Santorum: Satan is working on the USA

nx4bama said:

when was the last time anybody researching evolution attempted to "falsify" the theory? it has reached the point that it is unquestioned. ID is an attempt to "falsify" the data. it is relatively new and has been met with extreme prejudice. you, yourself, will not even consider it, because you do not want to reach the conclusion that there could be a "designer". I understand where you're coming from, but just because your worldview does not allow you to consider something greater than yourself does not mean it does not exist.

Click to expand...

i would suggest going to a research library and look through the biology journals. you will find hundreds of examples. the same with many of the questions you pose here. the answers and explanations can be found with a cursory search.

you are trying to cast ID and its proponents as some kind of victim. they are not. i do not "consider" it, because it is not science. it is a cloak for creationism that is being put forward to push a certain religious worldview, in many case through the use of our government. it has absolutely nothing to do with me wanting or not wanting to reach a conclusion about some "designer".

nx4bama said:

some are doing these things.... and are being fired from their jobs for conducting such research.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/06/israel-scientist-sacked-evolution-climate

http://www.employmentattorneysanjos...-allegedly-fired-for-questioning-darwin.shtml

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2010/10/chief-scientist-questioned-evolution-theory-fired/

if we aren't allowed to question evolution, it becomes a religion.... not science

Click to expand...

neither of these folks were biologists. and beyond that neither were conducting research into intelligent design.

Yeah well,,,,, my theologists can beat up your fossil.:rolleye2:

92tide said:

i would suggest going to a research library and look through the biology journals. you will find hundreds of examples. the same with many of the questions you pose here. the answers and explanations can be found with a cursory search.

you are trying to cast ID and its proponents as some kind of victim. they are not. i do not "consider" it, because it is not science. it is a cloak for creationism that is being put forward to push a certain religious worldview, in many case through the use of our government. it has absolutely nothing to do with me wanting or not wanting to reach a conclusion about some "designer".

Click to expand...

you've already ruled out the possibility of a designer. so, you're right... there is nothing i can say that will convince you to question evolution. if there is no "designer", then evolution is the only possible explanation currently. It will always be the only explanation, because we have made it above reproach. Even if someone were to develop a scientifically testable theory to compete with evolution, it would not be considered because we have already put all our eggs in the proverbial basket (evolution).

Bamabuzzard said:

I've enjoyed reading. I wish I could participate but I's not smart enuff in dis area to participate much. I will throw this out there though. What are y'alls thoughts on macro-evolution vs micro-evolution? I've listened to the intelligent design group debate this with the non-intelligent design group. I won't be able to participate much, like I said I'm truly ignorant in this area. Probably borderline "stupid" in it. But I do enjoy listening....reading.

Click to expand...

micro would be like birds developing longer beaks... that has been observed

macro is like the giraffe just randomly developing a system of valves for no apparent reason except that it will help him reach the food in a million years when he finishes evolving (indicates a "plan" by evolution).... has not been observed

92tide said:

neither of these folks were biologists. and beyond that neither were conducting research into intelligent design.

Click to expand...

i didn't do an exhaustive search.... the point is, they were fired for questioning evolution.... i'm sure if you are really interested, you can take the advice that you have been giving me and do some research of your own through periodicals and such and you will find those to which i refer.

nx4bama said:

micro would be like birds developing longer beaks... that has been observed

macro is like the giraffe just randomly developing a system of valves for no apparent reason except that it will help him reach the food in a million years when he finishes evolving (indicates a "plan" by evolution).... has not been observed

Click to expand...

So which category does the "humans are growing larger (taller)" process fit? Assuming, of course this is true - there may have, in fact, been literally thousands of 7 footers running around 200 years ago, I have no idea.

twofbyc said:

So which category does the "humans are growing larger (taller)" process fit? Assuming, of course this is true - there may have, in fact, been literally thousands of 7 footers running around 200 years ago, I have no idea.

Click to expand...

they aren't developing new systems, so i'd say micro.... just off the cuff

nx4bama said:

they aren't developing new systems, so i'd say micro.... just off the cuff

Click to expand...

I just get confused...if birds developed longer beaks for purposes of survival, why is man getting taller? To survive on the basketball court?

twofbyc said:

I just get confused...if birds developed longer beaks for purposes of survival, why is man getting taller? To survive on the basketball court?

Click to expand...

So we can help little old ladies in the supermarkets reach stuff off the top shelf. Duh!

twofbyc said:

I just get confused...if birds developed longer beaks for purposes of survival, why is man getting taller? To survive on the basketball court?

Click to expand...

the idea of natural selection is not in question.... the stronger survive and reproduce... the bigger stronger people will tend to pass on their characteristics... thus producing, over time, bigger stronger people.... they are not, however, evolving into new species.... they are not developing valves in their backs to help with blood flow.... we are not developing the equipment needed to shoot fireballs out of our hineys (sp?)....

nx4bama said:

you've already ruled out the possibility of a designer. so, you're right... there is nothing i can say that will convince you to question evolution. if there is no "designer", then evolution is the only possible explanation currently. It will always be the only explanation, because we have made it above reproach. Even if someone were to develop a scientifically testable theory to compete with evolution, it would not be considered because we have already put all our eggs in the proverbial basket (evolution).

Click to expand...

keep pushing that line. it may work one day

nx4bama said:

then why bring it up before if you believed them "unequal"?

Click to expand...

Because even if you give ID the benefit of the doubt, it still violates the principle by positing an unnecessary designer.

nx4bama said:

What do light bulbs and the paper clip have to do with anything? Darwin said there should be practically infinite evidence of transitional forms.... which seems logical if you take into account that we are talking about minor changes over millions of years.... we should find evidence that bombardier beetle at one time did only have depressions rather than chambers. We should find a giraffe with a much shorter neck but still evidence that it had the valves and vessel net. We do not have those things. We have fossils in the record that COULD support evolution. They show what MIGHT BE transitional forms, but we do not have the "finely graduated organic chain" that Darwin said we should have. And yes, it WAS in the 19th century..... you'd think we could have come up with some harder evidence in that many years.

Click to expand...

You're reading things into Darwin that are not there. Darwin spends two chapters specifically addressing the failings of geology to preserve evidence, and how that is not an indictment of evolution. And there is a lot of evidence since his time to support the general theory. The paperclip/light bulb comment was to show that your criticisms are being directed at thinking, that while revolutionary at the time, and a vast improvement over what came before, does not represent the current level of knowledge. For example, Darwin had no idea about genetics, and how traits actually are passed from parent to offspring. The upshot is that you should not expect to find a "finely graduated organic chain" even though he suggests such in rhetorical fashion before dismissing it. For a specific example of the short-necked giraffe, see About.com: Samotherium
No, I can't show you his fossilized vessel net, but this is exactly the sort of intermediate form that we might expect, but not be guaranteed, to find. He does have the pair of ossicones on his head, and long legs, like a modern giraffe.

nx4bama said:

according to your model here, the valves and vessel net would have had to occur at the same time. probability would suggest otherwise. not to mention, we aren't talking about a minor adaptation here. We are talking about an additional system within the giraffe. there were valves added... there was a net of blood vessel added. this is not the same thing as elongated beaks (which the birds already had) or longer hair on a dog.

Click to expand...

Incremental change in complementary systems does not require large simultaneous mutations or intentionality.

nx4bama said:

when was the last time anybody researching evolution attempted to "falsify" the theory? it has reached the point that it is unquestioned. ID is an attempt to "falsify" the data. it is relatively new and has been met with extreme prejudice. you, yourself, will not even consider it, because you do not want to reach the conclusion that there could be a "designer". I understand where you're coming from, but just because your worldview does not allow you to consider something greater than yourself does not mean it does not exist.

Click to expand...

Every observation is an opportunity for falsification, and the general theory of evolution has withstood a lot of them. If the evidence pointed to a designer, science would have accepted it, and turned their questions toward the nature of the designer. But incredulity is not evidence, and lack of imagination or understanding is not counterevidence. There is no need for a modern scientist to crusade against evolution, as there were plenty of opponents in the 19th and 20th centuries to try to discredit it. Any scientist with a good, revolutionary idea can make a career out of showing reasons to believe he is right, but at the very least his ideas must be scientific.

twofbyc said:

I just get confused...if birds developed longer beaks for purposes of survival, why is man getting taller? To survive on the basketball court?

Click to expand...

Why are we getting taller as a species?
Technology Advances; Humans Supersize
Better nutrition

nx4bama said:

i didn't do an exhaustive search.... the point is, they were fired for questioning evolution.... i'm sure if you are really interested, you can take the advice that you have been giving me and do some research of your own through periodicals and such and you will find those to which i refer.

Click to expand...

that has nothing to do with being fired for trying to do research on evolution which is how you presented it, yet another in the many red herrings thrown out. and i am familiar with the bulk of the work (it does not rise to the level of research) done in support of ID. remember, you are the one coming on here asking questions.

cbi1972 said:

Every observation is an opportunity for falsification, and the general theory of evolution has withstood a lot of them. If the evidence pointed to a designer, science would have accepted it, and turned their questions toward the nature of the designer. But incredulity is not evidence, and lack of imagination or understanding is not counterevidence. There is no need for a modern scientist to crusade against evolution, as there were plenty of opponents in the 18th and 19th centuries to try to discredit it. Any scientist with a good, revolutionary idea can make a career out of showing reasons to believe he is right, but at the very least his ideas must be scientific.

Click to expand...

well said.

for those interested a link to the decision in the kitzmiller v. dover court case from 2005.

i think the big evolution thread was in 2004 or 2005. i think there have been others since, but i think that was the doozy

cbi1972 said:

Because even if you give ID the benefit of the doubt, it still violates the principle by positing an unnecessary designer.

Click to expand...

if he is unnecessary, how did life begin?

You're reading things into Darwin that are not there. Darwin spends two chapters specifically addressing the failings of geology to preserve evidence, and how that is not an indictment of evolution. And there is a lot of evidence since his time to support the general theory. The paperclip/light bulb comment was to show that your criticisms are being directed at thinking, that while revolutionary at the time, and a vast improvement over what came before, does not represent the current level of knowledge. For example, Darwin had no idea about genetics, and how traits actually are passed from parent to offspring. The upshot is that you should not expect to find a "finely graduated organic chain" even though he suggests such in rhetorical fashion before dismissing it. For a specific example of the short-necked giraffe, see About.com: Samotherium
No, I can't show you his fossilized vessel net, but this is exactly the sort of intermediate form that we might expect, but not be guaranteed, to find. He does have the pair of ossicones on his head, and long legs, like a modern giraffe.

Click to expand...

did he or did he not say the quotes i attributed to him? so, how am i reading something that isn't there? so, darwin says we should find a finely graduated organic chain in one breath and then says, oh wait.... ????

Incremental change in complementary systems does not require large simultaneous mutations or intentionality.

Click to expand...

the development of two completely new systems that serve no purpose whatsoever by themselves does require simultaneous mutations or they would have been removed by evolution because they are "nonviable"

Every observation is an opportunity for falsification, and the general theory of evolution has withstood a lot of them. If the evidence pointed to a designer, science would have accepted it, and turned their questions toward the nature of the designer. But incredulity is not evidence, and lack of imagination or understanding is not counterevidence. There is no need for a modern scientist to crusade against evolution, as there were plenty of opponents in the 18th and 19th centuries to try to discredit it. Any scientist with a good, revolutionary idea can make a career out of showing reasons to believe he is right, but at the very least his ideas must be scientific.

Click to expand...

and, NO, the evidence is just as suggestive of design as it is for evolution. you, yourself, have dismissed the idea of design because it is not scientifically testable (and because you reject the idea of a god). maybe not, but by observation we can conclude logically that things have a design.... if my 2 year old types on my keyboard and there is a word that appears out of a hundred letters typed, would you be surprised that it was random? of course not. however, if he typed a paragraph that was grammatically correct, you'd call me a liar if i said he typed it. what's the difference? we can look at the information and conclude that it was not by accident that the paragraph came to be. the world is vastly complex.... aside from the creatures in it, there are a lot of factors that had to be "just so" to have life here. the probability of all those taking place is beyond astronomical. So, it's like the paragraph.... Did this "grammatically correct paragraph" come into existence by chance or was it designed???