'Intelligent design' debate back in court

[Colrom]

It is important to recognize that science does not require that time travel be used to observe events in the past before a model can be accepted. All that is required is that the model work in experiments going forward and that it at least not conflict with results observed in the past and preferably be a plausable explanation.

 

With regard to the big bang theory, it is not a theory that exists in isolation. All sorts of physical models such as general relativity and particle theory and so on are involved. They work reasonably well in forward going observations and experiments. Still there may be some questions. Whatever happens creationism is not going to be the replacement model. The more so since it works poorly explaining the past and provides no scientific guidence going forward.

 

By the way, the "it's too complex" argument seems especially weak to me. I find it wierd that folks would argue that a thing of God's creation was too complex to be the product of a process of God's creation.

 

More and more it seems that some folks are worshiping a demigod. I've even heard folks say stuff that suggests they think their god can be supprised!

 

Boo! (w00t)

[WITHTEETH]

The big bang can't be proven. If it was then this would happen!

 

On a serious note, CERN a scientific organization is trying to figure out more about particles by crushing them in a particle accelerator and then looking that the remaining pieces. also there is the cosmological constant, how the planets are all moving further apart from a point. and the microwave in the universe left over from the explosion, if you want to detect this yourself, turn on your tv and unplug your cable, the fuzz is the detection of microwave.

 

The big bang is caused by a Super Cooled Higgs field.

 

The Fabric of the Cosmos, page 281-282

A Higgs field that has gotten caught on a plateau not only suffuses space with energy, but, of crucial importance, Guth realized that it also contributes a uniform negative pressure. In fact, he found that as far as energy and pressure are concerned, a Higgs field that's caught on a plateau has the same properties as a cosmological constant: it suffuses space with energy and negative pressure, and in exactly the same proportions as a cosmological onstant. So Guth discovered that a supercooled Higgs field does have an important effect on the expansion of space: like a cosmological constant, it exerts a repulsive gravitational force that drives space to expand.

[Calax]

Creationism brings a whole new aspect to the debate, If we believe creationism then we have to wonder how the heck did we survive with Incest running rampant. Wouldn't we all be just a tad bit slow in the head if that were to happen because of genetics?

 

Where is the connection between creationism (or Intelligent design, because they are very much the same) and incest?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Adam and eve=first couple...

no other couples=Adam and eve only possible progenitors of the race

Adam and eve make babies, only way to continue procreation is with one another.

thus incest.

[EnderAndrew]

what part of this don't you get?  humans did not come from pond scum.  sheesh ender, this is pretty simple.  furthermore, evolution is directed by what works where.  other species evolved based on their environment, among other things.  other species developed only as far as they needed to to survive.  again, simple concept.

What part don't you get?

 

I took 2 biology courses, and in both it was taught that all life on earth originated from basic acids in primordial soup sloshing together and forming proteins. From this "pond scum" all life was created. Science teaches us that humans came from this.

 

They believe that all life evolved from this, and they teach it as evolution. Perhaps you should look up the phylogenic tree and come back to me when you are familiar with it.

it is also incorrect to say that other species don't have our level of complexity or even intelligence.  au contraire.  you're just assuming that we are leaps and bounds ahead of everything else, which is not true.  this is a qualitative comparison between man, other primates, dolphins and many other mammals.  we're just at the top of the list, but the differences in intelligence are extremely subtle.  this is particularly true with primates.

The scientific community says we are the only sentient species, so yes, we are alone in our intelligence and complexity. The phylogenic tree states that humans have the most complex and advanced evolutionary traits of any species on earth.

 

Dolphins have been found to actually use tools, but not complex tools, nor do they build tools. Yet no one claims that dolphins are sentient, or that they can build an information superhighway to share porn yet.

 

Have you ever taken a pyschology course? Perhaps you should. You'd discover that psychologists study the intelligence and mental development of various animals, and there isn't a one of them that feels any of them are near human development. Not all animals are tragicly stupid, but human psychology is infinitely more complex.

uh, your own statement refutes your supposition.  given that insects have a far greater population, they kinda qualify as "the fittest" by default.  evolution is about species surviving.  nothing else.  mutations that would change insects just don't survive.

No, you didn't read what I said. Science states that once basic survival needs are taken care of, psychology allows us to move on to other needs and develop culture and civilization. Notice that no species other than humans has done this. Why? Why are we so much more advance on a culture and psychology stand point. Insects have survival taken care of. They didn't evolve past it. Yet humans supposedly also evolved from the same primordial soup, and our psychology can't be traced to evolvution occuring as a need for survival. Your arguement states that evolution stops when you survive.

 

You are the one refuting yourself. Obviously human psychology is not caused by evolution.

 

Why are we different? Why are we sentient if not from evolution then?

 

Could it be intelligent design?

 

That would be a scientific theory based on observation.

not true.  evolution happens as a result of mutations in genes.  when a gene mutates, if the mutation is not detrimental to the life of the carrier, it will be passed on.  not all mutations result in new species.  this is not a "flip of the switch" kind of thing.  it is true, however, that certain mutations will create a greater chance of the creature carrying on its genes.  that the parent species did not "survive" is not relevant since it may have taken a thousand generations before the offspring is not closely related to the original parent.

Don't attempt to correct people when you don't know what you are talking about.

 

There are two seperate forms of evolution, both accepted. In fact most scientists teach both occur. There is random mutation, which is far less likely to spread since it is rare and random. The trait has to be quite advantageous, and it must be successful in being spread through a population.

 

However, Darwin's "Evolution of a Species" documents rapid, non-random evolution that occured as a necessity to survive. Random mutations just occur randomly and sometimes provide positive traits.

 

Most major changes in species occur from the necessity to survive, science teaches. Odd that you are arguing for evolution, but you have little clue about it.

 

I actually wrote my final in biology in how I disagree with and disbelieve everything the teacher taught. I got on A on my final by intelligently refuting the entire basis of the course. Trust me, I've studied evolution closely. I won't deny that evolution occurs. I deny that evolution created all life on this planet.

 

Next time, try reading my posts before telling me that I'm wrong. Since you keep insisting that no one says evolution accounts for the origin of life, it seems we actually agree and you are arguing since you didn't understand what I was saying, not because we really have differing view points.

[random evil guy]

People also often say that we evolved from primates like apes.  Well another problem with that is that Darwin taught evolution occurs when it is a necessity to survive.  The parent species dies out.

 

Yet we have reason to believe that apes and other primates existed around the time of early humans.  It stands to reason that we thusly did not evolve from them.  If evololution was necessary for survival, those who didn't adapt would have died out, not exist alongside us for all these years.

 

there really is no point in telling you to stop. you've already made a complete a** of yourself. here is a clue: apes and man evolved from a common ancestor which is now extinct.

[random evil guy]

I teach 7th grade history, which covers all the major religions, and the jump from polytheism to monotheism.  I think philosophical theory needs to be taught just as much as scientific theory about our possible roots.  The problem is, as a teacher, you need to present an unbiased opinion about ALL sides.  That way students can make up their mind.  If you can't take a neutral stance on this issue, you shouldn't be in the classroom.

 

On a side note, George Bush Jr. (who I typically scratch my head over) actually had a good statement about this issue.  He said something to the extent that he believed all theories should be taught.  Why not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

because ID is not a scientific theory. should you teach crap just for the sake of it? should science teach that the earth is flat as well; i mean just so that the students can make up their own mind...? how about teaching the moon is actually the world's larget cheese wheel...

[random evil guy]

I think a lot of people here seem to be missing a big point here.  Some think intelligent design is being taught as an attempt to instill religion in schools.  Possibly, but I think the biggest reason lies soley in trying to avoid offending anyone of religious background.

 

if you're offended by science, you are a moron...

[taks]

I was just responding to the evolutionary spider comment.  You took my post completely out of its context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i know that. now you're taking my reply out of context. it would be easier if we had actual facial expressions to view.

 

taks

[taks]

The fundamental problem is that intelligent design, quite simply, is not science.  Science never, ever provides answers without proof; intelligent design provides answers without proof.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

while your statement is in principle correct, you are misusing the terms proof and evidence.

 

Really?  Ever hear of the "big bang theory"?  That has never been proved either.  Intelligent design is being taught as a theory, not fact, which is what you seem to be thinking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and, with the proof/evidence correction, this statement is now fundamentally flawed. science does not prove anything. it only provides evidence of a scientific theory. ID proponents are attempting to teach it without evidence, not without proof. and ID is not a scientific theory, it is just a theory. it cannot be tested and therefore, by definition, it is not science.

 

and sorry to say, both evolution and BBT have boatloads of evidence in their favor and very little contrary. i do believe BBT will be revised significantly, however, but it will be more along the lines of extending newtonian physics to relative physics. this is a topic for another discussion.

 

taks

Edited September 29, 2005 by taks

[taks]

And I really don't mean this in a sarcastic or even an antagonistic way, but how can you guys (who are on the science side of this issue) keep voting Republican with things like this flying around?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

because the left side of things scares me even more. i would prefer it if there were some more libertarian (for lack of any other real party in the middle) candidates to vote for. from a corruption standpoint, both sides are despicable. however, the left favors higher taxes and social programs, which are actually contrary to the very civil liberties they claim to champion. given a choice, those that see economic decisions as i do get my vote. unfortunately, with an all republican house, senate and president, that little rule is invalidated. they're spending as much of my money as ever.

 

it might actually be good to have a democratic president in cases like this simply because he/she'd have a hard time getting anything done (so would congress). this is part of the reason bill clinton had such good numbers (had hillary's health care bill gotten any traction, things would have been much bleaker, but then bush turns around and does pretty much the same thing). the next best choice from the dems is a bit of a control freak.

 

taks

[EnderAndrew]

People also often say that we evolved from primates like apes.  Well another problem with that is that Darwin taught evolution occurs when it is a necessity to survive.  The parent species dies out.

 

Yet we have reason to believe that apes and other primates existed around the time of early humans.  It stands to reason that we thusly did not evolve from them.  If evololution was necessary for survival, those who didn't adapt would have died out, not exist alongside us for all these years.

 

there really is no point in telling you to stop. you've already made a complete a** of yourself. here is a clue: apes and man evolved from a common ancestor which is now extinct.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not insisting that we evolved from apes. I think the supposition is pretty damned stupid, but plenty of people believe it because they don't understand evolution.

 

I could believe that humans and apes diverged from one parent species except for one simple fact.

 

The traits that are unique to humans are not traits that would develop as a natural course of evolution. They aren't necessary for survival, nor can they be traced to any events we know of.

 

There is no real scientific evidence that we have the same parent species since we don't know of a parent species that existed.

 

Our genetic makeup is similiar, and there is no denying that. However there is vastly more about genetics that we don't know than we do know.

 

Why is it that after mapping genes we still have no clue where instict comes from? How is it that a brand new baby "roots" and knows to search for a breast to feed from? Why do babies practice to breathe well before air ever touches their undeveloped lungs?

 

If a human has the basic needs of survival taken care, he moves on to creative expression and other needs. Other primates don't do this. Why?

 

Given that there is no actual evidence to suggest the primordial soup theory, nor does that theory explain how the soup came to exist to begin with, and that the BBT theory has been disproven, science offers not a single idea where everything came from.

 

Science says you take obersvations, make a hypothesis, and then look for data to refute or support it.

 

Intelligent design does not apply to any religion, nor does it require any more faith than any other unproven theory. It is an observation. Life is very specific. It requires very specific cirumstances. The word does seem almost perfectly staged and structured. A valid observation might be to suggest there is a reason behind that, hence the scientific theory of an intelligent design.

 

So called science-buffs seem pretty close minded to that for some reason.

[taks]

I took 2 biology courses, and in both it was taught that all life on earth originated from basic acids in primordial soup sloshing together and forming proteins. From this "pond scum" all life was created. Science teaches us that humans came from this.

again, BILLIONS of years before humans came around. humans did not come from pond scum. you're connecting the end directly to the beginning.

 

The scientific community says we are the only sentient species, so yes, we are alone in our intelligence and complexity. The phylogenic tree states that humans have the most complex and advanced evolutionary traits of any species on earth.

i never said we weren't the most complex. i simply said that other species are nearly as complex. primates in particular. dolphins as well. some primates are self aware also. there always has to be one species that is the most complex, and we are it.

 

Have you ever taken a pyschology course? Perhaps you should. You'd discover that psychologists study the intelligence and mental development of various animals, and there isn't a one of them that feels any of them are near human development. Not all animals are tragicly stupid, but human psychology is infinitely more complex.

again, i never said they were as complex, just nearly. and the term "infintely" with reference to complexity is incorrect. primates share 98% of our genetic material. humans differ within groups by about 1%. that other 1% is the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. we aren't infintely more complex, just 1% more.

 

No, you didn't read what I said. Science states that once basic survival needs are taken care of, psychology allows us to move on to other needs and develop culture and civilization.

which doesn't really apply to anything we're debating. the fact that we have a psychology just allows us to guide our own evolution. diabetes is a perfect example. were it not for modern science, the defective genes would have died out long ago.

 

Your arguement states that evolution stops when you survive.

no, it does not. evolution cotinues, but a given species in a given environment cannot experience evolutionary changes that are detrimental. if they do, they will not live long enough to carry on the detrimental change.

 

You are the one refuting yourself. Obviously human psychology is not caused by evolution.

that's not obvious at all. just because you believe it so does not make it so.

 

Could it be intelligent design?

 

That would be a scientific theory based on observation.

no, it is not scientific. you're putting the cart before the horse. it is a circular argument. you have to assume there is a creator before the observation can be said to be evidence of god. classical fallacy w.r.t. claims of a deity.

 

Don't attempt to correct people when you don't know what you are talking about.

i know plenty of what i'm talking about. for that matter, two classes and an A on a paper does not make you any more an expert than me.

 

There are two seperate forms of evolution, both accepted. In fact most scientists teach both occur. There is random mutation, which is far less likely to spread since it is rare and random. The trait has to be quite advantageous, and it must be successful in being spread through a population.

both that you refer to are caused by the same thing: mutations in genes.

 

Most major changes in species occur from the necessity to survive, science teaches. Odd that you are arguing for evolution, but you have little clue about it.

sorry, but your understanding of what is going on is incorrect. you are attempting to state that the species forces its own evolution "i must survive, therefore i need to change this part of my body." that is not correct, or at least it is an oversimplification. again, certain traits appear in offspring that are either beneficial or not. if they are beneficial to continued survival, then said traits will be passed on to future generations. it is, in the end, still a result of a mutation. i've never said anything contrary to this.

 

the idea of rapid speciation (well, rapid in geological terms) is a hole in evolution. that much is true. however, there are theories as to why such things happened, but they tend to not be discussed nearly as often as natural selection topics. evidence is still weak.

 

I got on A on my final by intelligently refuting the entire basis of the course. Trust me, I've studied evolution closely. I won't deny that evolution occurs. I deny that evolution created all life on this planet.

that your paper got an A was strong evidence that you debated the argument correctly, not that you were correct. this is an appeal to authority, btw. also, evolution did not "create" life. those that teach "origins" are doing so incorrectly.

 

Next time, try reading my posts before telling me that I'm wrong. Since you keep insisting that no one says evolution accounts for the origin of life, it seems we actually agree and you are arguing since you didn't understand what I was saying, not because we really have differing view points.

i read your posts completely. and i stand by my assertions.

 

taks

 

edit: if anybody can figure out why my quotes aren't working in this one, please let me know. grrrr.

Edited September 29, 2005 by taks

[taks]

The traits that are unique to humans are not traits that would develop as a natural course of evolution.  They aren't necessary for survival, nor can they be traced to any events we know of.

again, you're putting the cart before the horse. you assume that such traits aren't part of evolution to refute the idea of evolution. also, not all traits that are passed on need be beneficial, they only need not be detrimental.

 

There is no real scientific evidence that we have the same parent species since we don't know of a parent species that existed.

we haven't found it, but we can trace it back pretty far. with an ever changing planet, we may not.

 

Why?

i snipped your questions for brevity. lack of evidence for is not evidence against. these are some unanswered questions, and many may never be answered. the whole goal of science is to search for the answers. the problem with ID, however is that it throws its arms up and declares that it is god. that is not science. that is a cop out.

 

Given that there is no actual evidence to suggest the primordial soup theory, nor does that theory explain how the soup came to exist to begin with, and that the BBT theory has been disproven, science offers not a single idea where everything came from.

again, anybody that claims evolution teaches origins is doing so incorrectly. you are correct that there is no evidence to support the soup theory, but it is the best guess going. and no, BBT has not been disproven. i can direct you to a few sites that discuss it heavily. evidence is mounting that it is flawed, however, but not enough to say "disproven."

 

Science says you take obersvations, make a hypothesis, and then look for data to refute or support it.

ID, on the contrary, stops as soon as a question cannot be answered. it simply says "god did it." by your own statement, it should be continuing to look for data to refute or support it, but it does not.

 

Intelligent design does not apply to any religion, nor does it require any more faith than any other unproven theory.  It is an observation.

yes, it does. it requires a creator, or god. it is not an observation, it is a belief in a higher power. an intelligent creator is untestable, and therefore not scientific.

 

Life is very specific.  It requires very specific cirumstances.  The word does seem almost perfectly staged and structured.  A valid observation might be to suggest there is a reason behind that, hence the scientific theory of an intelligent design.

uh, suggesting a reason behind it is not an observation, it is a suggestion. observation means witnessing, not suggesting.

 

So called science-buffs seem pretty close minded to that for some reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

because it requires belief in a creator, which cannot be tested. lack of testability rules out ID as a science.

 

taks

[Colrom]

There was a brief side trip questioning why scientists would want to be Republican, as opposed seemingly to Christians wanting to be Republican.

 

Beats me.

 

I'm a scientist (Ph. D.) and a Christian and a Democrat.

 

I can't imagine why being a Scientist or a Christian would induce one to be a Republican.

 

Some of the folks here clearly believe in a form of social darwinism and a society run by the elit under rules favoring the elite. Some also believe that the ends justify the means.

 

I prefer a society which seeks to provide for all its citizens and recognizes that some actions can only be justified for immediate survival if even then.

 

I think that is what Christ recommended.

 

Just my take. Your milage may vary.

Edited September 29, 2005 by Colrom

[Reveilled]

edit: if anybody can figure out why my quotes aren't working in this one, please let me know.  grrrr.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Past a certain post length, the quote function appears to cease functioning. You may wish to split the post into two smaller posts.

[EnderAndrew]

again, BILLIONS of years before humans came around. humans did not come from pond scum. you're connecting the end directly to the beginning.

That doesn't change the fact that science says humanity originated from pond scum, which you deny while telling me that I don't understand science.

i never said we weren't the most complex. i simply said that other species are nearly as complex. primates in particular. dolphins as well. some primates are self aware also. there always has to be one species that is the most complex, and we are it.

Science doesn't seem to agree that any species other than humans is really self aware, and no species has been declared officially sentient, let alone established an advanced cultural civilization. Let me know when we see language, art and the like from primates. Because man had art and language ages and ages ago.

again, i never said they were as complex, just nearly. and the term "infintely" with reference to complexity is incorrect. primates share 98% of our genetic material. humans differ within groups by about 1%. that other 1% is the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. we aren't infintely more complex, just 1% more.

Infinite is a hyperbole admittedly but I still stress the difference is light years. On the pscyhology and philosophy side, man has made various progreses through the past 70,000 years or so that we've documented that no animal can even dream of yet. In fact, despite having survival taken care on in various circumstances, such as a lack of competitors in a niche, or domestication, animals have made zero progress in these areas in all of observed history. To say that is not noteworthy is rather unscientific.

which doesn't really apply to anything we're debating. the fact that we have a psychology just allows us to guide our own evolution. diabetes is a perfect example. were it not for modern science, the defective genes would have died out long ago.

You brought up the point, and refuted youself, and now you want to drop the issue?

 

Why am I not surprised. You said it was relevant, and now that you were made to look bad it isn't relevant anymore?

 

You talk about the reason animals don't have these things is because those traits don't come from evolution. Those traits set humans apart. If those traits didn't come from evolution, where did they come from?

 

What kind of scientist has data and refuses to acknowledge it because it refutes a theory?

no, it does not. evolution cotinues, but a given species in a given environment cannot experience evolutionary changes that are detrimental. if they do, they will not live long enough to carry on the detrimental change.

You said it yourself. Would you like me to quote you on it?

 

You said yourself that evolution for animals stops at survival. If they don't need those traits for survival, then they don't evolve those traits.

that's not obvious at all. just because you believe it so does not make it so.

It is an extension of your arguement, except it contradicts what you said earlier. Considering you were claiming that I refuted myself, it would seem that you don't understand how a logical arguement works, or perhaps you don't understand what the term refute means.

no, it is not scientific. you're putting the cart before the horse. it is a circular argument. you have to assume there is a creator before the observation can be said to be evidence of god. classical fallacy w.r.t. claims of a deity.

I really hate it when I have to explain what science is to people who supposedly swear by science.

 

http://scienceforfamilies.allinfo-about.co...ficprocess.html

 

Step 1 is to indentify a problem. The problem here is that we don't know the origin of humanity, or life on this planet, or the universe.

 

Step 2 is to develop a hypothesis.

 

You don't have to have imperical evidence before you make a hypothesis.

 

Do you know how much of science is completely unsupported or unproven theories? We take observations and make our best guesses. One of my favorite examples is gravity.

 

Gravity on a large scale doesn't work. Most people don't know that. Google Dark Matter and report back to teacher on what you've discovered. So, we have no emperical evidence to suggest gravity does exist other than the simple observation that objects fall. We don't know why they fall, but we have a hypothesis. The hypothesis has very specific evidence to suggest it is wrong.

 

Do we reexamine or change the hypothesis? No! We create a new hypothesis that all this matter that we can't detect in any way shape or form is hiding and it accounts for all out theories of gravity being so wonky.

 

That is very bad science. It is a fine example of what is wrong with the scientific community. The need to be right, and the refusal to allow previous theories to be wrong superceeds actual forward thinking and the scientic process.

 

It may be that there is in fact phantom dark matter that we can't see. It could also be that every atom in the universe expands in size at the same rate. Objects or larger mass push out, rather than pulling smaller objects in. Not only does this duplicate the "falling" effect, but it could explain why there are 10 times the gravitational effects than we can quantify with physics.

 

Given that the exact requirements for life seem so precise, and everything happened exactly how it needed to desite all probability, one could in fact infer that it happened for a reason.

 

It is a much more solid theory than suggesting that if all the math for gravity is off, then phantom matter hides, is invisible and can't be detected by any standard means.

 

If science is telling me to believe in the Easter Bunny, I mean, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, then why does it require faith in a religion to suggest there is an intellgent creator to life on this planet?

 

Intelligent creation could also be another civilization for all we know.

 

For a science-minded person, you are rather close minded.

i know plenty of what i'm talking about.

No, you really don't. And when you were caught refuting yourself, you backpedalled. I'm quickly learning that you are incapable of having a logical discourse. Unless you prove me wrong with your next few responses, I'm going to consider you a lost cause.

both that you refer to are caused by the same thing: mutations in genes.

Backpedalling again. You insisted that evolution only occurs from RANDOM mutation. One mutation is a direct response to specific environments and happens immediately when necessary for survival. How is that random?

sorry, but your understanding of what is going on is incorrect. you are attempting to state that the species forces its own evolution "i must survive, therefore i need to change this part of my body." that is not correct, or at least it is an oversimplification. again, certain traits appear in offspring that are either beneficial or not. if they are beneficial to continued survival, then said traits will be passed on to future generations. it is, in the end, still a result of a mutation. i've never said anything contrary to this.

Have you ever read Darwin? Have you ever taken a course on evolution?

 

His most famous example is the Galapogos Finches. He took finches from their native habitat on a ship to an island where they lacked their usual sources for food. They had to find new food sources or die out. When he returned to the island years later, the original species of finches did not exist. There were several new species of finches however, each with specific new traits in relation to their habitat. The finches adapated to different food sources in different areas by developing new traits specific to the area and food source.

 

Science says random mutations take thousands of years often, and may not even be a favorable trait, or a trait passed on. When a mutation occurs immediately in the generation that is forced to adapt or die, and the mutation is very specific to the circumstance, it is not random.

 

Read up on some Darwin and check back into the conversation then.

that your paper got an A was strong evidence that you debated the argument correctly, not that you were correct. this is an appeal to authority, btw. also, evolution did not "create" life. those that teach "origins" are doing so incorrectly.

No, Biologists insist that life was created by acids randomly deciding to interact in the same pool that for whatever arbitraty reason hadn't reacted together before, forming simple proteins.

 

Evolution did not create the first spark of life, but they say evolution is responsible for everything since the proteins came into being. They insist evolution took pond scum, and created every species since then, including humanity which has unique characteristics that don't seem to fit a mold of evolution.

 

We have no scientific evidence that this primordial soup existed. We don't have proof that fish crawled out of the ocean. Yet both of these theories are taught as fact in schools across the world.

 

And people object to a second theory being taught?

 

Why?

 

What is the reason reasoning and agenda behind such an objection?

 

You keep saying that science demands facts and intelligent design has none. The scientific process says to create a hypothesis first and then test it. You seem against the very scientific process while rallying for it.

 

Again, it sure seems that you don't understand the process you believe in.

 

I won't draw parallels to the religious groups you seem to despise that often aspire to a set of beliefs without reading their religious text or understanding what their supposed beliefs are. You can do that later since I gave you so much homework.

[taks]

That doesn't change the fact that science says humanity originated from pond scum, which you deny while telling me that I don't understand science.

no, it does not say that. over and over again i tell you. you do not understand. we did not come from pond scum. we came from primates on the order of 6 million years ago. pond scum was 4.5 billion years ago. this is not difficult.

 

Science doesn't seem to agree that any species other than humans is really self aware, and no species has been declared officially sentient, let alone established an advanced cultural civilization.  Let me know when we see language, art and the like from primates.  Because man had art and language ages and ages ago.

many animals have language. that's a false statement. but wait a minute, now you've changed your tune... science does not agree or science is certain?

 

On the pscyhology and philosophy side, man has made various progreses through the past 70,000 years or so that we've documented that no animal can even dream of yet.

which is evidence of... our evolution. other species failing to evolve as we have simply means they did not evolve. nothing more.

 

In fact, despite having survival taken care on in various circumstances, such as a lack of competitors in a niche, or domestication, animals have made zero progress in these areas in all of observed history.  To say that is not noteworthy is rather unscientific.

why does every creature have to evolve the same way we did. also, your statement directly implies that none will in the future. that we cannot know.

 

 

taks

Edited September 29, 2005 by taks

[taks]

You brought up the point, and refuted youself, and now you want to drop the issue?

actually, you brought up the point of psychology, not me. you claimed that psychology could not have evolved and that this is obvious. this is known as an argument from personal incredulity. apparently you are the lone genius in the world this is obvious to (from the definition of argumentum ad ignoratium).

 

Why am I not surprised.  You said it was relevant, and now that you were made to look bad it isn't relevant anymore?

again, your point, i countered noting your fallacy. hardly makes me look bad when you commit a logical fallacy.

 

You talk about the reason animals don't have these things is because those traits don't come from evolution.  Those traits set humans apart.  If those traits didn't come from evolution, where did they come from?

i never said any traits don't come from evolution. now you are putting words into my mouth (er, keyboard).

 

What kind of scientist has data and refuses to acknowledge it because it refutes a theory?

i'm still waiting for that data.

 

You said it yourself.  Would you like me to quote you on it?

yes.

 

You said yourself that evolution for animals stops at survival.  If they don't need those traits for survival, then they don't evolve those traits.

no.

 

It is an extension of your arguement, except it contradicts what you said earlier.  Considering you were claiming that I refuted myself, it would seem that you don't understand how a logical arguement works, or perhaps you don't understand what the term refute means.

i'm sorry, but the psychology argument was yours, not mine.

 

taks

Edited September 29, 2005 by taks

[taks]

I really hate it when I have to explain what science is to people who supposedly swear by science.

you really need to lay off the insults, again. this is very unbecoming of you.

 

FYI, two engineering degrees and a third on the way (phd) plus a daily career doing research and development qualify me as a pretty well trained scientist. were i to claim that made me right, however, would be an appeal to authority which i will not do. it is a testament of my understanding of the scientific method.

 

You don't have to have imperical evidence before you make a hypothesis.

i never said you do. again, putting words into my mouth. i said something has to be testable to be science. ID is not.

 

Do you know how much of science is completely unsupported or unproven theories?  We take observations and make our best guesses.  One of my favorite examples is gravity.

ah yes, but there is evidence. that we don't know why it works is not the point. the point is that there is evidence for it, very obvious evidence.

 

Gravity on a large scale doesn't work.  Most people don't know that.

actually it does. you are incorrect. gravity on a small scale does not work. the entire reason the planets orbit the sun, and the solar system orbits the galaxy is due to gravity. you are in grave error here.

 

Google Dark Matter and report back to teacher on what you've discovered.

i know full well about the concepts of dark matter. if you would like to get schooled yourself, try visiting badastronomy.com or the boards i frequent at BAUT.

 

taks

Edited September 29, 2005 by taks

[taks]

So, we have no emperical evidence to suggest gravity does exist other than the simple observation that objects fall.

pretty solid evidence for the existence of gravity. you're also oversimplifying the situtation.

 

Do we reexamine or change the hypothesis?  No!  We create a new hypothesis that all this matter that we can't detect in any way shape or form is hiding and it accounts for all out theories of gravity being so wonky.

many theories abound, actually. there is evidence to support dark energy and matter, but you are obviously unaware of it. you now need to stop commenting on things you do not understand.

 

That is very bad science.  It is a fine example of what is wrong with the scientific community.  The need to be right, and the refusal to allow previous theories to be wrong superceeds actual forward thinking and the scientic process.

here your argument falls apart. it is not bad science. the scientific method actually calls for creating a new hypothesis if the evidence does not support observation.

 

for the record, i am not a fan of dark matter/energy. but that's another debate.

 

Given that the exact requirements for life seem so precise, and everything happened  exactly how it needed to desite all probability, one could in fact infer that it happened for a reason.

again, argumentum ad ignorantium. you need evidence. ID has none other than "it must be a higher power." that is not observation.

 

It is a much more solid theory than suggesting that if all the math for gravity is off, then phantom matter hides, is invisible and can't be detected by any standard means.

this is also a straw man as the dark matter issue has nothing to do with evolution.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

Calax wrote...

Adam and eve=first couple...

no other couples=Adam and eve only possible progenitors of the race

Adam and eve make babies, only way to continue procreation is with one another.

thus incest.

 

Adam and Eve do not play into the Intelligent Design theory. You are taking stories from the bible, which I've already explained is very different than believing in a creator. You can believe in a creator and not take the bible literally.

 

Evilguy wrote

 

because ID is not a scientific theory. should you teach crap just for the sake of it? should science teach that the earth is flat as well; i mean just so that the students can make up their own mind...? how about teaching the moon is actually the world's larget cheese wheel...

 

I already stated that this stuff belongs in Social Studies, because it's philosophical theory. You should really read the whole thread before ripping into people. Also, no one has been able to disprove Intelligent Design, while your bizarre examples have been soundly proven false.

 

There is a long history of belief in a higher power, and there is still a sizable population that still holds that belief. The point is, teachers should strive to share as many popular opinions as they can. Students can make up their own minds.

[taks]

If science is telling me to believe in the Easter Bunny, I mean, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, then why does it require faith in a religion to suggest there is an intellgent creator to life on this planet?

the difference is that they are searching for dark matter, and should they not find it, they will take it out. it is impossible to test, or find, a creator. see the difference here? dark matter is being tested, while creator cannot be tested.

 

this is how science works.

 

Intelligent creation could also be another civilization for all we know.

it could be, but evolution does not address origins, again. ID claims that the design is ongoing. i would have no problem if somebody were able to prove that the start from pond scum was kicked off by another advanced civilization.

 

For a science-minded person, you are rather close minded.

more insults. this is getting old, EA. i'm about science, and science says evolution, not ID. visit talkorigins.com for some real science.

 

iNo, you really don't.  And when you were caught refuting yourself, you backpedalled.  I'm quickly learning that you are incapable of having a logical discourse.  Unless you prove me wrong with your next few responses, I'm going to consider you a lost cause.

yet you've committed numerous logical errors yourself. fallacyfiles.org for starters. i have committed none nor backpedalled on anything.

 

 

Backpedalling again.  You insisted that evolution only occurs from RANDOM mutation.  One mutation is a direct response to specific environments and happens immediately when necessary for survival.  How is that random?

i've backpedalled on nothing.

 

Have you ever read Darwin?  Have you ever taken a course on evolution?

yes and yes. well, not a specific course on evolution, though several that cover it.

 

taks

[taks]

Science says random mutations take thousands of years often, and may not even be a favorable trait, or a trait passed on.  When a mutation occurs immediately in the generation that is forced to adapt or die, and the mutation is very specific to the circumstance, it is not random.

ok, i'll concede on this. however, this is still not evidence of ID.

 

No, Biologists insist that life was created by acids randomly deciding to interact in the same pool that for whatever arbitraty reason hadn't reacted together before, forming simple proteins.

yes, i know this. could have been electrical engergy, alien civilization, panspermia, who knows. i don't think we can know unless we meet said civilization or manage to recreate it in a lab. they've managed to create the building blocks, but not life, obviously. eitehr way, evolution is not origin.

 

Evolution did not create the first spark of life, but they say evolution is responsible for everything since the proteins came into being.  They insist evolution took pond scum, and created every species since then, including humanity which has unique characteristics that don't seem to fit a mold of evolution.

yes. but that is not "humans came from pond scum." you're oversimplifying it.

 

We have no scientific evidence that this primordial soup existed.  We don't have proof that fish crawled out of the ocean.  Yet both of these theories are taught as fact in schools across the world.

yes, we do. they've actually managed to create the building blocks (for lack of a better term) in a lab. this is discussed over at talkorigins.

 

And people object to a second theory being taught?

 

Why?

 

What is the reason reasoning and agenda behind such an objection?

because it is not testable. it is purely based on a belief in a creator. also, read the wege strategy and visit the discovery institute. they don't want to just talk about origins, they want to completely replace evolution with a creator.

 

You keep saying that science demands facts and intelligent design has none.  The scientific process says to create a hypothesis first and then test it.  You seem against the very scientific process while rallying for it.

i said evidence, actually. ID does not, nor cannot have any. we cannot observe a creator, nor can we provide any evidence of one.

 

Again, it sure seems that you don't understand the process you believe in.

i think your statements are making it pretty clear you don't.

 

I won't draw parallels to the religious groups you seem to despise that often aspire to a set of beliefs without reading their religious text or understanding what their supposed beliefs are.  You can do that later since I gave you so much homework.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

curious where you get that i despise religous groups? it's an easy answer to just attribute all this to me when in fact you are flat out wrong. you need to do your homework, EA. and lay off the insults.

 

taks

[taks]

Also, no one has been able to disprove Intelligent Design,

it is untestable, and therefore unprovable.

 

The point is, teachers should strive to share as many popular opinions as they can.  Students can make up their own minds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, i tend to disagree with that. the so-called purpose of school is to teach what is known to be at least reasonably true. just because an opinion is popular does not mean it should necessarily be taught in school. you are right, however, that a social studies class is an appropriate place to mention any believ in a higher power. maybe even history class. we do talk about greek and roman religions, for example.

 

taks

[kirottu]

On the pscyhology and philosophy side, man has made various progreses through the past 70,000 years or so that we've documented that no animal can even dream of yet.

which is evidence of... our evolution. other species failing to evolve as we have simply means they did not evolve. nothing more.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that