Yet again, caught red-handed....

[Moose]

I think there was at least a drop of sarcasm in his comment...

Just a schmidget......some people can handle it, some can't....

 

Point being, a lot of times people go off half cocked and make claims that can't be proved.....such as the claim that ID is now off the books, and deemed false....a little irritating when proof can't be presented....

[sb129]

I see evidence of evolution every day. Its just one facet, but the human dentition has been extensively studied to support evolution theory.

 

It can also be used as proof that we have common ancestors with some species.

 

I just can't see how anyone who studies any form of biological science (or any science for that matter) can accept creationism, it contradicts the very foundations of the wealth of scientific knowledge humans have worked so hard to discover, prove, reprove, disprove, record and share with the rest of the world.

[lovelorcet]

Just a schmidget......some people can handle it, some can't....

 

Point being, a lot of times people go off half cocked and make claims that can't be proved.....such as the claim that ID is now off the books, and deemed false....a little irritating when proof can't be presented....

 

 

Exactly...

[lovelorcet]

"ability to understand," as if I am incapable.

 

If you were capable then why are you insulted?

 

Grow some thicker skin

[sb129]

Just a schmidget......some people can handle it, some can't....

 

Point being, a lot of times people go off half cocked and make claims that can't be proved.....such as the claim that ID is now off the books, and deemed false....a little irritating when proof can't be presented....

 

Exactly...

 

:lmao::lmao:

[Moose]

Exactly...

Hey, I'm not the one claiming that something is false, or is a farce.....

I just can't see how anyone who studies any form of biological science (or any science for that matter) can accept creationism, it contradicts the very foundations of the wealth of scientific knowledge humans have worked so hard to discover, prove, reprove, disprove, record and share with the rest of the world.

The very ability to even remotely comprehend science is proof, (to me) that I didn't come from a pool of gook.....or an Ape.

[Moose]

So then if I said "quit being such an a55hole" you would be okay with that because you're not one and you have nice, thick skin?

I don't think lovelorcet was trying to insult you. He was just being sarcastic towards me, and that's ok, he was driving to a point, one that was taken with a grain of salt......

 

Don't worry too much about it......some folk are just hung up on tangibles and cling to their own limited understanding.

 

There's FAR much more out there......I feel kinda sorry for folk like that.....

[lovelorcet]

So then if I said "quit being such an a55hole" you would be okay with that because you're not one and you have nice, thick skin?

 

It's ok if you need to call me that. Take a deep breath and let it out.

[lovelorcet]

I don't think lovelorcet was trying to insult you. He was just being sarcastic towards me, and that's ok, he was driving to a point, one that was taken with a grain of salt......

 

Don't worry too much about it......some folk are just hung up on tangibles and cling to their own limited understanding.

 

There's FAR much more out there......I feel kinda sorry for folk like that.....

 

:)

 

As for the last comment I think we feel the same way just from opposite sides of the court.

[Moai]

...and certainly NOT a scientist or anything, but...

 

If evolution is true, how come there are still monkeys?

 

POE, perhaps?

 

There are still monkeys because we share a common ancestor with monkeys, we did not evolve from monkeys. We share an even more recent ancestor with apes.

[Moai]

Something happened to my first post. Maybe my computer IS beginning to be a living creature! It eats information!

 

I am not actually taking sides with that film. Personally, as I said, I was not aware of it. And if what you say is true, the I agree with you, it is not good and does a disservice to their cause.

 

It doesn't do a disservice to their cause at all, actually. It is quite effective. The vast majority of people do not grasp the scope of the evidence, and these people prey on their ignorance. Their "cause" isn't the search for truth regarding reality, it is to get their version of religious "truth" taught as fact, and thereby control society.

 

And they don't just do it in the realm of science. They attempt to rewrite history as well. Look at House Resolution 888, for example.

 

I do not like selective editing any more than you do. Unfortunately, it is overused from right to left. If this is similar to Michael Moore's films, then I am also not interested.

 

But as I thought I said at the beginning...I posted some links to put up the other side. Rather than assume one side is correct, I thought it would be helpful to bring out the other side. However, if these scientists did not know the true purpose of the film, then if I were them, I would be angry also.

 

Well, I trust the men who were actually interviewed and the documentation they provide--PZ Meyers goes into detail about his experience. I read one of the links you posted, and sure enough, the quotes form the filmmakers are lies. Why am I not shocked.

 

Actually, starting with the abiogenesis theory, it is said that life began from non-life. So, my analogy could go farther and say...do you expect the computer to come to life?

 

Which is not what abiogenesis suggests. A computer is not made up of proteins. Beyond that, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

 

I get your point, but it seems odd to me that with all of our knowledge, we can rule out design in nature so easily. But truthfully, if I was so convinced as you are that God does not exist, then there is no other option.

 

There is design in nature, it just isn't INTELLIGENT design. We have been over this before. And the more information we gather, the more that to postulate a conscious designer is to postulate a moron. The examples of botched and mix-and-match design in nature are legion.

 

Here is a link to a few examples:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

 

Actually, no, I don't assume that. I am guessing that since you are a student of Dawkins and similar militant atheists, then you feel that if there was a God he would have made the world a lot better. This of course rules out that (if one uses the Bible as the source) sin has ruined His Creation and made it imperfect.

 

I could have made the world a lot better. So could you. Your statement above begs so many questions you must be setting some kind of record. The Bible is not used as a science book in any biology lab I am aware of. Or ever heard of.

 

So you are saying that humans were created perfect, but after the apple incident we are subject to disease? Why do we have an immune system, then? Sin causes some children to have cleft palates and other birth defects?

 

Question: Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden lest they eat from the Tree of Immortality and become like god. Since sin=death, why would god put a tree in the garden that granted Eternal Life if there was no death?

 

I reject god and your "original sin" model on moral grounds, not because of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology just shows that the Garden of Eden story is at best a myth.

 

Ouch, quit yelling. I know, I know. Evolution has no design, but it is not random. So it had a purpose? If I look up the antonym of random, I see the word "ordered." And the definition of ordered is: "To put into a methodical, systematic arrangement."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ordered

 

Yes, evolution is not random. See here:

 

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/study_evolution_is_not_random

 

And yes, there is purpose. The purpose is to pass genetic material on to the next generation and the next and the next. Whichever organism does this better in a given system will be selected for. Simple.

 

And the definition of systematic is: "relating to or consisting of a system." And the definition of system is: "harmonious arrangement or pattern."

 

Yet there is no design or purpose? Help me out with this one. Seriously, I do not jest.

 

See above.

 

Or perhaps the man who believes there is no God cannot accept the idea that this is a possibility?

 

There is no data suggesting there is a god. I am not aware of one experiment where "god did it" was the answer, in any area of science, ever.

 

One of the great things about working science is PREDICTION. Theories make predictions, and so far the prediction rate for our current evolutionary model is outstanding. If we share a common ancestor, for example, we should see similar DNA sequences in varied organism and lo! that is exactly what we see.

 

I am not aware of anything that a Creation model has predicted successfully.

 

Assertion: There was a great flood!

 

Rejoiner: Ok, if that is so we should see some evidence for one. Fossils should be all jumbled together because of the flood water mixing them up. Let's go look at the fossil beds....oh, no, they are stratified by date identically, all over the world. There could not have been a global flood.

 

Assertion: Satan did that to fool you!

 

Since I haven't read much of this, could you help me out and provide a link that refutes Behe's Idea? I am not a big "fan" of his, but I would like to read this. I know that Kenneth Miller (biologist) did have some rebuttals to Behe, but do you have a good one online that you could share?

 

Sure. Here's one that is technical that debunks Behe's assertions regarding HIV:

 

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv_hiv_versus.html

 

Here's another one regarding proteins:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/see_behe_flail.php

 

Well, I think you know me well enough that IF the video was stolen, then this is "a bad thing." I don't try to defend wrongdoings. Why? Easy:

"You shall not steal." (Exodus 20:15 RSV)

 

The question becomes...is it stolen? And for the sake of argument and to stay away from issues that are trivial and not beneficial, I will accept what you have presented as truth...until it is proven different.

 

If you go to the first site I linked, you can see the original video, the original video with narration, and then Dembski stealing/misrepresenting it. How much evidence do you need? This is on a blog written by a researcher at Harvard, the very university from which the video was stolen. Not only that, Dembski claims that he got it off YouTube and didn't know that it was Harvard's yet he discussed having seen the video in question several months before using it at the time it was broadcast. And it says "Harvard" right at the beginning. Lame, lame, lame.

 

Why do these "men of god" feel the need to lie so much? Does that not give you pause? Why is it that the men battling the hardest for god are also the ones who are lying so often? Shouldn't the reverse be true?

 

And then the question becomes....can you then assume that:

1. All creationists are liars.

2. The theory of creationism is a lie.

3. Therefore God does not exist.

 

I do not believe so, but Moai, you are welcome to that opinion. While I do not agree, I can see how you would find this attractive.

 

Just because Creation is untenable doesn't mean that there is no god. It just means that the fairy tale used to describe reality is just that, a fairy tale.

 

The greater question is why Creationists lie at all, given that god told them not to with one of his very own Commandments. If Creation is so obvious and simple, they shouldn't need to lie at all, should they? If there was a god involved it would be self-evident, right? But it isn't, and they lie, and well-meaning laypeople believe them. And science is held back, and society suffers. And children die. And on and on and on.

[Moai]

Not only that, but if evolution is fact, why is it that we humans haven't sprouted wings, or developed the ability to walk through solid objects, or why are there even multiple species since evolution is in fact, "survial of the fittest".......I'm sure these can be explained away too....

 

Some organisms do have wings. For them, flying confers a benefit.

 

We have opposable thumbs, which is a much greater benefit for us, so we can build things like airplanes and cars. Another member mention our evolving wheels, but if you look at the planet wheels are inferior to pedal locomotion. For most mammals, four legs is more efficient than two.

 

Survival of the fittest means fittest for the environment. Fish are more fit to live in the ocean than we, while we are more fit to live on land. All creatures adapt to their environment. You can see this happen with bacteria yourself. They are simple organisms and have extremely short life spans so they adapt much more quickly.

 

As far as passing through solid objects: The force that hold atoms together is much stronger than the force of gravity. That is why, if you were to fall off of a building you won't pass into the concrete when you hit the ground. But if you were small enough, you could pas through matter that to us seems solid. Quantum physics is weird.

[THE THRONE]

Where are the transitional lifeforms?

[Lovelybird]

God is intangible.

 

A well educated adult (or a scientist) without will of choosing good is a smart monster than a uneducated monster, such as Hilter

 

Our will is intangible. A human not only is a physical existence, but also a soul existence (intangible part) because we have wills, emotions, thoughts, consicence

 

when you study the truth, how can you find the truth only in digging physical and tangible existence?

[lovelorcet]

God is intangible.

 

A well educated adult (or a scientist) without will of choosing good is a smart monster than a uneducated monster, such as Hilter

 

Our will is intangible. A human not only is a physical existence, but also a soul existence (intangible part) because we have wills, emotions, thoughts, consicence

 

when you study the truth, how can you find the truth only in digging physical and tangible existence?

 

 

I find this EXTREMELY offensive and this just points out what I was saying before to JamesM. It is actually people of religious background who are the most Xenophobic and oppressive.

 

Atheists don't go on crusades or fly planes into buildings.

 

I debate about God and the facts supporting evolution and someone comes out to make the point that if you are godless then you must be an evil demon like Hitler.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Lovelybird]

I find this EXTREMELY offensive and this just points out what I was saying before to JamesM. It is actually people of religious background who are the most Xenophobic and oppressive.

 

Atheists don't go on crusades or fly planes into buildings.

 

I debate about God and the facts supporting evolution and someone comes out to make the point that if you are godless then you must be an evil demon like Hitler.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I felt like my words entered into a distorting mirror

[shadowofman]

Not only that, but if evolution is fact, why is it that we humans haven't sprouted wings, or developed the ability to walk through solid objects, or why are there even multiple species since evolution is in fact, "survial of the fittest".......I'm sure these can be explained away too....

 

As has been said, evolution is adaptation to current environment. What this means is that there has to be environmental pressures applied to a species in order to warrant change. There are several real reasons that there are multiple species. For one, every living thing on the planet requires an ecosystem, a food chain. Symbiotic relationships. If you were to upset this balance by killing of a species, it would negatively effect all others in that ecosystem. This is exactly the type of environmental pressure that can cause evolution. If all of the Eucalyptus were to disappear today, the koala would have to change eating habits or go extinct. This is the fate of most species that are so specialized. A species with a greater adaptability is more fit. But lets say that the koalas do learn to eat other things. And lets say that this new food source ins on the ground rather than in the trees. well then the koalas would eventually change from being suited for the trees, and become more suited for ground life. These changes are ultimately due to genetic mutation, and the positive mutations will gain a foot hold in the collective genotype of the species.

 

Monkeys are still around because monkeys are completely adapted to their environments. It will not be until pressure is applied to their populations that they will have to adapt or go extinct. We can only speculate as to the reasons that humans evolved into the big brained, tool users we are to day. Many suggest it is because the lush forests of Africa dried up into savannahs. There were two ways we humans could have survived. If we had developed the ferociousness of the baboon, lion, or other great carnivore in order to compete for the resourses, but we took the craftier route.

 

Where are the transitional lifeforms?

 

Well every species is a transitional form. Amphibians are the transitional form between fish and reptiles. Reptiles are the transition between amphibians and birds. But this is not entirely genuine. More accurately, you are the transition between your mother and your daughter. You are the transition between your ancient ancestor and your far into the future descendent. We have literally tons of examples of early hominid fossils. A. Africanus. A. Afarensis. H. Habilis. H. Erectus. H. Ergaster. H. Neandertalis. Until we are able to complete the genome of each of these species, we will not know the exact structure of the familly tree. Indeed, many of these species went extinct without a surviving population to speak of, but we have a pretty good idea of the lineage based on the dispersal and quantity of fossils found. Seems we have descended from H. Erectus along with H. Neandertalis. It also seems that we survived and they did not. Such is the harsh reality.

[shadowofman]

Also, I really don't think anyone here is making the claim that ID is impossible, only that there is no evidence for it, and indeed, evidence suggests that there is no need for an IDesigner. This is only to dispute the ID claim that "there must be a designer, just look at the world".

 

No, there doesn't have to be a designer. Evolution is perfectly capable of creating new unique and indeed highly adapted life forms.

 

And that ID is not science but a philosophical hunch. Purely intuitive, and can not move beyond that statis within the scientific method. Not even to the hypothesis phase. A real ID hypothesis would at least contain the method by which something is created from nothing.

 

I will admit that ID is more scientific than old religious ideas of magic and life breathed into clay, but this is only because ID accepts evolution as the method the designer. Am I giving ID to much credit here, or does it still rely on species being formed by magic?

[Lovelybird]

Can you find "wind fossil"? you cannot see wind, and don't know where the wind begin, but you know wind exists when it blows things or trees; the same as God, we cannot see God, but we can see what influence God impacts on individual's lives, can see what fruits the Holy Spirit brings in individual's spiritual growth: kindness, patience, true freedom, peace, rejoice....where is Holy Spirit, where is liberty

 

I like a priest said "knowledge bring love, and love enlarge knowledge". when you love someone, first you have to learn this person, this is knowledge about him. then after you learn about him, you love him; the loving relationship develop through time, and you know his characters and trust him. even when you hear some gossip about him, you can confidently say "he isn't that kind of person, I know him". this is love enlarge knowledge.

 

It is same as God. first we study his words, sometimes through some supernatural mysterial experience we know him, then we fall in love with Him, then through time develop our relationship with God, through the relationship we know characters of God, we develop trust in Him. even when something we don't understand happens, we trust God is faithful, and a good forgiving God because we KNOW God's characters.

 

This is relationship evolution theory

[lovelorcet]

Can you find "wind fossil"? you cannot see wind, and don't know where the wind begin, but you know wind exists when it blows things or trees; the same as God, we cannot see God, but we can see what influence God impacts on individual's lives, can see what fruits the Holy Spirit brings in individual's spiritual growth: kindness, patience, true freedom, peace, rejoice....where is Holy Spirit, where is liberty

 

 

A lot of work time and money is put into where the wind comes from and where it is going so I completely disagree that wind can not be described.

[shadowofman]

Can you find "wind fossil"?

That doesn't make any sense but I'll play along.

 

You cannot see wind,

First of all, there is no such thing as wind. Wind is an action that air goes through. We can see this action by exerting this force upon visible things like smoke, much like we see gravity effect falling objects.

 

and don't know where the wind begin,

The action of wind starts with areas of high pressure pushing air molecukles into areas of low pressure. This is quite understood and observed.

 

but you know wind exists when it blows things or trees

I know air exists even though I can't see it. And I know that air moves things that get caught in it's currents. So how do I know that air exists? Well, air, as we commonly call it, is a cocktail of gases. This particular earthly recipe consists of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and a variable amount (average around 1%) of water vapor. This is how I know air exists. Also, if you remove all of the air from your location, you will suffocate. This is alternative proof of air's existance. I could go on.

[lovelorcet]

Where are the transitional lifeforms?

 

 

Here is a link to a freely available and open database of all sequenced genomes:

 

http://www.ensembl.org/index.html

 

You can start by taking genes from the Human genome:

 

http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/index.html

 

And compare those to other available sequenced genomes. The transitions are there to see on a base pair to base pair level.

[Lovelybird]

How do I know God exist? If we push God away, our heart feel pain and unsatisfying and hopeless, and try to find peace and satisfying in other finite earthly things, but in vain

 

RELATIONSHIP-evolustion theory rocks!

[Moai]

I will admit that ID is more scientific than old religious ideas of magic and life breathed into clay, but this is only because ID accepts evolution as the method the designer. Am I giving ID to much credit here, or does it still rely on species being formed by magic?

 

ID is basically the idea that the superbeing (really the Abrahamic god, but they won't admit it) created life at the cellular level, and from there it evolved. We know this because if you take away one part of a cell it won't work, so a cell is "irreducibly complex" and MUST have a designer. Most of the IDers are Christians (Ben Stein is a Jew, though), and so when they say intelligence read: Jesus/Jehovah.

 

They use euphemisms in the hopes that judges won't see Intelligent Designer" as equal to "god." Not only that, there is no evidence at all that anything is irreducibly complex.

 

It boils down to a God of the Gaps fallacy. It was fallacious 100 years ago, and it is fallacious now. You gotta admire their tenacity--although it is to be expected from people who have been waiting for 2,000 years for someone to show up "any minute now."

 

While evolution does not mean that there is no god, it does show that if there is a god, he does things in such a way that you can explain everything without invoking him.

[shadowofman]

I am pretty aware of the ID arguement, but do they accept evolution as God's (the designer's method)? I have not heard this said in so many words, especially when it comes to the evolution of man, but this is just another example of God being pushed into smaller an smaller gaps. I have to admit that it's a bit of a victory for science if this is the case, as long as we can keep ID out of the science classroom.

 

Seems that most educated christians have accepted evolution as God's way for some time now. Even Pope John Paul endorsed evolution as God's method in 1992. Benedict has since recanted this position I think. I know they still stick to the flood story and all that other magic stuff.