there's an illustration of it on the next slide.

Q. Now you referred to, I believe, a blood clotting csacade, is that correct?

A. That's right.

Q. Can you explain a little bit to us as you're explaining what we see here on this particular diagram?

A. Okay, sure. Yeah, this is a figure of the blood clotting cascade taken from the biochemistry textbok by Voet and Voet, which is widely used in colleges and universities around the country. You see all these names of things and arrows. The names of things are very complex proteins of the complexity or sometimes more complex than the hemoglobin that I showed yesterday.

In blood clotting, the material that forms the clot cannot, of course, be in its solid clotted form during the normal -- during the normal life of an animal or all of the bllod would be clotted, and that would be inconsistent with its life. So, the material of the clot that actually forms the clot exists as something called 'fibrinogen,' which is actually a soluble pre-cursor to the clot material.

It floats around in your bloodstream during normal times. But when a cut occurs, fibrinogen is transformed into something called 'fibrin,' and that happens when another protein comes along and cuts off a small piece of fibrinogen, a specific piece which exposes a sticky site on it, sticky in the sense of those two proteins yesterday that I saw that -- that I showed you that had complimentary surfaces.

It exposes a sticky site on the surface of the fibrinogen, which allows the many copies of fibrinogen, now turned into fibrin, to aggregate and stick to each other, forming the blood clot.

But what is the component that cuts fibrinogen and activates it? Well, the component is another protein called 'thrombin.' But now we've got the same problem again. If thrombin were going around cutting fibrinogen and turning it into fibrin, all the blood would clot, and that would congeal the blood and kill the animal.

So thrombin itself is an inactive form called, 'prothrombin,' so it has to be activated when a cut occurs. And that's the responsibility of another protein. And that protein exists in an inactive form, and it's -- the activation of that is the responsibility of another protein.

So in the blood -- it's called a 'blood clotting cascade' because one component acts on the next which acts on the next which acts on the next, and so on. Now, notice that the blood clotting cascade actually has what are called, 'two branches.' There is one in this box up here is labeled, 'The Intrinsic Pathway.' And this is labeled, 'The Extrinsic Pathway.' So there are actually two branches to this blood clotting cascade.

--------------------END TRANSCRIPT-------------------

Okay, this is just one example of ID in nature. The question you have to ask yourself , is, how could all the functions described, could they have formed and evolved over millions of years of biological time, when each component must have been concievably present all at once? If each of the contrivances were not present from the inception of 'blood' itself, how could it have existed at all? This 'feature' could not have developed by natural selection unless every one of those components were around since the beginning.

So, the challenge is for any one of you to come up with a reasonable explanation for how all of these vital components could have evolved slowly, when NO animal could survive without all of them present from the beginning.

This is what ID is all about. Its about science, not science fiction, not theology, not anything else. ID examines the exact same data as evolution, only it doesn't come to some fanciful conclusion that nature always mysteriously seems to get it right. Its inconcievable. Again, does it mean that 'God' did it? No. Is the 'Goddidit' answer in its brevity alone an acceptable answer? No. Could nothing spawn everything and evolve over millions of years to form more and more complexity throughout the ages? No. Furthermore, does Dr. Behe sound as though he is the moron that people portray him to be. No. Therefore, it should be reasonable that ID be given a fair shot to be discussed in classrooms all over the world. What are you afraid of? That they're right? Heaven forbid!

To add to what I said.

Let's assume an intelligent designer did play an integral role in the adaption of the species. Then science will be left with a constant "I don't know" but we can not make any assumptions beyond that. We can't say that evolution doesn't know thus it must be an intelligent designer.

Let's apply this to other concepts. In the past we didn't know what caused diseases, was "supernatural demons did it" a valid answer? Where would we be know if that answer was always accepted.

quote:Okay, this [blood clotting] is just one example of ID in nature.

Really? Can you show me the evidence that points to an intelligent designer? By evidence I don't mean the fact it is claimed evolution can't explain it.

I'll let others deal with your claims that Blood clotting can't evolve (hint, that is wrong.)

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 08-03-2006).]

I think when it comes down to it rationalization will continue to take the place of logic in reference to creationism, and ID, unless one opens the mind to the possibility that just because a religion says it doesn't mean it is right.

I think creationists should turn off the assumptions for just an hour, one hour to think logically, does this make sense? Is this possible? Is there really any evidence, or do we just believe anyone who says there is? Is there really logic to this or are we just telling our self this to try to hang onto a belief system?

Consider the fact that you may be wrong, it is not the end of the world. If you still choose to hang onto your religion because it comforts you, you need to ad-knowledge that no, scientifically, and historically, it is not completely accurate. It's not that big of a deal, you can still keep your faith, it doesn't even go against any part of the new testament where the majority of Christianity is situated, only the creation myth.

At the very least you may realize that it is wrong to try to push theology on science, and it is not in anyway science, not any more scientific than astrology, which is not science, no matter what someone in a suit may say, they are not scientists and have no right to redefine science to allow religion to be considered such.

When it comes down to it, you can never experimentally prove or disprove a creator or intervenor, and all scientific theories are required to be able to be proven true or false, since it is not possible for creationism or intelligent design to form a scientific theory, they cannot ever be true science.

Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity by using the following cogent reasoning: [S]tructures and processes that are claimed to be‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection. For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today. Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection. Thus, the ‘history’ of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms . . . The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion.

Second, with regard to the blood-clotting cascade, Dr. Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade has been disproven by peer reviewed studies dating back to 1969, which show that dolphins’ and whales’ blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade, a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998. (1:122-29 (Miller); P-854.17-854.22). Additionally and more recently, scientists published studies showing that in puffer fish, blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one, but three parts. (1:128-29 (Miller)). Accordingly, scientists in peer-reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade. Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a

scientifically warranted redefinition.(20:26-28, 22:112-25 (Behe)).

Conclusion written by Judge John E. Jones

quote:Okay, this is just one example of ID in nature. The question you have to ask yourself , is, how could all the functions described, could they have formed and evolved over millions of years of biological time, when each component must have been concievably present all at once? If each of the contrivances were not present from the inception of 'blood' itself, how could it have existed at all? This 'feature' could not have developed by natural selection unless every one of those components were around since the beginning.

So, the challenge is for any one of you to come up with a reasonable explanation for how all of these vital components could have evolved slowly, when NO animal could survive without all of them present from the beginning.

You, know nothing, about evolution.

Evolution says, if I am not mistaken, life started as single cell organisms, which don't even have blood.

If you do know what your talking about then your just making strawman attacks. If your not just lying you need to do some real research into what your talking about.

Edit:

Stated below much more elegantly :

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity by using the following cogent reasoning: [S]tructures and processes that are claimed to be‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection. For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today. Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection. Thus, the ‘history’ of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms . . . The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion.

Second, with regard to the blood-clotting cascade, Dr. Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade has been disproven by peer reviewed studies dating back to 1969, which show that dolphins’ and whales’ blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade, a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998. (1:122-29 (Miller); P-854.17-854.22). Additionally and more recently, scientists published studies showing that in puffer fish, blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one, but three parts. (1:128-29 (Miller)). Accordingly, scientists in peer-reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade. Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a

scientifically warranted redefinition.(20:26-28, 22:112-25 (Behe)).

Conclusion written by Judge John E. Jones



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 08-03-2006).]

Well put Hespeaks.

Now we get into the meat of the issue. Blood clotting was an example for ID because it was assumed evolution couldn't explain it. That turns out to be false. Thus ID is based around the faulty assumption that if science can't explain it today, it can never explain it, and that Intelligent Design must be the only way it could have happened.

To put it simply ID is based on the assumption that if it hasn't been explained then it can never be explained, and if it can never be explained then an Intelligent Designer did it. Which is fault logic and faulty science.

ya, that blood clot thing is just another bullshit irreducible complexity argument.

irreducible complexity made sense back before modern science even existed 500 years ago and we didn't see how things broke down, but now we know that eyes developed in parts just like the circulatory system did.

that's why we see simple circulatory systems in sponges and hydra, more complex forms with with single-chamber hearts in to higher vertebrates, etc.

i don't know specifically how platelets evolved in vertebrates, but i am sure that they did and that someone here can explain it further.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Well put Hespeaks.

Now we get into the meat of the issue. Blood clotting was an example for ID because it was assumed evolution couldn't explain it. That turns out to be false. Thus ID is based around the faulty assumption that if science can't explain it today, it can never explain it, and that Intelligent Design must be the only way it could have happened.

To put it simply ID is based on the assumption that if it hasn't been explained then it can never be explained, and if it can never be explained then an Intelligent Designer did it. Which is fault logic and faulty science.

Don't forget the Intelligent Design needs a creator/intervener which cannot be proven of disproven, causing ID and Creationism to not be scientific theories.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I cannot find a single html format on the web of the Dover trial.

Really? I've posted several links to the court transcripts, in HTML format, through out this thread, and so have other people if I'm not mistaken.

A direct link to the table of contents:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

This thread ought to be closed already. It's gone onto 12 pages and still not a single shred of evidence has been given. Not only that, but all the posts are retreads of a previous one. "Evolution is wrong, so ID is right. Evolution is atheistic because it doesn't mention a creator."

Evolution is a red herring fallacy that he just keeps bringing back up.

A wonderful pro-evolution video that also talks about Dover With Ken Miller. 117 minutes but filled with wonderful information. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&search=intelligent%20design

I love what he says about Human chromosom 2

heres an article http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

I don't like posting super long articles so I will summarize it. Human chromosome 2 looks very much like 2 champagne chromosomes fused . Complete with vestigial telomeres at "precisely the expected location" and vestigial centromeres at the expected location if the fusion of these 2 chimpanzee chromosomes did in fact occur.

[This message has been edited by Q777 (edited 08-03-2006).]

Since my detractors are essentialy repeating themselves, there is no sense in me answering each person specifically any longer. I'm still answering questions on page 10. For every one post of mine, I have 20 new ones waiting for a day. Meanwhile only a handful of Totseans are even attempting to answer mine. Of those that are, I extend my honor to you. This is the same problem that DS faces. She and I have to answer 20 + posts a day, just to keep up, while you all have to answer little 'ole me and her. So, I think I'll just make some open replies to the entire thread.

From what I've read, the pro-evolution proponents have not liked the answers I've given them. (Hang on, let me put on an incredulous face with my hands raised in perplexed manner). I can only assume that there is no right answer for them, aside from their particular brand of religion - evolution. No one seems to understand that its an odd's game that is in direct contravention with the evolutionary model, and the two are currently incommensurate unions trying their damndest to coexist. I have posted several referrences of this, to no avail, of course. They continually come up with some excuse for why the argument doesn't work, even though they aren't actually posting an actual treatise, just rhetorical conjecture geared at defaming the theory, not answering the specifics. In other words, they're derailing the thread. So I guess I'm going to have to go into the chance of chance, itself. In other words, what are the odds that these anamolous occurances can continue with such precision in a chaotic world? With the world that has been described to me by evolutionists, I'm shocked that we've managed to stave off total and complete annihilation in 4.5 billion years of time. How could we surmise that protozoa, the not-so-simple simpletons, could themselves be the product of a wholly chaotic and inhospitable world? And what is any of it based upon, anyhow? I've heard the argument that we shouldn't expect to see fossilized organisms this small because their exoskeletons would not have fozzilized. I'm not merely speaking about protozoan's but of all alleged primitive life. But this should make us wonder why it is an appealing afterthought in the their minds to begin with. Molecular biology has demonstrated that even the simplest of organelles are immeasurably more complex than our most advanced technology. And yet, no one bats an eyelash. Even Richard Dawkins, arguably the most vehement opponent to the Design inference, has conceded that life certainly appears to be designed, and that his basest imaginations envision that such a complexity does not seem as though it could possibly have formed over successive copying errors. But then, of course, he goes on to argue that it betrays his senses and that all of this complexity is just a fart in the wind. He admits this even in his wildest vagaries. We have exquisitely designed, intricate, molecular machinery, composed of thousands of seperate, yet integral components working in unison and harmony. But pay no mind to that, aye.

Aside from their being no such thing as a primitive cell, at least not in the sense of complexity, none of this strikes any of you as odd that life should continue in an upward fashion from less complex to more complex, all the while pretending that if evolution is real, that it doesn'thave a general direction? Consider a primordial sea filled with prebiotic material, with every single component necessary already available, that increases the rate of evolution under terrific circumstances. But this misses the point entirely, even under the greatest of circumstances, things don't just fall in to place. And if one or two things beat the odds, certainly millions of times bespeaks of something a bit more laudable than pure chance. The probability of a single protein being arranged by chance has more zero's attached to it than Bill Gate's ledger balance. And that's just one of them. At the minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules to make possible even the smallest organism with the smallest genome possible, the probability is 1 in 40,000 to find this set at random. And that figure is being overly and unduly generous. How many years, and how many trials must have concievably been tried to find this specific set to make life work?

Even supposing that it could have formed inexplicably and against all odds, how much more likely would it have been for lightning to strike twice or thrice? The formation of a second or a third would be infinitely more difficult, so as to be absurd. Its like Darwin's argument for the complexity of the eye. He didn't understand it, he just gave some guesstimate as to what might have happened. But he didn't take into consideration how unlikely it was that the second eye should have formed in a simliar fashion, in the same location of the body by random chance, even if it were propagated by a cluster of light sensitive cells.

You can call it an argument from incredulity, but I call it an argument from sensibility. I don't know what else I can say about it. Is it really so impossible to concieve that life just might be the product of design and not chance after chance after chance? I've certainly considered the alternative.

So, to summarize, what you're trying to say is:

"I can't answer the problems being pointed out, and I can't provide any evidence for Intelligent Design or Biblical Creationism, so I'll ignore everything that has been said and change the argument completely"?

Is that about right? I want to know if this is right before I reply...

Yep, when we provide evidence against ID he is amazingly unable to answer us even though everyone has been saying the exact same thing. It's claimed it's 20 against 1 when really it's 20 different ways to put 1 answer against 1 incorrect statement.

He then reverts back to the obviously false "evolution is just random chance" and tries to ignore all the points provided to him.

Which is sad, the conversation looked like it was leading somewhere, but I guess we can't have that, not when it challenges his personal belief system (pretty much the only reason he is still defending ID).

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Even supposing that it could have formed inexplicably and against all odds, how much more likely would it have been for lightning to strike twice or thrice? The formation of a second or a third would be infinitely more difficult, so as to be absurd. Its like Darwin's argument for the complexity of the eye. He didn't understand it, he just gave some guesstimate as to what might have happened. But he didn't take into consideration how unlikely it was that the second eye should have formed in a simliar fashion, in the same location of the body by random chance, even if it were propagated by a cluster of light sensitive cells.



...wtf!

at this point i have to question hyros level of education.

i suppose having symmetrical body parts is random chance in higher life forms, even though 2.5 billion year old genus's have symmetry.

bringing up they eye argument only weakens the the argument for irreducible complexity.

quote:

You can call it an argument from incredulity, but I call it an argument from sensibility. I don't know what else I can say about it. Is it really so impossible to concieve that life just might be the product of design and not chance after chance after chance? I've certainly considered the alternative.



it is possible that life is a product of design from a higher life form. virtually nobody on this thread has denied that i think.

but it doesn't impact the validity of evolution whatsoever.

The sad thing is that this whole conversation is pointless. It in no way effects whether or not ID is taught in schools, and DS and Hyro shall continue being intellectually dishonest liars who cling to their pathetic little faith in philosophy/science gone wrong.

Speaking of ID and school, the voters of Kansas elected new board members putting those in support of real science at a 6-4 lead. Kansas's old board, supported the teaching of ID. To make it easier to teach ID in class they actually redefined science.

Although it's not expected to last, next election year those for "higher morals" will gather troops and I bet we will see another change towards redefining science so ID can be taught in the already failing public school system.

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

The sad thing is that this whole conversation is pointless. It in no way effects whether or not ID is taught in schools, and DS and Hyro shall continue being intellectually dishonest liars who cling to their pathetic little faith in philosophy/science gone wrong.

DS Explains that she is NOT a liar (liar being a big insult) because she completely believes in what she is saying: She explains that a liar is someone who has a malicious intent to mislead behind their statements, and her intent isn't to mislead but to lead to the Lord, thus she is not lying since she really believes what she says (according to her).

I believe a liar is someone who lies. I believe a liar is someone who promotes something false, despite their believing or disbelieving in it. Is not the man who believes and teaches a falsehood, a man who is lying? He may not mean to lie, but he is a liar.

DS Blocked me and refered to me in some unsavory terms http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

She may be mildly offended that I said Christianity is a Lie and that she promotes Blasphemy against God.

Christians often pride themselves on hardcore honesty while preaching and promoting things I find untrue, false, lies.

What is your definition of a liar? Is it someone who tells and promotes lies in general or someone who lies deliberately only?

In my belief, within God the Magnificent, is this Reality, within this Reality is a system by which this Universe is governed, included in the system are the laws of physics and the ability for life under certain conditions, adaption(evolutionary), and more.

To say God is a being in the image of a man somewhere up in heaven who literally with "hands" molded some being, a human being, in the image of God and in the form of a modernish human skipping the entire evolution and changes of Earth's atmosphere and landscape, the development of life on Earth and more is in my belief, completely untrue.

1.God is not a Man.

2.Men are not in the image of God.

3.God has systems in place in this Universe which we can study, learn, and understand to a degree, this includes adaption and evolution.

4.There is no conflict between God being God and evolution.

5.You may claim that believing in evolution proves the Bible false, but you don't even have to take it that way.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Since my detractors are essentialy repeating themselves, there is no sense in me answering each person specifically any longer. I'm still answering questions on page 10. For every one post of mine, I have 20 new ones waiting for a day. Meanwhile only a handful of Totseans are even attempting to answer mine. Of those that are, I extend my honor to you. This is the same problem that DS faces. She and I have to answer 20 + posts a day, just to keep up, while you all have to answer little 'ole me and her. So, I think I'll just make some open replies to the entire thread.

From what I've read, the pro-evolution proponents have not liked the answers I've given them. (Hang on, let me put on an incredulous face with my hands raised in perplexed manner). I can only assume that there is no right answer for them, aside from their particular brand of religion - evolution. No one seems to understand that its an odd's game that is in direct contravention with the evolutionary model, and the two are currently incommensurate unions trying their damndest to coexist. I have posted several referrences of this, to no avail, of course. They continually come up with some excuse for why the argument doesn't work, even though they aren't actually posting an actual treatise, just rhetorical conjecture geared at defaming the theory, not answering the specifics. In other words, they're derailing the thread. So I guess I'm going to have to go into the chance of chance, itself. In other words, what are the odds that these anamolous occurances can continue with such precision in a chaotic world? With the world that has been described to me by evolutionists, I'm shocked that we've managed to stave off total and complete annihilation in 4.5 billion years of time. How could we surmise that protozoa, the not-so-simple simpletons, could themselves be the product of a wholly chaotic and inhospitable world? And what is any of it based upon, anyhow? I've heard the argument that we shouldn't expect to see fossilized organisms this small because their exoskeletons would not have fozzilized. I'm not merely speaking about protozoan's but of all alleged primitive life. But this should make us wonder why it is an appealing afterthought in the their minds to begin with. Molecular biology has demonstrated that even the simplest of organelles are immeasurably more complex than our most advanced technology. And yet, no one bats an eyelash. Even Richard Dawkins, arguably the most vehement opponent to the Design inference, has conceded that life certainly appears to be designed, and that his basest imaginations envision that such a complexity does not seem as though it could possibly have formed over successive copying errors. But then, of course, he goes on to argue that it betrays his senses and that all of this complexity is just a fart in the wind. He admits this even in his wildest vagaries. We have exquisitely designed, intricate, molecular machinery, composed of thousands of seperate, yet integral components working in unison and harmony. But pay no mind to that, aye.

Aside from their being no such thing as a primitive cell, at least not in the sense of complexity, none of this strikes any of you as odd that life should continue in an upward fashion from less complex to more complex, all the while pretending that if evolution is real, that it doesn'thave a general direction? Consider a primordial sea filled with prebiotic material, with every single component necessary already available, that increases the rate of evolution under terrific circumstances. But this misses the point entirely, even under the greatest of circumstances, things don't just fall in to place. And if one or two things beat the odds, certainly millions of times bespeaks of something a bit more laudable than pure chance. The probability of a single protein being arranged by chance has more zero's attached to it than Bill Gate's ledger balance. And that's just one of them. At the minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules to make possible even the smallest organism with the smallest genome possible, the probability is 1 in 40,000 to find this set at random. And that figure is being overly and unduly generous. How many years, and how many trials must have concievably been tried to find this specific set to make life work?

Even supposing that it could have formed inexplicably and against all odds, how much more likely would it have been for lightning to strike twice or thrice? The formation of a second or a third would be infinitely more difficult, so as to be absurd. Its like Darwin's argument for the complexity of the eye. He didn't understand it, he just gave some guesstimate as to what might have happened. But he didn't take into consideration how unlikely it was that the second eye should have formed in a simliar fashion, in the same location of the body by random chance, even if it were propagated by a cluster of light sensitive cells.

You can call it an argument from incredulity, but I call it an argument from sensibility. I don't know what else I can say about it. Is it really so impossible to concieve that life just might be the product of design and not chance after chance after chance? I've certainly considered the alternative.



First of all we are not giving "excuses" we are giving valid reasons why your theory does not work and is not scientific. Calling it excuses is a cheap way to dismiss the reasons you are wrong. This is sort of like peer review, something scientists do to test the validity of a theory. If the theory can't stand up to totse, it is destined to be doomed when exposed to the (mostly) much more educated scientific community.

Second of all we are not the ones being closed minded, I would, without a doubt support intelligent design if there was sufficient evidence supporting it. Not only is there NO EVIDENCE AT ALL but you continue to ignore points brought up to you and refuse to be open minded enough to consider your religion isn't science, and ID/Creationism could be wrong, and has no evidence supporting it. Without there being evidence there is no reason to believe what your saying. Think about it, if we just believed things on the basis you want us to accept ID then we should also found the theory the universe is in a giant milk shake. Natural selection isn't proof of intelligent design.

Thirdly: Evolution DOES have a direction. This is called Survival: all living things try to live and continue their species. The animals that survive and adapt live, while the ones that don't die. That is essentially the basis of evolution. Also why do you claim there is no such thing as a "primitive cell"? One celled organisms have been found in the earths crust bottom of the ocean and everywhere around us. Are these advanced? No. Adapted to their environment? Yes. If that makes them complex (ie not primitive) then so be it. Living things adapt to survive, thats how evolution works, it does not require outside forces acting upon it other than it's environment.

Even now you look for ways to ignore points against you by clumping us all into a group that you answer with well your just making excuses (which upon further investigation turn out to be valid points against ID/Creationism) so you can say you don't need to respond. Thats close mindedness at it's finest.

If you won't stand by your ideas, and provide proof then don't expect any intelligent people to believe your "theory" which has already been proven not a scientific theory several times in this thread.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

DS Explains that she is NOT a liar (liar being a big insult) because she completely believes in what she is saying: She explains that a liar is someone who has a malicious intent to mislead behind their statements, and her intent isn't to mislead but to lead to the Lord, thus she is not lying since she really believes what she says (according to her).

I believe a liar is someone who lies. I believe a liar is someone who promotes something false, despite their believing or disbelieving in it. Is not the man who believes and teaches a falsehood, a man who is lying? He may not mean to lie, but he is a liar.

DS Blocked me and refered to me in some unsavory terms http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

She may be mildly offended that I said Christianity is a Lie and that she promotes Blasphemy against God.

Christians often pride themselves on hardcore honesty while preaching and promoting things I find untrue, false, lies.

What is your definition of a liar? Is it someone who tells and promotes lies in general or someone who lies deliberately only?

In my belief, within God the Magnificent, is this Reality, within this Reality is a system by which this Universe is governed, included in the system are the laws of physics and the ability for life under certain conditions, adaption(evolutionary), and more.

To say God is a being in the image of a man somewhere up in heaven who literally with "hands" molded some being, a human being, in the image of God and in the form of a modernish human skipping the entire evolution and changes of Earth's atmosphere and landscape, the development of life on Earth and more is in my belief, completely untrue.

1.God is not a Man.

2.Men are not in the image of God.

3.God has systems in place in this Universe which we can study, learn, and understand to a degree, this includes adaption and evolution.

4.There is no conflict between God being God and evolution.

5.You may claim that believing in evolution proves the Bible false, but you don't even have to take it that way.

They are lying though because we keep showing them that their idea of what evolution is is false and a lie and explain what evolution really is, but they ignore us and keep preaching the same old crap.

Digital Savour is a hypocrite, and how she treated you is proof of that.

i like how abrahim is able to converge science and religion in a positive way.

to me abrahim, your beliefs sound a lot more like yoism (http://www.yoism.org/) than islam though.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



[...]







1. It's not that we don't like the "answers" you've given, or that we are changing the topic, it's that you haven't given any answers, and have been hell-bent on changing the topic from the moment you got here. You have answered absolutely nothing, and even though we have told you that we were waiting on evidence that supports ID and/or creationism, you've ignored this.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> You claimed that ID is a valid scientific theory; we showed that one of it's largest supporters has to completely change the definition of scientific theory to allow ID to be considered on par with real science. You ignore this.

<LI> You've claimed that Behe was manipulated in his testimony; we've showed that he was not manipulated at all. You ignore this.

<LI> You claimed that evolution is an atheistic doctrine; we've pointed out that the majority of those who believe evolution are theists, and that the arguments you've given are vacuous at best. You've ignored this.

<LI> You showed a supposed example of irreducible complexity that Behe argued; we've show how that example had been refuted ages ago. You ignored this.

<LI> You've given calculations of the alleged odds involved in evolution; we've showed how they are erroneous and ultimately meaningless. You ignore this.

<LI> You've provided, what you claimed was, evidence of variable c; we've showed how these events are either theoretical and limited to the Big Bang, or examples of slowing light through the medium in which it passes, and not examples of the variation necessary for an "younger" age of the universe. You ignore this.

<LI> You've provided a purely philosophical argument allegedly supporting the idea that the universe was created by an intelligent creator/designer; we've pointed out how the premises used in the argument fail to be valid, and how the conclusion can be that the "cause" of the universe is not an intelligent creator/designer. You ignore this.

<LI> You've claimed that evolution violates Thermodynamics; we've showed you how it does not and have pointed out your lack of proof. You ignore this.

</UL>

2. There is a delightful irony that permeates these comments you make about the "chaotic" and "inhospitable world" while claiming that this world has been specifically created by an Intelligent Designer. Only an unreasonable person can see "Intelligent Design" in an inhospitable world that threatens our life both on a global level as well as a cosmic level.

Those comets that have stricken Earth before, and threaten to strike it in the future (possible ending our existence)? Well, those are the Intelligent Designer's way of saying "I love you".

3. "Complexity" neither refutes evolution, nor supports Intelligent Design. We see complexity in a lot of places where no reasonable person would conclude 'Intelligent Design' has taken place; complexity can arise naturally and we see it constantly. A great example was pointed out to you in this very thread, and you (surprise, surprise) ignored it. Snowflakes. Snowflakes show an immense amount of complexity; yet to claim that there is an Intelligent Designer behind every single snowflake would be utterly ridiculous.

4. You keep offering these numbers for which you provide absolutely no calculation, no evidence, and to top it all off, are deliberately ignoring that these numbers of yours are rendered meaningless if you ultimately only consider sequential trials and not simultaneous ones.

More importantly, you ultimately offer nothing but a strawman. Not only is evolution not concerned with how the first form of life was formed, but even within the scientific theory of abiogenesis, no Scientist claims that life coming from non-life would be a casual, every day event.

5. Even if we consider these arguments of yours as valid - even if we ignore all of the problems that have been pointed out - ultimately you've done nothing.

Science does not consider the supernatural in the search for explanations. Whether the supernatural actually exists or not, is not something that Science concerns itself with; it simply attempts to explain what it cans through natural means. As such, even if we accept these arguments from ignorance/incredulity ( which you ironically dub "arguments from sensibility http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ) it would ultimately be meaningless. Intelligent Design would still be pseudoscience, it would still lack meaningful evidence, still lack predictability, and still lack any means to test its "hypothesis".

Have you wondered why Behe has to re-define "scientific theory"? There's your answer: because Intelligent Design would fail to be a scientific theory if he didn't, and he's honest enough to acknowledge it.

--

Now, either answer the problems we've pointed out (I've listed a few of them - there are more) or kindly stop wasting our time. You don't have to reply to every single one of us, but we do expect you to answer the general problems being brought up. Like Beta said, our replies are not necessary different, but merely similar ways of saying/viewing the same problem.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-04-2006).]

I was under the impression that the purpose of this thread was to determine whether or not Intelligent Design qualifies as a valid scientific theory and should be taught within the science curriculum of publicly funded high schools, not for the purpose of proving/disproving the Theory of Evolution.

Thus far , the only arguments put forth in favor of ID, have been negative attacks against the Theory of Evolution, not evidence supporting ID as a scientific theory. This has been a tremendous waste of time and bandwidth, as the validity of the Theory of Evolution in no way lends credence to ID. Intelligent Design would not win by default were the Theory of Evolution proven wrong and discarded. ID would still have to prove itself a viable scientific theory , or it must also be discarded.

Philosophical or emotional arguments in defense of Intelligent Design do not lend to it scientific merit. For Intelligent Design to be taught as a scientific theory, it must meet the same requirements as those imposed on any other scientific theory:

<OL TYPE=1>

<LI> It must be falsifiable. There must be legitimate ways to test the theory to determine if it is valid. If the theory is valid, the experiment would be expected to yield X.If the theory is incorrect, the experiment would yield something other than X.

<LI>An hypothesis must be presented.

<LI> The hypothesis must be tested through experimentation and observation. If the results disagree with the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be modified and retested, or discarded.

<LI>The results, with a detailed description of the experiments must be submitted to the scientific community for peer review. This allows other scientists to perform the experiment to verify that the proper scientific procedures were followed and that the interpretation of the results were correct, and not coincidence or misinterpretation.

<LI>If the hypothesis withstands peer review and repeated testing to verify its validity, it then qualifies as a scientific theory.</OL>



Intelligent Design does not meet these basic requirements, and as a result, does not qualify as a scientific theory. It is a philosophical concept. It is not science.

<OL TYPE=1><LI>There is no possible way to construct an experiment which could prove or disprove that a supernatural designer was involved in the creation of or the modification of life. I am in no way asserting that it is not possible that a creator was actually involved, just that there is no way possible to test such an idea. The scientific method deals with the natural world, not the supernatural.

<LI> ID starts with a conclusion, and ignores contradictory evidence, rather than modifying or discarding the hypothesis

<LI> ID has not submitted it’s findings to the scientific community for peer review. (Speeches in front of college students at theological institutions or before church congregations do not qualify as peer review).</OL>

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory..

Intelligent Design is a philosophical concept, being presented as science.

It has no place in a publicly funded high school science class.

I see no problem presenting it in a philosophy class, as it is a philosophical concept.





[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 08-04-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Your 'observations' largely come by a very biased media outlet that happens to distort and twist the truth to make Christians and creationists appear like a bunch of slack-jawed yokels holed up in the Ozarks. I mean, look who they choose for their interviews? They pick the most bizarre, most over-zealous, Christians they can find to paint this imaginary picture that all, or most behave in such a bizarre fashion. Its just not true. And so, if you are incapable of discerning whether or not AiG or ICR uses 'real' science to corroborate their claims, then I have to assume that you are ignorant. Its baseless and its mean-spirited.



How do you know where my observations come from? Never did I mention the source or context where I made my observations. You are assuming that I watch so called 'biased' media I am ingorant, baseless, and making mean spirited based observations about what I think Evengalengical Christains in regard to evolution. However, I will admit an error on what the source of what I made my observations in that I made my observations attending Sunday services at a Baptist church and not an Evengalengical church so my bad.

Assumptions have a way of making an ass out of you and me. I did my part, how about yours?

quote:If you really were ignorant then you

d have no way of knowing whether or not you were ignorant. So, you just might be ignorant to the fact that you're ignorant. But hey, the word ignorant was not initially intended to be a dirty word. It just means that you don't know a particular aspect about something. I'm ignorant to the engine of a car, at least when juxtaposed by a mechanic. Its nothing to be ashamed of. We all are ignorant in one way or another.

Ignorant to the fact of being ignorant? Okay but what if you know the aspect but it does not make any sense to what it is applying to something. Evolution does not apply to the aspect of the orgins of life but rather the dynamics of life on this planet after the orgins are already there.

quote:Well, you're right that its a theory, but how strong it is, is a matter of your interpretation. But as an author that I admire once said, "Some things are true, even if you don't think they are." As for the backing of fossil evidence, I'll kindly ask you to show me a consistent stepwise sequence of gradations.

Here is a link that shows a picture of a consistent stepwise sequence of graduations of the Chesapecten Scallop through 13 million years. http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/scallops.html

Moving on

quote:The neat thing about Intelligent Design is that there are only two viable options in the universe. Life is either intentional, or it is not. Proving that life could not be a mere happenstance, over, and over, and over again with such precision is all that ID needs to confirm itself. It does not prove the existence of God by doing so, it simply proves that a higher Cognizance is at work in the universe. The Design inference, is an inference. So by demolishing the competitor of a wholly naturally driven, guideless, purposeless universe, Intelligent Design wins by default. The crux of the matter is this: Empirically proving the existence of God is as impossible as empirically disroving the non-existence of God. But, then again, ID isn't trying to prove the existence of God, nearly as much as they are appealing to the sensible notion that we are the product of purpose, intent, intelligence, and a cognizance beyond our immediate and full comprehension.

The problem is that ID sounds more like philoposy rather than science. So I ask where is the scientific evidence of ID? Show me scientific evidence of ID? If you can't then it is philoposy. Also how does ID explain extinction? It seems that extinction seems to run condrictrary to ID.

quote:Why do you assume that I am theologically aligned with Notre Dame, a once Catholic-established institution or Bringham Young, a Mormon institution? Do you think that I believe in all religions?

I never did assume you were theologically aligned with those universities at all. All I showed were examples of universities with religious orgins to support my fact of most universities in the united states having religious orgins.

quote:Furthermore, the composition of those institutions are very secular, which shouldn't surprise anyone. I mean, if you wanted to draw a conclusion, Harvard was started under the pretense of religious affiliations. But it is almost entirely secularized today.

Just because those universities may be secular does not dimish the fact that they have roots and orgins of a religious nature.

quote:Clearly you misunderstood me. Your 'faith' (and it is by faith that you believe) in evolution comes from your trusting that whom you might otherwise refer to as, "an expert witness," must know what he/she is talking about. You don't 'know' that we've landed on the moon in the same sense that you 'know' whether or not your shoe lace is tied. Likewise, you don't 'know' that evolution is true unless you have been out in the field and have personally witnessed such a transmogrification. You 'believe' what you've been taught is true, and that belief is only because you have 'faith' that they know what they are talking about. But you don't 'know,' in a classical sense. You believe. And i'm merely pointing that out to you.

But what does faith provide in scientific evidence? Do you mean how scientists interpert the evidence at hand they are doing it on faith or are they doing it by applying the scientific method? Faith is you believe in something to be true or false when there is no evidence to say it is true or false. There are many different faiths and beliefs but only one scientific method. The only thing is how the scientist executes the scientific methold.

quote:Christians can be theistic evolutionists. the Bible could be viewed as mostly allegorical and it would not present a problem for them. So, a creationist must take there beliefs on matters of science that coincide with the matters of the Bible. But this still misses the point that evolution at the core, is an atheist doctrine. And that's fine. If you want to believe in it, then you have that right afforded to you. But I have a right to recognize that its an atheistic tool just as much as you have the right to disagree.

Then as such let's agree to disagree and end it between you and I. You have your beliefs and I have mine and that is cool and I can respect that.

As such. I bid adieu.

it's true that evolution allowed many people to adopt athiesm such as the ussr, but that doesn't mean it's an athiest doctrine any more than a hammer used to murder somebody makes all hammers murder weapons.

The big bang theory allowed theists to be scientifically honest, yet creationists still attack it. Makes me wonder if the "evolution is atheism" is just an excuse and a smoke screen.

As I've pointed out before, the hydrological cycle shows God doesn't directly cause it to rain, thus based on Hyro it's an "atheistic doctrine" where are the attacks against it?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I've certainly considered the alternative.



I've never thought of science as a Who Dunnit as much as a How Did it. What I mean to say is, it is within the realm of Religion and in some cases Philosophy to give us grand explanations of the all mighty originator and within the realm of science to tell us just what the originator has done, how it operates, and how magnificent, complex, and beautiful everything in the universe is.

It is in my opinion silly to say that belief in evolution is somehow a belief in no God, if you have an accurate and strong concept of what a God should be, then evolution and everything that exists is support for the belief in God, as nothing, in my opinion, can exist without God, everything is within, completely dependant, this includes this reality, this universe, and its glorius systems such as adaption and evolution. There is absolutely no conflict between the idea of God and the idea of evolution unless your God is a limited concept which does not for whatever reason encompass the possibility of having evolution and adaption as part of this universe.

You will, if you are a true and strong believer in the One God, attempt to use your mind and drop the false concepts attached to the one all encompassing, and understand the miracle and wonder that is this Universe and its systems, be thankful and appreciative of it all, and not deny it: clinging to a book full of falsehood and blasphemy against the nature of the all encompassing One.

They can never truly take your God away, the most they can do is end your life, and even then will you live again. Dropping the Bible is NOT dropping God, it is dropping a book with error and adjusting yourself in the direction of the Truth.

What is the Truth?

God is not a Man nor in the image of man nor in any image, but all images are within God the Ultimate Reality, the All Encompassing One of which we are all made and completely dependant on in order to exist, what all possibilities available to us are dependant on and run through and by.

Children are what men, animals have, God is not an animal, animals adapt and evolve to better deal with their environment, that system is part of this reality, this universe, and this world, to God goes all credit. God has no children for God is not a man or an animal but the one all encompassing, right before you, and behind you, what is was and always will be, strip away everything and still there is only God, the one.

The Bible was written by men over a long period of time and is full of errors and contradictions based on the thinking of the times, misinterpretations and rewrites.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

i like how abrahim is able to converge science and religion in a positive way.

to me abrahim, your beliefs sound a lot more like yoism (http://www.yoism.org/) than islam though.

Thank you!

quote:And the results supported the theory of abiogenesis.

No, it didn't. No one has ever, ever, created life from non-life. In fact, Miller's experiment served to be the greatest confirmation that life only comes from life. The reason for the inquiry was that it was once believed that leaving out rotting meat would cause flies to spontaneously generate. To them, there were no flies, and all of a sudden, it appeared that maggots grew out of the meat. It was only until studies explained that adult flies would lay their larva in the meat unbeknownst to anyone and not that they grew out of the meat. If spontaneous generation could occur to circumvent the law of biogenesis, then it would be abundantly clear by now. The tests haven't stopped with Miller. He was just the tip of the iceberg. People are still trying to defy the physical law, but with no success.

quote:And the obvious questions stemming from ID are what is this designer and how did this designer arise. Notice how the questions stemming from evolution can actually be supported/refuted though (and have been supported thus far), while those from ID cannot.

I suspect that this debate will go on for a much longer time. But the general concensus is that the ToE has failed to support its own allegations and ID is beginning to make much more sense to the open public. And evolutionists have taken notice of the scientific exodus, that's why they campaign against it. This is why ID is winning in the debates or why evolutionists simply refuse to debate altogether. Pro-evolutionists, in the cruelest sense of irony, are finding themselves increasingly more and more obsolete, and thus the theory itself is evolving right into the annals of extinction.

quote:You have basically just reduced ID to saying that "causality must be true in all cases." Let's assume you are right on this for the moment, then what is to say that is eternal "something" is "intelligent?"

I haven't reduced ID to be a single cause or a single argument. Being that everything that happens only occurs because something precipitated that event, there is no compelling reason why anyone would ever think that when something occurs, that is happens apart from cause. But you could also explain to me how it can. Which no one has done. The argument is, "Well, you don't really know that for sure." But that isn't a great argument. That isn't even an argument at all.

quote:Why are you engaging in these non-ID related discussions, while ignoring criticism specific to ID?

I've answered the questions directed to me, in sequential order. I've answered the same questions several times because one another is saying the same things. I tried to make a general reply so that I didn't have to repeat myself, but that wasn't good enough. I've given examples of ID, but my opponents say that I've given none. And when I ask specific questions, their retort is tantamount to, "nuh-uh."

quote:Logical fallacy. God could simply have acted in any of those steps. Besides evolution does not violate the second law 9f thermodynamics. Have you actaully study the mathmatics behind the second law, have you manipulated its equations, how you solved real life problems with it? I have studied biochemistry intensively, and my professor for thermodynamics even specialized in self organizing systems. Life poses no problem at all for thermodynamics, this is pure creationist propaganda that has been refuted repeatedly and yet you continue to spread it.

If you photocopied a page 10,000 times and randomly shuffled the letters that compose the words, would the information be legible? No, they wouldn't. So how is it that life is supposed to be ever increasing in complexity by the random shuffling inside the genome and if we are all ultimately a copy of a copy of a copy? Its the exact opposite. Organisms would be less pure from its original form. Think about it. And because evolutionists understand this in principle, they now concede that life isn't really getting more complex, or that there isn't really an 'uphill progress,' just change. How totally banal is that argument? But this ignores their own phylogenic tree of how we first were supposed to be simple prokaryotic life, evolving into more complex eukaryotic organisms of more autonomy and greater intelligence. The trend they portray is obvious, and yet, they tell us that evolution doesn't 'really' have a direction from simple to complex. And this is just a theoretical aspect of genomics and evolutionary biology because although mutation and recombination are clearly identified aspects of cellular life, no new genes or suites of genes with new functions have ever been reported to have evolved. All that has ever taken place is a recombination of genes that were already extant. The mutations, most of which are ultimately injurious, degrades information, it doesn't increase everyone's survivability. It, in fact, lessons those chances each time a new recombinant is formed.

quote:How about my refutation on page 10? It was an argument SPECIFIC to ID in the classroom.

I already offered a refutation for that. I saw that you made a counter-argument, and when I reach it, I will answer those questions too.

quote:You have had this evidence explained to you numerous times and you ignore it every time and then make these creationist assertions. I will ask you a simple question that will settle this: Assuming evolution true, What evidence would you expect for it to be present? If you answer is "every single fossil that ever existed" then I think you have shown your true colors. Did you know that only a very small percentage of living organisms will become fossils and then get dug up in tact?

Yes, I'm aware that very few organisms are fossilized. Most organisms do not survive decay. However, there are well over a million fossilized species in museums and universities the world over that we can compare and contrast. And there is nothing that makes any good argument to suppose that one evolved into another. The closest they believe to have come to a legitimate transitional form was archaeopteryx, and this critter makes no sense at all in an evolutionary frame of mind. If I recall, we went over him in depth a few months ago. Aside from which, there are billions of living creatures walking around right now and we don't see any organisms that have clearly gone through a stepwise graduation that would link one specie to a seperate specie. There are at least hundreds of gaps in between the species. Cripes, the genetic difference between mans supposed closest living ancestor 1.5%. You say, see, that isn't very much at all. But you glance over the obvious, which is a change of nucleotides at this percentage equals 48,000,000 nucleotidal change. No specie can survive a change 3 nucleotides. Three! So while ape and man may have some physiological and anatomical similarities, the difference between them is enormous. Aside from which, the percentage keeps dropping. It was first stated to be 98.7%, then 97.3%, then 96.4%, now its less than 95%. Again, this has more to do with a percieved lineage than it does an actual lineage. Furthermore, its total circular reasoning to assume such a lineage. If chimps share qualities with humans, then that does not in any way mean that we are related, it means that they are the creatures that so happen to share the most similarity with us. If a duck had a similar genetic structure, we'd most closely resemble a duck, or a duck would most closely resemble us. That in NO WAY suggests a lineage, especially in lieu of how disparaging the nucelotide difference is to any organism. If all organisms were created, then at some point, one is going to look more closely related to another. Chew on that notion for awhile, because that is a logical fallacy. And for how much you like to speak about logical fallacies, I'm shocked that you'd overlook this one.

quote:First off, life is not composed of DNA strands. Life CONTAINS DNA. There is a difference, because the DNA is just the instructions. Darwin knew far less of heredity than you realize. He also believed in mixed inheritance.

Life is DNA because it couldn't be possible without it. You can thank Crick and Watson for their contribution. If it were not this way then we'd have one helluva chicken and egg problem. But I do agree that Darwin knew little about heredity, at least when juxtaposed by Mendel. In fact, its been Mendellian genetics that helped to destroy the old evolutionary paradigms. What I meant for Darwin, is that everyone knew that heredity existed long before studying genetics. Everyone understood that their sons and daughters resembled themselves long before cytogenetics was available. People knew that dogs birthed dogs and cats birthed cats. And Darwin did make some very good observations during his trek. He only later came to some bad conclusions based on those observations.

quote:The only reason love cannot be mathmatically defined is because everyone has a different definition for it. If you narrow the definition down it is possible.

No, mathematics deals with the physical world and their physical units. Love isn't quantified by physical units. You couldn't mathematically explain love any more than you could mathematically explain hate.

quote:Anyways, what scientific theory states that life originated at random? I see you keep beating that straw man. I have explained to you numerous times that neither evolution nor abiogenesis is random.

Apparently it is you being that you keep defending a dead theory. Life doesn't originate out of nothing. And if evolution were not random, then it is intentional, and intent is highly indicative of intelligence. So, if evolution does not happen through randomness, then what causes an intentional process that purposefully propagates itself?

quote:Again, I asked you what evidence you expect. Apparently is IS every single fossil from every lifeform that existed. This is total unreasonable. We expect there to be gaps in the fossil record for the simple reason that fossil formation is very rare and recovering the fossils is even more rare.

You expect to see a gap for every single animal? Those are horrible odds. What links amphibians to reptiles? What links reptiles to birds? What links mammals to anything? Give me something specific and we'll go from there.

quote:But every single fossil that HAS been found fits with the theory of evolution and THAT is remarkable for a theory that you claim is false.

This is patently absurd. Provide me with some unmistakable piece of evidence that one comes from the other, either directly or indirectly. This is lacking even circumstantial evidence.

quote:How about full genome sequences? How about sequences of specific genes like the 16s ribosomal subunit. I see you know very little of phylogenetics. I have contrusted a phylogenetic tree myself based on 16s ribosomal RNA sequences so I do know a little something. But that is really an aside... genetic similarity suggests not that one oganism came from another it suggests that the two organisms are closely related and thus shared a common ancestor.

Well, then you won't mind submitting your thesis for peer review of ribosomal RNA sequences. I'm now wondering why you haven't submitted it already instead of just telling us about it. If your study yielded so many fruits it makes me wonder why you haven't used that as demonstrable evidence to support your claims. I think your contemporaries would like to see it too so that they may have some more ammunition when debating proponents of ID. So, please, submit your dissertation for review.

quote:Do you find it interesting that we can insert human DNA into a microbe or plant or other mammal?

No I don't when you consider that the majority of sites are completely similar. Chimeras are created in labs all the time, transposing plasmid sites of one unit onto another. But, alas, this only serves to confirm the gross misperception that people have about this process and their capabilities. In other words, we aren't going to get the island of Dr. Moreau because we can only isolate specific genetic traits. We can't invent plantman or goatboy because there is an impassible gulf affixed between species. If it were so simple, all creatures would be able to procreate with another, including humans and chimps. But we can't. And even through genetic manipulation by splicing genes together, you can only go so far.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

If you photocopied a page 10,000 times and randomly shuffled the letters that compose the words, would the information be legible? No, they wouldn't. So how is it that life is supposed to be ever increasing in complexity by the random shuffling inside the genome and if we are all ultimately a copy of a copy of a copy? Its the exact opposite. Organisms would be less pure from its original form. Think about it. And because evolutionists understand this in principle, they now concede that life isn't really getting more complex, or that there isn't really an 'uphill progress,' just change. How totally banal is that argument? But this ignores their own phylogenic tree of how we first were supposed to be simple prokaryotic life, evolving into more complex eukaryotic organisms of more autonomy and greater intelligence. The trend they portray is obvious, and yet, they tell us that evolution doesn't 'really' have a direction from simple to complex. And this is just a theoretical aspect of genomics and evolutionary biology because although mutation and recombination are clearly identified aspects of cellular life, no new genes or suites of genes with new functions have ever been reported to have evolved. All that has ever taken place is a recombination of genes that were already extant. The mutations, most of which are ultimately injurious, degrades information, it doesn't increase everyone's survivability. It, in fact, lessons those chances each time a new recombinant is formed.

you know jack shit about evolution. life doesn't evolve from simple to complex and it never has, nor has it ever been claimed by anyone but misinformed creationists.

right now the ocean is "de-evolving" because it is being altered by humans making more primitive life florish and current life decline.

evolution favors whatever form reproduces best in the current environment, that is all.

Hyro:

quote:No, it didn't. No one has ever, ever, created life from non-life. In fact, Miller's experiment served to be the greatest confirmation that life only comes from life. The reason for the inquiry was that it was once believed that leaving out rotting meat would cause flies to spontaneously generate. To them, there were no flies, and all of a sudden, it appeared that maggots grew out of the meat.

You just mixed two different scientists and experiments. Maybe you should stop here and educate yourself about the subject before going any further.

quote:People are still trying to defy the physical law, but with no success.

What people, please name them and explain their experiments. If you can't I think we can conclude you don't actually understand what you are talking about.

quote:If you photocopied a page 10,000 times and randomly shuffled the letters that compose the words, would the information be legible? No, they wouldn't. So how is it that life is supposed to be ever increasing in complexity by the random shuffling inside the genome and if we are all ultimately a copy of a copy of a copy?

Wow, so sad.

in bold and caps now: EVOLUTION IS NOT PURE RANDOM CHANCE

This should be noted that hyro has been informed of this many times before, the next time he claims evolution is pure random chance we can peg him as a liar. Hyro, please don't be a liar. Ok?



Yet amazingly we have switched back to arguing over evolution and abiogenesis. I get the feeling this is because his arguments for ID completely flopped.



Hyro, can you stick to the point and provide valid evidence for ID, showing it is valid science or will you continue to dodge questions and change the subject while repeating old claims you should know are false?

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 08-05-2006).]

quote:Logically, one would think that complexity makes chance possible. When complexity is lacking there is no chance, only more of the same.

No, logically, if someone were to look upon something that is extremely complex, they wouldn't think that it just happened. They would logically, and rightly so, be more inclined to reason that an intelligent mind was behind it. That would be the reasonable assumption.

quote:Alright there Psychiatrist, you want to post a picture of your Doctorate to give some credibility to that assumption you just made?

I don't need a Doctorate in anything to recognize and understand the mind. Just like I don't need to understand every aspect of nutrition to understand that eating food is a critical aspect of life.

quote:I agree with you here except when you say Religion and Science should be apart. Albert Eistein himself said Science is the language of God. I'm a man that believes in God, so I openly admit that I do have my bias on this.

If we were to agree that a Creator(s) exists, I don't feel that it is the job of science to reveal what exactly the Creator is. What I mean is, I don't believe there is any extrapolation of science that could be used to understand the supernatural, but only the natural world. I agree that science helps to determine how the Creator does what He/She/They/It does, but science breaks down once outside of the natural view. I don't think we need to identify what the Creator is in the science classroom. I think we just need to recognize that something exists and figure out how it was done, or by what natural means He does what does. But identifying the Creator is the job of theologians and philospohers, not scientists.

quote:No scientific evidence to support any of its claims. It belongs in a philosophy class and nothing else. That means the only way it can be taught along with evolution is if a student choses to take the philosophy class. Until this theory can provide scientific evidence on not just "maybe this and maybe that because I think it makes sense", its just philosophy.

Intelligent Design does not seek to unmask God, Himself, but rather, seeks to show unambiguously that such a Being exists and that pure chance plays no role in the formation of the universe and all that is contained therein. ID is an inference. Its a theory. And I suspect that it will always remain a theory. I'm not saying that its something that is going to be 100% verified. Indeed, the very nature of it cannot be. But its much like evolution in that it uses inferences to draw logical conclusions. I mean, I don't understand what the difference is to certain people. We are looking at the exact same things, the only thing different, being our interpretation of the evidence. I don't think the evidence is in favor of evolution for a multitude of reasons. I don't have one, solitary problem with the ToE. I have many issues with it that are irreconcilable with many already well-established facts.

quote:They are not only the product, they are the reactants. Law of Conservation, d00d. Chemicals are always moving from one reaction to the next all originating from an intense energy source.

I would agree with that, but what does this have to do with the conversation? How does the Law of Conservation tell us that all organisms are relatd by a common ancestor?

quote:BTW, you cannot reduce all the components down to nothing. There is always something.

The smallest component we have managed to break down is a quark. Could there be something even simpler? Perhaps, energy? Sure. But at some point there is nothing left to reduce. You can break down a physical unit only so far before you start getting into the negatives. The problem may occur in your mind because we've never known absolute nothingness and it may be a difficult concept for you to grasp. That doesn't mean that it negates the argument. When we think of nothing, do we think of pure blackness, or do we think of a white sheet of paper with nothing on it? I mean, I admit that the conceptualization may be difficult to percieve, but I think we all understand it mathematically.

quote:The uncertainty principle, proved by Bell's theorem states that the most sub of sub atomic levels is in constant flux with our plain of existence to another. Being that I am a beleiver in God, this brings me to believe this is what Jesus was talking about when he said we are all connected to each other and God.

You think that Jesus was saying that we are all connected by neutrino's and quarks? I don't.

quote:This sub of all sub levels is almost pure energy that is in constant flux and not localized to just one particle but all making it universal. Thus, we have it being called the Uncertainty Principal because it never has a certain 4 dimensional existence (3 dimensions physical and 1 dimension temporal).

This breaks down because energy has to exist somewhere, i.e. space-time. If energy has no where to go, then no fluxuation can occur. And we know that space-time had a finite beginning. Indeed, before the Beginning, there was nothing in the truest sense of the word.

[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 08-06-2006).]

quote:I find it funny that you spent alot of your replies on pointing out fallacy in logic, when you yourself have one. People worship evolution? Good one.

Everybody worships something, whether it be nature, themselves, their lovers, their money, golden calves, etc... Oblation does not merely mean that we physically bow down, it means that we place something in the highest esteem. People do this all the time, even when they don't realize that they are doing it. This is what I mean. And for as long as nature has been around, pagans have been worshipping the creation over the Creator.

quote:As it has already been explained to you in another thread before, João Magueijo proposes that light was faster in the very early stages of the universe (i.e. that immediately after the Big Bang, light was faster for a extremely short period of time).

John Moffat and João Magueijo do not believe that it was a short amount of time. I guess I'd have to consider what you think is 'short amount of time,' especialy when eminent physicists are agreeing that {c} is no longer the standard that it once was. Ask yourself what purpose such a theorem serves if it only took place at Planck's Time.

quote:He does this not to prove that the universe is "younger", but as an alternative to the inflation theories that has been proposed in the past.

Joao's experiments help us understand what happened at the singularity. Its still a theoretical aspect of astrophysics, undoubtedly, but then again, so is most of astrophysics. If this seems like an ad hoc explanation to you then one conjecture deserves another. That's all that evolution is based on. But lets go back to what Einstein stated about how gravity distorts time. The general assumption since Hubble has been that the universe has no boundaries as it treks on into infinity. I've already expressed my problems with this philosophically. But Russell Humphries has offered a solution, that goes on thus:

"If the universe has boundaries, then there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates to clocks on the earth. In other words, it is no longer enough to say God made the universe in six days. He certainly did, but six days by which clock? (If we say "God's time" we miss the point that He is outside of time, seeing the end from the beginning.) There appears to be observational evidence that the universe has expanded in the past, supported by the many phrases God uses in the Bible to tell us that at creation he "stretched out"(other verses say "spread out") the heavens. If the universe is not much bigger than we can observe, and if it was only 50 times smaller in the past than it is now, then scientific deduction based on GR means it has to have expanded out of a previous state in which it was surrounded by an event horizon (a condition known technically as a "white hole" -- a black hole running in reverse, something permitted by the equations of GR). As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink -- eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen in time. An observer on earth would not in any way "feel different." "Billions of years" would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is travelling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc. -- while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly. In one sense, if observers on earth at that particular time could have looked out and "seen" the speed with which light was moving toward them out in space, it would have appeared as if it were traveling many times faster than c. (Galaxies would also appear to be rotating faster.) However, if an observer in deep space was out there measuring the speed of light, to him it would still only be travelling at c."

When coupled with Moffat's, Barrow's, Setterfield, Davies and Maguejio's observations, this theory comes to life especialy when we consider the vacuum of space and the Event Horizon. As I said earlier, so much of every theory has problems, especially astrophysics. We not even sure if we know whether or not we're sure about being sure.

quote:Hi, I'm not sure if Digital has told you about me, but I am Totse's new Biochemical/Molecular Biological Scientist. If you want to get into DNA/RNA and Proteomics we could go there since that is my field of study and what pays my bills.

No, she didn't mention that. But yes, lets delve into those aspects. Where can I read your dissertation? I'd love to read it. What are you currently working on?

quote:Oh, and your logic there has a little bit of a flaw. Replace Human and Simian with offspring and parent. If a parent's DNA sequence matches it's offspring's sequence more than anyother parent not of the offspring's, that doesnt mean that the offspring came from that particular parent. You get what I'm saying?

You are talking apples and oranges. A standard paternal/maternal test is based on a certain types of sequencing. Specific sequences are examined to see if the genes were copied verbatim from one of the individual's genome to the other. mDNA have their own genetic material altogether without any shuffling or recombination. I think you would agree that a large set dissimilarities of recombinants would exist in even our closest supposed ancestors, much, much more so than would exist in my direct progeny, i.e. my kids. In other words, you are talking apples and oranges as far as the sophistication of testing whether or not my son is actually my son, than testing whether or not I descended from an ape. Its a huge difference. The standard phylogenetic tree is a cladogram that's supposed to show how organisms are related and who they are most related to. Each node or branch is supposed to represent the descendant/ancestor relationship. And that "tree" was started long before cytology, genomics, molecular biology, or any other system designed to study heredity was ever available. In other words, the earliest taxonomy was based on looks and not genetic sequences. So, its highly suspect that the phylogeny should remain virtually intact based on looks and not what we can actually determine underneath a microscope.

quote:Plus Evolution is occuring on a macroscalular level. Most scientist never talk about it, but it has been happening ever since DNA existed. Look up the word copy numbers. Its an ongoing evolution within DNA strands themselves that have carried themselves throughout time through all species and are constantly evolving.

Macroscalular isn't even a word, unless you are taking the prefix 'macro' to mean, large, and you are taking the suffix, 'scalular,' to mean, scale, hence, "large-scale'. I can only presume this is what you mean. But this explanation seems to fail because you said that scientists don't talk about it much, when in fact they do -- at least proponents of evolution. Evolutionists routinely posit that microevolution precipitates a much larger extrapolation of a macroevolutionary process. Secondly, what is copy numbers, alone, intended to prove, especially in light of it most often referring to anamole in the gene duplication process? I'm not following your train of thought.

quote:The theory is that at somepoint these copy numbers will start effecting what becomes Intron sequences in our RNA and thus negating any protein that can come from it. But this is barely talked about because they are still within Exon domain and have a long way to go to hit what will become mRNA due to the extensive chains of telomeres in our DNA strand.

Are you speaking about convergent evolution, where a sequence does not follow a standard pattern?

quote:Seriously if you want to get scientific, you can call me out anytime. But I do believe in God, so I may not hold all beliefs contrary to yours.

Muslims and Momons believe in God, but that doesn't mean they don't worship a false god, and it doesn't mean that I don't worship a false god. The God-conclusion comes from logic. I mean, I applaude the fact that you have come to the conclusion that God exists, but we aren't talking about defining who or what God is, we are discussing whether or not the universe and all that is in it derives from a mind that can exhibit its intelligence.

quote:Remember c is not the speed of light, it is the speed of light in a vacuum.

We can slow light down less than c by passing it through matter (how you get refraction and prisms) and we can speed it up faster than c but it can't carry any information.

Both still show c as a constant.

Right, and space is a vacuum, which is why astronauts need to where spacesuits, otherwise, all the moisture in their bodies would evaporate in a millasecond; at least theoretically. (I wouldn't want to be the one to test that out.) Once you break the mesosphere, you are in what is commonly referred to, as, space. And that's what the universe is. So where does your objection lie? As far as {C} is concerned, I realize that this theory doesn't break any theories on Relativity, which is what makes it so appealing.

quote:Most creationists forget c is more than just how far away stars are, its value has an effect on a number of things such as the energy contained in an atom. A higher value for c also means stars burn brighter and faster (among other things) something that is not only dangerous for Adam and Eve but should be visible to us on earth.

Why would that pose a problem for Adam and Eve?

quote:Although there are some propositions c has changed the amount of that change is many many magnitudes smaller than what creationists propose.

Okay. And how is that?

quote:well, i'm still waiting for emperical evidence for a literal creation of all life into it's current form.

I've posted several pieces, none of which you've gone over. You just keep replying with banter, hyperbole, conjecture, assertions, etc. If you want to actually 'debate' then do so. As of now, you're just that annoying kid that hangs around his big brother and his friends, repeating their arguments instead of formulating your opinions on the matter.

quote:To expand slightly on the life "intentional, unintentional" claims, most IDists forget other possibilities. Like mentioned before, evolution could be intentional but produce unintentional life. Life could look one way but be another. Another answer is we really don't know.

Then that kind of undermines your 'snowflake argument.' A snowflake may not God to directly create something, only the avenue for its possibility. A hurricane is formed under special conditions, that may or may not be directly caused by God. But if God did not create the platform for which these special conditions could not take place, then they could not take place. Think of it as God makes the Laws, both morally and naturally. And as I said, evolution could be used by God, but the prevailing wisdom concerning evolution leaves God completely out of the picture, which, incidentally, I can only assume is what gives you a satisying reason to not believe in God.

Hyro:

quote:Right, and space is a vacuum, which is why astronauts need to where spacesuits, otherwise, all the moisture in their bodies would evaporate in a millasecond; at least theoretically. (I wouldn't want to be the one to test that out.) Once you break the mesosphere, you are in what is commonly referred to, as, space. And that's what the universe is. So where does your objection lie? As far as {C} is concerned, I realize that this theory doesn't break any theories on Relativity, which is what makes it so appealing.

The point, which you missed, what that all experiments given either don't occur in a vacuum or don't transmit information thus they weren't dealing with c and thus their results can't be cited as a change in c.

quote:Why would that pose a problem for Adam and Eve?

Well in this supposably fine tuned universe you don't see an issue with the sun burning many times brighter than today and then cooling off as time went on, or the radioactive elements on earth (that have formed at least one natural nuclear reactor) being many times more dangerous than they are today?

Such events would also be stored in the light emitted from stars many light years away.

Remember, trying to compress 14.5 billion years into 6000 means quite a big slow down.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

John Moffat and João Magueijo do not believe that it was a short amount of time. I guess I'd have to consider what you think is 'short amount of time,' especialy when eminent physicists are agreeing that {c} is no longer the standard that it once was. Ask yourself what purpose such a theorem serves if it only took place at Planck's Time.

I already explained what purpose it serves; I'll quote myself:

"He does this not to prove that the universe is "younger", but as an alternative to the inflation theories that has been proposed in the past."

He proposes this model to explain how we currently observe the universe, while also dealing with some of the problems we encounter with the current inflationary theories.

To quote the very article that you cited:

"The idea is that light propagated as much as sixty times faster in the distant past, and thus distant regions of the expanding universe have had time to interact since the beginning of the universe. As such, it was proposed as an alternative to cosmic inflation".

And what is this period of cosmic inflation (i.e. the period where scientists believe an immense amount of inflation occurred)?:

"The inflationary epoch is the term used in physical cosmology to describe the brief time in the very early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe was expanding exponentially. It is believed to have occurred about 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang when the temperature of the universe was 1027 kelvins. At this point, in a process called symmetry breaking, a phase transition caused by the cooling of the universe occurred as the strong force stopped being unified with the weak and electromagnetic forces."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch

So yes, it is a tremendously small amount of time, and the theoretical increase in the speed of light that is proposed by this theory does not explain the age of the universe as creationists see it.

quote:

Joao's experiments help us understand what happened at the singularity. Its still a theoretical aspect of astrophysics, undoubtedly, but then again, so is most of astrophysics. If this seems like an ad hoc explanation to you then one conjecture deserves another. That's all that evolution is based on. But lets go back to what Einstein stated about how gravity distorts time. The general assumption since Hubble has been that the universe has no boundaries as it treks on into infinity. I've already expressed my problems with this philosophically. But Russell Humphries has offered a solution, that goes on thus:

When coupled with Moffat's, Barrow's, Setterfield, Davies and Maguejio's observations, this theory comes to life especialy when we consider the vacuum of space and the Event Horizon. As I said earlier, so much of every theory has problems, especially astrophysics. We not even sure if we know whether or not we're sure about being sure.



Nothing of what you just said changes the fact that you have absolutely no evidence suggesting that the speed of light was so different in the past, that it allows the age of the universe to be as young as 'young-earth creationists' believe it was, which is the point I was making. Either provide the evidence, admit that you have none, or kindly stop wasting my time.

The only thing that the 'variable speed of light theory' shows is that the speed of light may have been greater in the past, during an extremely small stretch of time (less than a second). That simply is not evidence that the universe was as young as Creationists believe it is.

If these replies of yours are meant to show anything other than your ignorance, then you're doing a miserable job.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I've posted several pieces, none of which you've gone over.

I must have missed it.

Please note though, that if we have gone over to these "pieces of evidence" you claim you've posted, then you're a liar. With that in mind, I ask you to point out where you've posted them.

quote:Damn them slick lawyers.

Yeah, well, what are you gonna do, aye? Its their job to win at all costs. I believe everyone is entitled to a defense, but if I knowingly defended a murderer, but tried to falsify evidence, I don't think I could live with that kind of guilt. But I guess they can.

quote:Of course where is the complaint of the slick board member who testified under oath he didn't know how the money for the "ID" books was raised, even though he purposefully funneled it through his Father so it wouldn't be known a church raised the money?

What? I don't even know what you are referring to. What board members, what money, what ID books, and what Father?

quote:Or the complaints about the slick christian book company who once they heard creationism was illegal in schools, did nothing to change their creationist book beyond changing "creationism" to "intelligent design"?

Again, I don't know what this argument is on. Post an article for me to referrence.

quote:Okay. Stop, just stop. An error that large is just ridiculous. You really have no clue do you. Did you even graduate highschool?

Were you planning on correcting me on my errors or was I supposed to take your ad hominem for face value?

[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 08-06-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Again, I don't know what this argument is on. Post an article for me to referrence.



He's talking about the Dover trial. You know... where Behe admitted he had to redefine the definition of scientific theory so that Intelligent Design qualified; where Behe's "peer-reviewed" article on ID was utterly demolished; where Dembski was shown to have been trying to pass of Behe as a co-author of a book which Behe had absolutely no involvement in; and where the overall dishonesty of ID proponents was made painfully obvious through out the proceedings.

Hyro:

Sorry but if you are going to make so many bold claims you really need to educate yourself on the issues. Many of your posts seem to show a complete lack of understand of what you are discussing. That isn't a bad thing, it just means you shouldn't make claims about things you don't understand.

quote:What? I don't even know what you are referring to. What board members, what money, what ID books, and what Father?

I'm talking about the Dover PA case, you can find transcripts all over this thread. You've even discussed it.

An ID supporting board member originally claimed, he didn't know where the money to buy the ID books came from. It was later revealed he knew all along, it was raised at a church and funneled through his father to hide that fact.

The book bought with the church money is called "of pandas and people" and was originally a creationist book published in 1989. When a ruling meant creationist couldn't be taught some of the only changes made to the book was converting "creationism" to "Intelligent design" leaving definitions and evidence the same.

The judge even touches on both of these points in his ruling.

ID supporters made themselves look foolish and immoral, it didn't take any slick lawyers.

quote:You said OK but you never presented any mathematical, scientific, or verifiable evidence of any kind backing up your unfounded belief that god intervened. This is because there is no proof. In order for this to be true you would not only have to prove god exists, but prove god altered the universe. Two things with no scientific proof backing them.

I've presented several arguments, none of which where I said that God intervened anywhere. I have repeatedly stated my position that my belief in God is separate from my belief in Intelligent Design. Any belief that I have about God comes personal revelation, historical arguments, philosophical arguments, ontological arguments, teleological arguments, and such. What I have done, is presented a plethora of scientific arguments. So, I can only assume that you don't like my arguments for personal reasons or that you have a selective reading problem.

quote:I am asking you to verify YOUR belief not someone else's.

I had to inject an analysis of different creationist views because people start drawing conclusions about me that are false. I was clarifying.

quote:There are certain creationists who believe that god made the illusion of time and only 20 years have passed since Jesus. Aside from being scientifically unfounded, I'm not holding you responsible for making this claim because you didn't. But on the other hand you constantly switch your claims while trying to prove creationism/ID.

How did I 'switch' my claims? I've been consistent since the beginning.

quote:How old are you claiming the earth to be? Are you now saying it is now 4.5 billion years old?

I don't know how old the earth is with an absolute certainty, which means that I am not absolutely settled on the matter. I feel very strongly that the universe is not 4.5 billion years old for all the reasons I've listed. And I tend to take a more YEC role on that matter, but I'm not dead set on anything. I don't think that evidence contradicts a young earth model, but that doesn't mean that its 100% either.

quote:I'm asking you to prove your beliefs, which should be at least be consistent if they have any substance at all to them.

Like I said, I have been consistent. I just gave you the different views of creationists, both old and young. I even distinguished myself by saying that i tend to take a more YEC approach. I'm being perfectly consistent. You should read my whole argument, not just skim through it.

quote:You can't tell by looking at the picture alone, but there is ways to tell. If you took high school geometry you would have learned these methods. In the study of space the method used is called the "TRIGONOMETRIC PARALLAX".

I guess its escaped your attention that Trigonometric parallax IS a form of triangulation which I already cited in great detail. But thanks for explaining high school trig to me.

quote:In geometry this method is used to find accurate results all the time.

Triangulation is accurate for land surveyor's that are measuring land up to a few miles. I was questioning whether or not it was accurate when measuring the distance of stars. Case in point, the LK bias, noticed by Lutz and Lelker, posits that often parallaxes are observed to be too large. By taking the factor (pi) and assigning it to any given parallax, it gives the distance a representation of (d). The problem is known that near and far stars scatter light in indiscernable directions and because there are always more stars outside the distance range being measured than inside, stars from outside this range will scatter light into the measured range. This causes a bias which is claimed to yield distances which are invariant. So, unless the initial measurements are extremely precise, a correction is needed to the calculated values. But this raises the question of how one would know whether or not the parallax angle is accurate. How would you know empirically? Now, I don't doubt that stars are millions and billions of miles away. I know they are extremely far away. What I was questioning is whether or not they are billions of light-years away.

http://aa.springer.de/papers/0356003/2300849/sc3.htm

quote:The fact that the earth is rotating actually adds to the integrity of the results in the fact that then the results can be compared between to spots along the earths orbit. Also if you are implying that because the results change it is wrong, then you forgot the earth rotates along the sun in the first place so the results should change accordingly, and the amount in which they change can be predicted ahead of time so it is easy to verify the results.

Like I said, that's all dependant on where you are, and that you are certain of the other point on the surface of the earth in relation to the star you are measuring.

quote:I'm not sure how that proves triangulation is at all deceiving, or if that even applies to triangulation.

I didn't say that triangulation is decieving. I said that it can be if used improperly or because of so great a distance, the parallax angle can give you a false reading. I know that triangulation can be accurate.

quote:It is possible the star moved in the amount of time it took the light to reach earth but that wouldn't present a problem when showing where the star was when it produced the light we are seeing.

Not really because if the star originated 4.5 billion years ago, and it moved 2.3 billion years, and the star changed into a nova or a supernova 1.5 million years ago, then how do you know what age the image you are looking at was recorded as? How would know for certain?

quote:As I said earlier HIGH SCHOOL GEOMETRY.

That's actually trigonometry, which is not very common in most American schools. You must have gone to a very advanced high school being that Trig is a pre-cursor to Calculus, which is considered the world over to be an advanced mathematical course. But thanks for lesson nonetheless.

quote:This as a scientific theory is, well not a scientific theory. Science exists without assumptions and this assumes:

A. God exists

I could go further but there is no experimental way to conclude god exists. Even if there was this wouldn't prove god altered the laws of physics to allow this to happen.

I agree fully. But that doesn't mean that we are incapable of distinguishing whether or not the universe was designed or it not. I know that I can't prove the existence of God. I've come to terms with that years ago, but like I said, that doesn't mean that we can't see evidence of a greater design at work.

quote:Thank you for acknowledging that.

No problem.

quote:It has also been shown that no information is transfered when electromagnetic waves are sped up. In the experiments I read about they used microwaves, something which would not even be visible to humans. Of course thats a convieniant detail to leave out.

Who said anything about 'information?' I certainly didn't. I said exactly what Joao said, which is that light could have travelled at much faster speed in the past. And then he goes on to demonstrate why that is.

quote:Creationists normally claim the universe was created 6000 years ago in about it's present state. What I am suggesting, and something you have already admitted to, is that the universe changes, and probably has been constantly changing from it's birth, forming planets and stars, contrary to the bibles account that the earth was created before the stars. Think of it as stellar evolution, a process you have basically admitted to in your last reply.

I said that the universe was changing, and from that you deduced that I said that stars and planets are being born all the time??? Nothing is at a standstill. The oceans ebb and flow, the heavens wax old and die. There is changing. And whether or not planets are being formed in different galaxies wouldn't present any kind of problem for me even if they did.

quote:So the earth, solar system, and universe was made through natural processes, nothing mystical, or supernatural about that.

If a Creator exists then He/She/They/It uses supernatural means to institute natural order in the natural world. Why is that concept so difficult. I never said that God, goes, 'poof,' to explain anything. I think I've been pretty clear and concise thus far, using science and logic to back the claims. I've used no mysticism in this.

quote:Are you saying they agree with the creationist model? That is what I was asking.

You asked why secular scientists don't discourage the big bang or that they can't see anamoles in the prevailing wisdom. I showed that many eminent scientists find some agreement in creationist views, which, I could only imagine would help bring you to the realization that creationists aren't psuedo-scientific whacko's.

quote:"So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks"

So this means the age of earth cannot be determined by other means? Even so this would not be proof of creationism.

No, its a recognition that the basis of dating the earth comes directly from bias and circular reasoning. the only reason they calibrate their machines as they do comes directly from the inference that the universe must be old. If the universe is old, then they reason, surely the earth is really old too. That's not even science. That's not even psuedo-science. That's just plain bias.

quote:Aside from the fact that you don't know whether or not I have the ability to understand something, a major assumption on your part, you forget that I could consult a mathematician.

That's what I said. Follow the dialogue man! I said the only reason you won't me to post a theorem is that you can go and appeal to authority on it.

quote:Also as for gematria and theomatics, I asked for you to present proof for your belief on creationism and do not have the time, or patience to sift through creationist literature riddled with propaganda and strawman attacks, looking for something proving it true. If you feel the need to provide proof of your claims and actually start being taken seriously I provided you the opportunity. Just please provide sources as well.

That's what I've been doing since I got here.

quote:First one has to wonder why you ask for the transcripts if you are already laying down judgment on the issue.

Because I know all-too-well that most of you, and you in particular, will use any underhanded tactic just to win an argument. You don't really care about the issue, you just like to argue. And now that I've read the transcript in question, I've been vindicated in my intial assessment. I'll get to that momentarily.

quote:Wasn't this an example of 'slick-haired attorneys' manipulating the conversation, or are you admitting that you were being a false witness about an issue your not actually familiar with? Your apparent ignorance aside, one then has to wonder what your objection actually is. Are you suggesting that these lawyers forced Behe to make his testimony; that Behe made his testimony under duress? Are you suggesting that Behe was forced to say what he did?

I'm suggesting that you interpreted his statements incorrectly. And like I said, I am vindicated in my initial assessment.

Since you require the transcript, lets examine them:

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories."

LOL! And what's the problem exactly? Astrology is a theory-- doesn't make it right. Evolution is a theory-- doesn't make it right. Intelligent Design is a theory-- doesn't make it right. FSM is a theory--doesn't make it right. Seriously, what did he say that was incorrect? If anything, he was being generous and not showing any bias whatsoever. And you ridicule him for that? If that's the best that TO can come up with, than excuse while I laugh out loud.

quote:Behe was asked twice if, by the definition of scientific theory he was using, Astrology is considered a scientific theory and Behe twice answered "Yes".

So what? It doesn't mean that he agrees with it.

quote:It should be obvious that there is no manipulation in that testimony. Behe was asked twice, first initially, and then a second time to confirm if that is actually what he believed, and both times he answered "Yes". Behe does define scientific theory in such a way that it allows Astrology to be a scientific theory; there was no manipulation.

What? That's a lawyers job to shift the dialogue anywhere (s)he wants. Asking him to repeat it only served to corroborate their worthless allegation that he said something wrong or incriminating in any way. That was just sad.

quote:So yes, his definition of scientific theory is so loose, that it allows Astrology and other pseudosciences to be considered scientific theories.

The definition of the word 'Theory' is a loose interpretation in itself. Here you go:

quote:1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Now, please explain to me how Behe's defintion is incompatible with the dictionaries.....

quote:He deliberately defines it this way, ignoring the clear definition offered by the National Academy of Sciences - which he admits is the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States - because it is his only hope in making ID seem on par with actual Science.

He deliberately defines it that way because that's the very definition!!! Try again. What a pathetic argument. I was definately vindicated in my initial assessment. What was he trying to do? Please tell me what Behe's thoughts are, Rust. Tell us what he was really trying to do.

we have already been over all of this.

a theory is not the same as a scientific theory.

astrology, while it is a theory, is not a scientific theory because it does not use the scientific method, just like id and fsmism don't use the scientific method to form a coherent theory.

evolution, on the other hand, does use the scientific theory, and that is why it is taught in the science classroom.

you have already admitted that evolution is verifiable science and id is not, but in the same breath assert that evolution is not philosophically satisfing or something.

To show hyroglyphx’s view of the age of the earth is erroneous

This age (4.5 Billion Years) represents a compromise between the oldest-known terrestrial minerals – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – and astronomers' and paleontologists' determinations of the age of the solar system based in part on radiometric age dating of meteorite material and lunar samples.

Precision is enhanced if measurements are taken on different samples taken from the same rock body but at different locations. Alternatively, if several different minerals are able to be dated from the same sample and are assumed to be formed by the same event and were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed, they should form an isochron. Finally, correlation between different isotopic dating methods may be required to confirm the age of a sample. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Other evidences of an old earth.

• The rate at which the continents are spreading apart from each other indicates that the Atlantic Ocean is about 200 million years old.

• Because of tides, the rotation of the earth is gradually slowing, by about 1 second every 50,000 years. About 380 million years ago, each day would have about 20 hours long! There would have been about 398 days in the year. Studies of rings on rugose coral fossils that were independently estimated to be 370 million years old revealed that when they were alive, there were about 400 days in the year. This relationship has been confirmed with other coral fossils. This is rather good evidence that the world was in existence a third of a billion years ago.

• Reversals of the earth's magnetic pole are recorded in the Atlantic Ocean sea bottom for the past 80 million years.

• If we assumed that all of the minerals which are carried by rivers into the oceans remains trapped in the oceans, then it would take 260 million years for the concentration of sodium to reach its present level. If plankton, fish or other plants adsorb sodium, then it would take much longer. We can conclude that the age of the earth is something greater than a quarter billion years.

• Measurements by sensors attached to satellites shows that space dust accumulates on the moon at the rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year. (A nanogram is one thousandth of a million of a gram.) This rate would require 4.5 billion years to reach a depth of 1.5 inches, which is approximately the depth experienced by the astronauts who walked on the moon. This agrees rather well with radioactive dating of moon rocks.

• Estimates for the length of time for the galaxies to have spread apart to their present spacing are in excess of 10,000 million years.

• The "nuclide" argument is one of the best proofs of an "old earth". Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. Each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a certain rate. After an interval of time equal to its half-life, only half of the original material is left. Scientists have found that: Every nuclide with a half-life over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth. All Nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels. The only logical explanation for these observations is that the world formed billions of years ago. There are enough long-lived nuclides still around to be still detectable

quote:I don't think that evidence contradicts a young earth model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth#Criticisms_of_Young_Earth_creationism

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_young1.htm



Here’s a curious quote from Wikipedia “ Young Earth creationists often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by atheism. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Catholic Church and Church of England believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by Young Earth Creationism. Critics also like to point out how workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of (non-)belief comparable to the Biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG”

By the late 1980's, the complete lack of scientific support for Setterfield's assertions (of c-decay as evidence for Creationism) caused even the ICR to publicly reject his theory, concluding that it was "not warranted by the data upon which the hypothesis rests." (Gerald Aardsma, ICR Impact, "Has the Speed of Light Decayed?", May 1988).

N.B In this context theory in the realm of science means a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.So dont try to attempt to "dumb down" the definition of theory for your advantage.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-06-2006).]

Meh. Forgive my absence. I had midterms this past week, and my in laws were in town before that.

I already explained at the beginning what a theory is. Unfortunately, it appears Hyroglyphx didn't read what I had previously written.

I don't understand what you people have against the Dictionary's definition of what a theory is, but let's just find a definition we can all agree with, so we can stop this childishness.

I found a definition of what a scientific theory is that seems to satisfy the requirements you all have presented. Please tell me if this is something you can ALL agree with, so we can proceed to show you how ID is, in fact, a scientific theory:

quote:"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment." Source (http://tinyurl.com/p8r0)

Prior to that, the author defined scientific method:

quote:The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

<LI> Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

<LI> Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

<LI> Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

<LI> Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Is this a definition we can all agree on ? Please pay attention to the source of the definition before claiming it's not good enough.

I have also seen you guys claim that ID isn't a scientific theory because it's not "falsifiable". I didn't see anything in the definition provided by Frank Wolfs, the University of Rochester Professor of Physics and Astronomy that provided the above definitions, that said a theory isn't scientific unless it is falsifiable. You'd think he'd have mentioned it if it were such an important aspect. I don't disagree that scientific theories should be verifiable or falsifiable, I just found it interesting that he didn't mention it. Where do you guys get that from ? I am genuinely curious.

Falsifiable is defined as something that is, "capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation."

Please explain how Intelligent Design is NOT falsifiable ? Aren't your arguments against it proof that you can at least attempt to falsify it ? Intelligent Design has the potential to be verified or falsified, because it relies on scientific method (observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena, formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena, use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations, and performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments) to formulate a scientific theory (hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests).

If the definition of a scientific theory has already been posted, forgive me for missing it.

DS. Please describe any possible experiment that could be performed which could determine whether or not supernatural intervention was involved.What result would refute supernatural intervention? What result would verify supernatural intervention?

Here is an Encyclopedia’s definition (therefore it is objective) for the Scientific Theory, and how a hypothesis is considered a legitimate theory in modern times, since DS' article is too broad and basic (the title "Introduction", doesn't include the indispensable criterion: Falsifiablity).

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Characteristics

And the Demarcation in contemporary scientific method (what should be considered science and not) are…

(1) The formulation of hypotheses that meet the logical criterion of contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability and the closely related empirical and practical criterion of testability,

(2) A grounding in empirical evidence, and

(3) The use of scientific method. A conceptual system that fails to meet a significant number of these criteria is likely to be considered non-scientific. The following is a list of additional features that are highly desirable in a scientific theory.

• Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation.

• Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities.

• Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena.

• Falsifiable and testable.( To show that a physical law is falsifiable, one is not required to show that it is physically possible to violate it — that would only defeat its status as a physical law — one need only show that an exception to the law is logically possible.)

• Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.

• Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made.

• Integrative, robust, and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. (Robust = "stable" in the statistical sense, i.e., not very sensitive to occasional outlying data points.) See Correspondence principle

• Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

quote:Please explain how Intelligent Design is NOT falsifiable? Aren't your arguments against it proof that you can at least attempt to falsify it ?

The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can neither be supported nor undermined by observation. Since it cannot be proven false, it is not falsifiable. By Intelligent Design basing itself on this, it is not a valid theory. “Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that no empirical hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of a contrary case.” Intelligent design is not a theory because they distort the scientific method- it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.





[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-06-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Because I know all-too-well that most of you, and you in particular, will use any underhanded tactic just to win an argument. You don't really care about the issue, you just like to argue. And now that I've read the transcript in question, I've been vindicated in my intial assessment. I'll get to that momentarily.

1. What "underhanded tactics" are those? If you're making this allegations, then substantiate them. I use tactics that you dislike because they expose how you evade, ignore, and misinterpret the problems being presented. Just as you did right now.

2. Even if I did use "underhanded tactics", that has absolutely nothing to do with you jumping at the conclusion that the testimony had been manipulated by the attorney when you had not even bothered reading the transcript of the cross-examination. You were judging something without first seeing the evidence, and now that I have pointed that out, you're trying to change the argument by making outrageous allegations.

It seems that that you're not even contesting that; apparently you do acknowledge that you had jumped at the conclusion without first having seen the evidence.

quote:LOL! And what's the problem exactly? Astrology is a theory-- doesn't make it right. Evolution is a theory-- doesn't make it right. Intelligent Design is a theory-- doesn't make it right. FSM is a theory--doesn't make it right. Seriously, what did he say that was incorrect? If anything, he was being generous and not showing any bias whatsoever. And you ridicule him for that? If that's the best that TO can come up with, than excuse while I laugh out loud.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

We already know that his definition allows for Astrology to be incorrect. That's not the problem. Please re-read what we said because it seems you're having trouble understanding it.

The problem is/was that Behe is deliberately redefining "scientific theory" in order for Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory; he is doing so because he acknowledges that as "theory" is defined in Science right now, ID is not a theory. That's what we're pointing out; that when he deliberately redefines "scientific theory", he is also making Astrology a "scientific theory".



quote:So what? It doesn't mean that he agrees with it.

1. Huh? Who cares if Behe doesn't agree with Astrology? It's the fact that Astrology would be considered a scientific theory in the first place that is appalling.

2. You implied that he was being manipulated by the attorney. I showed how the attorney asked Behe if his definition (Behe's definition) allowed Astrology to be considered a legitimate scientific theory, and Behe answered 'yes'. That shows that the attorney was manipulating nothing. That 'Astrology being considered a legitimate scientific theory' is the result of Behe redefining "scientific theory" in order to also allow Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory'.



quote:What? That's a lawyers job to shift the dialogue anywhere (s)he wants. Asking him to repeat it only served to corroborate their worthless allegation that he said something wrong or incriminating in any way. That was just sad.

Asking him to repeat himself served to make it clear that Behe's new definition of 'scientific theory' results in Astrology being a scientific theory as well. That's not manipulating Behe's testimony as you were implying, because Behe acknowledged two times that the attorney is correct: that Astrology would be considered a legitimate scientific theory if we redefine the term as Behe wants to.

quote:Now, please explain to me how Behe's defintion is incompatible with the dictionaries.....

Where the fuck did I say it was incompatible with how the dictionary defines the word "theory" in common usage? Nowhere. So please stop asking me to do that as if that somehow supported your case.

The fact is that it is not compatible with how SCIENCE defines a theory. I've been deliberately using the term scientific theory' to let you know in what context the word "theory" is being used. It is being used as it is used in Science, not as it is used by the layman - which is how the dictionary would be defining it.

We've already been over this, in this very thread. I suggest you read it because even your wife acknowledges that we've been pointing out how there is a difference between how Science defines "theory" (which is the context being used in the trial) and how dictionaries do.

quote:

He deliberately defines it that way because that's the very definition!!! Try again. What a pathetic argument. I was definately vindicated in my initial assessment. What was he trying to do? Please tell me what Behe's thoughts are, Rust. Tell us what he was really trying to do.



That's the definition in a dictionary, not the definition of "theory" in Science.

The context being discussed is not that of how dictionaries define "theory"; the context, which is extremely clear by the transcript in that trial, is that of how "theory" is defined in Science.

Behe was saying that Science should have a new definition, and he was doing so in order to make Intelligent Design also apply as a scientific theory. As such, you bringing up a definition of "theory" as the common man would use it, and not as how it is used in Science, is severely incorrect.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-06-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Is this a definition we can all agree on ? Please pay attention to the source of the definition before claiming it's not good enough.

I have also seen you guys claim that ID isn't a scientific theory because it's not "falsifiable". I didn't see anything in the definition provided by Frank Wolfs, the University of Rochester Professor of Physics and Astronomy that provided the above definitions, that said a theory isn't scientific unless it is falsifiable. You'd think he'd have mentioned it if it were such an important aspect. I don't disagree that scientific theories should be verifiable or falsifiable, I just found it interesting that he didn't mention it. Where do you guys get that from ? I am genuinely curious.

Although he doesn't mention the term "falsifiable" or "falsifiability" explicitly, I believe he does in fact deal with the concept in his definition.

He defines a scientific theory as "[a] hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests"

He then goes on to explain what "experimental tests" are. He says, "experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis". That definition of "experimental tests" coincides with the definition of "falsifiable" that you provided. The "experimental tests" as he defines it, necessitate that the theory be 'capable of being tested (verified or falsified)'.

That, to me, shows that while he is not actually referring to these concepts as "falsifiability", he is using those concepts and acknowledges that they are necessary in the definition of "theory" in Science.

Given that I believe that he does deal with these concepts, although not by name, I would agree with this definition of "scientific theory" you provided. The definition Hespeaks provides is also valid.

quote:Please explain how Intelligent Design is NOT falsifiable ? Aren't your arguments against it proof that you can at least attempt to falsify it ?

The problem is that everything in the theory has to be falsifiable, not just some parts. So while we can show how Behe's examples of irreducible complexity are false (we did so in this very thread), we cannot test the existence of an "intelligent designer" or whether this "intelligent designer" has meddled in our affairs.

That's why we say that ID is not falsifiable, because the very essence of what it says (that we've been designed by an intelligent being) cannot be shown to be false via experiments.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-06-2006).]

Hey hyroglyphx/Digital_Saviour, I just have a quick question I'm curious about.

What's your take on dinosaurs?

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

DS. Please describe any possible experiment that could be performed which could determine whether or not supernatural intervention was involved.What result would refute supernatural intervention? What result would verify supernatural intervention?

What about this research implies supernatural intervention ?

THE RELEVANCE OF Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd AND Pb-Pb ISOTOPE SYSTEMATICS TO ELUCIDATION OF THE GENESIS AND HISTORY OF RECENT ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR RADIOISOTOPIC DATING (http://tinyurl.com/q29db)

Looks pretty damn scientific to me, and not one mention of God...

I will give an analogy, and ask you if you can make equal sense out of it: can a pot prove the existence of the potter that created it ? You seem to be saying that only by the pot's rules can it's existence be explained. If it was created by the potter, it would be more logical to use the rules of the potter, wouldn't it ? Likewise, the rules explaining the creation of the pot are the same rules the pot would use to explain it's own creation, as the pot created nothing, and the only evidence available to it explains the rules created by the potter. The pot cannot claim the potter's rules are wrong, as it is the creation, and the potter made the rules (mix clay and water, mold, etc.)

While this analogy may seem simplistic (my apologies), and I am personifying the pot, the intended message is clear.

You are coming from the unprovable position that there is NO God. I am coming from the unprovable position that there is. While the theory you favor, evolution, attempts to explain how we came to be, the theory I favor, Intelligent Design, does the same. Just from what I have seen you post here (feel free to correct me if I am wrong), you did not come to believe there was no God because of the theory of evolution. You already believed there was no God. Likewise, I did not come to believe that there is a God because of the theory of ID. I already believed that there was a God.

That is not my way of making excuses for ID. I believe it is a legitimate scientific theory, based on legitimate scientific research using scientific methods. It seems that you think by denying that it is, you win the argument by default. I am not trying to win anything. I am trying to explain it. If it's not a scientific theory, you shouldn't try to use science you prefer to refute it. You shouldn't be using science at all.

You have yet to produce a legitimate reason why you think it's not a scientific theory, aside from the fact that these scientists credit God with our creation. If the scientists that support the theory of ID have used science to prove their hypothesis that God is the creator of the universe, how does that make it any less of a scientific theory ? The research supporting the theory is scientific !

Scientists that believe in evolution credit nature. Neither God, nor nature, have been proven to be sources for our existence, per their respective theories. There is convincing evidence supporting both theories, but nothing proving either conclusively.

I would also like to address the fallacious notion that a scientist cannot believe that God created the universe without losing credibility. That is simply ridiculous. That seems to be what you are saying, since you refuse to accept any scientific evidence that determines that God is the cause of our existence.

It seems as if you simply don't want God to exist, no matter how legitimate the evidence is supporting that theory. You don't have to, but it does make it hard to take you seriously in your argument. If the evidence shows that there is a higher power at work here, you'd never admit it, would you ?

Please don't try and turn that argument around on me and claim that I would never acknowledge scientific evidence that proved God DOESN'T exist, because I have been on your side of the tracks before. I was a strong agnostic for many years. Your idealogy is not foreign to me.

Ahem, lots of evolutionists are theists who BELIEVE in a God. They except EVOLUTION and GOD. It's been said to you and Hyro plenty of times in this thread, you can be a scientist who believes in evolution and God.

Evolution has nothing to do with whether there is or is not a God, it simply deals with speciation.

And the fact that whether there is or is not a God is impossible to prove is exactly why intelligent design is not science, there is no falsifiable evidence for a God and therefore intelligent design with it’s assumption that there is a god is not scientific.

Evolution, on the other hand, makes no assumption.





[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-07-2006).]

There is only one scientific method, and I’ve yet to see any intelligent design evidence get passed the scientific method. You’re redefining science, and therefore redefining something that has given us computers, and medicine, and planes, etc and has worked for centuries, just because you think evolution contradicts your literal interpretation of the bible. You're a selfish person.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-07-2006).]

Evolution and God have no conflict.

When talking about Evolution, scientists and teachers don't say "And this means there is no God" they are just explaining the process in which life developed.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You are coming from the unprovable position that there is NO God. I am coming from the unprovable position that there is. While the theory you favor, evolution, attempts to explain how we came to be, the theory I favor, Intelligent Design, does the same.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

There is only one scientific method, and I’ve yet to see any intelligent design evidence get passed the scientific method. You’re redefining science, and therefore redefining something that has given us computers, and medicine, and planes, etc and has worked for centuries, just because you think evolution contradicts your literal interpretation of the bible. You're a selfish person.

[/B]

This is a very frustrating thread http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif), it seems as if elitism is blocking any meaningful communication, is anybody actually listening?



Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I hate to break it to you, but science is not democratic.

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

Hey hyroglyphx/Digital_Saviour, I just have a quick question I'm curious about.

What's your take on dinosaurs?

Humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Leviathan and behemoth are mentioned in the Bible. They were wiped out in the global flood described in the Bible.

That is what we believe.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Ahem, lots of evolutionists are theists who BELIEVE in a God. They except EVOLUTION and GOD. It's been said to you and Hyro plenty of times in this thread, you can be a scientist who believes in evolution and God.

"LOTS" ? Mwuahahaha...well, where are they hiding ?

You cannot be a scientist that believes in evolution. If you study the Bible, you also study Hebrew. If you study Hebrew you know the word "yom" is the word for "day". The word "day" is specifically used in Genesis to describe the beginning of each time period God creates things, i.e. 6 days. The author, Moses, even goes so far as to describe the sun rising and setting at the end of each "day". It is not written metaphorically. They are meant to be taken as literal days.

That means God created the heavens and the earth in 6 24 hour periods, not millions of years.

Sorry, but anyone that knows their Bible would never claim that God and the theory of evolution are compatible. *looks dolefully at Abrahim*

To say otherwise is simply ignorant.

Not all theists are literalist christian retards. There's the muslims and catholics and buddhists, etc. It's just you literalists who are scared that it contradicts your belief system who are throwing a selfish wobbler.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Leviathan and behemoth are mentioned in the Bible. They were wiped out in the global flood described in the Bible.

That is what we believe.

my, my, I thought you were a literalist. It says nowhere in the bible that behemoth is a dinosaur, it’s only young earth creationists who interpret the behemoth as a dinosaur, he has also been interpreted as a buffalo and an elephant.

quote:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.

19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

Yeah, it really says it’s a dinosaur… funny how even you literalists interpret the bible to mean what you want it to mean.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Evolution has nothing to do with whether there is or is not a God, it simply deals with speciation.

I disagree.

quote:And the fact that whether there is or is not a God is impossible to prove is exactly why intelligent design is not science, there is no falsifiable evidence for a God and therefore intelligent design with it’s assumption that there is a god is not scientific.

Evolution, on the other hand, makes no assumption.

I disagree, again. The theory of evolution also gives a model that is not falsifiable. We have no evidence that something can come from nothing.

Intelligent Deisgn seeks to prove that it is impossible for mere chaos to intelligently design a circle of life that works perfectly.

Our need to see, hear, digest food...these are things that are logical, and necessary. Intelligent Design breaks these functions down into great detail, along with natural phenomena, and shows how impossible it is that a single-celled organism mutated beneficially for no apparent reason, and a few million years later, POOF...here we are.

Where is the proof that a single-celled organism, comparable to the one that is part of the evolutionary myth, can do such things ? Where did the original single celled organism come from ?

Once again, evolution does not deal with where the first cell organism came from, so you can believe in evolution and god. The scientific theory you should be trying to refute is abiogenesis.

And I can use your argument against you. God is so wonderfully complex that he can't of come from nothing, something just had to of made him, he couldn't of just been POOF "I am God." Oh wait, but you're probably going to make the claim that god has been around forever with only your bible to back that up. *roll eyes*

Also, evolution explains how we got from a one cell organism to human beings in great detail, but you seem to only want to read anti-evolution creationist propaganda instead of picking up an actual science textbook.

Intelligent Designs whole claim is "God did it." Brilliant, amazing. *rolls eyes again*



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

There is only one scientific method, and I’ve yet to see any intelligent design evidence get passed the scientific method. You’re redefining science, and therefore redefining something that has given us computers, and medicine, and planes, etc and has worked for centuries, just because you think evolution contradicts your literal interpretation of the bible. You're a selfish person.

Instead of making claims, refute the science I just presented. Using the EVIDENCE, the author of that research paper presents an argument against radio isotope dating methods.

Give a crack at it.

I redefined nothing. In fact, I purposely went to the University of Rochester and got the definition of what a scientific theory is from a liberal Professor. Even Rust agreed his definition was accurate. Apply the definition to the research presented by ID scientists, and prove that their research isn't scientific, please.

I do not reject evolution because I think it contradicts the Bible, I KNOW it does. I have nothing against science, technology, and the advancement of humanity. Don't play the assumption game with me.

I simply think credit should be given to the source it is due. What about that makes me selfish ?

quote:I do not reject evolution because I think it contradicts the Bible, I KNOW it does.

So you jump to the conclusion that the bible is correct and not evolution based on what?... some ancient texts and artifacts found where the stories in the bible took place that don't actually prove Jesus was the son of God and the miraculous claims really happened probably, lol.

edit: I'll take a look at that article later on, right now though I'm off to work.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Evolution and God have no conflict.

When talking about Evolution, scientists and teachers don't say "And this means there is no God" they are just explaining the process in which life developed.

And you, who never stop claiming God is omnipotent, cannot fathom why God would not need millions of years to cultivate humanity, which is the purpose of this planet, and subsequently this entire universe, in the first place ?

You really find yourself so insignificant that you think Allah would want to wait millions of years for humans to show up ?

1. Isn't He powerful enough to just create us ? Why would He need millions of years to develop His creation ? That's absurd.

2. You don't even believe the Bible, so stop arguing. You have to argue in CONTEXT. This isn't a thread about what Abrahim believes. This is a thread about evolution and Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a theory that Christians believe, not Muslims. As such, it is irrelevant for you to argue against Intelligent Design using Muslim arguments. I am not interested if you disagree with Christianity or not.

3. There is no conflict in MICROevolution and God. He created it. There is, however, conflict with MACROevolution and God, per the Christian holy book, otherwise known as the Bible....you know, that little thing you have never read, but hate.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Not all theists are literalist christian retards. There's the muslims and catholics and buddhists, etc. It's just you literalists who are scared that it contradicts your belief system who are throwing a selfish wobbler.

Oh, so now we're retards ?

You have just lost the pleasure of my attention in this debate. Congratulations.

quote:3. There is no conflict in MICROevolution and God. He created it. There is, however, conflict with MACROevolution and God, per the Christian holy book, otherwise known as the Bible....you know, that little thing you have never read, but hate.

One thing before I go to work, macroevolution is microevolution. I'm sure that's been explained to you numerous times, but you probably conveniantly forgot or the people who have explained it to you are just wrong because they just are!

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-07-2006).]

You can apologize for resorting to ad hom for absolutely no reason, or you can expect nothing more from me, Raw_Power. We're trying to have an intellectual debate here...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Oh, so now we're retards ?

You have just lost the pleasure of my attention in this debate. Congratulations.

I think that’s a very apt description, considering no matter how many times something is explained to you about evolution you seem to conveniently forget it and continue making the same ludicrous claims, and I shall continue to view you as one unless you admit you are purposely ignoring those claims and are in denial. But yes, I am sorry for calling you a retard out loud.

Now, let me make this clear again and then I must really be off to work: MICROEVOLUTION IS MACROEVOLUTION.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Were you planning on correcting me on my errors or was I supposed to take your ad hominem for face value?



Hahaha why bother when it is so obvious? I rather use it as an opportunity to further expose your ignorance.

"Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Here was the problem with the experiment. The entire premise of the inquiry was to prove that life could have originated at random via a few simple compounds in a prebiotic soup, of sorts. (Pay no mind where even the simple chemicals came from). The claim was that miller had succesfully synethized proteins, such as adenine and guanine, but that he failed to produce cytosine and thymine."

A highschool kid could find the error in that ... and apparently you can't.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Ahem, lots of evolutionists are theists who BELIEVE in a God. They except EVOLUTION and GOD. It's been said to you and Hyro plenty of times in this thread, you can be a scientist who believes in evolution and God.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

"LOTS" ? Mwuahahaha...well, where are they hiding ?

I know that there are many, although they are not in the majority. My microbiology teacher from last year is definitely one of them. So is my friend Joe. As are many other people I know. I used to be one of them, in fact. It's usually the more intellectual-type and liberal Christians that believe in evolution.

quote:You cannot be a scientist that believes in evolution.

I don't think you meant to say that. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:The author, Moses, even goes so far as to describe the sun rising and setting at the end of each "day".

You mean the sun that was created on the 4th day? Interesting.

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 08-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And you, who never stop claiming God is omnipotent, cannot fathom why God would not need millions of years to cultivate humanity, which is the purpose of this planet, and subsequently this entire universe, in the first place ?

You really find yourself so insignificant that you think Allah would want to wait millions of years for humans to show up ?

1. Isn't He powerful enough to just create us ? Why would He need millions of years to develop His creation ? That's absurd.

2. You don't even believe the Bible, so stop arguing. You have to argue in CONTEXT. This isn't a thread about what Abrahim believes. This is a thread about evolution and Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a theory that Christians believe, not Muslims. As such, it is irrelevant for you to argue against Intelligent Design using Muslim arguments. I am not interested if you disagree with Christianity or not.

3. There is no conflict in MICROevolution and God. He created it. There is, however, conflict with MACROevolution and God, per the Christian holy book, otherwise known as the Bible....you know, that little thing you have never read, but hate.

Humans are as insignificant as anything else, in that sense everything is significant. Furthermore, what may seem like millions of years to you is not a million years for God.

Why did God choose that Jesus should develop in the womb of Mary the full term, gradually? Isn't God powerful enough to do anything? Certainly! So too does God do everything! This is some of what God has done! The Grand Majesty and Systems of God in this specific Universe can be questioned as to why, but to what avail? This is how it is! God CAN and HAS done it alternatively too.

MICROEVOLUTION:

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.

MACROEVOLUTION:

Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into evolution.

Because microevolution can be observed directly, creationists agree that it occurs, though they tend to make a distinction between microevolution, macroevolution, and speciation.

Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics. One of these two views is becoming less and less tenable as the role for genome-wide changes and developmental processes in evolution become clearer.

A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

However, microevolution and macroevolution both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in allele frequencies, and the scientific controversy is only about how those changes predominantly occur. Either way macroevolution uses the same mechanisms of change as those already observed in microevolution.

_______________

IN OTHER WORDS:

Microevolution and Macroevolution are reffering to the same process, if you believe in Micro, then Macro comes in too, Macroevolution is a reference to the long term changes caused by lots of Microevolution.

"All forms of natural speciation have taken place over the course of evolution, though it still remains a subject of debate as to the relative importance of each mechanism in driving biodiversity. [1]

There is debate as to the rate at which speciation events occur over geologic time. While some evolutionary biologists claim that speciation events have remained relatively constant over time, some palaeontologists such as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould have argued that species usually remain unchanged over long stretches of time, and that speciation occurs only over relatively brief intervals, a view known as punctuated equilibrium."

"Punctuated equilibrium (or punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species will show little to no evolutionary change throughout their history. When evolution does occur, it happens sporadically (by splitting) and occurs relatively quickly compared to the species' full duration on earth. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which hypothesizes that most evolution occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis)."

"Phyletic gradualism is a macroevolutionary hypothesis rooted in uniformitarianism. The hypothesis states that species continue to adapt to new challenges over the course of their history, gradually becoming new species. Gradualism holds that every individual is the same species as its parents, and that there is no clear line of demarcation between the old species and the new species. It holds that the species is not a fixed type, and that the population, not the individual, evolves. During this process, evolution occurs at a fairly constant rate.

Phyletic gradualism has been largely deprecated as the exclusive pattern of evolution by modern evolutionary biologists in favor of the acceptation of occurrence of patterns such as those described on punctuated equilibrium, quantum evolution, and punctuated gradualism."

Digital:

Why...

•Are you answering issues on this page, I thought you claimed you wouldn't reply to new issues till you went through all the old ones?

•Are you talking about radiometric dating and the word Yom, I thought this was about ID and according to Hyro creationism and ID aren't the same thing?

•Are you changing the subject, you ask "Where is the proof that a single-celled organism,..." yet this is supposed to be about you providing evidence to us?

•Can you give us an explanation of the radiometric dating paper in your own words? Do you even understand it or is it only because it "looks scientific" that you believe it?

•can't you provide evidence for ID, as well as showing how ID is science?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You don't even believe the Bible, so stop arguing. You have to argue in CONTEXT. This isn't a thread about what Abrahim believes. This is a thread about evolution and Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a theory that Christians believe, not Muslims. As such, it is irrelevant for you to argue against Intelligent Design using Muslim arguments. I am not interested if you disagree with Christianity or not.

(emphasis mine)

just a few pages back you were quite adamant that id was independent of christian theology. what has changed now?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

"LOTS" ? Mwuahahaha...well, where are they hiding ?

You cannot be a scientist that believes in evolution. If you study the Bible, you also study Hebrew. If you study Hebrew you know the word "yom" is the word for "day". The word "day" is specifically used in Genesis to describe the beginning of each time period God creates things, i.e. 6 days. The author, Moses, even goes so far as to describe the sun rising and setting at the end of each "day". It is not written metaphorically. They are meant to be taken as literal days.

You should know better than anyone that not all christians are literal interpreters of the bible. If you don't interpret the bible literally, then you can believe in both the bible and evolution.

I'd also venture to guess that there are more christian scientists that believe in evolution than believe in ID, creationism, or any of its bastardized forms.

Again, your interpretation isn't the end all be all of the world, no matter how much you believe it to be. Your interpretation isn't necessarily the right way or the only way.

It's ok though, you continue to believe what you want, because it's obvious that no one here would ever be able to change your mind. Would you admit that at least? That you would never change your mind on this subject, no matter what was presented to you?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Leviathan and behemoth are mentioned in the Bible. They were wiped out in the global flood described in the Bible.

That is what we believe.



LMAO

"let's just get the number 26 Stegosaurus into stone-age-ville"

Apparently according to DS dinosaurs spit fire. Who knew. I mean it's in the bible, it must be literally true, as there obviously isn't any part of the bible with flowery descriptions.

But wait I thought we were talking about ID and science, not creationism and conjecture.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Leviathan and behemoth are mentioned in the Bible. They were wiped out in the global flood described in the Bible.

That is what we believe.

OK. Two follow up questions:

1)

You believe there were only two types of dinosaur.

Paleontologists believe there were over 800 species on non-avian dinosaur and in the region of 10,000 avian species of dinosaur, and the degree of morphological differences between them is vast. You can visit a paleontology museum yourself where you will see the skeletal remains of such dinosaurs.

How do you reconcile your beliefs with the beliefs of the paleontologists? Their beliefs present evidence for the theory of evolution which contradict your beliefs, while your beliefs have no such evidence.

2)

How do you explain the wooly mammoth that was found frozen in Siberia recently?

http://tinyurl.com/89n8n

So, is anyone going to describe 'an experiment that that could be performed which could determine whether or not supernatural intervention was involved'? Because that's what truckfixr was asking for; not a rant filled with strawmen and a logical fallacies.

This thread = train wreck.

First a refutation of DS' piece of Creationist propaganda

http://www.island.net/~rjbw/CreationScience.html

quote: If it's not a scientific theory, you shouldn't try to use science you prefer to refute it. You shouldn't be using science at all. You have yet to produce a legitimate reason why you think it's not a scientific theory, aside from the fact that these scientists credit God with our creation. If the scientists that support the theory of ID have used science to prove their hypothesis that God is the creator of the universe, how does that make it any less of a scientific theory ? The research supporting the theory is scientific !



1.Science uses the Demarcation Method to determine if an assumption is scientific or not (I mentioned this before)

• Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation.

• Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities.

• Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena.

• Falsifiable and testable.

• Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.

• Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made.

• Integrative, robust, and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. (Robust = "stable" in the statistical sense, i.e., not very sensitive to occasional outlying data points.) See Correspondence principle

• Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory.

Scientists' personal beliefs are of no consequence on science. Besides “Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Catholic Church and Church of England believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures.” Intelligent Design doesn’t satisfy the criterion; therefore it is not a valid scientific theory.

quote:Neither God, nor nature, have been proven to be sources for our existence, per their respective theories.

The Modern Evolutionary Theory uses both evidence and scientific truths to prove how Homo Sapiens came about (if proof you mean evidence) far more than any competing explanation. However ID’s designer cannot be proven false, therefore is non-falsifiable. A strike against ID in the demarcation.

quote: Theory of evolution also gives a model that is not falsifiable.

The core idea of natural selection some individuals reproduce more successfully than others because of traits they have inherited, and pass these traits to their offspring is not tautological and is falsifiable.

quote:There is no conflict in MICROevolution and God. He created it. There is, however, conflict with MACROevolution and God, per the Christian holy book, otherwise known as the Bible.

“However, microevolution and macroevolution both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in allele frequencies, and the scientific controversy is only about how those changes predominantly occur. Either way macroevolution uses the same mechanisms of change as those already observed in microevolution.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

quote:...That means God created the heavens and the earth in 6 24 hour periods, not millions of years.

It was even considered heretical to interpret the Bible literally at times (cf. Origen, St. Jerome). Saint Augustine, one of the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church, was in fact the first person to propose a theory similar to evolution (cf. De Genesi ad litteram or The Literal Meaning of Genesis). He suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

quote: …shows how impossible it is that a single-celled organism mutated beneficially for no apparent reason, and a few million years later, POOF...here we are.

First of all, natural selection is based on:

Point mutations the change of one DNA base for another.

Genetic recombinations: a reorganization of existing genetic material into a different pattern.

Genetic duplication: Normally, genes replicate -- make exact copies of themselves. But genes can occasionally duplicate themselves so that a daughter cell ends up with "two copies of a gene sequence that appeared only once in the parent cell."

Polyploidy: Here, gene replication takes place without the cell dividing.

These two copies [of a single gene] are then free to diverge, via mutation, resulting in a daughter genome with greater information content than a parental genome. (Julian Huxley)

A mutation is simply a change in the sequence of nucleotides in DNA. To call it a "mistake" or "accident" is to use loaded terminology. You are mistaken to assume that all mutations are bad. (Since you claim that there is no reason for a single-celled organism to mutate beneficially)

Furthermore, many beneficial mutations are known. For example, in 1916 a pair of wallabies escaped from a zoo in Oahu and have survived and bred in the wild. They have shown noticeable evolutionary change since then, among other things evolving a new liver enzyme which detoxifies the native plants on which they feed.

Another example is that sometime within the past 48 years, a strain of Flavobacterium has evolved a new enzyme that enables it to degrade byproducts of nylon manufacture, thus taking advantage of an energy source and ecological niche for which it has little or not competition (William M. Thwaites, 1985. New proteins without God's help. Creation/Evolution XVI:1-3). Both of these are mutations that conferred a survival advantage on their possessors by enabling them to utilize new food sources.







[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Digital:

Why...

•Are you answering issues on this page, I thought you claimed you wouldn't reply to new issues till you went through all the old ones?

You guys have made it evident you don't give a crap how I wanted to tailor my argument. Irrelevance, personal attacks, and heckling have made that clear.

I guess it really doesn't matter anymore, now does it ?

quote:•Are you talking about radiometric dating and the word Yom, I thought this was about ID and according to Hyro creationism and ID aren't the same thing?

Nice try, but the poster, Raw_Power, made the assertion that Christians can believe in macroevolution without contradicting their beliefs, and I showed him how we cannot. I wasn't talking about Intelligent Design, though it does present research showing why the earth cannot be millions of years old in the very research paper I provided above.

Creationism and ID aren't the same thing. I am not conflicting with both mine and Hyro's beliefs on that.

quote:•Are you changing the subject, you ask "Where is the proof that a single-celled organism,..." yet this is supposed to be about you providing evidence to us?

No, I am asking a question. I am not trying to prove anything at this point. You can either focus on answering me, or plan to be ignored.

quote:•Can you give us an explanation of the radiometric dating paper in your own words? Do you even understand it or is it only because it "looks scientific" that you believe it?

Of course I read it, and understand it. A brief synopsis of the research conducted would be that ratios of radioisotopic properties found in lava derived from Mt Ngauruhoe in Australia appear to exhibit those derived from their geochemistry, which leaves the scientist who wrote the paper with the conclusion that they cannot produce any valid age information (based on testing of the Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and the Pb-Pb radioisotopic systems). He reasons that there is only an indication of "magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources," and, "history of mixing and contamination in their petrogenesis," not age.

He states that while there is no question that radioisotope decay has occured (supporting that opinion by pointing out the obvious levels of mature 238U and 232Th radiohalos), current testing methods do not provide absolute ages, and cannot therefore be trusted as valid in support of evolutionary theory.

What does my understanding it prove to you ? Can you now provide an argument against it, now that I have proven that I can understand simple chemistry, geology, and English ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:•can't you provide evidence for ID, as well as showing how ID is science?

By providing this SINGLE research paper, I have show how ID scientists use SCIENCE to disprove methods used by the evolutionary community to claim that earth is millions of years old. That is but ONE research paper.

The rest of what I have been saying recently is trying to sort out the point of the argument of evolutionists on this board. You don't like our science, so you call it pseudoscience. This seems to satiate the need in your brains to discredit the theory, without even dismantling it. Then you set out to personally attack the proponents of ID, however unsuccessfully (manipulating the meaning of Behe's testimony isn't going to prove he's a scientific ignoramus), though STILL not actually refuting the scientific research supporting the theory itself.

Then you try and invalidate the arguments of ID proponents (myself and Hyro) by making ridiculous posts like the one I am responding to right now. Instead of refuting the research on radioisotope dating and how it is flawed to the point of unusability, you attack my posts, the reason for my posts, and even go so far as to question my ability to understand the evidence I myself have provided.

Do you, after all of your intellectual line dancing, think yourself to be approaching this debate with honesty ?

This is the very reason why Hyro left for another forum to begin with. You people can't just have a scientific argument.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What about this research implies supernatural intervention ?



I would say that this quote from the source you presented implies supernatural intervention, as "Creation Week" directly points to Genesis, and the the Flood was directly attributed to the Christian God.

"...It has been suggested that such radioisotopic decay must have occurred at an accelerated rate during distinct events in the earth’s history, such as during the early part of the Creation Week and during the Flood..."

I'll have time to address the rest of your post after I get home this evening.





[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 08-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

(emphasis mine)

just a few pages back you were quite adamant that id was independent of christian theology. what has changed now?

No, I didn't say it was independent. What I did say, and still say, is that it does not deal with supernatural elements to explain the theory. The theory explains how the earth is not millions of years old, how complex systems could not possibly have evolved, and how there is purpose (i.e. intelligence) behind the design of the universe and all things contained in it.

I never once said that the scientists supporting ID weren't Christians. It's obvious that they are. But they're motivation is clear: properly interpret scientific evidence to prove that evolution is a flawed and unusable theory, and to prove that our existence is far too perfectly constructed to have happened by "accident". What conclusion you come to beyond that is purely unscientific, and not dealt with by the theory of ID.

Then you should have no problem showing how this intelligence could be tested for or falsified.

Out of curiousity can you admit that what may look like an 'intelligence' is really just a natural phenomena not yet discovered by science?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You should know better than anyone that not all christians are literal interpreters of the bible. If you don't interpret the bible literally, then you can believe in both the bible and evolution.

Of course, but I question the accuracy of the beliefs of a Christian that does not take God's word literally. There is no reason not to. If you can believe God is the omnipotent creator of the universe, it is not logical to take the Bible any other way besides literally.

If you want to compromise in order to escape rejection, ridicule, and segregation from society, you claim that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and that macroevolution and God are compatable.

quote:I'd also venture to guess that there are more christian scientists that believe in evolution than believe in ID, creationism, or any of its bastardized forms.

Gee...why would THAT be ? Could it be because they are indoctrinated through the public school system ? Could it be that churches are not doing their jobs by identifying the obvious incompatability of Biblical doctrine and the theory of evolution ? Most churches tailor their sermons to make people "feel good" about themselves so they will keep coming back and giving money. They are doing nothing to equip their saints with actual knowledge about God and our universe.

Anyone that can call themselves a Christian and then call God a liar (per the description of our creation in Genesis and Exodus) is questionable in intelligence on the subject.

Besides, your "guesses" prove nothing.

quote:Again, your interpretation isn't the end all be all of the world, no matter how much you believe it to be. Your interpretation isn't necessarily the right way or the only way.

It's not MY interpretation. It's God's word. You can read it, and see what it is saying very clearly. Adopting the belief that the Bible ISN'T to be taken literally is odd, not believing that it SHOULD be taken literally. Your support of people that think it shouldn't be taken literally only serves to bolster your argument, which invalidates it. Unless you can prove that the Bible SHOULDN'T be taken literally, you are doing nothing except justifying your lack of ability to take it literally.

God's way is always the right way. I will never stop believing that. Having studied the Bible as long as I have has proven that it is not allegorical, metaphorical, or anything other than literal. I don't want you to take my word for it. Go and study it for yourself.

quote:It's ok though, you continue to believe what you want, because it's obvious that no one here would ever be able to change your mind. Would you admit that at least? That you would never change your mind on this subject, no matter what was presented to you?

I will continute to believe that God knows precisely how He created us. No human could change my mind about God's creation of the universe. It's in the Bible, clear as day.

It took many long years to get me to believe God and the Bible, in it's literal form. What makes you think that a bunch of prepubescent kids are going to be able to sway me against it, in light of the vast amounts of evidence I have seen and understood that supports the Bible and what it says about our creation ?

Would you at least admit that no matter how solid the evidence I supply you, you will NEVER accept the theory of ID ? If so, what does that prove ? That we will do nothing more than go around in circles ? If that is just NOW occurring to you, I pity you.

I recall you asking me something about Darwin. Can you please repeat the question, so I can answer it ? I don't really feel like digging through 12 pages to find it. Thanks.

quote:It's not MY interpretation.

Says the woman who personally interpretated the behemouth as a dinosaur, when there is no evidence whatsoever of it being one and the description given could easily make it many other creatures, such as the interpretation of it as an elephant, etc.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So, is anyone going to describe 'an experiment that that could be performed which could determine whether or not supernatural intervention was involved'? Because that's what truckfixr was asking for; not a rant filled with strawmen and a logical fallacies.

There is no research in the theory of ID that injects supernatural intervention as cause. It is purely scientific. Once again, you are confusing ID with Creationism. As Hyro and I have said NUMEROUS times, they AREN'T the same thing. If you spent even half as much time studying the theory of ID as you do studying Talk Origins, you'd know the difference by now, and MIGHT be able to effectively argue against ID.

Simply because scientists researching for ID believe that God is the creator of the universe doesn't mean the theory of ID attempts to explain our existence with supernatural phenomena. It doesn't.

There is obviously NO research that could be done on the supernatural aspects of God, which is why the theory of ID does not attempt to do so. I never claimed otherwise.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Of course, but I question the accuracy of the beliefs of a Christian that does not take God's word literally. There is no reason not to.

Let's say chapter 1 says "God did x" then chapter 2 says "Don't take God did x literally" what would you do?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What makes you think that a bunch of prepubescent kids are going to be able to sway me against it, in light of the vast amounts of evidence I have seen and understood

Do unto others...

If you are going to complain that someone made an ad hom attack against you, please don't do the same to others, it makes you look like a hypocrite.

Besides it has been mentioned and demostrated many here understand the science much better than you or Hyro.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Adopting the belief that the Bible ISN'T to be taken literally is odd, not believing that it SHOULD be taken literally.

How can that be true when the Bible contains inconsistencies?

I don't mean the silly superfluous ones. I mean things like contradictions between the canonical gospels.

For example take the four accounts of when Jesus attacked the money lenders in the Temple. John says it was Jesus' FIRST public act, but Matthew, Mark and Luke say it was his LAST public act.

How can they all be literally true?

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



I would say that this quote from the source you presented implies supernatural intervention, as "Creation Week" directly points to Genesis, and the the Flood was directly attributed to the Christian God.

"...It has been suggested that such radioisotopic decay must have occurred at an accelerated rate during distinct events in the earth’s history, such as during the early part of the Creation Week and during the Flood..."

I'll have time to address the rest of your post after I get home this evening.

Yes, I did see that part, but didn't find it to imply supernatural intervention, as the theory of ID provides scientific evidence both of a global flood and of the earth's actual age (which is young, not old).

The author of that paper is not attempting to explain natural phenomena with supernatural intervention. The natural phenomena cited can be explained through research, and it has been (see Ken Hamm). While it can be said that the flood was CAUSED by supernatural intervention, the theory of ID does not set out to prove that, only that it actually occurred. That is why it is a scientific claim, and not a theological one.

if id is completetly separate from christianity, then how does evidence agaist current dating methods support id?

so what if it the earth can be proven to be only a few thousand years old and that evolution is false? how does any of this support id without the bible?

edit: also a scientific theory certainly does have to identify and explain the CAUSE of what happened and how it happened.

[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 08-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

There is no research in the theory of ID that injects supernatural intervention as cause. It is purely scientific. Once again, you are confusing ID with Creationism. As Hyro and I have said NUMEROUS times, they AREN'T the same thing. If you spent even half as much time studying the theory of ID as you do studying Talk Origins, you'd know the difference by now, and MIGHT be able to effectively argue against ID.

Intelligent Design does require supernatural intervention, because it claims that an intelligent designer is responsible for the diversity of life.

If anyone is ignorant of what Intelligent Design is, it is most definitely you who apparently don't know this most basic of facts.

quote:

Simply because scientists researching for ID believe that God is the creator of the universe doesn't mean the theory of ID attempts to explain our existence with supernatural phenomena. It doesn't.

Like I said, every part of the "theory" must be falsifiable. Yes, ID proponents might use some "science" (terribly faulty one as it has been shown through out the thread) to explain some phenomenon, yet at the center of everything is the claim that an intelligent designer has intervened and is responsible for life as we see it today - a supernatural claim.



quote:

There is obviously NO research that could be done on the supernatural aspects of God, which is why the theory of ID does not attempt to do so. I never claimed otherwise.

You claimed that ID is Science while ignoring the central claim of ID, which is that an intelligent designer is responsible for life as we see it today. That's their claim; if you think that it is not, then you are only making your ignorance of the subject even more blatantly obvious.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Yes, I did see that part, but didn't find it to imply supernatural intervention, as the theory of ID provides scientific evidence both of a global flood and of the earth's actual age (which is young, not old).

I think you and Hyro need to sit down and have a pow-wow, he has complained that people are linking ID and creationism, and you are the reason why.

ID does NOT say anything about the age of the earth or the flood, ID is specifically about finding holes in a strawman version of evolution.

I mean come on, if you can't get your own theories right, are we really supposed to believe anything you say about evolution?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I will continute to believe that God knows precisely how He created us. No human could change my mind about God's creation of the universe. It's in the Bible, clear as day.

God knows how he created us, and the Bible uses Metaphor to explain how God created us so that the common man and woman could comprehend what was being said.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

ID does NOT say anything about the age of the earth or the flood...[/b]

Oh, no ? Hmm, that's funny, because if I understand the following research paper, it is an attempt to prove global flood theory...

MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL (http://tinyurl.com/jr2mn)

And before you focus on the word "creation" in the title of the paper, read the whole thing. It doesn't claim God is the cause of the global flood, merely that a global flood occurred. The research contained in this paper is verifiable/falsifiable.

They also state the obvious: a flood was recorded in the Bible. Their conclusion is that the scientific evidence supports the Biblical claims of a global flood. There is no mention of supernatural intervention. This paper purely scientific.

Here's another: CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: THE PHYSICS BEHIND THE GENESIS FLOOD (http://tinyurl.com/op534)

Here's one dealing with the age of the earth: RADIOISOTOPES AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH (http://tinyurl.com/lww35)

You were saying ?

quote:I mean come on, if you can't get your own theories right, are we really supposed to believe anything you say about evolution?

Come on, if you don't even know what the theory of ID actually deals with, how can you expect me to take your arguments seriously ?

Hyro and I are in perfect agreement on what ID is about, but thanks for your concern. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

God knows how he created us, and the Bible uses Metaphor to explain how God created us so that the common man and woman could comprehend what was being said.

You haven't read the Bible, so what do you know about what it uses to explain how He created us ?

Do you know Hebrew ? Do you know who authored Genesis and Exodus ? I would expect you to be intellectually honest and answer these questions without searching an engine.

As a Muslim, it is not surprising that you would deny the Bible it's literal interpretation. It refutes your beliefs, and that makes you uncomfy. Again, this is not about what Islam says about the Bible, or even what Abrahim says about the Bible. This is about ID, and whether it is a legitimate scientific theory which should be taught in public schools.

DS

quote:Oh, no ? Hmm, that's funny, because if I understand the following research paper, it is an attempt to prove global flood theory...

...Come on, if you don't even know what the theory of ID actually deals with, how can you expect me to take your arguments seriously ?

Ok, listen to me very closely as I will only say this once.

ID does not have anything to do with the age of the earth, young earth creationism does.

Creationism is a theory that has an intelligent designer but the theory designated as "ID" is proposed not by ICR or AiG but by the discovery institute (among others).

Want proof?

"Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. " http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

So again, if you can't get the definitions of ID and creationism why should we believe anything you say about evolution?

quote:MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

I swear we have been over this before in another thread but maybe that was Hyro (hint the error lies in the paper not investigating ways old samples could become contaminated). Although I would love for you to put some of these studies in your own words so you can show us that you aren't just copy and pasting but understand the topics.

I wont go into this as the thread is not about the supposed claims of errors in dating methods but asking you to support ID, something you keep dodging.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

if id is completetly separate from christianity, then how does evidence agaist current dating methods support id?

It is separate from Christianity in the sense that it deals with scientific proof, whereas the Bible doesn't, which is the basis for Christianity.

The Bible gives us an approximate age (between 7,000 and 12,000 years old) of the earth. Intelligent Design obviously supports the notion that we did not come to be as a result of spontaneous generation. The only other option is creation. ID doesn't attempt to explain creation. It merely attempts to explain that we were created, and that spontaneous generation is not the means by we which we came to exist. It also proves Biblical accounts with scientific research.

For example, the flood. The Bible, and many other historical texts, claim there was a global flood. ID scientists have used scientific method to produce evidence that proves there was, in fact, a global flood. All that does is corroborate the Biblical account. The theory doesn't attribute the flood to God, nor does it attempt to explain how the flood happened (supernatural intervention). It simply confirms, with science, that a flood occurred.

quote:so what if it the earth can be proven to be only a few thousand years old and that evolution is false? how does any of this support id without the bible?

The Bible is, outside of theology, an accurate account of historical events. There is no reason not to use it, along with vast amounts of other historical texts, to paint an accurate picture of our past.

ID doesn't need the Bible, however, to disprove the current leading theory, which is Darwinian evolution.

ID is a valid scientific theory, without the Bible. Why ? Because the Bible claims we were created by God, which can only be accepted by faith, as there is no proof of actual creation aside from the Biblical account. ID attempts to prove that life did not spontaneously exist from nothing, and that we are not evolved from lower life forms. It does not attempt to prove creation or cause for our existence, as that is not a provable phenomena.

quote:edit: also a scientific theory certainly does have to identify and explain the CAUSE of what happened and how it happened.

How does evolution identify and explain spontaneous generation ? There is no other explanation for how we came to be in Darwin's theory.

Spontaneous generation has never been explained, in regards to our origins.

ID doesn't attempt to claim our CAUSE. It simply seeks to examine physical evidence and show that our existence is not a result of millions of years of evolution, stemming from a singular event (spontaneous generation).

quote:Originally posted by DigitalSavior:

What about this research implies supernatural intervention ?

THE RELEVANCE OF Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd AND Pb-Pb ISOTOPE SYSTEMATICS TO ELUCIDATION OF THE GENESIS AND HISTORY OF RECENT ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR RADIOISOTOPIC DATING (http://tinyurl.com/q29db)

Looks pretty damn scientific to me, and not one mention of God...

As I’ve mentioned earlier, “Creation week” and Noah’s” Flood”, are both supernatural in nature. Claiming that decay was accelerated during the Flood or Creation are not scientific assumptions. Thus they are dubbed pseudoscience.

Also, although the intended purpose of your link was to support the claims of a young earth, the attempt was a failure. I do not claim to be a geologist or to hold any advanced degree, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the flaws in their conclusions.

The study did nothing to discredit radioisotope dating methods. The only thing that was shown was that the lava flows in question were contaminated due to the remelting of older strata. This is not new information, as the scientific community has known this for many years, and have devised methods to avoid incorrect results.

One more point I’d like to add: Intelligent Design does not promote the claim of a young earth, as the proponents wish to bring together Young Earth, Old Earth, and all the rest of the Creationists under “The Big Tent”. As such, your link had no value to your argument in favor of Intelligent Design.

quote:I will give an analogy, and ask you if you can make equal sense out of it: can a pot prove the existence of the potter that created it ? You seem to be saying that only by the pot's rules can it's existence be explained. If it was created by the potter, it would be more logical to use the rules of the potter, wouldn't it ? Likewise, the rules explaining the creation of the pot are the same rules the pot would use to explain it's own creation, as the pot created nothing, and the only evidence available to it explains the rules created by the potter. The pot cannot claim the potter's rules are wrong, as it is the creation, and the potter made the rules (mix clay and water, mold, etc.)

While this analogy may seem simplistic (my apologies), and I am personifying the pot, the intended message is clear.

Your analogy and your reasoning share a fairly obvious flaw. There would be no question as to the creator of the pot, as we know for certain that the potter in question exists. We have definite knowledge as to the process involved and the abilities of said potter. There is no question as to the potter’s existence. When expanding this analogy to a Creator God and his creation, there is nothing but assumptions of the Creator’s abilities. There is only the assumption that a Creator even exists, since no physical evidence supports such a Creator.

quote:You are coming from the unprovable position that there is NO God. I am coming from the unprovable position that there is. While the theory you favor, evolution, attempts to explain how we came to be, the theory I favor, Intelligent Design, does the same. Just from what I have seen you post here (feel free to correct me if I am wrong), you did not come to believe there was no God because of the theory of evolution. You already believed there was no God. Likewise, I did not come to believe that there is a God because of the theory of ID. I already believed that there was a God.

Actually, I am coming from the position that no empirical evidence exists which could prove the existence of a God. Until such time that evidence is presented proving such that such a being exists, I will hold to my position.

You are correct in that evolution has nothing to do with my disbelief in a God. I find no reason to believe in anything supernatural.

quote:That is not my way of making excuses for ID. I believe it is a legitimate scientific theory, based on legitimate scientific research using scientific methods. It seems that you think by denying that it is, you win the argument by default. I am not trying to win anything. I am trying to explain it. If it's not a scientific theory, you shouldn't try to use science you prefer to refute it. You shouldn't be using science at all.

I am seriously not trying to offend you here, but if that is what you truly believe , then you are simply wrong. The reasons ID does not qualify as a scientific theory have been pointed out to you repeatedly, in this very thread. Even the definition that you provided eliminates ID from qualifying as a scientific theory. Do you actually believe that if there were any legitimate way to show that ID could be falsified, that Behe (Major proponent and Creation scientist, as you already know) would not have done so to prove the validity of ID as a Scientific theory when he had his chance before a court of law?

Again I will ask you: Please describe any possible experiment that could determine whether or not supernatural intervention was involved. What result would refute supernatural intervention? What result would verify supernatural intervention?

I have no wish to win any argument by default. If you have legitimate evidence to support your assertion of ID being a scientific theory, please present it now. Describe any experiment or situation in which the results or empirical evidence could possibly prove or rule out supernatural intervention?

quote:You have yet to produce a legitimate reason why you think it's not a scientific theory, aside from the fact that these scientists credit God with our creation. If the scientists that support the theory of ID have used science to prove their hypothesis that God is the creator of the universe, how does that make it any less of a scientific theory ? The research supporting the theory is scientific !

Any valid scientific theory must be falsifiable. There must be a way to prove it false if it is wrong. There is no way possible to disprove the supernatural, as it is outside of the realm of the physical. God(if such a being exists) is a metaphysical being. Metaphysical causation cannot be tested by science. The scientific method deals only with the physical/natural world. Unless it can be shown where ID can be empirically tested, it fails as a scientific theory. The scientists that support ID have not used science to prove their hypothesis(and thank you, for finally using the proper terminology this time),that God is the Creator of the universe. They have made assertions. Assertions that can in no way be proven or disproven. I know that you are intelligent enough to understand that ID is a hypothesis, and by it’s very nature can never qualify as a scientifictheory.

I am not even asserting that Intelligent is wrong. It is possible, although highly unlikely, that the concept of Intelligent Design is correct. Even if it were though, it still would not qualify as a scientific theory, as there is no possible way for it to be falsified.

quote:Scientists that believe in evolution credit nature. Neither God, nor nature, have been proven to be sources for our existence, per their respective theories. There is convincing evidence supporting both theories, but nothing proving either conclusively.

This is correct. The difference is that we can test nature. Evolution can be falsified. It isn’t difficult to imagine a situation where evolution could be proven false: If fossil evidence of any complex animal were to be found in any stable, non disturbed, Pre-Cambrian strata, it would falsify the theory of evolution.



quote:I would also like to address the fallacious notion that a scientist cannot believe that God created the universe without losing credibility. That is simply ridiculous. That seems to be what you are saying, since you refuse to accept any scientific evidence that determines that God is the cause of our existence.

It seems as if you simply don't want God to exist, no matter how legitimate the evidence is supporting that theory. You don't have to, but it does make it hard to take you seriously in your argument. If the evidence shows that there is a higher power at work here, you'd never admit it, would you ?

As has been pointed out to you several times, there are scientists who believe that God created the universe. I have never implied otherwise.

There simply exists no scientific evidence to show that God is the creator of anything at all. There are only assumptions and assertions, and most are based on flawed reasoning or false informan.

quote:Please don't try and turn that argument around on me and claim that I would never acknowledge scientific evidence that proved God DOESN'T exist, because I have been on your side of the tracks before. …

I would not attempt to do so for the simple fact that there is no evidence that could prove that God does not exist. As has been stated several times already, you cannot possibly disprove the supernatural.

quote:Posted by Rust:

Intelligent Design does require supernatural intervention, because it claims that an intelligent designer is responsible for the diversity of life.

Where is it implicitly claimed that there is a "designer" within the theory of ID ?

quote:If anyone is ignorant of what Intelligent Design is, it is most definitely you who apparently don't know this most basic of facts.

Which you have irrefutably proven by giving your OPINION.... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

No need to get nasty with me, Rust. I wasn't talking to you.

quote:Like I said, every part of the "theory" must be falsifiable. Yes, ID proponents might use some "science" (terribly faulty one as it has been shown through out the thread) to explain some phenomenon, yet at the center of everything is the claim that an intelligent designer has intervened and is responsible for life as we see it today - a supernatural claim.

There is no part of the theory that claims God is the intelligent designer. It is only implied by association. The theory retains it's validity as a scientific theory, because it does NOT claim supernatural events or supernatural beings as the CAUSE of our existence. While it may be the belief of ID scientists that God is the creator of the universe, the theory doesn't deal with that aspect.

quote:You claimed that ID is Science while ignoring the central claim of ID, which is that an intelligent designer is responsible for life as we see it today. That's their claim; if you think that it is not, then you are only making your ignorance of the subject even more blatantly obvious.

There is no such claim. It doesn't make me ignorant to recognize what the theory of ID actually DOES say.

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

OK. Two follow up questions:

1)

You believe there were only two types of dinosaur.

Paleontologists believe there were over 800 species on non-avian dinosaur and in the region of 10,000 avian species of dinosaur, and the degree of morphological differences between them is vast. You can visit a paleontology museum yourself where you will see the skeletal remains of such dinosaurs.

How do you reconcile your beliefs with the beliefs of the paleontologists? Their beliefs present evidence for the theory of evolution which contradict your beliefs, while your beliefs have no such evidence.

2)

How do you explain the wooly mammoth that was found frozen in Siberia recently? http://tinyurl.com/89n8n



quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

How can that be true when the Bible contains inconsistencies?

I don't mean the silly superfluous ones. I mean things like contradictions between the canonical gospels.

For example take the four accounts of when Jesus attacked the money lenders in the Temple. John says it was Jesus' FIRST public act, but Matthew, Mark and Luke say it was his LAST public act.

How can they all be literally true?

Please give me a response to at least one of my posts, you have ignored my posts on a number of occasions when I had written valid objections and I'm quite tired it to be honest.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

as the scientific community has known this for many years, and have devised methods to avoid incorrect results.

Bingo.

Ask a creationist about Ar/Ar dating, go ahead ask. Be surprised if you get anymore than "what's that? um... it's wrong" be amazed if you get "it's just like K/Ar dating" and be completely astonished if you get the correct answer, "It's a form of radiometric dating using the same basic decay chain as K/Ar, it not only dates rocks, it allows error correcting to be done to tell if a sample has been contaminated."

There is a reason you will never hear much about Ar/Ar dating in creationist literature. The same goes for most other error correction or known error sources.

Surprise surprise, creationist groups provide a false view of radiometric dating.

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

How can that be true when the Bible contains inconsistencies?

It doesn't.

quote:I don't mean the silly superfluous ones. I mean things like contradictions between the canonical gospels.

That is a topic for another thread.

quote:For example take the four accounts of when Jesus attacked the money lenders in the Temple. John says it was Jesus' FIRST public act, but Matthew, Mark and Luke say it was his LAST public act.

How can they all be literally true?

As I said, this thread is not about the Bible's accuracy. I have dealt with this, and many other, supposed inconsistencies in numerous other threads in the past 2 years. I do not have time to do it again, as long as I am giving my attention to THIS thread, which is not about proving the Bible's accuracy.

My point was only that the MAJORITY of "Christians" don't know enough about their Bible's to take it literally, or otherwise. This is a flaw. Taking the Bible literally is the way it was meant to be taken, as anyone with extensive studies on the subject could attest. Basically, just because serious scholars of the Bible are in the minority (the majority not understanding it at all) doesn't make their methods for studying it incorrect.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

I think that’s a very apt description, considering no matter how many times something is explained to you about evolution you seem to conveniently forget it and continue making the same ludicrous claims, and I shall continue to view you as one unless you admit you are purposely ignoring those claims and are in denial.

The same could be said of evolutionists. By your logic, they are also "retards".

quote:But yes, I am sorry for calling you a retard out loud.

I would like a genuine apology. And then I would like you to stop insulting me for my beliefs. If you can do neither of those things, I will not debate you.

quote:Now, let me make this clear again and then I must really be off to work: MICROEVOLUTION IS MACROEVOLUTION.

One occurs, and the other doesn't. It is impossible for them to be the same thing. *shrugs*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Taking the Bible literally is the way it was meant to be taken

Now we get down to the fun part. If evolution is true then the bible isn't literal. If the bible isn't literal then it's false. But the bible isn't false, thus evolution must be false.

Most creationist groups go through that thought process and it's the chief reason they will ignore evidence and make false claims, because that is better than the alternative.

(A large number of christians, including the Pope would disagree, but what do they know, they don't read their bibles).

quote:I know that there are many, although they are not in the majority. My microbiology teacher from last year is definitely one of them. So is my friend Joe. As are many other people I know. I used to be one of them, in fact. It's usually the more intellectual-type and liberal Christians that believe in evolution.

My problem is with people claiming to be Christian, yet not believing God's word. By saying it is metaphorical, you not only leave it up to any interpretation the human mind can conjure, but you remove any validity it has. Just on logical grounds, I refuse to accept that possibility.

Aside from that, I would question the faith of a person who claims God is their creator, yet believes in theories created by mankind about our existence, which completely contradict the word of God.

I don't appreciate the insinuation you just made that the belief that evolution is compatible with the creation account in Genesis stems from intelligence, as if only STUPID Christians insist that God's account of creation is accurate, and evolution is incorrect.

quote:I don't think you meant to say that.

I can't even find the post where I said that, so I don't know what I was trying to say...sorry.

quote:[b]You mean the sun that was created on the 4th day? Interesting.[/]b

Actually, light was created before the sun. I misspoke. Light was created on day one. The cycle of transition between darkness (Night) and light (Day) was called a "day" or, in Hebrew, "yom".

But I suspect you knew that already.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Where is it implicitly claimed that there is a "designer" within the theory of ID ?

How about when they claim the mechanisms and phenomenon we observe have been designed? Or are you suggesting that claiming something has been designed does not mean there is a designer?



quote:Which you have irrefutably proven by giving your OPINION....

No need to get nasty with me, Rust. I wasn't talking to you.

No, it is self evident given that you had no clue that the central belief in ID is that an intelligent designer designed all or some of the world as we see it today.

As for me being "nasty", I'm replying as you did to me...

"Once again, you are confusing ID with Creationism. As Hyro and I have said NUMEROUS times, they AREN'T the same thing. If you spent even half as much time studying the theory of ID as you do studying Talk Origins, you'd know the difference by now, and MIGHT be able to effectively argue against ID."



quote:There is no part of the theory that claims God is the intelligent designer. It is only implied by association. The theory retains it's validity as a scientific theory, because it does NOT claim supernatural events or supernatural beings as the CAUSE of our existence. While it may be the belief of ID scientists that God is the creator of the universe, the theory doesn't deal with that aspect.

Where did I say that ID believed that the Christian god (or any specific god for that matter) was the intelligent designer? Nowhere. Please go through what I said again because it is plainly obvious that I do not specify what god/diety/being the designer is, only that Intelligent Design does make the claim that one exists - which is then not falsifiable.

quote:There is no such claim. It doesn't make me ignorant to recognize what the theory of ID actually DOES say.

So you're suggesting that the theory called "Intelligent Design" does not claim that a designer exists? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency , [i]with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

- Of Pandas and People. 1993.

In case you don't know, 'Of Pandas and People' is the textbook has been pushed into classrooms by the ID proponents for years now.

The fact is that ID does say that at least some parts of the observable world we see today have been intelligently designed by an intelligent designer. That's plainly obvious not only by the name itself, but by the definitions given by those involved in the movement.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-08-2006).]

quote:Humans are as insignificant as anything else, in that sense everything is significant. Furthermore, what may seem like millions of years to you is not a million years for God.

The purpose of an insignificant creation to an omnipotent God is what, precisely ?

I guess God meant we should have no purpose, as insignificant beings, eh ? If so, why would you ever worship a God that created you to be insignificant ?

Freakin' Muslims. *shakes head*

God knows by what measurements humanity would describe time, since He created humanity. As stated in Genesis 1:14 - "God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to divide the day from the night; let them be for signs, seasons, days, and years;"

God gave us the system by which we count time. You have provided no proof that God needed or intended millions of years to create the universe.

quote:Why did God choose that Jesus should develop in the womb of Mary the full term, gradually?

Because of Old Testament prophecy that said he would form in the womb of a virgin, and be born a man.

Again, a little bit of reading would do your comprehension of the Christian faith wonders.

quote:Isn't God powerful enough to do anything? Certainly! So too does God do everything! This is some of what God has done! The Grand Majesty and Systems of God in this specific Universe can be questioned as to why, but to what avail? This is how it is! God CAN and HAS done it alternatively too.

This kind of inane babbling is precisely why I know you didn't author the following definitions of micro- and macroevolution.

quote:MICROEVOLUTION:

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.

Microevolution (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microevolution)

Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

quote:MACROEVOLUTION:

Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into evolution.

Macroevolution (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution)

Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

Basically, your "definitions" did not identify the OBVIOUS differences between the two. The argument isn't whether microevolution is necessary in order for macroevolution to occur. The argument is whether macroevolution actually occurs at all, of which there is NO PROOF.

quote:Because microevolution can be observed directly, creationists agree that it occurs, though they tend to make a distinction between microevolution, macroevolution, and speciation.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Pray tell, what precisely is wrong with taking a scientific approach (direct observation) to the matter of our existence, as opposed to a mythological approach (claiming macroevolution occurs, even though there is no evidence of it) ?

quote:Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics. One of these two views is becoming less and less tenable as the role for genome-wide changes and developmental processes in evolution become clearer.

A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

However, microevolution and macroevolution both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in allele frequencies, and the scientific controversy is only about how those changes predominantly occur. Either way macroevolution uses the same mechanisms of change as those already observed in microevolution.

Quote your sources next time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution) http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I believe the atheists on here would ATTACK me relentlessly for doing this very same thing...as a matter of fact, they would claim I was plagiarizing !

I guess it only matters when Christians do it.

quote:IN OTHER WORDS:

Microevolution and Macroevolution are reffering to the same process, if you believe in Micro, then Macro comes in too, Macroevolution is a reference to the long term changes caused by lots of Microevolution.

But scientific method requires that these systems be observable. Microevolution IS observable, while macroevolution is NOT.

quote:"All forms of natural speciation have taken place over the course of evolution, though it still remains a subject of debate as to the relative importance of each mechanism in driving biodiversity. [1]

There is debate as to the rate at which speciation events occur over geologic time. While some evolutionary biologists claim that speciation events have remained relatively constant over time, some palaeontologists such as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould have argued that species usually remain unchanged over long stretches of time, and that speciation occurs only over relatively brief intervals, a view known as punctuated equilibrium."

"Punctuated equilibrium (or punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species will show little to no evolutionary change throughout their history. When evolution does occur, it happens sporadically (by splitting) and occurs relatively quickly compared to the species' full duration on earth. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which hypothesizes that most evolution occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis)."

"Phyletic gradualism is a macroevolutionary hypothesis rooted in uniformitarianism. The hypothesis states that species continue to adapt to new challenges over the course of their history, gradually becoming new species. Gradualism holds that every individual is the same species as its parents, and that there is no clear line of demarcation between the old species and the new species. It holds that the species is not a fixed type, and that the population, not the individual, evolves. During this process, evolution occurs at a fairly constant rate.

Phyletic gradualism has been largely deprecated as the exclusive pattern of evolution by modern evolutionary biologists in favor of the acceptation of occurrence of patterns such as those described on punctuated equilibrium, quantum evolution, and punctuated gradualism."

Quote your sources. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)

Do you even know what quantum evolution is, without looking it up on Wikipedia ? ROFL

Go home to your Qur'an, Abrahim.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

Please give me a response to at least one of my posts, you have ignored my posts on a number of occasions when I had written valid objections and I'm quite tired it to be honest.

In case you hadn't noticed, I am responding to a huge number of people. Get over yourself. I didn't ignore you. Kindly ignore your repeats, as they serve no purpose, since I have answered you.

Any time you feel sick of me, feel free to excuse yourself. Whining about it does not impress me.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Now we get down to the fun part. If evolution is true then the bible isn't literal. If the bible isn't literal then it's false. But the bible isn't false, thus evolution must be false.

Precisely. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Most creationist groups go through that thought process and it's the chief reason they will ignore evidence and make false claims, because that is better than the alternative.

Stop making generalizations. I am here. Talk to ME.

Where have I ignored evidence and made false claims ?

quote:(A large number of christians, including the Pope would disagree, but what do they know, they don't read their bibles).



Just because a person, or a group of people, claims to be Christian doesn't mean they are. The Catholic Church is a cult.

Lucifer knows the Bible inside and out. I guess that makes whatever he claims about it correct, right ? *laughs*

Now deal with the data in the 3 (or 4) articles I have already posted, and stop making attacks on the proponents of ID.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Where is it implicitly claimed that there is a "designer" within the theory of ID ?

I hate to butt in, but oh my lack of god that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read anywhere.

carry on...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Of course, but I question the accuracy of the beliefs of a Christian that does not take God's word literally. There is no reason not to. If you can believe God is the omnipotent creator of the universe, it is not logical to take the Bible any other way besides literally.

If you want to compromise in order to escape rejection, ridicule, and segregation from society, you claim that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and that macroevolution and God are compatable.

There certainly are valid reasons(which I'd love to discuss with you, but I think a separate thread would be required). I'll create the thread promptly. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Gee...why would THAT be ? Could it be because they are indoctrinated through the public school system ? Could it be that churches are not doing their jobs by identifying the obvious incompatability of Biblical doctrine and the theory of evolution ? Most churches tailor their sermons to make people "feel good" about themselves so they will keep coming back and giving money. They are doing nothing to equip their saints with actual knowledge about God and our universe.

Anyone that can call themselves a Christian and then call God a liar (per the description of our creation in Genesis and Exodus) is questionable in intelligence on the subject.

Ok then, so I guess when Churches and theologians and scientists write papers and books(which I'm suuuuuuure you've read http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ) explaining and pointing out how non-literal interpretation and evolution can coincide, they're just doing it to get money? You don't really believe that shit do you?

quote:It's not MY interpretation. It's God's word. You can read it, and see what it is saying very clearly. Adopting the belief that the Bible ISN'T to be taken literally is odd, not believing that it SHOULD be taken literally. Your support of people that think it shouldn't be taken literally only serves to bolster your argument, which invalidates it. Unless you can prove that the Bible SHOULDN'T be taken literally, you are doing nothing except justifying your lack of ability to take it literally.

We can clear this up in my soon to be created thread.

quote:God's way is always the right way. I will never stop believing that. Having studied the Bible as long as I have has proven that it is not allegorical, metaphorical, or anything other than literal. I don't want you to take my word for it. Go and study it for yourself.

I'll just throw this out here though. When you read the bible, God is telling you to read it literally, correct? I hope this isn't a false assumption on my part, but I'm assuming that when you read the bible, your heart and your mind is telling you that the bible is meant to be taken word for word, no exception. My question would be, what about people who read the exact same bible as you, but get something different out of it? Surely there are more than one way to read the bible, just as there is for any piece of literature. I have read the bible cover to cover, I can't say that I've spent a significant time studying it, but from everything I've read and studied, it appears the bible was meant to be interpreted. This is more evident to me when you consider the history surrounding the bible and when and for whom the bible was written. I'll get more indepth with this later though in my soon to be created thread.

quote:I will continute to believe that God knows precisely how He created us. No human could change my mind about God's creation of the universe. It's in the Bible, clear as day.

And I've read the same verses and reached a different conclusion, as have millions of other people. Are we(they) all wrong and you right?

quote:It took many long years to get me to believe God and the Bible, in it's literal form. What makes you think that a bunch of prepubescent kids are going to be able to sway me against it, in light of the vast amounts of evidence I have seen and understood that supports the Bible and what it says about our creation ?

I guess I should ask then, what would it take(hypothetically speaking of course) just to sway you from literal interpretation?

quote:Would you at least admit that no matter how solid the evidence I supply you, you will NEVER accept the theory of ID ? If so, what does that prove ? That we will do nothing more than go around in circles ? If that is just NOW occurring to you, I pity you.

Well I think you have to supply the evidence first... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I'd like to believe in ID. I think it would clear up many things in philosophy and science, but the support and evidence simply isn't there. Could you e-mail this evidence, if it wouldn't bother you?

quote:I recall you asking me something about Darwin. Can you please repeat the question, so I can answer it ? I don't really feel like digging through 12 pages to find it. Thanks.

Certainly. I asked on what page did Darwin discuss the origin of life and on what page did Darwin say that God doesn't exist.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

As I said, this thread is not about the Bible's accuracy. I have dealt with this, and many other, supposed inconsistencies in numerous other threads in the past 2 years. I do not have time to do it again, as long as I am giving my attention to THIS thread, which is not about proving the Bible's accuracy.

The accuracy and consistency of the Bible is ENTIRELY relevent here, since the basis of your claims is that the Bible presents a literally true account of the nature of the universe.

quote: In case you hadn't noticed, I am responding to a huge number of people. Get over yourself. I didn't ignore you. Kindly ignore your repeats, as they serve no purpose, since I have answered you.

Any time you feel sick of me, feel free to excuse yourself. Whining about it does not impress me.



This isn't about my ego, it's about the fact that you've refused to address my objections on a number of occasions in the past when there was no conceivable way for you to respond to them.

For example your "PI in the bible" thread.

[This message has been edited by fullcircle (edited 08-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Stop making generalizations. I am here. Talk to ME.

Where have I ignored evidence and made false claims ?

I'm not making generalization, it's a known fact (if you try and claim it's not I'm going to call BS as we have had this conversation before) that creationist groups ignore evidence if it contradicts their views.

The problem is, we aren't exactly talking to you, we are talking to creationist literature and a lot of haughty rhetoric. Most of your facts are just copy and pastes, we rarely if ever hear anything from you.

That's a setup if I ever heard one. How about instead of pointing out faults we start anew. Let's start with you making sure to note the Real definitions of what you are arguing for and against. This would include understanding the difference between young earth creationism and Intelligent design theory as well as creationist-strawman-evolution and the real scientific theory of evolution. Next please note the definitions of science given to you as well as logical fallacies that have been posted by a number of people including yourself. If you want this to go anywhere everyone needs to be versed on what is being discussed and should follow their own words and advice (that means no whining about ad homs if you are just going to fire them back, or posting of logical fallacies if you are going to break them, etc.)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Just because a person, or a group of people, claims to be Christian doesn't mean they are. The Catholic Church is a cult.

Lucifer knows the Bible inside and out. I guess that makes whatever he claims about it correct, right ? *laughs*

Not to go into apologetics but I should point out (since you claims to read your bible, and do so literally you should already know this) Lucifer was a human king and he is dead. No one cares what Lucifer thinks about the bible. (If you don't believe me, read the entire chapter that mentions lucifer).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Now deal with the data in the 3 (or 4) articles I have already posted, and stop making attacks on the proponents of ID.

Why should I?

1) This is about you providing support for Intelligent design (remember the age of the earth has nothing to do with ID).

2) Do you even understand what you posted? Why should I have to respond to a copy and pasted article?

Ok let's do this. I have already read some of your papers and understand the flaws, however if you would like to discuss radiometric dating then I expect you to give a summary of the papers claims and evidence in your own words otherwise I will not write my own response. Sound like a fair deal?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Do you even know what quantum evolution is, without looking it up on Wikipedia ? ROFL

Go home to your Qur'an, Abrahim.



Macroevolution is Microevolution over a long period of time, do you agree that long periods of time occur? Then you agree that Macroevolution occurs, which is evolution (microevolution over and over) over a long period of time.

Wikipedia is the source and people have quotes it on here before that's got all kinds of info on this stuff.

You said that you agreed with microevolution, macroevolution is lots of microevolution over a long period of time, if microevolution occurs, and long periods of time occur, then macroevolution occurs, that's all I was saying, meaning: There is nothing to fight or differenciate about between Micro and Macro, they are talking about the same process, one over a short period, the other over a long period.

Digital Savior Says: Lucifer knows the Bible inside and out. I guess that makes whatever he claims about it correct, right ? *laughs*"

I know that was just a joke but just to clearify something for you Lucifer is a mistranslation performed by Monks and was originally referencing to a Babylonian King known as Light Bearer or alternatively Morning Star. It was never intended in the Hebrew Bible to be a name of Satan but the title of a Babylonian King.

I stated earlier that everything is significant, not just humans, even insects are significant in my opinion, even a grain of sand. Humans are tremendously arrogant creatures. No purpose? Is there anything in the universe that doesn't serve a purpose? That doesn't have a function?

Now here are some things about the age of our home, the Universe.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html

http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo1.html

"In 1929, observations of distant galaxies showed that the light from those galaxies behaved as if they were going away from us. If all the distant galaxies are all receding from us on the average, that means that the Universe as a whole could be expanding. It could be blowing up like a balloon.

If the Universe is expanding, then what did it expand from?

This is what tells us that the Universe probably does have a finite age, it probably is not eternal and ageless as Einstein wanted to believe.

But then, okay, how old is the Universe?

We know from studies of radioactivity of the Earth and Sun that our solar system probably formed about 4.5 billions years ago, which means that the Universe must be at least twice that old, because before our solar system formed, our Milky Way galaxy had to form, and that probably took several billions years by itself.

It would be reasonable to guess that the Universe is at least twice as old as our Sun and Earth. However, we can't do radioactive dating on distant stars and galaxies. The best we can do is balance a lot of different measurements of the brightness and distance of stars and the red shifting of their light to come up with some ballpark figure. The oldest star clusters whose age we can estimate are about 12 to 15 billions years old.

So it seems safe to estimate that the age of the Universe is at least 15 billion years old, but probably not more than 20 billion years old.

This matter is far from being settled by astrophysicists and cosmologists, so stay tuned. There could be radical new developments in the future. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

How old do you date the Universe?

By the way, the Expansion and collapse and re expansion of the Universe is mentioned in the Qur'an, don't shun the book, it would be a tremendous loss for you.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Where is it implicitly claimed that there is a "designer" within the theory of ID ?

quote:

There is no part of the theory that claims God is the intelligent designer. It is only implied by association. The theory retains it's validity as a scientific theory, because it does NOT claim supernatural events or supernatural beings as the CAUSE of our existence. While it may be the belief of ID scientists that God is the creator of the universe, the theory doesn't deal with that aspect.



quote: There is no such claim. It doesn't make me ignorant to recognize what the theory of ID actually DOES say.

I find it remarkable that you cannot within your mind see that abiogenesis and evolution are seperate theories, yet you can hold to the notion that ID does not recognize that the Designer is God.You and I both know for a fact that the only reason that God is not named as the Designer is to get ID introduced into the classroom.



Kitzmiller v Dover Trial transcripts. Day 11,PM session.

Michael Behe, under Cross examination:

Page 100

Q ". . . it may be that all possible natural

3 designers require irreducibly complex structures which

4 themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a

5 supernatural designer must get into the picture.

6 "I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive.

7 In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive

8 sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent

9 agent is a natural entity. The chemistry and physics that

10 we do know weigh heavily against it. If natural

11 intelligence depends on physical organization, then the

12 organization seems likely to have to be enormously complex

13 and stable over reasonable periods of time. While simpler

14 systems may perform the tasks that irreducibly complex

15 systems perform a terrestrial life, they would likely

16 perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so that the

17 complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be

18 achieved. Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the

19 designer is a natural entity."

20 Q You don t absolutely rule it out, but you re not

21 taking it very seriously, are you?

22 A Well, I ve said that quite a number of times. I

23 think I said that at the beginning of my testimony

24 yesterday, that I think in fact from -- from other

25 perspectives, that the designer is in fact God. But if you

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

BEHE - CROSS

101

1 turn back to page 699, there s a section entitled, "Is it

2 possible that the designer is a natural entity?" And I

3 won t quote from it, but I come to the conclusion there that

4 sure it s possible that it is, but I do not -- I myself do

5 not find it plausible.

It's not even that she doesn't recognize that the intelligent designer is really the Christian god in disguise, it's that she apparently doesn't think a designer is involved at all!



Anyway, Dembski states pretty much the same as Behe, in 'Design Inference'.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-08-2006).]

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> The argument is basically garbage. The C-14 is due to contamination of one sort or another; this is proven by the fact that the amount of C-14 in such old samples doesn't correlate with much of anything yet there are lots of correlations with the amount of C-14 in younger samples. The amount is far too small to affect the dating of younger samples. They're trying to convince you that all C-14 dates are suspect because the amount doesn't go exactly to zero as we look at older and older samples with incredibly sensitive instruments..

Original Article: http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf



<LI> Much geological evidence is incompatible with catastrophic plate tectonics:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD750.html

•Island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, indicate that the ocean floor moved slowly over erupting "hot spots." Radiometric dating and relative amounts of erosion both indicate that the older islands are very much older, not close to the same age as catastrophic tectonics would require.

•Catastrophic plate tectonics says that all ocean floor should be essentially the same age. But both radiometric dating and amounts of sedimentation indicate that the age changes gradually, from brand new to tens of millions of years old.

•As sea-floor basalt cools, it becomes denser and sinks. The elevation of sea floors is consistent with cooling appropriate for its age, assuming gradual spreading.

•Guyots are flat-topped underwater mountains. The tops were eroded flat from a long time at the ocean surface, and they sank with the sea floor. Catastrophic tectonics does not allow enough time for the sea mountain to form, erode, and sink.

•Runaway subduction does not account for continent-continent collisions, such as between India and the Eurasian plate.

2.Catastrophic plate tectonics has no plausible mechanism. In particular, the greatly lowered viscosity of the mantle, the rapid magnetic reversals, and the sudden cooling of the ocean floor afterwards cannot be explained under conventional physics.

3.Conventional plate tectonics accounts for the evidence already and does a much better job of it. It explains innumerable details that catastrophic plate tectonics cannot, such as why there is gold in California, silver in Nevada, salt flats in Utah, and coal in Pennsylvania (McPhee 1998). It requires no extraordinary mechanisms to do so. Catastrophic plate tectonics would be a giant step backwards in the progress of science.

Original Article: http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/catastrplttect_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

<LI> The article explains a project not a scientific theory. And its members are too inexperienced and misuse scientific theory to their advantage. http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

Original Article: http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf

</UL>



N.B You can’t assume that a flood happened until you can give “evidence”. That is the scientific method. Next time read what you copy and pasted before you promote unsubstantiated statements.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-08-2006).]

is there anybody who believes in id that is not christian or religious in some fashion?

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

The argument is basically garbage. The C-14 is due to contamination of one sort or another; this is proven by the fact that the amount of C-14 in such old samples doesn't correlate with much of anything yet there are lots of correlations with the amount of C-14 in younger samples. The amount is far too small to affect the dating of younger samples. They're trying to convince you that all C-14 dates are suspect because the amount doesn't go exactly to zero as we look at older and older samples with incredibly sensitive instruments..

Exactly. The paper itself is just a grouping of other studies and is only valid if those other studies are valid. Some data they use includes a piece of 'wood' that turned out not to be wood. As well as Coal that gained C-14 through exposure to radiation from other decaying elements. None of this was discussed and it was never attempted to figure out how these errors would occur outside the assumed creationist model (something I was taught to do in High School chemistry).

In truth because of contamination and radiation I would be amazed to find any large amount of Carbon (no matter what the actual age) to be C-14 free, as the paper suggests, as C-14 is reasonably easy to create.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 08-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

My problem is with people claiming to be Christian, yet not believing God's word. By saying it is metaphorical, you not only leave it up to any interpretation the human mind can conjure, but you remove any validity it has. Just on logical grounds, I refuse to accept that possibility.

Aside from that, I would question the faith of a person who claims God is their creator, yet believes in theories created by mankind about our existence, which completely contradict the word of God.

There's not much I can say without bringing up many other issues, which would inevidably result in nothing accomplished. They seem to me like they believe in God. And I'm sure they'd tell you that they do.

quote:I don't appreciate the insinuation you just made that the belief that evolution is compatible with the creation account in Genesis stems from intelligence, as if only STUPID Christians insist that God's account of creation is accurate, and evolution is incorrect.

Sorry, that wasn't my intention. I can give a couple examples of people I think are very intelligent and believe in creation. One is my pastor in Arkansas, and another is a friend I've debated with in the past. But on average, it seems to me that the more intelligent the person, the more likely they are to believe in evolution.

At the same time, it's not a very kind insinuation that people who believe in both God and evolution aren't really Christians, and therefore will not be going to heaven. But these sort of things happen when you speak what's really on your mind. So try not to take offense.

quote:I can't even find the post where I said that, so I don't know what I was trying to say...sorry.

It was your third post on page 13. You were probably meaning to say "Christians" instead of "scientists."

quote:You cannot be a scientist that believes in evolution. If you study the Bible, you also study Hebrew. If you study Hebrew you know the word "yom" is the word for "day". The word "day" is specifically used in Genesis to describe the beginning of each time period God creates things, i.e. 6 days. The author, Moses, even goes so far as to describe the sun rising and setting at the end of each "day". It is not written metaphorically. They are meant to be taken as literal days.

I'm... very sleepy. But yeah, I see that you were honest about the sun thing. Which is nice.

*yawns*

Zzz...

quote:Not to go into apologetics but I should point out (since you claims to read your bible, and do so literally you should already know this) Lucifer was a human king and he is dead. No one cares what Lucifer thinks about the bible. (If you don't believe me, read the entire chapter that mentions lucifer).

You will not impress me with your lackluster knowledge of my own holy texts.

Satan has many names. I choose to use Lucifer, as it is less "fire and brimstone," in my opinion. It is not Satan's proper name, it is simply a description of his likeness.

Lucifer, or Satan, was not a human king. Had you been around 2 and a half years ago when I first came to this board, you would have seen me very successfully argue the difference between the King of Tyre, and Satan, the fallen angel.

Ezekiel 28:11-17 - “Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.”

Angels are not born. No one alive in Tyre walked through the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were the only humans that inhabited Eden. The description of "Lucifer" is the same as the one given for the serpent found in the Garden of Eden, back in Genesis. This is very clearly not a verse about the King of Tyre. What you are supposed to derive from the story of the King of Tyre is that he is obviously influenced by his master, Satan. He was an angel of light, hence the description "Lucifer," which is the Latin word for "light-bearer". In Hebrew, this would be translated as Heylel.

There is yet another reference; the King of Babylon.

Isaiah 14:4 - That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! (speaking about the King)

and then...

Isaiah 14:12-15 - How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (this is clearly talking about Satan)

We know that this is Satan, not the King of Babylon. New Testament scripture confirms it in Luke 10:18-20, and Revelation 12:7-12.

My point in referencing Lucifer's knowledge of the Bible is that knowing the Bible does not make one a Christian, nor does it make them saved. In the end, only God knows who is Christian and who is not, but we can make logical conclusions about people, based on how they treat their relationship with God, and His word.

People that are acting in contradiction to Biblical teachings SHOULD be questioned on the validity of their Christianity. If we do not do that to each other, we are letting our brothers and sisters in Christ go astray. Out of love, we should question them, rebuke them, and set them on the right path, if necessary. People don't like to be told they are wrong, but it is worse for their soul not to tell them.

I do not mind pointing it out when people aren't acting in accordance to the scriptures, yet claim to be Christians. It's called "accountability". When I screw up, I expect the same.

Anyway, I'ma sleep.

truckfxr, great post. I have a lot of studying to do tomorrow, but I will try and find some time to respond.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

I find it remarkable that you cannot within your mind see that abiogenesis and evolution are seperate theories, yet you can hold to the notion that ID does not recognize that the Designer is God.You and I both know for a fact that the only reason that God is not named as the Designer is to get ID introduced into the classroom.



Kitzmiller v Dover Trial transcripts. Day 11,PM session.

Michael Behe, under Cross examination:

Page 100

Q ". . . it may be that all possible natural

3 designers require irreducibly complex structures which

4 themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a

5 supernatural designer must get into the picture.

6 "I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive.

7 In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive

8 sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent

9 agent is a natural entity. The chemistry and physics that

10 we do know weigh heavily against it. If natural

11 intelligence depends on physical organization, then the

12 organization seems likely to have to be enormously complex

13 and stable over reasonable periods of time. While simpler

14 systems may perform the tasks that irreducibly complex

15 systems perform a terrestrial life, they would likely

16 perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so that the

17 complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be

18 achieved. Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the

19 designer is a natural entity."

20 Q You don t absolutely rule it out, but you re not

21 taking it very seriously, are you?

22 A Well, I ve said that quite a number of times. I

23 think I said that at the beginning of my testimony

24 yesterday, that I think in fact from -- from other

25 perspectives, that the designer is in fact God. But if you

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

BEHE - CROSS

101

1 turn back to page 699, there s a section entitled, "Is it

2 possible that the designer is a natural entity?" And I

3 won t quote from it, but I come to the conclusion there that

4 sure it s possible that it is, but I do not -- I myself do

5 not find it plausible.



Citing Behe's personal beliefs as revealed on the stand do not change the definition of the theory of ID. I have already said that the personal opinion of the scientists researching to support the theory of ID is hardly relevant, when trying to prove whether it is a valid scientific theory or not.

There are, inevitably, Christian and atheist scientists alike that research and support Darwin's theory. Does that make it inherently theological or secular, in your mind ? I would hope not.

I would argue against that but again, this thread is supposed to be you providing evidence for Intelligent design 'theory'.

I think everyone would be content with Digital if she were to just post mathematical proof of ID/creation/whatever she wants to call it and give examples of laboratory experiments that can be performed to test ID theory.

I think that would save EVERYONE a lot of time and energy.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I would argue against that but again, this thread is supposed to be you providing evidence for Intelligent design 'theory'.

Title of thread = Origins and Civil Liberties.

As one who would love to know the answers posed in this thread, DS is to be congratulated on hanging in there in spite of what seems at times to be a pack attack. Why is it that philosophy is sidelined by science? What authority decides on the definition of a theory? What in fact is science? How is the law of entropy compatible with evolutionary theory? Why is it we have creatures like the platypus, for which it has been impossible to find a logical evolutionary path? How did the theory of evolution originate? Was Darwin able to prove his science immediately? Did his theory begin as a philosophy? How did this philosophy affect his theory? What were the reactions of hte 'scientific' community of the day? How long did it take for evolution to become proven science? What is wrong with testing a new theory? Could it help us on a path to a unified theory?

There are three paths to the truth, one may take one or one may take all. Here is an opportunity to take all three. How about we drop the hostilities and work together to find the truth?

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Whatever the thread is titled DS made claims and said she could back them up.

Do you applaud her for dodging any attempts to make good on her statement?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Whatever the thread is titled DS made claims and said she could back them up.

Do you applaud her for dodging any attempts to make good on her statement?

DS has given an explanation as to the reasons she was tardy in reply, but yes it is frustrating http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif) http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif) Patience is indeed a virtue http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I think everyone would be content with Digital if she were to just post mathematical proof of ID/creation/whatever she wants to call it and give examples of laboratory experiments that can be performed to test ID theory.

I think that would save EVERYONE a lot of time and energy.

I agree.

Again I will ask you:

Please describe any possible experiment that could determine whether or not supernatural intervention was involved. What result would refute supernatural intervention? What result would verify supernatural intervention?

If you were to do so, you would validate Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. This debate would be over.

Of course, the experiment must be a test of Intelligent Design- Not of evolution(such as Behe's proposal to grow bacteria to see if they would evolve flagellum).



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 08-08-2006).]

The second article goes into it a little more! Enjoy!

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2215

Macroevolution consists of lots of Microevolution but is the long period of time version, since long periods of time occur and microevolution occurs during those long periods of time, thus macroevolution occurs and is in no way a threat to any religion, it just means "Microevolution occurs constantly even over a long period of time."

Next:

The Date of Earth: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

"4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence."

The Date of Homos (lol): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29

"The genus is estimated to be between 1.5 and 2.5 million years old."

The Date of the Universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

"currently accepted to be 13.7 billion years"

Here is a good website that explains things decently:

http://mmcconeghy.com/tutorials/classnotes4evol.html

I can copy paste the important parts here:

Some Evolution Information:

Here is some preliminary information on Evolution that you can consider:

- Evolution is not a religion. It does not attempt to say why the world exists or who made it. It is just a description of how living things changed over time.

- Evolution is not a modern idea and was not invented by Darwin. It was a common idea in ancient times and had been written about hundreds of times before Darwin came along.

- Evolution is a "theory" - in science, a theory is an idea which has a LOT of evidence, is almost certainly correct, but cannot be absolutely proved 100%. Since we cannot go back in time to observe it taking place, Evolution will always be a theory, just as any account of things that happened in prehistory will always be a theory.

For evolution to be true, there are some conditions:

the Earth has to be very old;

animals and plants have to be related - some very closely related, and others more distantly related;

offspring of living creatures must sometimes show variations from their parents, and the variations have to be inherited in subsequent generations;

there has to be evidence that animals and plants existed a very long time ago; most animals and plants that existed in former times must be shown to have been replaced by more modern types, changing step by step from ancient forms to modern forms.

All of these conditions are supported by very large collections of evidence, facts and data from a wide variety of different scientific disciplines.

A brief account of just a few of the many lines of evidence supporting Evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

A brief account of how we know the age of the Earth and old fossils by dating rocks:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_23

"There is another aspect to the scientific idea of Evolution that makes it distinctly different from other ways of imagining the start of life on Earth. In science, we consider that any theory should have a condition of falsifiability -- that is, there has to be something that would definitely and conclusively prove the theory false. For Evolution, there are a number of suggestions that have been made for how you could prove Evolution wrong. One famous example is, to find the fossil of a rabbit in PreCambrian rocks. Geologists say those rocks are very old, so, to find the fossil of a rabbit (or any other modern animal) in them would be absolute proof that Evolution is wrong.

Even though there are a lot of people who don't like the idea of Evolution, and they have been looking hard for many years, not a single one of these potential proofs against Evolution has ever been found."

"Consider a few points:

Evolution says the Earth must be very old. Creationist theory says that the Earth is about 6000 years old. There are massive amounts of geologic, physical and astrophysical evidence that the Earth is many millions, probably billions, of years old. There is no evidence at all that the earth is young. It is hard to justify teaching a theory which is fundamentally opposed to a huge mass of confirmed evidence from a variety of different fields.

Creationist theory says that each type of animal and plant is "sui generis" that is, absolutely unique, created one by one by God, each one completely separate from all other living things -- living things are NOT related to each other, according to Creationism. In contrast, Evolutionary theory says that living things are related by a common ancestry. In the 1850s, in Darwin's day, the physiology and genetics of living things were almost totally unknown so there was little real evidence to back up Darwin's guesses about how animals are related. Today, with 150 years of research, there is extremely strong supporting evidence for Darwin's views. Anatomy, physiology, and especially, modern genetics, show that lifeforms on earth are directly related. The more we know about living things, the more interrelated we know they are. We have already directly interchanged genetic material between plants and mammals -- a pretty good sign of relationship!

Evolutionary theory suggests many predictions about how life forms will change or can be induced to change, or how we can locate forms that are different from most of their relatives. Scientists routinely used these predictions in methodically breeding new varieties of plants and animals. Creationist theory has no viable explanation for mutation, variance or extinction. Remember that in Science it is our intention to build models that can be used to predict and control the behavior of our environment. Evolution is a powerful tool, while Creationism simply ignores the questions.

A final point is that, unlike the Theory of Evolution and virtually all scientific ideas, the Creationist view of the world has no falsifiability. Creationists do not explain what proof they would accept that their ideas are wrong. On the contrary, they definitely say that nothing will make them change their minds! That isn't science."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S LEADING PROPONENT'S ARE CONNECTED TO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

"Origins of the concept

For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The philosophical concept of the Logos, an inherent ordering in the universe, is typically credited to Heraclitus in the 5th century BC, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments.[12] In the 4th century BC, Plato posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover", in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature".[13]"

I personally believe and promote Intelligent Design to a degree, much like the kind promoted by ancient philosopher's but I do not believe it belongs in SCIENCE CLASSES, but rather in PHILOSOPHY and RELIGION classes.

"The intelligent design concept of specified complexity was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes."

What DEMBSKI doesn't seem to understand is that Natural Causes and "Intelligent Design" are one in the same, the natural causes are the performance of the Intelligent Design in action.

"Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."[65]" is what Behe said... In other words this can not be a SCIENTIFIC theory because it CANT BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN BY EXPERIMENTS.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN AS A THEORY BELONGS IN THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY CLASSES, NOT SCIENCE CLASSES.

"Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they claim is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.[55][56]"

They are wrong, Evolution has no conflict with the idea of the One God, nor are "natural causes" anything seperate from God.

The Modern Intelligent Design Proponents have a LIMITED and INCORRECT idea of God and this is causing all the problems. Absolutely NOTHING can disprove God, no scientific theory is a threat to the idea of God, the idea of God is not Falsifiable.

"Dembski also stated "ID is part of God's general revelation..." "Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."[50]"

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

DS has given an explanation as to the reasons she was tardy in reply, but yes it is frustrating http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif) http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif) Patience is indeed a virtue http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

No she has given explanation to why she hasn't been able to post as often, Not explanation to why all of the posts she does make are off topic from her original claim that she would provide evidence for ID theory.

Her lack of understanding between creationism and ID makes me wonder how much she could actually give us, and if these off topic posts are to keep from admitting she doesn't understand the topic (a perfectly valid reason for not providing evidence).

Let me shorten the above post:

1.Lucifer is, according to educated sources, a reference to a Babylonian King. http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2215

2.Macroevolution consists of lots of Microevolution but is the long period of time version, since long periods of time occur and microevolution occurs during those long periods of time, thus macroevolution occurs and is in no way a threat to any religion, it just means "Microevolution occurs constantly even over a long period of time."

3. There is evidence that The Earth, The Homo's (lol), and The Universe are very old, how old do you date the Earth and Humans?

4.Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory that does not indicate or deny any designer or force behind it, but only explains the change in things over short or long periods of time, it is backed up with evidence and examples as well as experiments, it is falsifiable but it has not been proven false yet.

5.Intelligent Design in modern times is being promoted by a group with Christian motivations and anti materialist motivations who don't seem to understand that Nature Processes and God are completely compatible.

As I've stated earlier there are only two options from which to choose concerning the universe and the life contained therein. Life is either intentional or it is unintentional. If we are able to prove that it could not possibly be the product of successive chance, then we are inescapably driven towards the alternative. Again, this demonstration does not mean that we must ultimately accept the Judeo-Christian God. That is a matter of philosophy and theology. What ID seeks to do is to reveal the obvious - that a higher Cognizance is responsible for the existential reality. What that cognizance is, is a matter of speculation for theology and philosophy to ascertain. We are discussing matters of science and statistics, and I intend on demonstrating how they point to that cognizance, and not to a mindless display of capricious disorder that amazingly beats its own odds continually.

The first order of buisness is dealing with time. Does evolution have enough time to proliferate as many species that we find extant and extinct?

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> If the big bang is proved true, then the universe does not contain infinite properties and it spawned out of complete nothingness. This belief balks intellectual thought and demonizes intuition. The hilarity of it is the termerity shown by my detractors who basically liken my beliefs to a fairytale, and yet, hold fast to such an untenable train of thought.

<LI> If the universe started out as a speck of raw energy that spun into existence, hurling time and space onward, then all of the bodies contained in it would concievably be spinning in the same direction that the energy first directed it. Yet, this is not consistent with observation, nor is it consistent with the law of angular motion. There are at least 3 planets that make their eliptical orbit in the opposite direction of the other planets. 8 of the 91 moons in the Milky Way galaxy spin in the opposite direction of their respective planets; and some planets have moons that go in either direction. Therefore, the atheist has a difficult time in trying to reconcile these anamoles. The universe cannot be infinite because additions and subtractions are being added all the time, and the big bang would have produced celestial bodies forming in the direction that it was first derived. How does the evolutionist account for this?

<LI> It was initially believed that comets existed at the time shortly after the big bang. This belief was inconsistent with their timescale, because at the rate of the comets deterioration, it could not possibly have survived for millions or billions of years because they break apart too quickly. (The trail behind comets, commonly referred to as its 'tail' is actually the comet breaking apart from increased friction). It was logically determined that comets could survive at a maximum rate of 10,000 years. To cover up this anamole, a man by the name of Jans Oort came up with his 'Oort Cloud' theory. Oort claims that clouds of debris spawned from the intial explosion of the big bang caused these clouds and that comets form there, not that they have been travelling from the beginning. This theory was reluctantly passed as being plausible by the scientific community because it was the only answer other that didn't point to the universe being much younger than they wanted it to be. But is it really? Oort claims that these 'Oort Clouds' exist 50-100,000 Astronomical Units (AU) away. An Astronomical Unit is the distance from the earth to the sun = 93,000,000 miles away = 8 light minutes. To put this into full scale, Pluto is said to be 39 AU's away. And for anyone to even see Pluto, it takes a massively powerful telescope to view it. That's 221 trillion miles away. So, somebody please tell me how Oort managed to see these clouds in order to corroborate his claims, in the early 1930's no less, when no telescopic machine that powerful even exists today? I think I have an idea. It was completely invented because of the disparaging reality it poses on those who'd like to pretend that nothing creates everything.

<LI> The fact that earth is perfectly situated to sustain life is not just some remarkable statistic to be explained by random chance. One such argument in favor of that is the distance of the moon in relation to the earth. As the moon makes its orbit around the earth, the moon is gradually getting farther away. We are slowly losing the moon which is important because it controls our tides here on earth because of the inverse square law. If the distance (d) is 1/3 of the force of attraction between two objects. Its 9 times greater. (1/3 inverted is 3/1.3^2=9). That means the tides would have been outrageously high in the past, killing all forms of life. As well, if we know that it is moving away at a measurable rate and if we extrapolated backwards at the same rate, and the earth was truly 4.5 billons of years, then the moon might have literally and physically collided with the surface of the earth in the past. That doesn't make much sense because this would obviously not allow for life. So, is the earth truly 4.5 billion years old or is it obviously much younger?

<LI> Earth's magenetic field has weakend 6% in the last 150 +/- that we've been studying the phenomenon. Common sense tells us that it was obviously stronger in the past. If the earth were just 25,000 years old there would be no magnetic field today, measuring backwards at the same rate. You have two options to explain this and to overcome it. You either have to concede that earth is simply not 4.5 billion years old or you have to come up with a theory on what changed the rapidity from then to now.

<LI> Ice core dating has been at the forefront of new geological measurments for ascertaining the age estimate of the earth. The theory consists of studying the 'rings' in the ice, similar to Dendrochronology. Evolutionists assert that the rings are casued by the heating and refreezing of ice in continually cold places such as the Arctic circle. They posit that these are annual rings that represent summer/winter/summer/winter. Theoretically, this makes alot of sense. It does not betray any intuition or sense of realism. And a few teams resolved to have taken core samples going down hundreds of feet. They were able to ascertain an estimated 10,000 years in the ice by counting the geological pattern of 'annual' rings. If you have 10,000 rings, then it must be a representation of 10,000 years. But, for however much sense it makes, it is only an assertion on their part based on a guesstimate and its purely circumstancial. We now have, however, solid physical evidence that points to the truth about ice core dating.</UL>

In 1942, the US Air Corp had an airbase in Greenland. On a routine mission a squadron went down in the ice after losing their bearings in a snow storm and ran out of fuel. The army was unable to locate them. 48 years later in 1990, a private team decided to locate what became known as, "The Lost Squadron." Using ground penetrating radar and the last known coordinates of the plane, the team managed to locate the wreckage. The plane was 263 feet below the surface. (5.5 feet is supposed to equal 1824 years). During their drilling to recover the plane, they had passed through thousands of 'rings' in the ice. What does that mean? That means that those rings don't represent 'annual' rings, it means they represent hot/cold/hot/cold/freeze/refreeze/freeze/refreeze.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> The population of the world is an easy determinant in discovering that the age of the world is not billions of years old. And if the age of the earth is not billions of years old, then evolution could not possibly proliferate as many species as we now have. Based upon one census after another, we can make an accurate account of population. What we notice is a population curve and it has remained consistent throughout the years. In 1922, the population was 1,804,187,000. The population has doubled since then, and doubled from the preceding census. The approxiamtion follows the aggregate. Whether theistic or atheistic, we all agree that there was an "Adam" and there was an "Eve." What I mean to say is, we both believe that there was the first humans, male and female, to propagate the specie. At the beginning of the first period of doubling can be ascertained by even a crude measurement by raising each by its power and its square root.</UL>

1. 2

2. 4

3. 8

4. 16

5. 356

10. 1024

20. 1,048,576

30. 1,073,741,824

By a simple logarithm, we find these numbers to be consistent after taking into consideration of natural deaths, wars, catastrophes, disease, etc. Now, lets use evolution's scale. The ToE claims that modern-day humans evolved from their simian predacessors 2-3 million years ago. If the first pair of human lived this long, taking into consideration deaths and births according to the population curve, what would the population amount to? Answer: 19,000,000,000,000 (followed by 360 zero's). That is well past billions, trillions, decillions, viginillions, etc... In other words, its friggin impossible. However, if the the earth is as old as the Biblical and extra-Biblical accounts of ancient times is true, then our current population is absolutely consistent.

I'll post some more later. Have fun with those in the meantime.

[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 08-08-2006).]

I'll summarize again:

"I cannot provide any experiments that would show how ID is falsifiable, so instead I'll desperatly throw old, baseless, already-refuted bullshit to stall the situation."

1.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

Argumentum ad Hominem



2. That is not only plainly false, but we've shown you how it is false in the past.

We do not need to see the same spin on celestial bodies. The expansion of space-time from the Big Bang is not how planets/galaxies formed. Their formation entails something else entirely which certainly can produce different spins.

If we take the formation of galaxies (which occurs when dense regions of matter condense in one area because of their gravitational attraction) then it's obvious to see that not every galaxy would be formed out of the exact same density of mass or by the exact same parameters - resulting in different spins. This is without even mentioning collisions between galaxies, which can affect how we see a galaxy now as well.

3. <OL TYPE=a>

<LI> That was the hypothesis he came up in order to explain the apparent problem. Experimentation and observation would confirm of falsify it. How did he came up with it? He used his imagination and thought of a way comets could possibly form much nearer to planet Earth so that we could possibly see them as we do.

<LI> We've haven't observed the full Oort cloud, but we've observed at least one object that indicates it belongs to it.

<LI> We've observed other sources for comets, which means this has already become an non-issue essentially.

</OL> http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/kboc.html

4.

<OL TYPE=a>

<LI>The force of the tides not only depends on the gravitational force from the moon, but also on the way the land masses on earth were in place. The force of the tide would be much more different in the past, because the land masses would be close together.

<LI> If you think the Moon would have collided with us if we extrapolate the rate of recession, then you have some severely faulty math (which you haven't presented by the way). It was closer, no doubt, but certainly not colliding with us.

</OL>

5. The Earth's polarity has reversed numerous times before; this alone makes your claim worthless. But even if we indulge you further, when we note that these figures you're using come from a faulty study, done with a faulty understanding of the Earth's core, and a faulty consideration of the information, then your claim has no feet to stand on.

http://tinyurl.com/l54yu

6. There are ice cores that are the dated to a lot more than just 10,000 years. You, of course, ignore this and only mention one which dates to 10,000 (which you don't even have a source for).

Moreover, these ice-cores only tell us how long has it been since that ice gathered there; nothing else. It tells us a minimum age of the Earth; they say nothing of how many years had already passed before the ice was there.

As for the plain, your claims are refuted here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

7. This is yet another example of atrocious calculations. You have absolutely no basis to assume this growth rate for all the existence of man kind. Growth rates depend on the resources available, which depend partly on the techonology avialable. Equating the population growth rates of population at times where there was no medicine and no agriculture is idiotic to say the least. The fact is that before agriculture, populations levels hardly grew at all, let alone at the rate you suggest.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

As I've stated earlier there are only two options from which to choose concerning the universe and the life contained therein. Life is either intentional or it is unintentional. If we are able to prove that it could not possibly be the product of successive chance, then we are inescapably driven towards the alternative. Again, this demonstration does not mean that we must ultimately accept the Judeo-Christian God. That is a matter of philosophy and theology. What ID seeks to do is to reveal the obvious - that a higher Cognizance is responsible for the existential reality. What that cognizance is, is a matter of speculation for theology and philosophy to ascertain. We are discussing matters of science and statistics, and I intend on demonstrating how they point to that cognizance, and not to a mindless display of capricious disorder that amazingly beats its own odds continually...

The point that seems to escape you is that it is unimportant as to whether life was intentional or not, or that a supernatural creator was involved in the process.It is impossible to prove the existance of a metaphysical being using the scientific method (or any other process, actually).

Even if a supernatural entity was involved, Intelligent Design does not qualify as a scientific theory, and should not be presented as science to students in a publicly funded school.

BTW, you cannot prove that life "could not possibly be the product of successive chance". The best you can do is make your assertions based on the flawed reasoning and incorrect information that you are finding on your Creationist websites.

I find it interesting that you and DS claim to follow the literal bible (which states that you shall not bear false witness) but you continue to assert that ID could possibly refer to a creator other than the Christian God.

The remainder of the assertions that you posted have already been refuted , thus I won't bother .

Hyro:

quote:As I've stated earlier there are only two options from which to choose concerning the universe and the life contained therein. Life is either intentional or it is unintentional.

So where would say the intentional creation of an unintentional process figure into that.

quote:If we are able to prove that it could not possibly be the product of successive chance, then we are inescapably driven towards the alternative

Nope. If we are able to prove that it could not possibly be the product of successive chance* then we are inescapably driven towards the idea we don't know.

The position that if we don't know it must be an intelligent being is one based on a logical fallacy and ignorance and has held back science and medical advances in the past.

*I notice you state successive chance here, yet all your previous calculations and claims were based on random chance. Have you finally admitted evolution is more than random chance?

quote:If the big bang is proved true, then the universe does not contain infinite properties and it spawned out of complete nothingness. This belief balks intellectual thought and demonizes intuition. The hilarity of it is the termerity shown by my detractors who basically liken my beliefs to a fairytale, and yet, hold fast to such an untenable train of thought.

Not quite. If the big bang is shown to be true then our visible universe does not contain infinite properties. We can make no assumption about universes outside our light cone, nor can we make the assumption the universe spawned out of complete nothingness.

quote:If the universe started out as a speck of raw energy that spun into existence, hurling time and space onward, then all of the bodies contained in it would concievably be spinning in the same direction that the energy first directed it. Yet, this is not consistent with observation, nor is it consistent with the law of angular motion. There are at least 3 planets that make their eliptical orbit in the opposite direction of the other planets. 8 of the 91 moons in the Milky Way galaxy spin in the opposite direction of their respective planets; and some planets have moons that go in either direction. Therefore, the atheist has a difficult time in trying to reconcile these anamoles. The universe cannot be infinite because additions and subtractions are being added all the time, and the big bang would have produced celestial bodies forming in the direction that it was first derived. How does the evolutionist account for this?

Quite frankly this claim alone should be good enough to make anyone reading this know you have done no research.

•The universe didn't spin itself into existence.

•Even if angular momentum was given to the system, our solar system is a small part many years after the original. Based on your claims I should never be able to spin a basketball opposite to the spin of the earth. Sound stupid?

•3 planets do not orbit in the opposite direction. I mean seriously a third grader could tell you this. You got confused with rotation. A couple planets do rotate very slowly in the opposite direction, almost like something hit them. One even rotates on its side.

•There are only 91 moons in the milky way? Moons are even smaller and are easily effected by local gravity.

•The only anomaly here is you either need coffee or to go back to the third grade.



All your other claims are of equal quality. Do you really need me to go on (as I can) or do you think you should take some time to Do some research and stop parroting creationist claims that even a child could refute. This is just ridiculous, you have a brain, now use it.

Unfortunately this doesn't give me much hope of every seeing evidence for intelligent design.

I see that there has been some objection to dinosaurs living contemporaneously with humans. I realize that those who have been thoroughly indoctinated by the ToE, this seems like a ridiculous notion. But is it really?

As Digi has already shared, there is mention of Behemoth's and Leviathan's. In Job, we read,

"Look at the Behemoth, which I made along side you; he eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips and the power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like brass rods, his ribs are like iron. He is first among God's creation; but his Maker can approach him with the sword." -Job 40:15-19

So lets break this down. In Genesis, Moses distinguishes cattle from beasts. So whatever animal it is, it can't be any herding animal of the past, like a cow, an ox, or any domesticated animal. We know from the description that this is an immense beast. We know that he is an herbivore with great strength. His tail is long and powerful, likened to that of the circumference of a cedar tree. His legs are enormous and likened to rods of brass. Now, tell me what animal living on earth today is, 1. An herbivore 2. Has a long, strong tail 3. Huge legs and a stong belly to suport the weight. Can't be a buffalo, like someone suggested. Can't be an alligator or a crocodile as some suggest. Can't be a hippo, as some suggest. Can't be an elephant. If you really sit down and think about it deeply, it can't be any living creature today. What it can easily be is a Diplodocus, a Brontosaurus, or any Brachiosaur, with ease. And Job also is sure to inform us that his "Maker," i.e. his "Creator," can assail him with the 'sword,' i.e., he can cause him to die, i.e. extinction.

The next question was why the Bible didn't just say 'dinosaur,' if it meant a dinosaur. Oh my. What a stupid question for obvious reasons. The word, 'dinosaur,' was completely invented by Sir Richard Owens in 1841. Prior to this time, everyone referred to dinosaurs as, 'dragons.' In fact, in a 1946 edition of Webster's under the definition of, dragon, it reads, "Now rare, huge serpent; a fabulous animal; generally a huge lizard." To bring the point home even more, the name "dinosaur," literally means, "terrible lizard" in Latin.

Being that there are thousands of accounts of dragons in literature helps to corroborate that they might not simply be mythical creatures. I mean, even their very description is of immense, reptilian beasts. Do you think that cultures who never spoke to one another somehow inexplicably conjured up mythological beasts that just so happen to resemble dinosaurs? What are the odds that they could concieve of something, all in different eras, all in different places, if it they hadn't seen such creatures? Think about it. As if that weren't condemning enough, then why are there petroglyphs of dinosaurs found the world over on rock faces and on pottery from different eras?

During his conquest, Alexander the Great visited India in 326 BC. He tells of huge dragons living in the caves of India. Marco Polo, in 1271 AD visited China, and among other notable discoveries, reported that the Emporer of China's chariots were pulled by dragons. I take it that you realize that in the Chinese culture, dragons are commonplace. The town of Nerluc, France, was reportedly renamed in honor of a dragon slain within its borders. The animal was described as being bigger than an ox, with long pointed horns. Kind of sound like a Triceratops. As well, the Anasazi tribe of Northern Arizona has pictographs all along the Grand Canyon and other locations. In fact, when I was living in Flagstaff, AZ, I worked with a native American man descended from the Anasazi and Hopi. He informed me that Dragons are prevalent within their culture. I assume you realize that the Anasazi have been separated from other races of men for thousands of years. So how is it that all these cultures from around the world understood what dragons, i.e., dinosaurs were if they hadn't actually seen any? A little coincidental don't you think? Now, in your defense, I also believe that some of the stories concerning dragons have taken on a mind of their own in certain instances. I don't believe in every aspect of the stories. Nonetheless, it is still so plausible that that they did in fact exist, that it would completely undermine everything we've ever known about dinosaurs and about the theory of evolution.

Moreover, two T-Rex have been found within a decade of one another showing soft tissue still attached to bone. What's the problem with this? Evolutionists claim that T-Rex went extinct 70 million years ago. Please tell me, though, how any logical and pragmatic person could believe that unfossilized and unfrozen soft tissue could survive decay past a few thousand years at most. I don't think you understand what 70 million years of time really encompasses because these ridiculously long epochs of time are thrown around so flippantly in the literature. I want you to juxtapose 70 million years next to what we currently know about the rate of putrefaction. Its inconcievable that bones, let alone soft tissue should remain intact for millions of years.

If you scroll down and open a new page on this website, you will see that a growing amount of evidence supports that man and dinosaur once co-existed.

http://www.s8int.com/dinolit1.html

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



I'll deal the rest of your pathetic arguments later unless someone decides to do it themselves.



Here:

•oort cloud claims

A: He scrambles the history of the oort cloud. It is accurate the oort cloud was thought up to explain why we constantly see comets.

•Perfect earth claim.

A: Yep the puddle is so amazed the hole fits it, the hole must be intelligently designed. In other words life will always evolve on a planet that we can survive on, and it will evolve to fit the environment, thus a "perfect" earth fits evolution.

•Magnetic field decay

A: This is a very old argument. The answer is the decay isn't constant but the field fluctuates (ironically creationists will often attack geologists for making assumptions into the past).

There is an interesting story about this, in short evidence was found to show it wrong, so a creationist took up trying to match the new information with creationism. Guess what he did? 1) Made up data. 2) most likely plagerized a graph. 3) Used the flood as an ad hoc explaination.

Talk about good morals.

•Ice core dating

A: Wow what a lie, but I don't blame Hyro but those he is getting his information from. The lost plane wasn't lost in the same ice used to take icecores but coastal ice that is purposefully not used because it wont give good ice cores.

•Population stats

A: Assuming that modern industrialized population rates can be used far into the past is just asinine. Population normally stays constant, it's only recently it has begun to grow so fast.

Ok, now if Hyro is finished digging through the creationist book of false information a lies we could get to evidence for intelligent design. (many claims are so sad many creationist groups have abondoned them.)

Unless of course this is the evidence. In which case I doubt reverting High school science class to pre-third-grade education is a good idea.

quote:The population of the world is an easy determinant in discovering that the age of the world is not billions of years old. And if the age of the earth is not billions of years old, then evolution could not possibly proliferate as many species as we now have. ...

•If this argument were true, then it would eliminate the possibility of Genesis being correct. If we started with Noah and his wife in 2313 BCE, 35 years before the flood, then by the late 3rd century BCE, the worlds population would have been 4.3 billion. By the time of the birth of Jesus, it would have reached 42 billion. These figures are obviously wrong, even if the Bible were true. The fatal flaw in this argument is that the population levels work on an entirely different system. Populations tend to increase rapidly out of control rapidly until limited by food supply, wars, natural disasters, etc. That cuts them down a much smaller number, from which they start to increase once more. The concept of the human race starting from a single couple and steadily increasing in numbers according to an exponential equation is without merit.

quote:Earth's magenetic field has weakend 6% in the last 150 +/- that we've been studying the phenomenon. Common sense tells us that it was obviously stronger in the past. If the earth were just 25,000 years old there would be no magnetic field today, measuring backwards at the same rate. You have two options to explain this and to overcome it. You either have to concede that earth is simply not 4.5 billion years old or you have to come up with a theory on what changed the rapidity from then to now.



•The field does not decay at an exponential rate; it fluctuates widely. Precise measurements of the magnetic field have only been taken since 1845. The measurements that you used were taken over too short a period of time to extrapolate backwards by 1,400 years. "...archaeomagnetic data show that the dipole field was about 20% weaker than the present field 6,500 years ago and about 45% stronger than the present field about 3000 years ago."

• The earth's magnetic field is not in a constant direction; it periodically reduces to zero and then reverses itself. That is, mechanical compasses on earth would gradually become less sensitive. Eventually, the North end of a compass needle would start to point South. This has been detected in the form of zebra-like magnetic stripes in the rocks of the floor of the Pacific Ocean which alternately change polarity on each side of a spreading fault. Hundreds of reversals have occurred over the past 180 million years. Jeremy Bloxham of Harvard University predicts that it could reach zero about 1,500 to 2,000 years from now.

quote:In 1942, the US Air Corp...



•In this case, Young Earth creationists failed to understand that the rate at which snow accumulates within Greenland varies greatly across its ice cap. At the location where the Lost Squadron landed near the coast of Greenland, the rate of snow accumulation is considerably greater than the rate of snow accumulation within the interior of the Greenland Ice Cap where the ice cores have been collected. Inland from the Greenland coast, the average annual snowfall decreases dramatically to rates consistent with those calculated from the ice cores. Because of the difference in rate of snow accumulation, the use of the depth of burial of the Lost Squadron" as an argument against the usefulness of ice core dating lacks any scientific validity. It is like using rainfall records in Syndey, Australia to predict the rate at which a pond in Alice Springs, Australia would fill. In addition, the Lost Squadron landed on an actively moving area of the Greenland Ice Cap, quite unlike the areas in which ice cores are collected which are stable and motionless relative to it.

N.B As it is a modern coinage, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur", but the Hebrew word tanniyn (/tan·ˈnin/) may be interpreted as referring to them. In English translations, tanniyn may be translated as “sea monster” or “serpent”, but it is usually translated as “dragon”. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water. At another point, the Bible describes a huge creature called a "behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) whose "tail sways like a cedar"; the behemoth is described as ranking "first among the works of God" and as impossible to capture (vs. 24). Some Biblical scholars identify the behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamus, but these animals have very thin tails that are not comparable to a cedar tree. Creationists therefore identify the behemoth with dinosaurs like Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus which had huge tails. Critics point out that the tail is described as swaying like a cedar, not being as large as a cedar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_perspectives_on_dinosaurs#Dinosaurs_in_t he_Bible



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-08-2006).]

Hyro

quote:Moreover, two T-Rex have been found within a decade of one another showing soft tissue still attached to bone. What's the problem with this? Evolutionists claim that T-Rex went extinct 70 million years ago.

Please stop now, you are embarrassing yourself.

Go have a cup of coffee, study everything you post from multiple sources, then think it over, Then post.

No soft tissue was ever found attached to bone, you are getting your facts confused. Soft tissue was found inside bone. This bone was fully fossilized but in a low mineral flux environment that allowed the outside to fossilize and encase the inside, protecting it from permineralization. Permineralization is the filling of open spaces inside the bone and the replacement of tissue.

This is amazing but not surprising as this isn't the first evidence that fossilization can protect the inside of something.



I'm not even going to touch your conspiracy theorist page that calls known frauds evidence.

I've been following this thread for the most part since page 9, and I must say, it is quite ridiculous.

No one's getting anywhere, and no one will. Neither side will concede for their own reasons.

Rust and all the people arguing for evolution, is there anything at all the other side can say to make you think intelligent design should be taught in schools? (Because that is what this thread is supposed to be about, afterall.)

Digital_Savior and anyone arguing for intelligent design, is there anything at all the other side can say to make you go "you know, religion aside, this is just stupid. let us embrace evolution."

I highly doubt it.

if id can be shown to be a legit scientific theory that challenges evolution, then it should be taught in the science classroom.

a doubt there is anyone here who would refuse to adopt id if there was enough evidence for it.

on the other hand, hyro and ds have already admitted that they will never accept evolution and will always believe in id and creationism because of their religious beliefs.



i would just like to point out, again, some flaws in the 'either the universe is designed or it is not designed' argument. evolution works whether the universe has a designer or not. even if evolution is proven false it is not evidence for or against a designed universe.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I'll summarize again:

"I cannot provide any experiments that would show how ID is falsifiable, so instead I'll desperatly throw old, baseless, already-refuted bullshit to stall the situation."



You asking us to disprove our own theory is stupid, which is why we won't do it.

Falsify evolution for us, Rust.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You asking us to disprove our own theory is stupid, which is why we won't do it.

Falsify evolution for us, Rust.

lmmfao

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

The point that seems to escape you is that it is unimportant as to whether life was intentional or not, or that a supernatural creator was involved in the process.It is impossible to prove the existance of a metaphysical being using the scientific method (or any other process, actually).

It is important to prove intention behind our existence. This is important because secular humanism has found it's foundation in the theory of evolution, which hasn't even been proven as valid (a bunch of guesses , and a few postulations do not make it a valid theory). This has made it intellectually acceptable for us to consider ourselves nothing more than advanced animals, which seems to give us permission to act in any way we like, because there is no absolute truth attached. There goes morality. *waves bye bye*

It is a lie, pure and simple. We [i]aren't animals. We do subscribe to a morality we did not ourselves invent. We were created. The more time passes, the more science, history, and other intellectual vehicles prove it.

As long as the federal government is going to fund our public schools, we should not allow them to indoctrinate our children either FOR or AGAINST a Creator, period. If Darwinian evolution is ok to be taught (which does not give credit to a Creator, therefore arguing that there isn't one), then so is ID. The Big Bang is not falsifiable, and neither is spontaneous generation, which is what Darwin's theory depends upon. If you're going to claim that a theory must be falsifiable before it can be taught in public schools, you'd better find a theory that IS falsifiable. Otherwise, you've got no ground to argue against the inclusion of ID in public school curriculae.

quote:Even if a supernatural entity was involved, Intelligent Design does not qualify as a scientific theory, and should not be presented as science to students in a publicly funded school.

Even if a supernatural entity wasn't involved, Darwinian Evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory (per your falsifiable requirements), and should not be presented as science to students in a publicly funded school.

quote:BTW, you cannot prove that life "could not possibly be the product of successive chance". The best you can do is make your assertions based on the flawed reasoning and incorrect information that you are finding on your Creationist websites.

Show us where successive chance has resulted in the existence of anything....plants, animals, atoms, whatever...please, reveal to us where this can be witnessed.

quote:I find it interesting that you and DS claim to follow the literal bible (which states that you shall not bear false witness) but you continue to assert that ID could possibly refer to a creator other than the Christian God.

The Bible does not talk about ID, so...nice strawman. We believe God created the universe, and we also believe that ID helps prove that. That doesn't mean that ID specifically attributes our creation to the Judeo-Christian God. It is non-specific. It merely posits we didn't spontaneously exist without intention or cause. SOMETHING caused our existence, and that is all ID asserts.

That in no way puts us in danger of breaking God's commandments.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You asking us to disprove our own theory is stupid, which is why we won't do it.

Falsify evolution for us, Rust.

Falsifiable means it's possible to disprove. Evolution would be falsified (to an extent) if, say, dinosaur fossils were found that were older than their ancestors (small reptiles). To falsify evolution completely would take a lot because there is already so much evidence in support of it.

You and hyro have been repeatedly asked (and if you missed it, here it is agani) to state what evidence it would take for you to accept evolution. I have gotten only one response from hyro and that was for a fossil of every single species that ever existed. This is hardly a reasonable expectation because of the rarity of fossil formation and recovery. However, is one of you wishes to actually defend that expectation please do because this is where you generally change/ignore the subject.

You have also been asked to provide and example of what evidence would disporve ID and you are unable to. This is hardly a scientific position. The question is what evidence could hypothetically exist that would refute ID?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You asking us to disprove our own theory is stupid, which is why we won't do it.

Falsify evolution for us, Rust.

I'm not doing anything of the sort; in fact, this question of yours shows how you've failed to understand what we've been asking you since pretty much the beginning of this thread!

Asking you to provide a possible experimental test that could result in Intelligent Design being proved wrong is not the same as asking you to prove Intelligent Design wrong.

We're asking you to show how ID is potentially falsifiable, so that it conforms to what scientific theories are - as per the very own definition you provided.

Here's an example of pretty much the same thing we've been requesting of you, but on evolution:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005776.html

In it, we describe a way that our current understanding of Natural Selection could be proven false.

You claim that Intelligent Design is legitimate Science, now it is up to you to prove that it conforms to the requirement of potential falsifiability that theories in Science must follow.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

if id can be shown to be a legit scientific theory that challenges evolution, then it should be taught in the science classroom.

Agreed.

quote:a doubt there is anyone here who would refuse to adopt id if there was enough evidence for it.

Wrong. People that find themselves to be intelligent do not like the thought of God ruling over them. As ID implies creation, there is no choice to but acknowledge that we are lesser beings.

This is not simply a matter of adopting another scientific theory, for secular humanists. This is a matter of theology for them. It threatens their way of life, and they don't like it.

quote:on the other hand, hyro and ds have already admitted that they will never accept evolution and will always believe in id and creationism because of their religious beliefs.

I was raised on Darwinian evolution, just like everyone else here. I have learned a great many things since my public school indoctrination, and it has become apparent to me that evolution, in Darwin's view, is IMPOSSIBLE.

Since it is LOGICALLY impossible, why would I ever believe it ?

Even without my religious beliefs, ID would make me seriously question whether we were created or not. On the one hand, we've got evolution telling us that we were NOT created, yet there is no evidence proving precisely how we came to exist. On the other, we've got ID telling us that everything in the universe has far too much purpose to have happened accidentally. To me, it is obvious which one makes more sense.

My religion does not cause me to embrace ID and reject evolution. Look at Abrahim. He proves it is possible to accept evolution and still believe in God. He has no logical reason to, but he is capable of it. Logic causes me to reject evolution, not religion.

quote:i would just like to point out, again, some flaws in the 'either the universe is designed or it is not designed' argument. evolution works whether the universe has a designer or not. even if evolution is proven false it is not evidence for or against a designed universe.

The theory itself does not work if the universe was designed, because it claims spontaneous generation as the cause. Spontaneous generation has never been proven, therefore Darwin's theory is rendered bankrupt.

If Darwinian evolution is proven false, we need to have other theories with which to explain our existence. Since proponents of Darwinian evolution have taken our public schools by force, they are successful in preventing any other theories equal representation, because they stand to lose quite a bit...their power over our youth, their funding, and most importantly, their pride in themselves.

Admitting that you have been wrong for the past 30 years of your life is a pretty humbling experience. I don't know too many people that would take kindly to it. So, instead of doing just that, they pretend like ID is not a valid scientific theory. They have effectively eliminated the possibility of their destruction within intellectual scientific communities....for now.

"There is not, in all America, a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -- Theodore Roosevelt

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Falsifiable means it's possible to disprove. Evolution would be falsified (to an extent) if, say, dinosaur fossils were found that were older than their ancestors (small reptiles). To falsify evolution completely would take a lot because there is already so much evidence in support of it.

Of course, but that's not what Rust is trying to do. If you're not smart enough to catch what he's doing, kindly keep your comments to yourself.

He is trying to make us prove how it is falsifiable, thereby proving it is false.

It takes nothing to disprove evolution...it takes a lot to disprove spontaneous generation, which cannot be done. It doesn't exist.

quote:You and hyro have been repeatedly asked (and if you missed it, here it is agani) to state what evidence it would take for you to accept evolution. I have gotten only one response from hyro and that was for a fossil of every single species that ever existed. This is hardly a reasonable expectation because of the rarity of fossil formation and recovery. However, is one of you wishes to actually defend that expectation please do because this is where you generally change/ignore the subject.

In order for me to accept Darwinian evolution, it would have to be proven that spontaneous generation can occur.

It hasn't, and it won't ever be.

Also, some of the missing links would be nice. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:You have also been asked to provide and example of what evidence would disporve ID and you are unable to. This is hardly a scientific position. The question is what evidence could hypothetically exist that would refute ID?

I could do it, and some here have already attempted. But I'm not going to help you guys disprove my own theory. LOL

quote:Originally posted by whocares123:



Rust and all the people arguing for evolution, is there anything at all the other side can say to make you think intelligent design should be taught in schools? (Because that is what this thread is supposed to be about, afterall.)

Yes. If a theory has garnered a substantial amount of support from the scientific community, then it should be taught in the Science classroom.

The problem is, Intelligent Design is not a theory, let alone one with substantial support from the scientific community! That's a problem with Intelligent Design, nor a problem with our position.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Of course, but that's not what Rust is trying to do. If you're not smart enough to catch what he's doing, kindly keep your comments to yourself.

He is trying to make us prove how it is falsifiable, thereby proving it is false.



1. I'm not doing anything of the sort, not to mention then I'm not the only one requesting this. truckfixr, Real.PUA, hespeaks, and Beta have all requested this because they know this is a necessary requirement for something to be considered a legitimate scientific theory. If you cannot show how ID is can be potentially proven false, then you automatically lose any right to call it a scientific theory.

2. Providing a possible scenario where a theory would be wrong, does not then mean that a theory is wrong.

We've provided a scenario that would prove Natural Selection wrong in the link I gave you. Does that mean Natural Selection has been proven wrong? Of course not, it means that if that scenario we provided is true, then Natural Selection as we know it comes into question.

Stop giving these pathetic excuses and either provide a possible experimental test for the intelligent designer, or stop considering ID legitimate Science.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-08-2006).]

quote: by DS:

Wrong. People that find themselves to be intelligent do not like the thought of God ruling over them. As ID implies creation, there is no choice to but acknowledge that we are lesser beings

Holy crap do you know how many famous scientists and philosophers you just insulted?

This is all just getting sad.



Noticed I called her current arguments many pages back. She has no evidence for Intelligent design, at least none that can stand up to scrutiny so her goal is to drag evolution down to the same level.

The sad part is both of them are only providing evidence they don't understand evolution or science and have done no research.

Ok let's see if we can get back on track.

DS, can you tell me which ones of these claims are science and which aren't and why?

A) Mutation and natural selection proves there is no God and life adapted under purely naturalistic means.

B) Mutation and natural selection was created by God to adapt life to the environment.

C) Mutation and natural selection adapt life to the environment.

D) Gaps in evolution show life must have been intelligently designed.

E) Evolution contains gaps thus it may not be a complete theory.

F) Demons cause people to get sick and die. Rituals to remove these demons cure sickness.

I'm curious what your answers will be.

quote:Of course, but that's not what Rust is trying to do. If you're not smart enough to catch what he's doing, kindly keep your comments to yourself.

He is trying to make us prove how it is falsifiable, thereby proving it is false.

Reading this post, it suddenly became evident to me how much of an idiot DS really is. I'm not sorry one bit for stating the objective truth that you, DS, are a retard, simple as that. Look up the scientific term for "falsifiable" and stop making an idiot out of yourself.

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-08-2006).]

quote:Wrong. People that find themselves to be intelligent do not like the thought of God ruling over them.

You are basically implying that these people have arrogance, but the one with true arrogance is you. You are the one who invents a god to elevate yourself above all other animals. Sheer arrogance on your behalf!

Retarded is harsh. I would say ignorant which isn't a bad thing, unless she passes herself off as knowledgeable on the topic. Unfortunately she seems to be doing just that. It's becoming more and more obvious, especially when she confused ID 'theory' with creationism. As well as neither of them doing anymore research than a brief copy & paste.

The sad thing is, people with this type of scientific understanding are the ones voting for our children's educational future.

Falsification is a rather important part of science. Most scientists write ways to falsify their theories in their own papers.

DS something you should read,

http://tinyurl.com/4bl3d

Not only does it provide an understanding of evolution as well as evidence for macro-evolution, you will note every piece of evidence given includes a section on how to falsify that evidence.

Thus asking for falsification is not a ploy at all.

First DS, as the definition has been exhaustibly repeated to you- To show that a physical law is falsifiable, one is not required to show that it is physically possible to violate it — that would only defeat its status as a physical law — one need only show that an exception to the law is logically possible.Evolution only concerns itself with the changes of organisms over time, either God or nature influenced the origin of life is a separate theory. And some "missing links" (transitional fossils) have been found.

"Evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists." Stop attempting to use ignorance to prove your point, and give valid evidence of ID (if you can find any).

[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-08-2006).]

quote:•The universe didn't spin itself into existence.

There are several textbooks still circulating schools all across America and likely the world over, that explains that the energy-speck was heated up as electrons were and photons were engaging and that it blew outward into space and time in a direction. I presume that any good cosmologist would understand the implications over this and have sought to correct it by being ambiguous and pretend that it never happened - kind of like Piltdown Man, Ramipithecus, Archaeoraptor, Recapitulation, etc...

quote:•Even if angular momentum was given to the system, our solar system is a small part many years after the original. Based on your claims I should never be able to spin a basketball opposite to the spin of the earth. Sound stupid?

The way you described is very stupid, yes, I would agree with you. Perhaps its lost on you that the planet itself is what creates the gravitational momentum, and its moons orbit control the tides. That means something caused its energy in the first place, just as you caused the basketbal to go in a certain direction. The law of angular motion is easily understood with your basketball. If you spin the ball on your finger clockwise, when the ball falls, its not going to fall counter-clockwise, but in a clockwise direction. So, something caused the planet to move in its specific direction to allow for it to move at all in the direction it now travels. If it was not at the big bang then how did it ever orbit in the first place? And if the big bang did cause its formation and its orbit, then why do some planets spin in the opposite direction?

quote:•3 planets do not orbit in the opposite direction. I mean seriously a third grader could tell you this. You got confused with rotation. A couple planets do rotate very slowly in the opposite direction, almost like something hit them. One even rotates on its side.

I'm speaking about the direction a planet travels. Why do they go in different directions if forward momentum was caused by the expansion of space-time? What caused them to reverse its rotation? The best theory they can come up with is that some cataclysmic event could have taken place. If it was so cataclysmic that it could force a planet that weighs billions of tons to stop rotating and to turn in the opposite direction of its eliptical orbit, then why aren't their telltale signs on the face of the planet?

quote:•There are only 91 moons in the milky way? Moons are even smaller and are easily effected by local gravity.

No, there are 138 moons in our galaxy, Jupiter having 60 of its own. There are 91 that do not follow their orbit, and there are a few planets that have moons that travel in either direction. Moons travelling in a different direction is not that bad and could concievably be explained by their respective planets attraction as an opposable force. But planets themselves rotating opposite to their orbit, and moons that go in eihter dirction makes no sense in light of their formation out of the big bang or nucleofission.

quote:•The only anomaly here is you either need coffee or to go back to the third grade.

Good one, Beta!!! http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

My feelings are crushed. I shall now go enroll in the third grade for remediation.

quote:All your other claims are of equal quality. Do you really need me to go on (as I can) or do you think you should take some time to Do some research and stop parroting creationist claims that even a child could refute. This is just ridiculous, you have a brain, now use it.

Oh my, far be it from me to point out the obvious to you, but if I parrot creationist claims, then you parrot TalkOrigins and Ed Babinski. Maybe you should use your brain, do some research of your own, and refute the claims instead of using hyperbole, ad hom, assertion, conjecture, and incredulity to mask an actual refutation.

quote:Unfortunately this doesn't give me much hope of every seeing evidence for intelligent design.

Well, one would have to themselves be intelligent in order to recognize intelligence. Draw your own conclusion.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

There are several textbooks still circulating schools all across America and likely the world over, that explains that the energy-speck was heated up as electrons were and photons were engaging and that it blew outward into space and time in a direction. I presume that any good cosmologist would understand the implications over this and have sought to correct it by being ambiguous and pretend that it never happened - kind of like Piltdown Man, Ramipithecus, Archaeoraptor, Recapitulation, etc...

yes, they blew out, nothing says it was spinning perfectly like a top.

just because some scientists are frauds for money and prestige does not make all scientists frauds anymore than a pedophile priest makes all priests pedophiles. the fact that his fellow scientists exposed it when more advanced dating methods became available show that scientists as a whole seed truth rather than deception.

quote:

The way you described is very stupid, yes, I would agree with you. Perhaps its lost on you that the planet itself is what creates the gravitational momentum, and its moons orbit control the tides. That means something caused its energy in the first place, just as you caused the basketbal to go in a certain direction. The law of angular motion is easily understood with your basketball. If you spin the ball on your finger clockwise, when the ball falls, its not going to fall counter-clockwise, but in a clockwise direction. So, something caused the planet to move in its specific direction to allow for it to move at all in the direction it now travels. If it was not at the big bang then how did it ever orbit in the first place? And if the big bang did cause its formation and its orbit, then why do some planets spin in the opposite direction?



the reason we have all different galaxies and systems rather than a perfectly symmetrical universe is because of chaos theory.

quote:

No, there are 138 moons in our galaxy, Jupiter having 60 of its own. There are 91 that do not follow their orbit, and there are a few planets that have moons that travel in either direction. Moons travelling in a different direction is not that bad and could concievably be explained by their respective planets attraction as an opposable force. But planets themselves rotating opposite to their orbit, and moons that go in eihter dirction makes no sense in light of their formation out of the big bang or nucleofission.



they make sense because of chaos theory.

i think you meant to say there are 138 moons in our solar system. our galaxy has billions of stars and certainly more than 138 moons. i can't believe that you think that a solar system is a galaxy.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

If you spin the ball on your finger clockwise, when the ball falls, its not going to fall counter-clockwise, but in a clockwise direction. So, something caused the planet to move in its specific direction to allow for it to move at all in the direction it now travels. If it was not at the big bang then how did it ever orbit in the first place?

You analogy doesn't come close to resembling what happened.

The Big Bang didn't shoot out the planets and galaxies already formed, they formed afterwards. During that formation (as well as afterwards), planets and galaxies can take on different spins.

For your analogy to be correct, you'd have to "spin" a ball that hasn't even been formed yet and then pass it through a process where it forms into a ball. It should be obvious that the spin doesn't have to be preserved out of necessity since that process could in fact change it.

Ugh, Hyro I told you to do some research first. That wasn't some sort of snipe but an honest suggestion. This will be the last reply to these claims as they are off-topic and your willingness to do no research what-so ever leaves little hope anymore that you will listen.

quote:There are several textbooks still circulating schools all across America and likely the world over, that explains that the energy-speck was heated up as electrons were and photons were engaging and that it blew outward into space and time in a direction.

1) Name the textbooks.

2) "a direction" doesn't imply rotation.

3) It didn't blow outward into space and time. Space-time expanded.

Ok, so what. Just because a textbook says something doesn't mean that's the scientists position it means the textbook is wrong. I swear we have been over this before (and yes there are science groups that work on correcting textbooks).

quote:The law of angular motion is easily understood with your basketball. If you spin the ball on your finger clockwise, when the ball falls, its not going to fall counter-clockwise, but in a clockwise direction. So, something caused the planet to move in its specific direction to allow for it to move at all in the direction it now travels. If it was not at the big bang then how did it ever orbit in the first place? And if the big bang did cause its formation and its orbit, then why do some planets spin in the opposite direction?

See, this is what I'm talking about. Educate yourself you should not have these questions, you should already know the answers.

You missed my point. You are saying that the big bang rotated x direction thus a very tiny plant orbiting a very tiny sun in one of a billion+ galaxies is forced to rotate in the exact same direction. I'm not sure you are understanding just how small we are compared to the universe.

quote:I'm speaking about the direction a planet travels. Why do they go in different directions if forward momentum was caused by the expansion of space-time? What caused them to reverse its rotation? The best theory they can come up with is that some cataclysmic event could have taken place. If it was so cataclysmic that it could force a planet that weighs billions of tons to stop rotating and to turn in the opposite direction of its eliptical orbit, then why aren't their telltale signs on the face of the planet?

You seem to be confusing terms.

Orbit: The direction and motion a planet takes around the sun. It causes years.

Rotation: The spin of the planet, it causes days.

There are no planets orbiting contrary to each other.

There are some that spin very slowly in the opposite direction as the rest of the planets, also called a retrograde rotation. Matter of fact Venus's retrograde rotation is so slow one day is longer than a year.

Most likely these impacts occurred when the solar system was still young and the planets were hot and squishy, there would also be many larger objects flying around. Venus's atmosphere may have caused it's slowdown.

quote:No, there are 138 moons in our galaxy, Jupiter having 60 of its own. There are 91 that do not follow their orbit, and there are a few planets that have moons that travel in either direction. Moons traveling in a different direction is not that bad and could concievably be explained by their respective planets attraction as an opposable force. But planets themselves rotating opposite to their orbit, and moons that go in eihter dirction makes no sense in light of their formation out of the big bang or nucleofission.

Again, I don't think you are grasping just how small a moon is. Odd orbits aren't that amazing as not every moon was captured at the same time or in the same way.

quote:Oh my, far be it from me to point out the obvious to you, but if I parrot creationist claims, then you parrot TalkOrigins and Ed Babinski. Maybe you should use your brain, do some research of your own, and refute the claims instead of using hyperbole, ad hom, assertion, conjecture, and incredulity to mask an actual refutation.

So far you have pointed out that you don't understand what you are talking about.

Actually I use TO last, often researching things for myself, as well as doing the math myself. I've talked with scientists working on relevant projects as well as with the creationists who wrote some of the works you are copying.

I'm not making an Ad hom attack, just a point, if you had done any research what so ever into some of what you posted I bet you wouldn't have posted it.

For example, the population statistics, did you work out the populations yourself? If you did you might have learned something. For example, using the general growth rate given by creationist papers, starting from 8 people in a flood 4500 years ago, you end up with around a half million people on earth when Jesus was born. The number doubles to an amazing 1 million after 100 years, a point in history when the city Rome had a population of 1 million. It gets even more ridiculous when you realize it gives a worlds population of only around 2000 people when Moses was dragging his people around the desert.

So please do your research.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 08-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You asking us to disprove our own theory is stupid, which is why we won't do it.

Falsify evolution for us, Rust.

Its not about Falsifying it, it is about having something that CAN falsify it! One of the most common is finding a modern rabbit's fossils in PRE CAMBRIAN rocks...They haven't found it but that would prove evolution false.

ID has NO falsifying factor, nothing can prove its false, thus it can't be categorized as a scientific theory but rather a PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGICAL THEORY.

If you reference back to page 14 and my second post on there, responding to your lucifer post, it has all the information you need to understand why EVOLUTION is a scientific theory and why ID is a Theological Philosophical Theory and not scientific.

The main reason among the many given there is that ID can not be proven false but evolution can, evolution can be proven false simply by finding the fossils of a modern animal in pre cambrian rocks, thats one of many terms that can prove evolution false, ID has absolutely NOTHING that can prove it false.

Evolution has performed experiments and has lots of evidence to back it up, ID has none.

Please refer back to my post responding to your Lucifer post, I start off by providing 2 links to why Satan IS NOT Lucifer, then I go into the evolution stuff, its very long but if you read it carefully you will realize hopefully that there is no real debate. I can copy paste it again here too.

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 08-08-2006).]

You know what, Hespeaks, you just might be the only pro-evolutionist that actually investigates the claims and offers a thorough refutation. I think you are ultimately wrong on this occasion, but I very much appreciate the effort.

(All you other people can learn a thing or two about civilized debate from him).

quote:•If this argument were true, then it would eliminate the possibility of Genesis being correct. If we started with Noah and his wife in 2313 BCE, 35 years before the flood, then by the late 3rd century BCE, the worlds population would have been 4.3 billion. By the time of the birth of Jesus, it would have reached 42 billion. These figures are obviously wrong, even if the Bible were true. The fatal flaw in this argument is that the population levels work on an entirely different system. Populations tend to increase rapidly out of control rapidly until limited by food supply, wars, natural disasters, etc. That cuts them down a much smaller number, from which they start to increase once more. The concept of the human race starting from a single couple and steadily increasing in numbers according to an exponential equation is without merit.

No, no my dear Watson. Those figures did not have anyone die in them so that the exponential rate would have quadrupled at least. Those figures would exist if they did not take into consideration death by natural cause, famine, war, disease, accidents, etc. I thought I made that clear. Actually, I'm certain that I mentioned that. But if you still don't believe me, I'll shall pose mathematical questions for you to answer designed by a mathematician and a Believer many years ago.

1. If the first pair of humans lived 2,000,000 years ago, as the evolutionists claim, and the population has doubled itself in every 1612.51 years (one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase), what would be the present population of the globe?

2. If the first human pair lived 100,000 years ago (a period much less than evolution required), what would be the present population at the same low rate of increase?

3. At the above rate of increase how many human beings would have survived in the 517 years since Noah?

4. If the human race doubled its numbers every 168.3 years since Noah became a father (5177 years) what would be the population of the globe?

5. If the Jews doubled their numbers every 161.251 years since Jacob's marriage (3850 years ago), how many Jews would there have been in 1922?

6. If there are now 1,500,000 species of animals, coming from a single primordial germ or cell which existed 60,000,000 years ago, how many species of animals should have arisen or matured in the last 6000 years'

7. Evolutionists claim at least 8 great transmutations from matter to man: matter, plant-life, invertebrates, vertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and man. If we make the extremely generous estimate of 60% to represent the probability of each transmutation, what is the compound probability that all would take place?

8. If there is 1 chance in 10 that each transmutation has taken place, which is far more than the evidence warrants, what fraction represents the probability that all these great changes have occurred?

I will post the answers after everyone has taken a shot at them.

quote:•The field does not decay at an exponential rate; it fluctuates widely. Precise measurements of the magnetic field have only been taken since 1845. The measurements that you used were taken over too short a period of time to extrapolate backwards by 1,400 years. "...archaeomagnetic data show that the dipole field was about 20% weaker than the present field 6,500 years ago and about 45% stronger than the present field about 3000 years ago."

The earth's magnetic field is not in a constant direction; it periodically reduces to zero and then reverses itself. That is, mechanical compasses on earth would gradually become less sensitive. Eventually, the North end of a compass needle would start to point South. This has been detected in the form of zebra-like magnetic stripes in the rocks of the floor of the Pacific Ocean which alternately change polarity on each side of a spreading fault. Hundreds of reversals have occurred over the past 180 million years. Jeremy Bloxham of Harvard University predicts that it could reach zero about 1,500 to 2,000 years from now.

I would agree that it can fluxuate but that's only dependant on where you are on the earth because the iron underneath the ground can greatly effect a reading. But the trend is overwhelming that it is depleting. The theory is that a reversal might take place, and some have asserted that such reversals happened in the past. The speculation about such polar reversals is seriously questionable because there is no evidence to corroborate it, just like the Oort Clouds. The only solid thing that we know, is that it is indeed dwindling. If the only answer is, "it may be because we are shifting poles," that just doesn't offer any solace or any real evidence for what geological implications they would have if it were true.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm

quote:•In this case, Young Earth creationists failed to understand that the rate at which snow accumulates within Greenland varies greatly across its ice cap. At the location where the Lost Squadron landed near the coast of Greenland, the rate of snow accumulation is considerably greater than the rate of snow accumulation within the interior of the Greenland Ice Cap where the ice cores have been collected. Inland from the Greenland coast, the average annual snowfall decreases dramatically to rates consistent with those calculated from the ice cores. Because of the difference in rate of snow accumulation, the use of the depth of burial of the Lost Squadron" as an argument against the usefulness of ice core dating lacks any scientific validity. It is like using rainfall records in Syndey, Australia to predict the rate at which a pond in Alice Springs, Australia would fill. In addition, the Lost Squadron landed on an actively moving area of the Greenland Ice Cap, quite unlike the areas in which ice cores are collected which are stable and motionless relative to it.

I was hoping that anyone who answered this question was going to do what I call, the "Self Pwn." And you have, and this is why: If ice core dating is dependant on the weather and the terrain, and the absolute knowledge of those geophysical patterns, then they would have to know what the weather was like absolutely for all of the preceding years in order to make accurate predictions. In other words, how is anyone to trust the ice core dating method if the tests themselves have so many undetermined variables that will effect the integrity of the experiment's reliability? Do you understand? Its kind of like C-14 dating. If you have so many examples of bad readings, how are you ever going to empirically know which dates are accurate and which are false? The fact is, in Greenland where it stays cold all the time because its well within the Arctic Circle, anyone seeking to gather an accurate estimate has to be able to account for all of the years its testing. That would obviously be impossible because no one can account for 10,000 years. However, just like demonstrating the unreliablity of C-14 dating can be ascertained by dating a new organism or a new object not subject to carbon exposure, so it is with ice core dating. Ice core dating was a guesstimate, and they supposed that the rings were annual. Its a good guess and its certainly not ridiculous to assume it. But, demonstration using physical evidence, i.e. a plane they are certain that was trapped within the ice, is best way to determine the fallaciousness of such an argument. One of two things just happened. You either empirically have shown that ice core dating is completely unreliable, i.e. "A self-pwn," or you have corroborated YEC evidence that says that ice rings do not represent winter/summer, but simply, freeze/refreeze. Heh.

quote:N.B As it is a modern coinage, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur", but the Hebrew word tanniyn (/tan·ˈnin/) may be interpreted as referring to them. In English translations, tanniyn may be translated as “sea monster” or “serpent”, but it is usually translated as “dragon”. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water. At another point, the Bible describes a huge creature called a "behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) whose "tail sways like a cedar"; the behemoth is described as ranking "first among the works of God" and as impossible to capture (vs. 24). Some Biblical scholars identify the behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamus, but these animals have very thin tails that are not comparable to a cedar tree. Creationists therefore identify the behemoth with dinosaurs like Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus which had huge tails. Critics point out that the tail is described as swaying like a cedar, not being as large as a cedar.

Thank you for posting an article that articulates how its highly probable that the Bible does in fact mention dinosaurs.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Of course, but that's not what Rust is trying to do. If you're not smart enough to catch what he's doing, kindly keep your comments to yourself.

He is trying to make us prove how it is falsifiable, thereby proving it is false.

It takes nothing to disprove evolution...it takes a lot to disprove spontaneous generation, which cannot be done. It doesn't exist.

Yes, Rust is asking that you demosntrate how ID is falsifiable that is quite clear. However, falsifiability is a requisite for any scientific theory. Falsifiable doesn't mean false or disproven...it means that if it is false we can find that out.

quote:In order for me to accept Darwinian evolution, it would have to be proven that spontaneous generation can occur.

It hasn't, and it won't ever be.

Also, some of the missing links would be nice.

So for you to believe in evolution you need to have abiogenesis proven... Interesting, but irrational. Abiogenesis is a theory separate from evolution. Evolution deals with the diversity of life we see today and says that is all came from a common ancestor, it does not say where that ancestor came from.

And "some" of the missing links have already been found and more are found every year. "Some" is not a quantifiable value and thus you can always ask for "some" more, knowing that it is impossible for every fossil to be found.

Like I said, your expectations are irrational and unreasonable.

quote:I could do it, and some here have already attempted. But I'm not going to help you guys disprove my own theory. LOL

1) If you could do it, you probably would have. If you could do it and choose not to, then why did you create this thread? You have a means to show that ID is scientific yet you choose not to present it.

2) You need to learn what the word falsifiable means. It would not help anyone "disprove" the theory if you presented a possible scenario that would refute ID (as we have done for evolution).

3) ID is not "your" theory.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 08-08-2006).]

quote:No, no my dear Watson. Those figures did not have anyone die in them so that the exponential rate would have quadrupled at least... At the beginning of the first period of doubling can be ascertained by even a crude measurement by raising each by its power and its square root.



You used the concept of the human race starting from a single couple and steadily increasing in numbers according to an exponential equation and the questions you posted are based on your equation. Unless you know every war, every natural disaster, the fertility rates of every population, you can’t presume that the population rate remained constant nor that you have taken it in account. Wars and plagues would have caused populations to drop from time to time. In particular, population sizes before agriculture would have been severely limited and would have had an average population growth of zero for any number of years. “The idea of a single male and female human ancestor is contradictory to evolutionary theory. According to this theory, the population of humans gradually evolved from other hominans, and the population size was never two (indeed if the population size had been just two, humans would almost certainly have become extinct”) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

quote:Would agree that it can fluxuate...The speculation about such polar reversals is seriously questionable because there is no evidence to corroborate it, just like the Oort Clouds.

The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006). (TalkOrigins)

Past field reversals can be and have been recorded in the "frozen" ferromagnetic minerals of solidified sedimentary deposits or cooled volcanic flows on land.(Wikipedia)

Clay pottery and other archeological finds which date to about 6,500 years ago indicate a magnetic field that was about 20% weaker than today, while artifacts from just 3,000 years ago show magnetic fields that are 45% higher than today. Thus, rather than decreasing steadily since the time of creation, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated, weaker at some times and stronger at others.” (GeoCities)

Magnetometers detect minute deviations in the Earth's magnetic field caused by iron artifacts, kilns, some types of stone structures, and even ditches and middens in geophysical survey, not as drastic that you might think.

quote:In other words, how is anyone to trust the ice core dating method if the tests themselves have so many undetermined variables that will effect the integrity of the experiment's reliability? Do you understand? Its kind of like C-14 dating. If you have so many examples of bad readings, how are you ever going to empirically know which dates are accurate and which are false?

Close agreement of different methods used to determine ages from ice cores, including ash and chemicals generated by volcanic eruptions at known dates, have demonstrated the validity of ice core dating. You base your erroneous argument on the assumption that ice core dating is only determined by the Counting of Annual Layers which is limited to “items that vary with the seasons in a consistent manner” which therefore The Greenland incident is exempt since “rate at which snow accumulates within Greenland varies greatly across its ice cap.”

And since you introduced C-14 dating –

“If you have so many examples of bad readings” Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques. Any tool will give bad results when misused. Dating items more than 50,000 years or items treated with organic material will of course give “bad readings”.

quote:Thank you for posting an article that articulates how its highly probable that the Bible does in fact mention dinosaurs.

I’ll repost it again, bold this time. As it is a modern coinage, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur", but the Hebrew word tanniyn (/tan•ˈnin/) may be interpreted as referring to them. In English translations, tanniyn may be translated as “sea monster” or “serpent”, but it is usually translated as “dragon”. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water. At another point, the Bible describes a huge creature called a "behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) whose "tail sways like a cedar"; the behemoth is described as ranking "first among the works of God" and as impossible to capture (vs. 24). Some Biblical scholars identify the behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamus, but these animals have very thin tails that are not comparable to a cedar tree. Creationists therefore identify the behemoth with dinosaurs like Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus which had huge tails. Critics point out that the tail is described as swaying like a cedar, not being as large as a cedar.

Besides this is assuming that the Bible is accurate, which many have proven not. As Maimonides stated if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. Since the earliest human-like organism lived 5.8 million to 5.2 million years ago and dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years ago according to fossil evidence, it is an anachronism to put these organisms together.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-09-2006).]

It should be noted the author of the paper he linked to for Magnetic decay, he would be the guy I was talking about earlier who faked data to support his claim. Don't worry, his paper was accepted by creationist peer review. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) (I've talked to him about that very issue, amazingly he couldn't provide me with the source for his data. )

quote:You used the concept of the human race starting from a single couple and steadily increasing in numbers according to an exponential equation and the questions you posted are based on your equation. Unless you know every war, every natural disaster, the fertility rates of every population, you can’t presume that the population rate remained constant nor that you have taken it in account. Wars and plagues would have caused populations to drop from time to time.

You are in error for how a census works. There is no such thing as a 100% accurate census, because that would mean that you have to account for every single person in the world. That's impossbile. What it does do, is give you a very close approximation. The current US population is estimated to be just shy of 300 million people. But is that 100% accurate? No, it isn't. It doesn't account for everyone, it accounts for people they know about using Social Security numbers to find out who is alive and living in America currently. That does not account for the millions of illegal aliens. With all of that said, no culture in the history of world, other than in the antediluvian world, has a culture not grown exponentially. Its a mathematical fact that has never been discouraged other than the Deluge. And that fact is the all apart of the population curve and that fact is important Darwinism. But most assuredly, this exponential growth curve has always taken place. There is always more people born than die. And to be sure, you could solve the equations I posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

Like I said, following the world census from ancient times to now, there has been a steady and measurable rate of increase. In fact, Thomas Malthus based his entire theory on this fact. Malthus was terrified that the earth will overpopulate. And if it continues in the same manner the world will overpopulate in the next 5-1,000 years. What the demonstration I provided showed was that the rate of growth extrapolating backwards from the Biblical theory is perfectly consistent. What isn't remotely consistent is the evolutionary theory where humans have been around for 2 to 3 million years. The human race would have ate itself out of existenece long before this could have taken place. But again, if you don't believe it, solve the equations I listed.

quote:The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again

This is useless without the a theory on how it works. Them telling me that happened, yet not explaining how it happened is not an argument in its defense, its just an assertion.

quote:Past field reversals can be and have been recorded in the "frozen" ferromagnetic minerals of solidified sedimentary deposits or cooled volcanic flows on land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift

This doesn't even present an argument to base a foundation on. If the polarity shifts, and minerals are constantly being ionized and recalibrated because all rock is ultimately recylced, then how are they supposed to tell what rocks exist from the original polarity? That doesn't make any sense to me.

quote:Clay pottery and other archeological finds which date to about 6,500 years ago indicate a magnetic field that was about 20% weaker than today, while artifacts from just 3,000 years ago show magnetic fields that are 45% higher than today. Thus, rather than decreasing steadily since the time of creation, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated, weaker at some times and stronger at others.”

You do realize that clay pottery has absolutely no bearing on the polarity of the North and South Pole, don't you? The magnetic signature has to do with the amount of iron that exists in the clay that made the pottery. Things can generate magnetic fields but that doesn't mean that reflects the Poles, it means that it reflects the magnetic property in the specimen.

quote:Close agreement of different methods used to determine ages from ice cores, including ash and chemicals generated by volcanic eruptions at known dates, have demonstrated the validity of ice core dating. You base your erroneous argument on the assumption that ice core dating is only determined by the Counting of Annual Layers which is limited to “items that vary with the seasons in a consistent manner” which therefore The Greenland incident is exempt since “rate at which snow accumulates within Greenland varies greatly across its ice cap.”

For you or anyone to determine whether they are annual rings or not requires someone to absolutely prove that. Do you understand what I mean by that? Its all a matter of interpretation of the evidence. It may mean that every summer it melts the snow a little, and every winter it refreeze trapping the pockets of air. It may also mean that everytime the sun comes out, it may freeze, and during the night it may refreeze.

http://www.icr.org/article/120/

quote:And since you introduced C-14 dating –

“If you have so many examples of bad readings” Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques. Any tool will give bad results when misused. Dating items more than 50,000 or items treated with organic material will of course give “bad readings”.

Carbon dating was designed to test artifacts of antiquity. Most people don't realize that. It was never intended to date any specimen over a few thoudsand years old simply because it can't. The C-14 method can't be used to date rocks or fossils. It is only useful for living or once-living things which still contain carbon and not inorganic material or a specimen so old that all the carbon was completely depleted. The method assumes that the earth's age exceeds the time it would take for C-14 production to reach equilibrium with C-14 decay. Even the inventor, Willard Libby, said that it would take less than 50,000 years to reach equilibrium from a world with no C-14 at the beginning of its conversion from Carbon 12 to Carbon 14. All the present C-14 would accumulate, at present rates of production and build up, in less than 30,000 years. That means that the earth's atmosphere couldn't be any older than that, and this figure is pushing it, because few people have taken into consideration of atomic testing has down to Carbon 12 to increase the levels of Carbon 14. Aside from which, no other dating method has been more unreliable than this one. Even the most rabid evolutionist can admit to this. Trust me, you don't want to argue for this one when there are other radiometric dating methods that offer a nore plausible solution. Carbon dating is worthless unless there is proper calibration, a sample that is at least circumstantially corrobated to be under 2,000 years old, and it must be organic. And even after all of this, who is to know which dates are erroneous and which are legitimate? A live seal was dated at 7,000 years old. A snail was once dated at 29,000 years old. One leg from a Mammoth was dated at 31,000 years, and the other leg dated at some disproportionate number. Its unreliable.

quote:I’ll repost it again, bold this time. As it is a modern coinage, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur", but the Hebrew word tanniyn (/tan•ˈnin/) may be interpreted as referring to them. In English translations, tanniyn may be translated as “sea monster” or “serpent”, but it is usually translated as “dragon”. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water.

And where is the inconsistency? Leviathan is supposed to be a Sea Serpent, maybe a Pleisosaur. Behemoth, perhaps a Brachiosaur. One thing we do now, nothing alive on earth currently fits the description at all. I'd say that coupled between the verses and the evidence from petraglyphs only strengthens the notion that they coexisted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth

quote:Besides this is assuming that the Bible is accurate, which many have proven not. As Maimonides stated if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. Since the earliest human-like organism lived 5.8 million to 5.2 million years ago and dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years ago according to fossil evidence, it is an anachronism to put these organisms together.

I'm not suggesting that the Bible be employed as something it is not -- a science textbook. However, the verse provided is explicit as to in not being any creature that currently exists. And I said, couple that with extra-biblical evidence and there is a tremendous argument in support of it.

enough with this population bullshit. a population of any species increases as fast as possible as long as it has excess food.

without the industrial revolution producing excess food we would never have a population as large as we have today no matter how long we waited.

population growth is not a simple function of time and a constant.

Hyro:

Oh you so shouldn't have gone there.

Very sad indeed.

quote:Even the inventor, Willard Libby, said that it would take less than 50,000 years to reach equilibrium from a world with no C-14 at the beginning of its conversion from Carbon 12 to Carbon 14.

You have been told before this is false.

"Really? Where did he say that? Can you give me a source?

I've found two sources that say it was really Cook and not Libby that said this.

Equilibrium is not a problem, we know the atmosphere rates of C-14 fluctuate. The idea of equilibrium is based on the assumption that the rates stay the same. C-14 has required calibration because of this (something done through tree-ring dating, ice cores and a couple other methods). The calibration needed wasn't huge but it helped."

-Me, Thread: "Evolution Vs Intelligent Design in School" post #73 http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005056-2.html



quote:Carbon dating is worthless unless there is proper calibration, a sample that is at least circumstantially corrobated to be under 2,000 years old, and it must be organic. And even after all of this, who is to know which dates are erroneous and which are legitimate? A live seal was dated at 7,000 years old. A snail was once dated at 29,000 years old. One leg from a Mammoth was dated at 31,000 years, and the other leg dated at some disproportionate number. Its unreliable.

Seal

You have been told before this is false.

"Yep, changes have occurred making carbon dating of modern samples more complicated (it does not effect older samples) however that is not the reason Penguins would date at 8,000 years.

Carbon-14 dating is based on the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere, thus a sample must get its carbon from the atmosphere to be dated correctly. Penguins eat fish, who get their C-14 from the sea which not only has a different ratio but has a number of issues that make C-14 dating more complicated. Using the atmospheric ratio to date ocean life is a user mistake and not a dating error."

-Me, Thread: "Evolution Vs Intelligent Design in School" post #73 http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005056-2.html

Snail

You have been told before this is false.

You originally said,

"The shell of a living snail was dated at 27,000 years old." -hyro



"One must be careful dating shell creatures because they often get the carbon from their shell from none atmospheric sources. In this case the snail built a lot of its shell using very old limestone, thus the shell is rather old. Creationists also report mollusk shells being dated old as well.

This is known as the reservoir effect and again it's a user error not a dating error. Creationists really should learn how to use these tools correctly before complaining."

-Me, Thread: "Evolution Vs Intelligent Design in School" post #73 http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005056-2.html

Mammoth

You have been told before this is false.

You originally said,

"One leg was dated at 40,000 years, while another was dated at 26,000 years. The surrounding wood, directly adjacent to the mastodon was dated at 10,000 years old."-hyro

"As far as I can tell this isn't true. Dima (the baby mammoth) was dated at 40,000 years, where the other dates come from I don't know.

Walt Brown (a creationist that mentions Dima) cites a paper from 1975 which can't be accurate as Dima wasn't discovered till 1977. He either got confused or made up dates."

-Me, Thread: "Evolution Vs Intelligent Design in School" post #73 http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005056-2.html



So what have we learned? Not only does it seem we will never see evidence for intelligent design but Hyro wont listen either and will bring up refuted claims as truth.

That ends the thread for me right now, I may reply in the future but there seems no point when we hear the same false claims over and over.

Enjoy, but don't expect him to listen.

Hyro: I'm very disappointed in you, I was hoping you wouldn't be that dishonest.

quote:Its not about Falsifying it, it is about having something that CAN falsify it!

A religious belief cannot by nature be falsified, because a negative cannot be demonstrably proven false. But ID doesn't fit into that category. If numerous examples of life evolving with complexity can be shown without any reasonable assumption of it deriving by intent, then ID can be falsified. But no such evidence exists, therefore, it remains a valid theory.

quote:One of the most common is finding a modern rabbit's fossils in PRE CAMBRIAN rocks...They haven't found it but that would prove evolution false.

Now that you mention it, pre-cambrian fossils have been found intermingled with creatures, that according to the prevailing theory of evolution, should have been extinct and not in any way contemporaneous with one another. But that wouldn't falsify evolution per se, that would only prove that man's preconcieved notions concerning the geologic column were false and that ots dating methods are flawed. It would be good evidence against evolution, and indeed it is, but it doesn't prove or disprove the ToE as a whole.

quote:ID has NO falsifying factor, nothing can prove its false, thus it can't be categorized as a scientific theory but rather a PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGICAL THEORY.

Yes it does, and I just explained it. It isn't mysterious. Your personal theological beliefs, whatever that may be, can't by definition be falsified. It makes it especially difficult when you basically took bits and pieces of certain religions that you liked and invented your own God as a construct of your mind. That makes it even more difficult to refute you because you seem not to have any solid beliefs about anything. That is unfalsifiable, not ID.

quote:If you reference back to page 14 and my second post on there, responding to your lucifer post, it has all the information you need to understand why EVOLUTION is a scientific theory and why ID is a Theological Philosophical Theory and not scientific.

I read that post and it was not a cogent argument, much less a coherent thought. You seem to go off on tangents and its difficult to pinpoint what exactly you arriving at.

quote:Evolution has performed experiments and has lots of evidence to back it up, ID has none.

Have you not been following this thread? I've posted at least 15 arguments in support of ID. You could say that they aren't all that convincing, but you can't say that ID has no theory, whatsoever. That's just plain ridiculous. You are either extremely obtuse, lying, or you have no grasp on the actual argument.

quote:Please refer back to my post responding to your Lucifer post, I start off by providing 2 links to why Satan IS NOT Lucifer, then I go into the evolution stuff, its very long but if you read it carefully you will realize hopefully that there is no real debate. I can copy paste it again here too.

The name "Lucifer" is a synthesizing of Greek, to Roman, to Etruscan, both in language and pantheism. However, that is simply a more modern way of speaking about Satan. If Lucifer doesn't literally mean, Satan, then Allah doesn't literally mean God, or God doesn't literally mean, Allah. And to further drive home the point, if the term for evolution didn't itself evolve and synthesize new meanings, it would still render as an "unfolding" and not simply the ambiguous term that it represents today.

they aren't just intellectually dishonest, they are anti-intellectual.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

But ID doesn't fit into that category. If numerous examples of life evolving with complexity can be shown without any reasonable assumption of it deriving by intent, then ID can be falsified. But no such evidence exists, therefore, it remains a valid theory.

That wouldn't falsify ID at all.

Not only would it be impossible to rule out intent by means of experimental tests, but even if we could speculate that 'life evolving with complexity' was without any intent, it could then be claimed that the intelligent designer deliberately made it seem that way.

Given any set of criteria that you may come up with, it could then be claimed that the 'intelligent designer' deliberately designed it to be that way'.

The central claim of ID is not falsifiable. Even the Discovery Institute admits this by the way...

"It’s true that there’s no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists."

- http://tinyurl.com/kz7e2

Of course, they go on to say that the arguments for ID are falsifiable (e.g. Irreducible complexity, etc.) which while may be true in some cases, does not refute the fact that the central claim in Intelligent Design cannot be falsified. If the most fundamental and basic of claims cannot be falsified, then it is not legitimate Science.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-09-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

A religious belief cannot by nature be falsified, because a negative cannot be demonstrably proven false. But ID doesn't fit into that category. If numerous examples of life evolving with complexity can be shown without any reasonable assumption of it deriving by intent, then ID can be falsified. But no such evidence exists, therefore, it remains a valid theory.

Assuming intent for complexity does not equal proving or disproving intent. This in no way makes Intelligent Design falsifiable.

To falsify ID based on the assertion that complexity is intended, you must devise a way to test whether or not the intent actually exists. What experiment can you describe that could possibly test such an assumption? What specific results would prove intent? What specific result would disprove intent?

Don't beat yourself up over not being able to devise such an experiment. The scientists who promote the hypothesis that is Intelligent Design can't do it either.

quote:Now that you mention it, pre-cambrian fossils have been found intermingled with creatures, that according to the prevailing theory of evolution, should have been extinct and not in any way contemporaneous with one another. But that wouldn't falsify evolution per se, that would only prove that man's preconcieved notions concerning the geologic column were false and that ots dating methods are flawed. It would be good evidence against evolution, and indeed it is, but it doesn't prove or disprove the ToE as a whole.

Please provide specific evidence of your claims of such mixing. Are the Pre-Cambrian fossils mixed into more modern geologic strata? Or are more modern fossils mixed into undisturbed Pre-Cambrian Strata?

Modern animal fossils intermingled within undisturbed Pre-Cambrian strata , would falsify the Theory of Evolution.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

A religious belief cannot by nature be falsified, because a negative cannot be demonstrably proven false. But ID doesn't fit into that category. If numerous examples of life evolving with complexity can be shown without any reasonable assumption of it deriving by intent, then ID can be falsified. But no such evidence exists, therefore, it remains a valid theory.

^^What an unscientific statement. How does one determine that "life evolved with complexity without an assumption of intent" ... Tell us how. That is what we are asking. You basically just said that "you can prove ID false by giving examples of ID being false." A very unscientific proposition.

quote: You are in error for how a census works…

The populations of humans from its uprooting to present day are not constant. You attempted to disprove this by posting post-18th Century population growth. You cannot compare the conditions of this time period to the conditions of 200,000 years ago, where agriculture, civilization. “The death rate was high before agriculture was developed about 10,000 years ago.” By the 19th Century when industrialization and etc, was introduced then “the human population began to grow rapidly . Therefore it couldn’t be constant, and again your problems are based on the false assumption that the population rate is constant, while the evidence proves otherwise.

quote: This is useless without the a theory on how it works. Them telling me that happened, yet not explaining how it happened is not an argument in its defense, its just an assertion.

Many scientists believe that reversals are an inherent aspect of the dynamo theory of how the geomagnetic field is generated. In computer simulations, it is observed that magnetic field lines can sometimes become tangled and disorganized through the chaotic motions of liquid metal in the Earth's core. In some simulations, this leads to an instability in which the magnetic field spontaneously flips over into the opposite orientation. This scenario is supported by observations of the solar magnetic field, which undergoes spontaneous reversals every 7-15 years (see: solar cycle). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal#Causal_mechanisms

quote:This doesn't even present an argument to base a foundation on. If the polarity shifts, and minerals are constantly being ionized and recalibrated because all rock is ultimately recylced, then how are they supposed to tell what rocks exist from the original polarity? That doesn't make any sense to me. The magnetic signature has to do with the amount of iron that exists in the clay that made the pottery. Things can generate magnetic fields but that doesn't mean that reflects the Poles, it means that it reflects the magnetic property in the specimen.

Mind you that the rocks are used to show major variations in the magnetic field not “which original polarity” they were formed. Most sedimentary rocks incorporate tiny amounts of iron rich minerals, whose orientation is influenced by the ambient magnetic field at the time at which they formed. Under favorable conditions, it is thus possible to extract information of the variations in magnetic field from many kinds of sedmentary rocks. Metallic particles such as iron are partially magnetized by the earth's magnetic field and will line themselves up with the magnetic poles. By examining these particles, we can determine the strength of the magnetic field. And such examination shows that the earth's magnetic field has not been decaying steadily. Where did you get that generalization that “Things can generate magnetic fields but that doesn't mean that reflects the Poles”. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal#Causal_mechanisms



quote: For you or anyone to determine whether they are annual rings or not requires someone to absolutely prove that. Do you understand what I mean by that…

These represent annual rings, because in summer the top layer of snow melts and then re-freezes as clear ice, which shows up dark here. In winter, the snow doesn’t get a chance to melt, so it packs – and shows up as a white layer. These layers of dark –light – dark – light, indicate 135,000 (referring to the core of Greenland) summers and winters. Then again they are other methods of ice-core that corroborated with its validity, as I already mentioned.



quote: The C-14 method can't be used to date rocks or fossils. It is only useful for living or once-living things which still contain carbon and not inorganic material or a specimen so old that all the carbon was completely depleted. Carbon dating is worthless unless there is proper calibration, a sample that is at least circumstantially corrobated to be under 2,000 years old, and it must be organic

Carbon-14 dating (a.k.a. C-14 dating) is one of many radioisotope measuring techniques for estimating the age of objects. C-14 dating is limited to the study of carbon-bearing objects. If proper precautions are taken in the preparation of the samples, it is an accurate method for dating items up to about 50,000 years of age. Other isotope dating techniques which are based on elements other than carbon can date the age of rocks which are many billions of years old.

quote: The method assumes that the earth's age exceeds the time it would take for C-14 production to reach equilibrium with C-14 decay. Even the inventor, Willard Libby, said that it would take less than 50,000 years to reach equilibrium from a world with no C-14 at the beginning of its conversion from Carbon 12 to Carbon 14. All the present C-14 would accumulate, at present rates of production and build up, in less than 30,000 years. That means that the earth's atmosphere couldn't be any older than that, and this figure is pushing it, because few people have taken into consideration of atomic testing has down to Carbon 12 to increase the levels of Carbon 14

The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods.Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998), and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hughen et al. 2004).



quote: A live seal was dated at 7,000 years old. A snail was once dated at 29,000 years old. One leg from a Mammoth was dated at 31,000 years, and the other leg dated at some disproportionate number.

Assuming you’re not exaggerating,

The seal and the snail could be explained by the reservoir effect. In rare cases, a "reservoir effect" will give C-14 dates which are much older than the true age of the sample. Some plants and animals live in very unusual environments whose C-14 content is much lower than normal. The rest can be attributed to odd flyer values which sometimes be produced, due to improper sample preparation, contamination, etc. That is why researchers try to test multiple samples.

quote: And where is the inconsistency? Leviathan is supposed to be a Sea Serpent, maybe a Pleisosaur. Behemoth, perhaps a Brachiosaur. One thing we do now, nothing alive on earth currently fits the description at all. I'd say that coupled between the verses and the evidence from petraglyphs only strengthens the notion that they coexisted.

One, using petroglyphs as evidence is not consciousable, since some are dated 10,000 to 12,000 years ago way longer than the creationist 6,000 years, and petroglyphs were made by shamans in an altered state of consciousness, perhaps induced by the use of natural hallucinogens. Many of the geometric patterns (known as form constants) which recur in petroglyphs and cave paintings have been shown to be "hard-wired" into the human brain; they frequently occur in visual disturbances and hallucinations brought on by drugs, migraine and other stimuli. Besides many myths of the era believed in sea serpents, hydras, and other unnatural animals. Did they themselves walked on the earth? Since the terms themselves are in dispute I doubt you can “strengthen any notion”on this.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-09-2006).]

Just a quick question for DS and Hyro: If the two of you are bible literalists, and the bible plainly states that the Christian God created the heavens, earth , etc.., How can you support a theory which leaves open the possibility that something or someone other than the Christian God might be the Creator?

Even if you hold to the belief that the Creator is God, the theory itself leaves open the possibility that the designer could even be space aliens(as proposed by Behe).

Accepting this theory is in direct conflict with the literal interpretation of the bible.

Acknowledging that the Christian God is the only option as the Designer, renders the theory a theological concept, not a scientific theory.

In all honesty, you cannot logically have it both ways. To accept the theory, you must accept what the theory states. You must accept the possibility that the creator may not be God, or you must discontinue your support of the theory as being in conflict with the literal interpretation of the bible.

quote:Not only would it be impossible to rule out intent by means of experimental tests, but even if we could speculate that 'life evolving with complexity' was without any intent, it could then be claimed that the intelligent designer deliberately made it seem that way.

But through demonstration of evidence one theory can stand out in superiority. Think of the two competing cosmological beliefs. The Big Bang beat out the Steady State theory because it currently has more explanatory power. It doesn't really verify or refute either of them. In fact, the only way to falsify them is to find anamolies in the rules of the theory that should naturally be applicable to the laws of physics. The rules of physics is the quickest way to know whether or not a theory is gobbledegook.

quote:Given any set of criteria that you may come up with, it could then be claimed that the 'intelligent designer' deliberately designed it to be that way'.

I think that ascertaining the identity of an Intelligent Designer is impossible without the/that/those Designer(s) to reveal themsleves. I would agree that this part of it is unfalsifiable. But that's why I've been strongly imploring that no one need to attempt to identify the face of the Creator while in the science classroom. My beliefs about who God is my own personal beliefs. I just so happen to believe that my God is compatible with ID. Its all apart of my informed faith, as opposed to some blind faith.

quote:The central claim of ID is not falsifiable. Even the Discovery Institute admits this by the way...

"It’s true that there’s no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists."

That's true. The bare assertion that a Creator exists is not falsifiable. That's why I said that you have to look to the rules in order to corroborate or to prove false. There's a big difference in saying there is a Creator compared to providing evidence that supports how a function or functions could not have occured any other way than of a Mind of some sort.

quote:Of course, they go on to say that the arguments for ID are falsifiable (e.g. Irreducible complexity, etc.) which while may be true in some cases, does not refute the fact that the central claim in Intelligent Design cannot be falsified. If the most fundamental and basic of claims cannot be falsified, then it is not legitimate Science.

If what you say is true, then evolution cannot be falsified either. But I happen to disagree. I think both ID and evo can be falsified. Not in the bare assertion of it, as Dembski wrote, but in the rules and methodology that it must follow. If it cannot reconcilably show compatibility with certain known physical laws, then one, or both of them lose.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

But through demonstration of evidence one theory can stand out in superiority. Think of the two competing cosmological beliefs. The Big Bang beat out the Steady State theory because it currently has more explanatory power. It doesn't really verify or refute either of them. In fact, the only way to falsify them is to find anamolies in the rules of the theory that should naturally be applicable to the laws of physics. The rules of physics is the quickest way to know whether or not a theory is gobbledegook.



It has to be a theory in the first place, which ID is clearly not if it fails the fundamental aspect of what a theory is supposed to have in Science.

Moreover, you mentioning other theories isn't going to change anything. ID has to stand on its own merits, not because you desperately attempt to drag other legitimate theories to its level.

quote:I think that ascertaining the identity of an Intelligent Designer is impossible without the/that/those Designer(s) to reveal themsleves. I would agree that this part of it is unfalsifiable. But that's why I've been strongly imploring that no one need to attempt to identify the face of the Creator while in the science classroom. My beliefs about who God is my own personal beliefs. I just so happen to believe that my God is compatible with ID. Its all apart of my informed faith, as opposed to some blind faith.

Again, what we're discussing is if ID is even a theory to begin with. If you admit that it's central belief cannot be falsified then it is not a theory, period.

quote:That's true. The bare assertion that a Creator exists is not falsifiable. That's why I said that you have to look to the rules in order to corroborate or to prove false. There's a big difference in saying there is a Creator compared to providing evidence that supports how a function or functions could not have occured any other way than of a Mind of some sort.

If it's not falsifiable then you can't prove it false! That's the point. You might be able to falsify some arguments it uses, for example "irreducible complexity" (though that's still an argument from ignorance anyway), but if the central claim of Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, then it is not a legitimate scientific theory.

quote:If what you say is true, then evolution cannot be falsified either. But I happen to disagree. I think both ID and evo can be falsified. Not in the bare assertion of it, as Dembski wrote, but in the rules and methodology that it must follow. If it cannot reconcilably show compatibility with certain known physical laws, then one, or both of them lose.

1. We cannot falsify evolution? Please, by all means, create a thread with that claim so that we may deal with it. I say create a thread because whether or not evolution is falsifiable does not change the fact that ID is not, which is what is being discussed in this particular thread.

2. If you admit that the central claim in 'Intelligent Design' is not falsifiable, then you lose any right to call ID falsifiable, regardless of whether some of arguments it uses are falsifiable. ID doesn't become falsifiable simply because supposed examples of Irreducible Complexity can be.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-09-2006).]

quote:Assuming intent for complexity does not equal proving or disproving intent. This in no way makes Intelligent Design falsifiable.

If a large boulder was sitting precariously on a cliff and one day it fell, the boulder fell for a reason -- gravity acted upon it; but it fell unintentionally. However, now the boulder is back on the ledge and teetering towards disaster and somebody pushes the boulder -- gravity is still acting upon it; and it was intentionally caused by the person. Intent only comes from one place: An intelligent mind that can reason.

quote:To falsify ID based on the assertion that complexity is intended, you must devise a way to test whether or not the intent actually exists. What experiment can you describe that could possibly test such an assumption? What specific results would prove intent? What specific result would disprove intent?

Before you present a hypothesis, first establish rules of the game.

1. Does a natural law explain it?

2. Could chance alone explain it?

3. Does design explain it?

Was a computer designed? We would say, 'obviously.' But could you obviously know who created it by looking inside the computer? No, you couldn't unless there was a manufacture sticker on it somewhere, and even then you could suppose that somebody just put the sticker on it to trick you. Is it neccesary to know who built it in order for you to plainly see that it was designed and did not form by chance? No, it isn't. So, bear that in mind. Now, lets look at sexual reproduction.

Lets suppose that the earliest components for life did arrive by chance and that explaining how they got their was inconsequential. The prevailing theory about evolution asserts that simple organisms first proliferated by asexual reproduction -- a self-replicator. Why then would nature select new organisms that had to mate, one male, and one female in order to do that which is much more difficult to achieve, as far as survival is concerned, if nature, in fact, selects the most optimal organism? Now, think of it on the individual basis first. The organism that first evolved sex organs must have had those glands in place in order to produce offspring. What does that organism also need in order for it to pass on its genetic material? It needs a suitor of the opposite sex. So, a host of organisms from a certain population had to basically devolve from asexual reproduction but had to now evolve both a male and a female, virtually simultaneously with all of their sexual organs intact just to proliferate sexual reproduction, much less, to have the population survive. Inconcievable! What kind of staggering odds would it be for a population of asexual organisms to evolve two separate but compatible sexes simultaneously in order to create the sex glands perfectly operable in a male, and also simultaneously evolve a female partner for the male with all of her sex organs in perfect operation? And again, why would nature select this over asexual reproduction? Its inconcievable. You can call that an argument of incredulity, but I call it an argument from sensibility. But see, no one seems to think about these things. They don't consider the finer aspects of what evolution would have to have entailed in order to proliferate. It just doesn't add up. And if the numbers don't add up, we also have a serious deficiency in providing physical evidence of such an evolvement. As far as anyone can tell, all organisms appeared abruptly, in full formation within their kind. There is nothing linking this to that, other than mere appearances. But as the adage says, don't judge a book by its cover. And if you flip that argument around, by supposing that there is a Creator, then some organisms are going to, at some point, look more similar than others. Even on the molecular level, it does not mean that it spells out a lineage. That's purely circumstancial. It could just as easily mean that we know much about DNA/RNA and how Hox protein sequences will configure an organism in a specific way so as to appear as if they are related in some way. To give you a realworld scenario, I have been long-time friends with two brothers. By placing the two brothers side by side, you couldn't tell that they were related. But people routinely assumed that I was related to the youngest by mere appearances, when in fact, I'm not directly related to him at all. As far as I know, I could be 50 times removed but you wouldn't know it by looking at us. And yet, the eldest appears to be 50 times removed from his younger brother, but you'd never know that by looking at them. This is what Darwinian evolution was all about. "Hey, this looks a little bit like that. Maybe that's his cousin."........ Uhhhhh, no.

quote:Don't beat yourself up over not being able to devise such an experiment. The scientists who promote the hypothesis that is Intelligent Design can't do it either.

Okay, I won't.

quote:Please provide specific evidence of your claims of such mixing. Are the Pre-Cambrian fossils mixed into more modern geologic strata? Or are more modern fossils mixed into undisturbed Pre-Cambrian Strata?

Alright, according to the theory of evolution, 540 million years ago, somewhere between 50 and 80% of all phyla appeared abruptly for some inexplicable reason. This is known as the 'Cambrian explosion.' The theory is simple. They claim to date fossils to ascertain their age variance and depending on how far down they are, the ones lower in the strata must have evolved first. Simple, right? I mean, that sounds logical. Nothing wrong with it in theory. But what happens to the model when you find Trilobite intermingled in the strata or higher in the strata than a Coelacanth? That doesn't make any sense according to the theory. Trilobite were said to have gone extinct 450 million years ago and Coelacanth were said to have evolved 350 million years ago. That means trilobite should have been extinct 100 million years before the lobe-finned fish ever appeared on Earth. So how and why could Coelacanth be intermingled with a creature that has been dead and buried for 100 million years of erosion? That's alot of mud. What did evolutionists do? They simply changed the dates to make the two contempraneous. Then they said that trilobite went extinct 250 million years ago. Ah, I see. Then, how is it that a fossilized human foot print is embedded over a trilobite? How could that be if humans were only around 248 million years after the trilobite? Evolutionists claim that it just looks like footprints, but that is really begging questions. How strange that it should look exactly like two sandal prints on a trilobite.

http://www.ianjuby.org/meister.html

quote:Modern animal fossils intermingled within undisturbed Pre-Cambrian strata , would falsify the Theory of Evolution.

No, they'd just do what they did with the Coelacanth. They always assumed that Coelacanth were extinct, that is, until African and Indonesian fishermen began pulling them up in their nets. All they'll do is change the dates to make it work. They've done that with a number of specimens.

It should also be known that the geologic column came before the inception of radiometric dating. That means it was always based upon preconcieved notions and not empirical testing.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

The name "Lucifer" is a synthesizing of Greek, to Roman, to Etruscan, both in language and pantheism. However, that is simply a more modern way of speaking about Satan. If Lucifer doesn't literally mean, Satan, then Allah doesn't literally mean God, or God doesn't literally mean, Allah. And to further drive home the point, if the term for evolution didn't itself evolve and synthesize new meanings, it would still render as an "unfolding" and not simply the ambiguous term that it represents today.



A Scientific Theory, in order to be widely accepted needs evidence and experiments to back up its claims and a factor that would prove its claims false if found.

In the Theory of Evolution there have been tremendous amounts of experiments and evidence to back up the idea that creatures evolve and are not the same as they used to be long ago. A term which would prove Evolution False, according to many evolutionists, is finding completely modern creatures as extremely ancient fossils. This has not occured yet, but it is still required as a factor in which evolution would be proven wrong. All scientific theories in order to be widely accepted require evidence and terms which can prove it false. These terms do not need to prove it false, nor do they prove it right, they only need to be there. Please re read the above if you need to, it is basic.

In the Theory of Intelligent Design there have been no scientific experiments in a controlled environment which provide evidence to back up the claims that life has an intelligent designer, only philosophical arguments and showing the beauty and perfection of creation as proof of intelligent design, and Intelligent Design has no term which would prove it false.

Let me repeat this to make it even more clear:

Evolution has what it needs in order to be a Scientific Theory: Experimental Evidence and Terms which would prove it false.

ID does not have what it needs in order to be a Scientific Theory: No experiment in a controlled environment can prove the designer of life and creatures and there is absolutely no way or terms which would prove Intelligent Design false. This is why ID can never be a scientific theory.

ID is a Philosophical and Theological Theory, Philosophical and Theological arguments do not need terms which prove it false (often they can't be proven false), and do not require any evidence or experiments held in a controlled environment.

Please re read this as many times as you need in order to understand these extremely simple facts.

I will repeat it once more:

Evolution is a Scientific Theory because experiments can be performed to provide evidence which backs up the theory and there are terms which if met can prove the theory false.

ID is not a Scientific Theory because no experiments can be performed in a controlled environment to provide evidence which backs it up and there is no way and nothing that can EVER be found that will prove ID wrong. ID can never be a Scientific Theory, it will forever be a Philosophical and Theological Idea until an experiment or several experiments can be performed in a controlled environment to provide evidence to back up the theory and until there is a term or several terms which if met can prove the theory false.

The terms which prove Evolution false have not yet been met but the terms still need to exist in order for it to be accepted as a Scientific Theory.

There are no terms which can possibly prove ID false and no experiments that can possibly be performed in a controlled environment to provide evidence to back up the theory.

This does not mean Evolution is Right or ID is wrong, this only means ID can't be an accepted Scientific Theory.

Please Understand this. There is no argument. These are basic facts. Re read this simple post as many times as you need in order for these simple facts to sink in.

Now onto Lucifer:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2215

"Q.

Isaiah 14:12 mentions the name of "Lucifer." I’ve heard it said that this is Satan. Are Lucifer and Satan one and the same?

A.

It is sad, but nevertheless true, that on occasion Bible students attribute to God’s Word facts and concepts that it neither teaches nor advocates. These ill-advised beliefs run the entire gamut—from harmless misinterpretations to potentially soul-threatening false doctrines.

Although there are numerous examples from both categories that could be listed, perhaps one of the most popular misconceptions among Bible believers is that Satan also is designated as “Lucifer” within the pages of the Bible. What is the origin of the name Lucifer, what is its meaning, and is it a synonym for “Satan”? Here are the facts.

The word “Lucifer” is used in the King James Version only once, in Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” is helel (or heylel), from the root, hâlâl, meaning “to shine” or “to bear light.” Keil and Delitzsch noted that “[i]t derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (son of the dawn)... (1982, 7:311). However, the KJV translators did not translate helel as Lucifer because of something inherent in the Hebrew term itself. Instead, they borrowed the name from Jerome’s translation of the Bible (A.D. 383-405) known as the Latin Vulgate. Jerome, likely believing that the term was describing the planet Venus, employed the Latin term “Lucifer” (“light-bearing”) to designate “the morning star” (Venus). Only later did the suggestion originate that Isaiah 14:12ff. was speaking of the devil. Eventually, the name Lucifer came to be synonymous with Satan. But is Satan “Lucifer”?

No, he is not. The context into which verse 12 fits begins in verse 4 where God told Isaiah to “take up this parable against the king of Babylon, and say, ‘How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!’” In his commentary on Isaiah, Albert Barnes explained that God’s wrath was kindled against the king because the ruler “intended not to acknowledge any superior either in heaven or earth, but designed that himself and his laws should be regarded as supreme” (1950, 1:272). The chest-pounding boast of the impudent potentate was:



I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High (vss. 13-14).

As a result of his egotistical self-deification, the pagan monarch eventually would experience both the collapse of his kingdom and the loss of his life—an ignominious end that is described in vivid and powerful terms. “Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming,” the prophet proclaimed to the once-powerful king. And when the ruler finally descends into his eternal grave, captives of that hidden realm will taunt him by saying, “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?” (vs. 16). He is denominated as a “man” (vs. 16) who would die in disrepute and whose body would be buried, not in a king’s sarcophagus, but in pits reserved for the downtrodden masses (vss. 19-20). Worms would eat his body, and hedgehogs would trample his grave (vss. 11,23).

It was in this context that Isaiah referred to the king of Babylon as “the morning star” (“son of the morning”; “son of the dawn”) to depict the once-shining-but-now-dimmed, once-lofty-but-now-diminished, status of the (soon to be former) ruler. In his Bible Commentary, E.M. Zerr observed that such phrases were “...used figuratively in this verse to symbolize the dignity and splendor of the Babylonian monarch. His complete overthrow was likened to the falling of the morning star” (1954, 3:265). This kind of phraseology should not be surprising since “[i]n the O.T., the demise of corrupt national powers is frequently depicted under the imagery of falling heavenly luminaries (cf. Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7), hence, quite appropriately in this context the Babylonian monarch is described as a fallen star [cf. ASV]” (Jackson, 1987, 23:15).

Nowhere within the context of Isaiah 14, however, is Satan depicted as Lucifer. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In his commentary on Isaiah, Burton Coffman wrote: “We are glad that our version (ASV) leaves the word Lucifer out of this rendition, because...Satan does not enter into this passage as a subject at all” (1990, p. 141). The Babylonian ruler was to die and be buried—fates neither of which Satan is destined to endure. The king was called “a man” whose body was to be eaten by worms, but Satan, as a spirit, has no physical body. The monarch lived in and abided over a “golden city” (vs. 4), but Satan is the monarch of a kingdom of spiritual darkness (cf. Ephesians 6:12). And so on.

The context presented in Isaiah 4:4-16 not only does not portray Satan as Lucifer, but actually militates against it. Keil and Delitzsch firmly proclaimed that “Lucifer,” as a synonym, “is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominate astrological character” (1982, p. 312). They then correctly concluded that “Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage...without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders” (pp. 312-313).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1950 edition), Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments—Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Coffman, James Burton (1990), The Major Prophets—Isaiah (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Jackson, Wayne (1987), “Your Question & My Answer,” Christian Courier, 23:15, August.

Keil, C.F. and Franz Delitzsch, (1982 edition), Commentary on the Old Testament—Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Zerr, E.M. (1954), Bible Commentary (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Publications).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally published in Reason and Revelation, October 1998, 18[10]:79.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists, and becomes a huge obstacle for the claims of Mormonism. John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48 explains:

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?

The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").

The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.

So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...."

Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say,

"this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king...

How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star.

How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."

Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".

So why is this a problem to Christians? Christians now generally believe that Satan (or the Devil or Lucifer who they equate with Satan) is a being who has always existed (or who was created at or near the "beginning"). Therefore, they also think that the 'prophets' of the Old Testament believed in this creature. The Isaiah scripture is used as proof (and has been used as such for hundreds of years now). As Elaine Pagels explains though, the concept of Satan has evolved over the years and the early Bible writers didn't believe in or teach such a doctrine.

The irony for those who believe that "Lucifer" refers to Satan is that the same title ('morning star' or 'light-bearer') is used to refer to Jesus, in 2 Peter 1:19, where the Greek text has exactly the same term: 'phos-phoros' 'light-bearer.' This is also the term used for Jesus in Revelation 22:16.

So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying the King James Version of the Bible. Another book of LDS scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants, furthers this problem in 76:26 when it affirms the false Christian doctrine that "Lucifer" means Satan. This incorrect doctrine also spread into a third set of Mormon scriptures, the Pearl of Great Price, which describes a war in heaven based, in part, on Joseph Smith's incorrect interpretation of the word "Lucifer" which only appears in Isaiah.

A Mormon apologist responds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The author of The Polytheism Of The Bible And The Mystery Of Lucifer, F.T. DeAngelis, comments on this page as follows

"It seems minor, but - the actual term used in the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah 14:12 (given that there is no ONE way of accurately transliterating) is Eo(u)s phoros, morning star/DAWN god of light. Eos or Eous phoros [not Heos (as your website claims) or phos phorus (as a Christian website I visited shows)] - although there is a Greek term and English... phosphoro(u)s. Your [site] is pretty accurate.

The actual name, "Lucifer," goes back to the Greeks, before the Romans. Socrates and Plato talk about this "god of light"; surprisingly, not in the context of Eos (god of Dawn), but -- as a morning star -- juxtaposed with the sun (Helios) and Hermes. This information can be found in Plato's Timaeus (38e) and in Edith Hamilton's Mythology."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a lighter note, Arthur Clarke, in his fictional book 2061 correctly uses the word "Lucifer". He uses it as a name for a new sun in the solar system which is correct since the new sun is a second 'morning star' of 'original' 'light-bearing' substance--not some evil being of religious mythology.

David Grinspoon comments on the historical aspects of the word as follows: "The origin of the Judeo-Christian Devil as an angel fallen from heaven into the depths of hell is mirrored in the descent of Venus from shining morning star to the darkness below. This underworld demon, still feared today by people in many parts of the world, is also called Lucifer, which was originally a Latin name for Venus as a morning star." (Venus Revealed p. 17) Actually, Grinspoon should just refer to the "Christian Devil" since the Jews never believed in such a creature and still don't to this day."

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 08-09-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

...What you fail to understand is that there is a humongous difference between proving the conclusion that the coelacanth had gone extinct wrong, and actually proving evolution itself wrong.

Proving that the Coelacanth still exists is tantamount to proving the blood clot example Behe uses for Irreducible complexity was wrong (as it was showed in this thread and the Dover trial). The overall theory of evolution would still stand regardless of whether the Coelacanth actually went extinct or not. The same cannot be said of finding modern animal fossils intermingled within undisturbed PreCambrian strata. That would refute evolution as we currently understand it. The keyword being undisturbed.

Your "foot print" examples fails miserably, and has been refuted on Totse before if I'm not mistaken. As always, you ignore this and keep repeating this fallacious claims like Beta just showed.

For your benefit:

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm

The fact remains that evolution is falsifiable, while ID is not. That you cannot come up with a possible experiment to test intervention from an intelligent designer, and that you readily admit that the existence of an intelligent designer is not falsifiable makes this blatantly obvious.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-09-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

...What you fail to understand is that there is a humongous difference between proving the conclusion that the coelacanth had gone extinct wrong, and actually proving evolution itself wrong.

Proving that the Coelacanth still exists is tantamount to proving the blood clot example Behe uses for Irreducible complexity was wrong (as it was showed in this thread and the Dover trial). The overall theory of evolution would still stand regardless of whether the Coelacanth actually went extinct or not. The same cannot be said of finding modern animal fossils intermingled within undisturbed PreCambrian strata. That would refute evolution as we currently understand it.

Your "foot print" examples fails miserably, and has been refuted on Totse before. As always, you ignore this and keep repeating this fallacious claims like Beta just showed.

For your benefit: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm

The fact remains that evolution is falsifiable, while ID is not. That you cannot come up with a possible experiment to test intervention from an intelligent designer, and that you readily admit that the existence of an intelligent designer is not falsifiable makes this blatantly obvious.



Rust, could I add you to MSN or AIM or Yahoo messenger? Whichever you prefer? I'd really like to have you on one of my lists please.

quote:The populations of humans from its uprooting to present day are not constant. You attempted to disprove this by posting post-18th Century population growth. You cannot compare the conditions of this timeperiod to the conditions of 200,000 years ago, where agriculture, civilization.

The net growth on any population is that more people are born than die. That is an undeniable fact. Are there minor tremors that will stiffle this phenomenon? Yes, there are extenuating circumstances tht will momentarily stop this action, like a catastrophe. But this doesn't undermine the fact that more people are always born than die. That's why the population keeps growing. And this trend always follows.

quote:“The death rate was high before agriculture was developed about 10,000 years ago.” By the 19th Century when industrialization and etc, was introduced then “the human population began to grow rapidly . Therefore it couldn’t be constant, and again your problems are based on the false assumption that the population rate is constant, while the evidence proves otherwise.

Yes, and I wrote a book a while back and supproted this very hypothesis. Malthusian conspiracy is just propaganda to support euthanasia, abortion, and other forms of eugenics. Malthus neglected to understand the enormous impact that the Industrial Revolution had on the world as we can produce more food on considerably less farmland than just a century ago. But you are missing the point entirely. The population of the world has been on a steady increase at a measurable, incremental rate ever since the advent if the census. That is a fact. And the one thing you keep overlooking is how that rate of increase is impossible if evolution is true.

quote:Many scientists believe that reversals are an inherent aspect of the dynamo theory of how the geomagnetic field is generated. In computer simulations, it is observed that magnetic field lines can sometimes become tangled and disorganized through the chaotic motions of liquid metal in the Earth's core.

I don't doubt that the properties of the earth's core could contain magnetic properties, however, since no one has ever been remotely close to the core of the earth, its purely speculative that it has any effect on the earth's magnetic polarity. Aside from this, these 'simulators' are crude. I've seen evolution simulators and they are woefully inept to actually prove evolution. The simulation has no real world attributes. I would be hard pressed to find out otherwise with the simulators you describe. Here we find fact interlaced with conjecture. This is what we do know. The earth's magnetic field is weakening, which is compatible with the 2nd Law. Here's what is speculative: That polar reversals occur that is only compatible with something else that is speculative. Then again, that's what the entire theory of evolution sits upon. Its a house of cards.

quote:These represent annual rings, because in summer the top layer of snow melts and then re-freezes as clear ice, which shows up dark here. In winter, the snow doesn’t get a chance to melt, so it packs – and shows up as a white layer. These layers of dark –light – dark – light, indicate 135,000 (referring to the core of Greenland) summers and winters. Then again they are other methods of ice-core that corroborated with its validity, as I already mentioned.

First of all, those rings may very well represent warm/cold, not simply winter/summer. And if that's the case, then why wouldn't the Lost Squadron work becuase its just off of the coast? But if you don't believe that, then here is an easy solution for any researcher. Take two items with a transponder and lay them on the surface in two locations - one on the coastline and the other in the heart of Greenland. Allow for three years to pass. Go back and take core samples by the transponder. If in that three years, there are only three lines, then ice core dating has more credibility as being reliable and so represent winter/summer. But, if the core samples contain many rings within that three year period, then ice core samples are an unreliable way of determining whether or not the rings represent an annual cycle, as opposed to freeze/refreeze, which could happen multiple times in the fall or spring months. Also, see if there are any disparaging differences between the coastal regions snow pack and the middle of Greenland's snowpack. This is so simple that i'd be shocked that no team has thought of this yet.

quote:Carbon-14 dating (a.k.a. C-14 dating) is one of many radioisotope measuring techniques for estimating the age of objects. C-14 dating is limited to the study of carbon-bearing objects. If proper precautions are taken in the preparation of the samples, it is an accurate method for dating items up to about 50,000 years of age. Other isotope dating techniques which are based on elements other than carbon can date the age of rocks which are many billions of years old.

You should stop copying and pasting and come up with your own thesis at some point. Let's suppose that carbon dating was accurate and can date fossils up to 50,000 years, which it isn't. If you get a reading indicating that that the fossil remain is 200,000 thousand years old, what is the problem with that?

quote:The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods.Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years

Hmmm? What's the problem with this? Carbon dating is called an 'empirical test,' whereas Dendrochronology is a tool for estimation, because tree rings do not always follow a steady sequence of annual rings depending on drought and more rainfall than average. So, what use is calibrating your C-14 model to an unempirical test to begin with, and then calling the Carbon dating method empirical? That's circular logic. Look, Carbon dating is only accurate under very specific conditions, and even then its suspect because our atmosphere has not reached equilibrium. Seriously, let carbon dating go and argue for another, more concievably reliable isochron dating method.

quote:Assuming you’re not exaggerating, The seal and the snail could be explained by the reservoir effect. In rare cases, a "reservoir effect" will give C-14 dates which are much older than the true age of the sample. Some plants and animals live in very unusual environments whose C-14 content is much lower than normal. The rest can be attributed to odd flyer values which sometimes be produced, due to improper sample preparation, contamination, etc. That is why researchers try to test multiple samples.

All you are doing is telling me why Carbon dating is unreliable and, thus, you are supporting my argument all the more. If the are any inaccuracies by even the smallest percentage, that inaccuracy of the calculation could equal tens of thousands of years difference. It also presumes a static atmosphere for which we cannot account for, which doesn't make much sense considering the catastrophic event that wiped out the dinosaurs according to the theory of evolution.

quote:One, using petroglyphs as evidence is not consciousable, since some are dated 10,000 to 12,000 years ago

Whoa! Show me which method, show me who, show how, and show me when petroglyphs were dated at 10-12,000 years old.

quote:petroglyphs were made by shamans in an altered state of consciousness, perhaps induced by the use of natural hallucinogens.

LOL! How do you know what state of mind anyone was in by looking at a petroglyph? How do you know it was a 'shaman?' Even assuming your postulate is accurate, what difference would that make when many of them clearly portray animals that once existed? Do you normally drop acid and inexplicably think of animals that we know existed, but no longer do?

quote:Many of the geometric patterns (known as form constants) which recur in petroglyphs and cave paintings have been shown to be "hard-wired" into the human brain; they frequently occur in visual disturbances and hallucinations brought on by drugs, migraine and other stimuli. Besides many myths of the era believed in sea serpents, hydras, and other unnatural animals. Did they themselves walked on the earth? Since the terms themselves are in dispute I doubt you can “strengthen any notion”on this.

Cave paintings are shown to be 'hard-wired' in the human brain? That is beyond ludicrous and its 100% baseless assertion. But lets use Occam's razor here. What is more likely: That people drew things they saw, i.e. Deer, elephants, buffalo, dinosaurs, snakes, or did they not see any of these creatures and it was some how 'hard-wired' in their brains through DNA that they feel compelled to draw things they've never seen. This is getting ridiculous.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Rust, could I add you to MSN or AIM or Yahoo messenger? Whichever you prefer? I'd really like to have you on one of my lists please.

No.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

The net growth on any population is that more people are born than die. That is an undeniable fact. Are there minor tremors that will stiffle this phenomenon? Yes, there are extenuating circumstances tht will momentarily stop this action, like a catastrophe. But this doesn't undermine the fact that more people are always born than die. That's why the population keeps growing. And this trend always follows.

1. Yes, the overall population of the globe has been growing since the the advent of proper agricultural techniques; nobody is denying that. Your point is not proven if this is true.

For your point to be proven you have to show not only that the rate at which the human population has been growing since the first homo sapiens appeared is constant(which is way before proper agriculture), but also that this rate is actually the rate you've given.

Saying that the population has been growing "exponentially" proves absolutely nothing since what we need to determine is exactly what that growth is; an exponential growth could be negligibly small!

2. If we apply your figures to the past, what we're left is with outrageous and ridiculous scenarios; some of which would contradict figures given in the bible.

3. The growth rate you suggests contradicts other census data. What you're suggesting is that we ignore that data and then only consider your data and then apply that data, which represents level from the modern age, to prehistoric times which is ridiculous.

Alright, well, I think I've invested alot of time on this thread and I think I've made some good arguments in support of the ID inference. But you all say, no, and yet many have not offered to answer the questions or present a refutation that doesn't border on insanity, so I'm going back to my forum now.

Thanks for the debate. Laters...

[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 08-09-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Alright, well, I think I've invested alot of time on this thread and I think I've made some good arguments in support of the ID inference. But you all say, no, and yet many have not offered to answer the questions or present a refutation that doesn't border on insanity, so I'm going back to my forum now.

Thanks for the debate. Laters...



In short: "You guys have me beat, so I'm pussying out and leaving."

Typical Creationist action: run for the door when proven a fool and carry on making the same claims in a different place. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

The fact is that you're leaving without having provided any evidence in support of ID that wasn't an argument from ignorance/incredulity and you've failed in showing how ID is falsifiable.

That was the request being made by pretty much everyone of us, and you've left without fulfilling any part of it.

Déjà Vu all over again...

Look, I left the first time because we just went around in cirles. It was unproductive, it was mean-spirited, and nobody budged even an inch on their beliefs. Half the time, no one even actually addresses my points, they just attack me personally and use hyperbole to detract from the argument. That isn't a debate, that's little kids heckling each other on the playground.

So, I found a new forum that actually moderates each thread, ad hominem is not tolerated, and everyone's points are addressed specifically. Digi knew that she was going to be swamped when she got back into the debate, and asked if I would lighten the load by helping to answer some questions posed to her because its impossible to answer them all. So, I obliged. I've been active for like 5 pages, with at least 30 posts. Now we are right back to where we started and I'd really like to get back to forum now. That doesn't mean that I'll never be back or that I'm running away. You can try and play on my pride by insulting me enough to respond, but I'm above that. In fact, that just makes me not want to come back.

Everyone clear on that? I hope so because I'm not going to explain it again.

Wait, the only reason no one budged is because you expected everyone to leap on the creationist band wagon and chose to ignore facts! Every time we showed you a fact, you ignored it and made the same statement, THAT is why we were going around in circles.

As for the Ad Hom, get off of it, you wife constantly bitches at people at a personal level and insults their intelligence, just not as directly as me and some others. In fact, you and your wife paint an ugly picture of followers of Christ.

Also, all the posts asked the same thing, to provide FALSIFIABLE EVIDENCE FOR ID. But wait, you and your wife were retarded and didn’t no what falsifiable meant, either that or you were playing ignorance.

You’re running away, simple as that.

quote:The net growth on any population is that more people are born than die. That is an undeniable fact. Are there minor tremors that will stiffle this phenomenon? Yes, there are extenuating circumstances tht will momentarily stop this action, like a catastrophe. But this doesn't undermine the fact that more people are always born than die. That's why the population keeps growing. And this trend always follows. The population of the world has been on a steady increase at a measurable, incrementaL rate ever since the advent if the census.

First by your own admission there are conditions that “will momentarily stop this action”, therefore your theory of an exponential formula to explain populations since man’s uprooting is invalid, and I doubt that conditions as the lack of agriculture (200,000 years to 10,000+ BC) are momentary. And that would have major affects on the population. Besides the census reflects modern history, not the history you are trying to represent.

quote:I don't doubt that the properties of the earth's core could contain magnetic properties, however, since no one has ever been remotely close to the core of the earth, its purely speculative that it has any effect on the earth's magnetic polarity.

First your assumption that the composition of the Earth’s core is speculation is wrong. The average density of the Earth is 5515 kg/m3, making it the densest planet in the Solar system. Since the average density of surface material is only around 3000 kg/m3, we must conclude that denser materials exist within the core of the Earth. Further evidence for the high density core comes from the study of seismology. In its earliest stages, about 4.5 billion (4.5×109) years ago, melting would have caused denser substances to sink toward the center in a process called planetary differentiation, while less-dense materials would have migrated to the crust. As a result, the core is largely composed of iron (80%), along with nickel and one or more light elements, whereas other dense elements, such as lead and uranium, either are too rare to be significant or tend to bind to lighter elements and thus remain in the crust. It is generally believed that convection in the outer core, combined with stirring caused by the Earth's rotation, gives rise to the Earth's magnetic field through a process described by the dynamo theory. This has been explained to other magnetic fields such as the Sun’s.

quote:And if that's the case, then why wouldn't the Lost Squadron work because its just off of the coast?

I repeat again annual rings aren’t applicable because the region where they were buried under 263 feet of ice, do not vary with the seasons in a consistent manner. The coast of Greenland, the rate of snow accumulation is considerably greater than the rate of snow accumulation within the interior of the Greenland Ice Cap where the ice cores have been collected.

quote:All you are doing is telling me why Carbon dating is unreliable and, thus, you are supporting my argument all the more. If the are any inaccuracies by even the smallest percentage, that inaccuracy of the calculation could equal tens of thousands of years difference. Hmmm? What's the problem with this? Carbon dating is called an 'empirical test,' whereas Dendrochronology is a tool for estimation…

The problem caused by the reservoir effect is well known by archaeologists, geologists, and anybody else who use radiocarbon dates; they test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. In cases where corrections for presence of dead carbon cannot be made, such dates are readily recognized as erroneous and can be safely disregarded. This is not the fatal flaw to radiometric dating that some creationists claim it to be. It just shows that dates from mollusks from streams and lakes need to be carefully evaluated as to their reliability. Limitations of a tool do not invalidate the tool.

Dendrochronology, the art of assigning an exact date to a tree ring through pattern recognition, provided the absolute time calibration. To relate a measured 14C/12C ratio in tree rings to an atmospheric 14C/12C ratio for a particular calendar year, two important conditions must be fulfilled: The carbon in a tree ring must be representative for the ambient atmospheric 14C/12C ratio and the tree ring must be a closed system after the end of one year. Both conditions seem to be well born out in a number of long-lived trees used for the dendro calibration (e.g. bristlecone pine, North Pacific sequoia, Douglas fir, German and Irish oaks). The results are compared to an established tree-ring sequence for a particular region with consideration to annual fluctuations in rainfall which result in variations in the size of the rings laid down by trees on the outside of their trunks. Other methods of calibration include ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems.

quote:Whoa! Show me which method, show me who, show how, and show me when petroglyphs were dated at 10-12,000 years old.. http://www.crystalinks.com/petroglyphs.html

“Chronometric techniques have been developed and are now being used to date the Coso Petroglyphs, the final way of determining their age. These are complicated chemical, morphological and nuclear analyses of the rock varnish coating the petroglyphs. The allow archaeologists to assign specific ages to individual motifs. Our chronometric petroglyph dates suggest that the first Coso petroglyphs were made over 16,000 years ago…”

http://www.myerchinphoto.com/ChinaLakePetroglyphs.html



“The oldest petroglyphs are dated to approximately the Neolithic and late Upper Paleolithic boundary, about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. Around 7,000 to 9,000 years ago, other writing systems such as pictographs and ideograms began to appear” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroglyph

When archaeologists asked modern Native Americans who made the petroglyphs, the answer was “spirits.” “For example, the Tukano Indians of Brazil believed that prehistoric petroglyphs located within their territory were not made by humans but rather were the remains of mythological events associated with the creation of the world.”

Don’t attempt to create a straw man. Many of the geometric patterns (known as form constants) which recur in petroglyphs and cave paintings have been shown to be "hard-wired since the subject was in an “altered state if consciousness.” DNA and etc is irrelvelant in this subject. Occam’s Razor is applicable in scientific theories. Therefore using your reason, it more simple that some animals such as hybrid animals “some petrolyphs depict half man-half animal” existed even though science proves to the contrary, or that the shaman in a religious ritual depicted animals, some real some based on imagination.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-09-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Look, I left the first time because we just went around in cirles. It was unproductive, it was mean-spirited, and nobody budged even an inch on their beliefs. Half the time, no one even actually addresses my points, they just attack me personally and use hyperbole to detract from the argument. That isn't a debate, that's little kids heckling each other on the playground.

So, I found a new forum that actually moderates each thread, ad hominem is not tolerated, and everyone's points are addressed specifically. Digi knew that she was going to be swamped when she got back into the debate, and asked if I would lighten the load by helping to answer some questions posed to her because its impossible to answer them all. So, I obliged. I've been active for like 5 pages, with at least 30 posts. Now we are right back to where we started and I'd really like to get back to forum now. That doesn't mean that I'll never be back or that I'm running away. You can try and play on my pride by insulting me enough to respond, but I'm above that. In fact, that just makes me not want to come back.

Everyone clear on that? I hope so because I'm not going to explain it again.



I'm not attacking you or insulting you besides pointingf out the facts, I frankly don't care if you come back or not aside from wanting you to substantiate the claims you've made in this thread.

I'm merely pointing out the facts. You failed to provide what we were requesting since pretty much the beginning of the discussion and whether you want to admit it or not, that has happened before.

i'm wondering how they can brush off the fact that they had no idea what falsifiability meant for 15 pages.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Lets suppose that the earliest components for life did arrive by chance and that explaining how they got their was inconsequential. The prevailing theory about evolution asserts that simple organisms first proliferated by asexual reproduction -- a self-replicator. Why then would nature select new organisms that had to mate, one male, and one female in order to do that which is much more difficult to achieve, as far as survival is concerned, if nature, in fact, selects the most optimal organism?

First, you must realize that there are inherent genetic advantages to mating. Second, you must realize that asexual organisms can also mate in the sense that they can swap DNA. Some organisms can also switch sexes if needed. There was no large jump from asexual to sexual. The rest of you post suffers from this ignorance of your.

You may ask how did sex organs first evolve. Well this can be explained by first having organisms that can switch sexes (yeast). Then you evolve some that cannot switch sexes but can still find suitable mates with the ones that do switch sexes. There you go... now you have a two sex species. There are likely many other possible pathways for this to occur, but the fact that I can easily draw one out shows the power of knowledge. It would do you well to get some.

This thread is really over. It has been derailed and is now a discussion on the Theory of Evolution.

The original topic of discussion(the assertion that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory and should be presented as science in a publicly funded high school)has been soundly refuted.

The OP has been unable to provide the necessary evidence to support her assertions, as she cannot provide a means of possible falsification for the central claim of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design does not meet the Definition of a scientific theory, as falsification of a supernatural designer is not possible, and at best, is a theological or philosophical hypothesis.

Thus, Intelligent Design should not be presented as science to students in publicly funded schools.



Of course, DS and hyro will disagree with any of this, and assert that they have provided the evidence, and that we ignored it.

I think that most who were actively involved in this thread would agree , that the time has come for it to be closed and archived.

[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 08-10-2006).]