Evolutionists

[Thagoods]

How do reconcile irreducible complexity and the lack of fossils and skeletal structures in transitional forms?

I'm honestly curious as to how evolutionists can explain this.

[PhilHartman]

God did it!

[JohnGault]

Remeber Hitler was a huge Christian!

[Thagoods]

God did it!

I'm not on either side of the debate, and don't claim to know what happened, but if that's the best you can come up with, I'll just assume you chose the "edgier" of the two positions.

[ABeardedDragon]

How do we reconcile irreducible complexity? I wasn't aware that anyone took it seriously in the first place. Everything Behe threw out (like the eye) as examples of something that was irreducibly complex were thorougly debunked. Behe's theory holds no weight at all in the scientific community and is considered pseudo science.

Lack of transistional fossils? Like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik? Please. Anyone who has even half assedly looked into the subject could see how ridiculous that creationist argument is.

If you want are good summary of evolution, I suggest Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True.

[TallGrass]

Irreducible Complexity is a complete scam. Ken Miller, IMO, falsified it beautifully at the Dove ID trial a few years ago. When questioned about a mousetrap's irreducibility, he removed the trigger & catch (reducing it) and then clipped it on his tie showing that it's a perfectly functioning tie clip.

That is how evolution works- it's not a step by step process to get from something simple to something complex. It changes from something that works (a tie clip) to something else that works by a simple change (a mousetrap)- called exaptation. Things like the three bones in our inner ear started as jaw bones.

Along with dragon's recommendation, I suggest you check out Neil Shubin's book Your Inner Fish.

[Thagoods]

How do we reconcile irreducible complexity? I wasn't aware that anyone took it seriously in the first place. Everything Behe threw out (like the eye) as examples of something that was irreducibly complex were thorougly debunked. Behe's theory holds no weight at all in the scientific community and is considered pseudo science.

Lack of transistional fossils? Like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik? Please. Anyone who has even half assedly looked into the subject could see how ridiculous that creationist argument is.

If you want are good summary of evolution, I suggest Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True.

I'm in the middle of a book about this debate, and while the irreducible complexity doesn't explain creationism, it does punch a small hole in the theory of evolution. I think any reasonable person (with no expectation of which side is correct) would have to concede, at the very least, that it's worth entertaining.

I'll check out the book you recommended.

[PhilHartman]

it does punch a small hole in the theory of evolution.

Nope.

[TallGrass]

How do we reconcile irreducible complexity? I wasn't aware that anyone took it seriously in the first place. Everything Behe threw out (like the eye) as examples of something that was irreducibly complex were thorougly debunked. Behe's theory holds no weight at all in the scientific community and is considered pseudo science.

Lack of transistional fossils? Like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik? Please. Anyone who has even half assedly looked into the subject could see how ridiculous that creationist argument is.

If you want are good summary of evolution, I suggest Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True.

I'm in the middle of a book about this debate, and while the irreducible complexity doesn't explain creationism, it does punch a small hole in the theory of evolution. I think any reasonable person (with no expectation of which side is correct) would have to concede, at the very least, that it's worth entertaining.

I'll check out the book you recommended.
Can you give us some information, like what book you are reading and how it "punches a small hole" in the theory

[Thagoods]

I'm reading The Edge of evolution by Michael J. Behe.

This is a review from the book to give you an idea of its content -

"Behe argues that genetic mutation results in only clumsy solutions to selective pressures. He goes on to conclude that the statistical possibility of certain evolutionary changes taking place is virtually nil. Although Behe writes with passion and clarity, his calculations of probability ignore biologists' rejection of the premise that evolution has been working toward producing any particular end product. Furthermore, he repeatedly refers to the shortcomings of "Darwin's theory-the power of natural selection coupled to random mutation," but current biological theory encompasses far more than this simplistic view. Most important, Behe reaches the controversial conclusion that the workings of an intelligent designer is the only reasonable alternative to evolution, even without affirmative evidence in its favor."

[HoundedHawk]

I'm in the middle of a book about this debate, and while the irreducible complexity doesn't explain creationism, it does punch a small hole in the theory of evolution. I think any reasonable person (with no expectation of which side is correct) would have to concede, at the very least, that it's worth entertaining.
Well, of course it punches a hole in it. And the mousetrap illustration was perfect. When the evolutionist countered with using a part of it as a tie clip I was embarassed by the intellectual dishonesty in that. Of course, an intelligence could use any part for anything. There are countless things in the human body that are useless unless all the parts are there as a finished product.

You have to remember that when you're dealing with evolutionists you're dealing with people that have just as much, if not stronger, faith than a creationist.

[Gushawk]

Attempting to "poke holes" is what creationists are all about. The scientific possibility of the alternative accounts they believe is not a topic they prefer to spend much time on.

[PhilHartman]

I'm in the middle of a book about this debate, and while the irreducible complexity doesn't explain creationism, it does punch a small hole in the theory of evolution. I think any reasonable person (with no expectation of which side is correct) would have to concede, at the very least, that it's worth entertaining.
Well, of course it punches a hole in it. And the mousetrap illustration was perfect. When the evolutionist countered with using a part of it as a tie clip I was embarassed by the intellectual dishonesty in that. Of course, an intelligence could use any part for anything. There are countless things in the human body that are useless unless all the parts are there as a finished product.

You have to remember that when you're dealing with evolutionists you're dealing with people that have just as much, if not stronger, faith than a creationist.

It's usually pretty obvious that Hounded's attacks on other positions are subconscious attacks on his own... but this one is more obvious than most.

The fact that he doesn't understand the tie clip refutation shows what kind of of intellect you're dealing with.

[PhilHartman]

Attempting to "poke holes" is what creationists are all about. The scientific possibility of the alternative accounts they believe is not a topic they prefer to spend much time on.

In other words, they're spending all their effort on ignoring the true word of God and all the evidence he left in favor of their man made solution. They are lost, blind to the word of God.

[Thagoods]

I'm in the middle of a book about this debate, and while the irreducible complexity doesn't explain creationism, it does punch a small hole in the theory of evolution. I think any reasonable person (with no expectation of which side is correct) would have to concede, at the very least, that it's worth entertaining.
Well, of course it punches a hole in it. And the mousetrap illustration was perfect. When the evolutionist countered with using a part of it as a tie clip I was embarassed by the intellectual dishonesty in that. Of course, an intelligence could use any part for anything. There are countless things in the human body that are useless unless all the parts are there as a finished product.

You have to remember that when you're dealing with evolutionists you're dealing with people that have just as much, if not stronger, faith than a creationist.

It's usually pretty obvious that Hounded's attacks on other positions are subconscious attacks on his own... but this one is more obvious than most.

The fact that he doesn't understand the tie clip refutation shows what kind of of intellect you're dealing with.

I think we all understand Ken Miller's point just fine. A mousetrap should not have been used to explain the complexity of the human body, though.

[PhilHartman]

Well, of course it punches a hole in it. And the mousetrap illustration was perfect. When the evolutionist countered with using a part of it as a tie clip I was embarassed by the intellectual dishonesty in that. Of course, an intelligence could use any part for anything. There are countless things in the human body that are useless unless all the parts are there as a finished product.

You have to remember that when you're dealing with evolutionists you're dealing with people that have just as much, if not stronger, faith than a creationist.

It's usually pretty obvious that Hounded's attacks on other positions are subconscious attacks on his own... but this one is more obvious than most.

The fact that he doesn't understand the tie clip refutation shows what kind of of intellect you're dealing with.

I think we all understand Ken Miller's point just fine. A mousetrap should not have been used to explain the complexity of the human body, though.

All but Hounded that is. The example and perfect refutation of the argument went far, far over his head.

[TallGrass]

I'm reading The Edge of evolution by Michael J. Behe.

This is a review from the book to give you an idea of its content -

"Behe argues that genetic mutation results in only clumsy solutions to selective pressures. He goes on to conclude that the statistical possibility of certain evolutionary changes taking place is virtually nil. Although Behe writes with passion and clarity, his calculations of probability ignore biologists' rejection of the premise that evolution has been working toward producing any particular end product. Furthermore, he repeatedly refers to the shortcomings of "Darwin's theory-the power of natural selection coupled to random mutation," but current biological theory encompasses far more than this simplistic view. Most important, Behe reaches the controversial conclusion that the workings of an intelligent designer is the only reasonable alternative to evolution, even without affirmative evidence in its favor."
Take anything Behe says with a grain of salt. He's been shown to be factually dishonest time after time- especially with the dishonest argument of irreducible complexity. Which has nothing to do with how evolution works.

Life & bodies are not in relation to their development are not simple machines. We weren't built like you'd build a car. There are a multitude of eye formations out there that are much different than our own. From simple light sensing spots on a Planaria to eyes consisting of hundreds of lenses found on a bee. All of them work some are more or less complex than others.

[TallGrass]

God did it!

I'm not on either side of the debate, and don't claim to know what happened, but if that's the best you can come up with, I'll just assume you chose the "edgier" of the two positions.
It's funny you say this then title your thread "Evolutionishts" and are also reading a book by Behe.

[drbutkus]

It is fair to say that conventional Darwinian concepts about the formation of complex systems struggle, in my opinion, to mathematical objections related to the billions of necessary mutations and the time spans required for them. That, of course, doesn't mean that there isn't a legitimate explanation.

[Thagoods]

God did it!

I'm not on either side of the debate, and don't claim to know what happened, but if that's the best you can come up with, I'll just assume you chose the "edgier" of the two positions.
It's funny you say this then title your thread "Evolutionishts" and are also reading a book by Behe.

Well, the next book on my list is The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.

[sergeanthulka]

It's usually pretty obvious that Hounded's attacks on other positions are subconscious attacks on his own... but this one is more obvious than most.

The fact that he doesn't understand the tie clip refutation shows what kind of of intellect you're dealing with.

I think we all understand Ken Miller's point just fine. A mousetrap should not have been used to explain the complexity of the human body, though.

All but Hounded that is. The example and perfect refutation of the argument went far, far over his head.

Even Dawkins 'debunking' of Behe's 'theory' as it pertains to the eye being formed by tiny gradual steps starts out..."Could we possibly conceive..."

Well even if someone could perhaps 'possibly conceive' of something being theoretically possible...doesn't necessarily mean it's the best choice, does it? Based on where we stand today, design still seems the most plausible option.

[TallGrass]

I'm not on either side of the debate, and don't claim to know what happened, but if that's the best you can come up with, I'll just assume you chose the "edgier" of the two positions.
It's funny you say this then title your thread "Evolutionishts" and are also reading a book by Behe.

Well, the next book on my list is The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.
Fair enough.

Check out a talk he gave 20 years ago.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_dawkins_growing_up_in_the_universe.html

[TallGrass]

I think we all understand Ken Miller's point just fine. A mousetrap should not have been used to explain the complexity of the human body, though.

All but Hounded that is. The example and perfect refutation of the argument went far, far over his head.

Even Dawkins 'debunking' of Behe's 'theory' as it pertains to the eye being formed by tiny gradual steps starts out..."Could we possibly conceive..."

Well even if someone could perhaps 'possibly conceive' of something being theoretically possible...doesn't necessarily mean it's the best choice, does it? Based on where we stand today, design still seems the most plausible option.
Good grief. Except Dawkins is "conceiving" based upon mountains of actual physical evidence.

[TallGrass]

This cartoon explains pretty well how ID/Creation works and why it doesn't cut it for science.

http://danlandin.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png

[PhilHartman]

I think we all understand Ken Miller's point just fine. A mousetrap should not have been used to explain the complexity of the human body, though.

All but Hounded that is. The example and perfect refutation of the argument went far, far over his head.

Even Dawkins 'debunking' of Behe's 'theory' as it pertains to the eye being formed by tiny gradual steps starts out..."Could we possibly conceive..."

Well even if someone could perhaps 'possibly conceive' of something being theoretically possible...doesn't necessarily mean it's the best choice, does it? Based on where we stand today, design still seems the most plausible option.

I take it you didn't get any further than that line. In fact, I'll bet you didn't even read that line, but instead just regurgitated the above argument from somewhere else where it was spoon fed to you.

[TallGrass]

It is fair to say that conventional Darwinian concepts about the formation of complex systems struggle, in my opinion, to mathematical objections related to the billions of necessary mutations and the time spans required for them. That, of course, doesn't mean that there isn't a legitimate explanation.
"Darwinian" evolution never tried to explain "complex systems" "Darwinian" evolution is strictly on the formation of 'favored races' and the struggle for life. He was looking through a much larger frame for his explanation.

[OlePeep]

I think we all understand Ken Miller's point just fine. A mousetrap should not have been used to explain the complexity of the human body, though.

All but Hounded that is. The example and perfect refutation of the argument went far, far over his head.

Even Dawkins 'debunking' of Behe's 'theory' as it pertains to the eye being formed by tiny gradual steps starts out..."Could we possibly conceive..."

Well even if someone could perhaps 'possibly conceive' of something being theoretically possible...doesn't necessarily mean it's the best choice, does it? Based on where we stand today, design still seems the most plausible option.

This is what bothers me about this debate. Certainly it's possible the mousetrap could've been used as a tie clip, but it need not have been. There's no proof that it was. It is hardly a "perfect refutation" of irreducible complexity.

I don't purport to disprove or poke holes in evolutioon theory. I lack the expertise. But it seems to me scientists are too often ready to proclaim something as fact that may or may not be so.

I read "Darwin's Black Box" over a decade ago, and so I'm a bit rusty on the subject, but I thought he acknowledged strong evidence for common ancestors, etc., and was more concerned w/ origins issues.

[RobertIngersoll]

the lack of fossils and skeletal structures in transitional forms?

That was a defendable, though weak, argument in the 60's. Not so much today...

[sergeanthulka]

All but Hounded that is. The example and perfect refutation of the argument went far, far over his head.

Even Dawkins 'debunking' of Behe's 'theory' as it pertains to the eye being formed by tiny gradual steps starts out..."Could we possibly conceive..."

Well even if someone could perhaps 'possibly conceive' of something being theoretically possible...doesn't necessarily mean it's the best choice, does it? Based on where we stand today, design still seems the most plausible option.

I take it you didn't get any further than that line. In fact, I'll bet you didn't even read that line, but instead just regurgitated the above argument from somewhere else where it was spoon fed to you.

I'll bet a dollar that you don't even know the book I'm talking about, let alone the accusation that I haven't read it...:rotf:

[PhilHartman]

Even Dawkins 'debunking' of Behe's 'theory' as it pertains to the eye being formed by tiny gradual steps starts out..."Could we possibly conceive..."

Well even if someone could perhaps 'possibly conceive' of something being theoretically possible...doesn't necessarily mean it's the best choice, does it? Based on where we stand today, design still seems the most plausible option.

I take it you didn't get any further than that line. In fact, I'll bet you didn't even read that line, but instead just regurgitated the above argument from somewhere else where it was spoon fed to you.

I'll bet a dollar that you don't even know the book I'm talking about, let alone the accusation that I haven't read it...:rotf:

Yup, sure. Keep regurgitating.

[TallGrass]

This is what bothers me about this debate. Certainly it's possible the mousetrap could've been used as a tie clip, but it need not have been. There's no proof that it was. It is hardly a "perfect refutation" of irreducible complexity.

I don't purport to disprove or poke holes in evolutioon theory. I lack the expertise. But it seems to me scientists are too often ready to proclaim something as fact that may or may not be so.

I read "Darwin's Black Box" over a decade ago, and so I'm a bit rusty on the subject, but I thought he acknowledged strong evidence for common ancestors, etc., and was more concerned w/ origins issues.
The mousetrap does illustrate that current forms can and have arisen from something entirely different- exaptation. Something most "anti-evolutionists" can't or won't try to understand.

Things like our inner ear bones, we have numerous ancestors showing the change that occurred from jaw to ear (again check out the book Your Inner Fish). As is the case with nearly every "irreducibly complex" structure.

It is absolutely vital to remember that every organism has a history. If we're designed so perfectly, why then do we swallow & breath in the same 'tube'- our pharynx? This leads to choking which leads to 1000's of deaths a year. That's very poorly 'designed'.

[PhilHartman]

All but Hounded that is. The example and perfect refutation of the argument went far, far over his head.

Even Dawkins 'debunking' of Behe's 'theory' as it pertains to the eye being formed by tiny gradual steps starts out..."Could we possibly conceive..."

Well even if someone could perhaps 'possibly conceive' of something being theoretically possible...doesn't necessarily mean it's the best choice, does it? Based on where we stand today, design still seems the most plausible option.

This is what bothers me about this debate. Certainly it's possible the mousetrap could've been used as a tie clip, but it need not have been. There's no proof that it was. It is hardly a "perfect refutation" of irreducible complexity.

I don't purport to disprove or poke holes in evolutioon theory. I lack the expertise. But it seems to me scientists are too often ready to proclaim something as fact that may or may not be so.

I read "Darwin's Black Box" over a decade ago, and so I'm a bit rusty on the subject, but I thought he acknowledged strong evidence for common ancestors, etc., and was more concerned w/ origins issues.

Actually it is if you understand that argument. It shows how the individual pieces of a mouse trap could have come to be in another form. The "evolution" of metal was that is was first used for other purposes... The mouse trap is evolved from other technology, hooks, wires and springs arose and someone used them together to create the mouse trap.

Now, I know one of you idiots will focus above on the "someone" who created the mousetrap, but that is the place for evolutionary forces in the evolution argument.

[JohnGault]

No evolutionist has ever been able to tell me where matter originated from. Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.

[OlePeep]

If we're designed so perfectly, why then do we swallow & breath in the same 'tube'- our pharynx? This leads to choking which leads to 1000's of deaths a year. That's very poorly 'designed'.

I agree w/ this, and you may hand wave at my answer, but I don't think ID necessarily posits a "perfect" design. Those who despise ID virtually to a man get caught up in its use by Christian creationists rather than consider alternate explanations to cherished beliefs of their own.

Wasn't Gould troubled by some of the leaps, and suggest that perhaps life had come to earth from other places in the universe as a possible explanation to the explosion of diversity?

[Gushawk]

Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.

That depends entirely upon the type of creationist we're talking about. A "divine spark" creationist? Perhaps. A Biblical literalist creationist? No way in hell. They affirmatively believe the unbelievable, not just hyptothesized explanations for the unexplainable.

[OlePeep]

It shows how the individual pieces of a mouse trap could have come to be in another form.

Agreed.

[drbutkus]

No evolutionist has ever been able to tell me where matter originated from. Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.


http://myspace.roflposters.com/images/rofl/myspace/1199528152356.jpg.%5Broflposters.com%5D.myspace.jp g

[PhilHartman]

No evolutionist has ever been able to tell me where matter originated from. Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.

Jesus Christ.

[Grape Ape]

No evolutionist has ever been able to tell me where matter originated from. Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.

http://www.ruderfinn.co.uk/blogs/dotcom/files/2009/06/enviromental-head-in-the-sand.jpg

[TallGrass]

If we're designed so perfectly, why then do we swallow & breath in the same 'tube'- our pharynx? This leads to choking which leads to 1000's of deaths a year. That's very poorly 'designed'.

I agree w/ this, and you may hand wave at my answer, but I don't think ID necessarily posits a "perfect" design. Those who despise ID virtually to a man get caught up in its use by Christian creationists rather than consider alternate explanations to cherished beliefs of their own.


ID is a ploy by religious people to get creation into science. That's what the Wedge Document clearly states.

Again, even with imperfect design. Design from who's perspective? Humans? Why?

Wasn't Gould troubled by some of the leaps, and suggest that perhaps life had come to earth from other places in the universe as a possible explanation to the explosion of diversity?
If you look into his writings it wasn't that he had problems with the 'leaps' but that we hadn't filled in those 'gaps'. It was basically an argument for continued research.

[JohnGault]

No evolutionist has ever been able to tell me where matter originated from. Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.

http://www.ruderfinn.co.uk/blogs/dotcom/files/2009/06/enviromental-head-in-the-sand.jpg

So I take it you have an answer to my question. Or is YOUR head buried some place else.

[ThePracticalPundit]

No evolutionist has ever been able to tell me where matter originated from. Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.

You understand that evolution is not a theory that addresses the origin of matter, right? This is like asking your lasagna recipe to explain where ricotta cheese comes from.

[JohnGault]

No evolutionist has ever been able to tell me where matter originated from. Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.

You understand that evolution is not a theory that addresses the origin of matter, right? This is like asking your lasagna recipe to explain where ricotta cheese comes from.

I disagree. Without this question being answered there would be nothing to begin the evolutionary process.

[Grape Ape]

No evolutionist has ever been able to tell me where matter originated from. Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.

http://www.ruderfinn.co.uk/blogs/dotcom/files/2009/06/enviromental-head-in-the-sand.jpg

So I take it you have an answer to my question. Or is YOUR head buried some place else.

Matter came from Lord Xenu. Prove me wrong

[TallGrass]

No evolutionist has ever been able to tell me where matter originated from. Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.

You understand that evolution is not a theory that addresses the origin of matter, right? This is like asking your lasagna recipe to explain where ricotta cheese comes from.

I disagree. Without this question being answered there would be nothing to begin the evolutionary process.
Yes, but it's a question evolution isn't trying to answer.

[Gushawk]

No evolutionist has ever been able to tell me where matter originated from. Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.

You understand that evolution is not a theory that addresses the origin of matter, right? This is like asking your lasagna recipe to explain where ricotta cheese comes from.

I disagree. Without this question being answered there would be nothing to begin the evolutionary process.

Believing that God may have created matter and believing evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive?

[PhilHartman]

No evolutionist has ever been able to tell me where matter originated from. Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.

You understand that evolution is not a theory that addresses the origin of matter, right? This is like asking your lasagna recipe to explain where ricotta cheese comes from.

I disagree. Without this question being answered there would be nothing to begin the evolutionary process.

JohnGault is not very bright.

[JohnGault]

You understand that evolution is not a theory that addresses the origin of matter, right? This is like asking your lasagna recipe to explain where ricotta cheese comes from.

I disagree. Without this question being answered there would be nothing to begin the evolutionary process.

Believing that God may have created matter and believing evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive?

I also believe that everything goes from order to disorder without organization at the top.

[Gushawk]

Public union education.

[ThePracticalPundit]

No evolutionist has ever been able to tell me where matter originated from. Until that can be explained the people on that side have as much faith as a creationist.

You understand that evolution is not a theory that addresses the origin of matter, right? This is like asking your lasagna recipe to explain where ricotta cheese comes from.

I disagree. Without this question being answered there would be nothing to begin the evolutionary process.

You don't have to answer the question of where life came from to recognize it exists, and to study it. Evolution is the study of processes at work in an existing population. How that population came to be is a different branch of study. Related, certainly, but not the same. If God created the first creatures, evolution would still be the study of how they've subsequently changed. You can't refute a theory by claiming it's something it isn't.

[JohnGault]

You understand that evolution is not a theory that addresses the origin of matter, right? This is like asking your lasagna recipe to explain where ricotta cheese comes from.

I disagree. Without this question being answered there would be nothing to begin the evolutionary process.

JohnGault is not very bright.

& Hitler was a huge Christian. Right Philtard?

[PhilHartman]

I disagree. Without this question being answered there would be nothing to begin the evolutionary process.

Believing that God may have created matter and believing evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive?

I also believe that everything goes from order to disorder without organization at the top.

So you don't believe matter clumps together through gravity either? JohnGault, not bright.

[PhilHartman]

I disagree. Without this question being answered there would be nothing to begin the evolutionary process.

JohnGault is not very bright.

& Hitler was a huge Christian. Right Philtard?

You're not doing a very good job of inspiring confidence in the opposite of that statement... assuming that's your strange goal.

[JohnGault]

Believing that God may have created matter and believing evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive?

I also believe that everything goes from order to disorder without organization at the top.

So you don't believe matter clumps together through gravity either? JohnGault, not bright.

So does your cum in your boyfriends bathtub but that does not mean that it then organizes.

[PhilHartman]

I also believe that everything goes from order to disorder without organization at the top.

So you don't believe matter clumps together through gravity either? JohnGault, not bright.

So does your cum in your boyfriends bathtub but that does not mean that it then organizes.

JohnGault's brand of psychological projection is now perhaps the grossest I've ever encountered. Seriously, to write that it must have been on his mind, and that's just beyond sick. Who thinks about stuff like that? I'll tell ya who, JohnGault.

[JohnGault]

Just my projection of what a rude bitch you are. You can't win an argument so you have to call names. You sir....suck!!


& Hitler was a huge Christian

[TallGrass]

This was a pretty good thread until John showed up.

[JohnGault]

This was a pretty good thread until John showed up.

Can't answer my question eh?

Phil starts calling names & then somehow it's my fault the thread went bad. STFU

[Grape Ape]

This was a pretty good thread until John showed up.

Can't answer my question eh?

Phil starts calling names & then somehow it's my fault the thread went bad. STFU

Your question is irrelevant

[TallGrass]

what question are you asking?

[Gushawk]

what question are you asking?

How can you accept evolution when you can't explain the origin of matter?

Who says there are no stupid questions?

[JohnGault]

what question are you asking?

How can you accept evolution when you can't explain the origin of matter?

Who says there are no stupid questions?

Where then did the evolutionary process begin. What is the origin of the original amino acids?

[PhilHartman]

what question are you asking?

How can you accept evolution when you can't explain the origin of matter?

Who says there are no stupid questions?

What is the origin of the original amino acids?

The cum in your boyfriend's bathtub?

[JohnGault]

How can you accept evolution when you can't explain the origin of matter?

Who says there are no stupid questions?

What is the origin of the original amino acids?

The cum in your boyfriend's bathtub?

& if I respond to Philtards post it will be my fault the thread goes down hill.

& Remember Hitler was a huge Christian.

[Thagoods]

It's funny you say this then title your thread "Evolutionishts" and are also reading a book by Behe.

Well, the next book on my list is The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.
Fair enough.

Check out a talk he gave 20 years ago.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_dawkins_growing_up_in_the_universe.html

I enjoyed that. I look forward to reading his book next.

[ThePracticalPundit]

What is the origin of the original amino acids?

The cum in your boyfriend's bathtub?

& if I respond to Philtards post it will be my fault the thread goes down hill.

& Remember Hitler was a huge Christian.

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/176/pointless500x400.jpg

[ABeardedDragon]

This thread makes me want to laugh... and then cry.

[TallGrass]

what question are you asking?

How can you accept evolution when you can't explain the origin of matter?

Who says there are no stupid questions?

Where then did the evolutionary process begin. What is the origin of the original amino acids?
Evolution began once life began.

And your second question: Go look into self-assembling molecules.

[JohnGault]

How can you accept evolution when you can't explain the origin of matter?

Who says there are no stupid questions?

Where then did the evolutionary process begin. What is the origin of the original amino acids?
Evolution began once life began.

And your second question: Go look into self-assembling molecules.

1. So for evolution to begin you must start with a simple life form like Dennis Kucinich.

2. & these complex molecules came from where?

[HoundedHawk]

This cartoon explains pretty well how ID/Creation works and why it doesn't cut it for science.

http://danlandin.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png
Actually, that is the perfect explanation of what evolutionist does, especially on the formation of DNA, first cell, etc.

[ThePracticalPundit]

Actually, that is the perfect explanation of what evolutionist does, especially on the formation of DNA, first cell, etc.

Again, formation of DNA, first cell... not evolution.

[HoundedHawk]

Actually, that is the perfect explanation of what evolutionist does, especially on the formation of DNA, first cell, etc.

Again, formation of DNA, first cell... not evolution.
I accidently left out the "the" before "evolutionist." It's still exactly what the evolutionist does when it comes to those areas.

[ThePracticalPundit]

Actually, that is the perfect explanation of what evolutionist does, especially on the formation of DNA, first cell, etc.

Again, formation of DNA, first cell... not evolution.
I accidently left out the "the" before "evolutionist." It's still exactly what the evolutionist does when it comes to those areas.

No "evolutionist" I know takes the position you attribute. When asked how life originated, they uniformly answer "I don't know" and discuss current hypotheses. They don't claim to have the answer, and they don't abandon the scientific investigation of it.

[ABeardedDragon]

Again, formation of DNA, first cell... not evolution.
I accidently left out the "the" before "evolutionist." It's still exactly what the evolutionist does when it comes to those areas.

No "evolutionist" I know takes the position you attribute. When asked how life originated, they uniformly answer "I don't know" and discuss current hypotheses. They don't claim to have the answer, and they don't abandon the scientific investigation of it.

To add on a bit, there are theories regarding how life could have came about and how each individual key component may have started (like the cell wall, metabolism, etc). For instance there is the RNA first view, a clay catalyst view, lipids (cell walls) coming first, etc.

These theories are not as well known publicly because none of them have really edged out all the others at this point (they each have their own weaknesses) and it is still a hot topic for debate within the scientific community.

This is a far cry from the suggestion that scientists just go "magic happens here" and then move on.

[PipeDaddy]

I'd just like to point out the usual point I make in these threads:

Let's not confuse the idea of origins with the idea of science.

Now, the debate about evolution (without involving the idea of origins) may continue.

[Klink]

Origin of species or just life in general?

[HoundedHawk]

Again, formation of DNA, first cell... not evolution.
I accidently left out the "the" before "evolutionist." It's still exactly what the evolutionist does when it comes to those areas.

No "evolutionist" I know takes the position you attribute. When asked how life originated, they uniformly answer "I don't know" and discuss current hypotheses. They don't claim to have the answer, and they don't abandon the scientific investigation of it.
In essence they are inserting their own type of "miracle" in those areas since there is no rational natural explanation for it. They have nothing natural so are therefore going on faith.

[TallGrass]

I didn't know that "I don't know" is faith.

[JohnGault]

I didn't know that "I don't know" is faith.

Until it is receated in a lab it is faith.

[Art Vandalay]

I didn't know that "I don't know" is faith.

Don't forget the whole actively searching for a more complete explanation part

[Art Vandalay]

I didn't know that "I don't know" is faith.

Until it is receated in a lab it is faith.


What definition of faith, other than your own flawed view, does admitting you have yet to find a sufficient explanation and continually working for a better one meet?

[mobyditch]

Fossils Do Not Prove Evolution

http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=12&c=11

They are everywhere.

[ThePracticalPundit]

I accidently left out the "the" before "evolutionist." It's still exactly what the evolutionist does when it comes to those areas.

No "evolutionist" I know takes the position you attribute. When asked how life originated, they uniformly answer "I don't know" and discuss current hypotheses. They don't claim to have the answer, and they don't abandon the scientific investigation of it.
In essence they are inserting their own type of "miracle" in those areas since there is no rational natural explanation for it. They have nothing natural so are therefore going on faith.

They're not inserting a miracle or anything else in those areas; you are. They are saying they don't know, but allowing for the possibility that a natural explanation might yet be discovered. At one time there was no rational, natural explanation for wind, lightning, rain, thunder, tornadoes, disease, the growth of mold, the aurora borealis, gravity, photosynthesis, echoes, the motion of the planets, magnetism, or where maggots come from. There were a variety of explanations for all of these items, none of them accurate until the science was developed to investigate and discover them.

[Art Vandalay]

Fossils Do Not Prove Evolution

http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=12&c=11

They are everywhere.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3460/3236338985_667e50dcf0.jpg

[ThePracticalPundit]

I didn't know that "I don't know" is faith.

Until it is receated in a lab it is faith.

Uh... no.

[Grape Ape]

I didn't know that "I don't know" is faith.

Until it is receated in a lab it is faith.

Aye Dios Mio!

[PhilHartman]

No "evolutionist" I know takes the position you attribute. When asked how life originated, they uniformly answer "I don't know" and discuss current hypotheses. They don't claim to have the answer, and they don't abandon the scientific investigation of it.
In essence they are inserting their own type of "miracle" in those areas since there is no rational natural explanation for it. They have nothing natural so are therefore going on faith.

They're not inserting a miracle or anything else in those areas; you are. They are saying they don't know, but allowing for the possibility that a natural explanation might yet be discovered. At one time there was no rational, natural explanation for wind, lightning, rain, thunder, tornadoes, disease, the growth of mold, the aurora borealis, gravity, photosynthesis, echoes, the motion of the planets, magnetism, or where maggots come from. There were a variety of explanations for all of these items, none of them accurate until the science was developed to investigate and discover them.

Well.. That pretty much destroys Hounded's entire satanistic belief system.

[OlePeep]

ID is a ploy by religious people to get creation into science. That's what the Wedge Document clearly states.


I had to google the "Wedge Document". Surely you are aware that the design argument pre-dates the Discovery Institute. Remember the "Clockmaker" theory?

[TallGrass]

True, but it didn't gain a foothold until the DI & religion took it.

[OlePeep]

They are saying they don't know, but allowing for the possibility that a natural explanation might yet be discovered.

I wish this were the case. Most often, theories are presented as fact to the consuming public. One outrageous case that's a little off point was a documentary I watched on dinosaurs w/in the last couple of years. It was a widely touted production, w/ the latest in computer graphics making the dinos more realistic than ever. But they depicted behavioral scenarios they could not possibly have known w/ any confidence at all, such as the way a certain species' females protected individual eggs from predators in a particular way. There was no "We don't know, aw shucks" disclaimer. The scenario was presented as if research had discovered and established the fact that those dinos employed that strategy. The game isn't played nearly so cleanly as you suggest.

At one time there was no rational, natural explanation for wind, lightning, rain, thunder, tornadoes, disease, the growth of mold, the aurora borealis, gravity, photosynthesis, echoes, the motion of the planets, magnetism, or where maggots come from. There were a variety of explanations for all of these items, none of them accurate until the science was developed to investigate and discover them.

Certainly you can discern the difference between the phenomena you list here and examining evolution via the scientific method.

[ThePracticalPundit]

They are saying they don't know, but allowing for the possibility that a natural explanation might yet be discovered.

I wish this were the case. Most often, theories are presented as fact to the consuming public. One outrageous case that's a little off point was a documentary I watched on dinosaurs w/in the last couple of years. It was a widely touted production, w/ the latest in computer graphics making the dinos more realistic than ever. But they depicted behavioral scenarios they could not possibly have known w/ any confidence at all, such as the way a certain species' females protected individual eggs from predators in a particular way. There was no "We don't know, aw shucks" disclaimer. The scenario was presented as if research had discovered and established the fact that those dinos employed that strategy. The game isn't played nearly so cleanly as you suggest.

Television producers and CGI animators are not biologists. I saw the program you're referencing, and you're right that some of these things cannot be definitively known. But it's a TV program, and has to sell advertising. It's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If you want to get all your science from the popular media, you're going to have misconceptions. But rather than have school teachers instructing students in actual science, so they can discern the difference, the ID movement wants to put disclaimers in text books and teach dogma alongside science as if they were the same thing. Ironic, ain't it?


At one time there was no rational, natural explanation for wind, lightning, rain, thunder, tornadoes, disease, the growth of mold, the aurora borealis, gravity, photosynthesis, echoes, the motion of the planets, magnetism, or where maggots come from. There were a variety of explanations for all of these items, none of them accurate until the science was developed to investigate and discover them.Certainly you can discern the difference between the phenomena you list here and examining evolution via the scientific method.

Please elaborate.

[OlePeep]

Television producers and CGI animators are not biologists. I saw the program you're referencing, and you're right that some of these things cannot be definitively known. But it's a TV program, and has to sell advertising. It's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If you want to get all your science from the popular media, you're going to have misconceptions. But rather than have school teachers instructing students in actual science, so they can discern the difference, the ID movement wants to put disclaimers in text books and teach dogma alongside science as if they were the same thing. Ironic, ain't it?

I of course concede your general point, but it does not really address mine. Public school teachers present programs like that dino show to their students. I remember such presentations; hell, I remember them in an anthropology class in college, and thinking the same thing. There are no "These are just speculation" disclaimers. I'm talking about how the material is presented to the non-scientific public, which should be able to trust their experts to communicate what they know and don't know honestly. Given the heat of the debates surrounding these issues, I think uncertainties get kicked to the curb in the public domain, in favor of conveying a false sense of authority. Peer-reviewed literature is not accessible to most people; that fact should not influence the way the science is presented to the broader public.


At one time there was no rational, natural explanation for wind, lightning, rain, thunder, tornadoes, disease, the growth of mold, the aurora borealis, gravity, photosynthesis, echoes, the motion of the planets, magnetism, or where maggots come from. There were a variety of explanations for all of these items, none of them accurate until the science was developed to investigate and discover them.Certainly you can discern the difference between the phenomena you list here and examining evolution via the scientific method.

Please elaborate.

Well, the phenomena you list above are observable (and testable) every day outside or even inside our windows. The time scales required to observe evolution (and I'm speaking here not of simple mutations but of speciation--if that's the correct term) in the same fashion via the scientifc method preclude the kind of discovery you reference above.

[bearbull24.5]

Television producers and CGI animators are not biologists. I saw the program you're referencing, and you're right that some of these things cannot be definitively known. But it's a TV program, and has to sell advertising. It's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If you want to get all your science from the popular media, you're going to have misconceptions. But rather than have school teachers instructing students in actual science, so they can discern the difference, the ID movement wants to put disclaimers in text books and teach dogma alongside science as if they were the same thing. Ironic, ain't it?

I of course concede your general point, but it does not really address mine. Public school teachers present programs like that dino show to their students. I remember such presentations; hell, I remember them in an anthropology class in college, and thinking the same thing. There are no "These are just speculation" disclaimers. I'm talking about how the material is presented to the non-scientific public, which should be able to trust their experts to communicate what they know and don't know honestly. Given the heat of the debates surrounding these issues, I think uncertainties get kicked to the curb in the public domain, in favor of conveying a false sense of authority. Peer-reviewed literature is not accessible to most people; that fact should not influence the way the science is presented to the broader public.


Certainly you can discern the difference between the phenomena you list here and examining evolution via the scientific method.

Please elaborate.

Well, the phenomena you list above are observable (and testable) every day outside or even inside our windows. The time scales required to observe evolution (and I'm speaking here not of simple mutations but of speciation--if that's the correct term) in the same fashion via the scientifc method preclude the kind of discovery you reference above.

He is saying that at one time we had no way of understanding aurora borealis (and the other phenomena). Who knows what the next 100 years of scientific discovery will bring? People may look back on the evolution debate the same way we look back on the debate on whether the Earth is the center of the universe.

[sergeanthulka]

I'd just like to point out the usual point I make in these threads:

Let's not confuse the idea of origins with the idea of science.

Now, the debate about evolution (without involving the idea of origins) may continue.

Your typical High School biology textbook makes absolutely no distinction. Origins & henceforth, evolution are presented part & parcel with one another.

[TallGrass]

Most often, theories are presented as fact to the consuming public.
Theories are fact.

Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

[TallGrass]

I'd just like to point out the usual point I make in these threads:

Let's not confuse the idea of origins with the idea of science.

Now, the debate about evolution (without involving the idea of origins) may continue.

Your typical High School biology textbook makes absolutely no distinction. Origins & henceforth, evolution are presented part & parcel with one another.
9 out of 10 HS biology textbooks are absolutely terrible when it comes to evolution. Thank you Texas.

[JohnGault]

Yes, the state of Texas is responsible for the shithole state of our schools & text books...Whatever.

Origins matter. Without a beginning there can be no middle & that is where evolutionists claim we are. You stick with your faith & I'll stick with mine.

[sergeanthulka]

Most often, theories are presented as fact to the consuming public.
Theories are fact.

Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

You sure you want to stand behind this statement?

Facts can't be falsified. Theories can.

[PipeDaddy]

They are saying they don't know, but allowing for the possibility that a natural explanation might yet be discovered.

I wish this were the case. Most often, theories are presented as fact to the consuming public. One outrageous case that's a little off point was a documentary I watched on dinosaurs w/in the last couple of years. It was a widely touted production, w/ the latest in computer graphics making the dinos more realistic than ever. But they depicted behavioral scenarios they could not possibly have known w/ any confidence at all, such as the way a certain species' females protected individual eggs from predators in a particular way. There was no "We don't know, aw shucks" disclaimer. The scenario was presented as if research had discovered and established the fact that those dinos employed that strategy. The game isn't played nearly so cleanly as you suggest.

At one time there was no rational, natural explanation for wind, lightning, rain, thunder, tornadoes, disease, the growth of mold, the aurora borealis, gravity, photosynthesis, echoes, the motion of the planets, magnetism, or where maggots come from. There were a variety of explanations for all of these items, none of them accurate until the science was developed to investigate and discover them.

Certainly you can discern the difference between the phenomena you list here and examining evolution via the scientific method.

I think your point is a good one. And make no mistake, this isn't just a phenomenon of multimedia and high school biology teachers. Knowing when the realm of science is just describing something, and when you are extrapolating too much seems to be difficult.

Example:
The purple bellied frog has a purple belly. That is certainly a scientific fact that can be verified. But taking that and running with it - the purple bellied frog has a purple belly, and it must be for some reason. It must be that it provides some sort of mating or feeding advantage and has developed because of it - that's a stretch that often times isn't verified, but nonetheless if it "makes sense" then it is acceptable.

Certainly the most often I see it is a multimedia sort of thing, but again not exclusively.

I would hope that the biology teacher would stop the film, and ask the class "How do we know that assertion is true? How could we test it? Does it hold up with other related scientific findings?"

It seems to me that we are still raising up students, yes even college students, not to ask questions but that simply accept everything spoon fed to them. That's a problem.

[OlePeep]

Most often, theories are presented as fact to the consuming public.
Theories are fact.

Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

W/out debating you on the point, in this instance I wasn't using "theory" as a term of art. Rather, I was referring for example to the dino show absurdity I described above. Paleo finds a dino fossil in a certain position vis a vis an egg, and extrapolates that into a complete behavior pattern for how the beast lived its life. These folks develop their pet theories, then put them out as if their research has established them as fact, as something we now "know".

[ThePracticalPundit]

Most often, theories are presented as fact to the consuming public.
Theories are fact.

Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

W/out debating you on the point, in this instance I wasn't using "theory" as a term of art. Rather, I was referring for example to the dino show absurdity I described above. Paleo finds a dino fossil in a certain position vis a vis an egg, and extrapolates that into a complete behavior pattern for how the beast lived its life. These folks develop their pet theories, then put them out as if their research has established them as fact, as something we now "know".

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
~Stephen Jay Gould

[ThePracticalPundit]

Example:
The purple bellied frog has a purple belly. That is certainly a scientific fact that can be verified. But taking that and running with it - the purple bellied frog has a purple belly, and it must be for some reason. It must be that it provides some sort of mating or feeding advantage and has developed because of it - that's a stretch that often times isn't verified, but nonetheless if it "makes sense" then it is acceptable.

An evolutionary biologist does not make the a priori conclusion that the purple belly must be for a reason. One might develop a study to investigate if the purple belly can be traced to an evolutionary advantage, not that it must be. Evolution is not directed. Evolution is not about the refining of a species to it's ultimate incarnation. It has only to do with whether or not a given structure gives an organism a better chance to survive and propagate. If a structure is neither advantageous nor detrimental, it could very well have no associated evolutionary function whatsoever. The purple-bellied frog may just have a purple belly.

[PipeDaddy]

Example:
The purple bellied frog has a purple belly. That is certainly a scientific fact that can be verified. But taking that and running with it - the purple bellied frog has a purple belly, and it must be for some reason. It must be that it provides some sort of mating or feeding advantage and has developed because of it - that's a stretch that often times isn't verified, but nonetheless if it "makes sense" then it is acceptable.

An evolutionary biologist does not make the a priori conclusion that the purple belly must be for a reason. One might develop a study to investigate if the purple belly can be traced to an evolutionary advantage, not that it must be. Evolution is not directed. Evolution is not about the refining of a species to it's ultimate incarnation. It has only to do with whether or not a given structure gives an organism a better chance to survive and propagate. If a structure is neither advantageous nor detrimental, it could very well have no associated evolutionary function whatsoever. The purple-bellied frog may just have a purple belly.

Which is precisely the way it should be presented. I completely agree.

[ThePracticalPundit]

Public school teachers present programs like that dino show to their students. I remember such presentations; hell, I remember them in an anthropology class in college, and thinking the same thing. There are no "These are just speculation" disclaimers. I'm talking about how the material is presented to the non-scientific public, which should be able to trust their experts to communicate what they know and don't know honestly. Given the heat of the debates surrounding these issues, I think uncertainties get kicked to the curb in the public domain, in favor of conveying a false sense of authority. Peer-reviewed literature is not accessible to most people; that fact should not influence the way the science is presented to the broader public.

Teaching is imperfect because people are imperfect. I won't argue otherwise, but the poor teaching of information does not invalidate the central facts, neither does it indicate intentional dishonesty or a vast evolutionary conspiracy to mislead. Yes, evolution is poorly understood by most laymen, and poor teaching and misleading popular media don't help the situation, but that doesn't mean the essential science is bad. Most adults I know can't spell particularly well, and construct sentences with all the grace of a hippo on ice skates, but no one suggests we scrap English and go back to speaking Aramaic.

[TallGrass]

Example:
The purple bellied frog has a purple belly. That is certainly a scientific fact that can be verified. But taking that and running with it - the purple bellied frog has a purple belly, and it must be for some reason. It must be that it provides some sort of mating or feeding advantage and has developed because of it - that's a stretch that often times isn't verified, but nonetheless if it "makes sense" then it is acceptable.

An evolutionary biologist does not make the a priori conclusion that the purple belly must be for a reason. One might develop a study to investigate if the purple belly can be traced to an evolutionary advantage, not that it must be. Evolution is not directed. Evolution is not about the refining of a species to it's ultimate incarnation. It has only to do with whether or not a given structure gives an organism a better chance to survive and propagate. If a structure is neither advantageous nor detrimental, it could very well have no associated evolutionary function whatsoever. The purple-bellied frog may just have a purple belly.
Bingo. Blind cave crickets are a great example of evolution "in the wrong direction"

[HoundedHawk]

Most often, theories are presented as fact to the consuming public.
Theories are fact.

Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

You sure you want to stand behind this statement?

Facts can't be falsified. Theories can.
Just proclaim your statement above as a "Theory." Then it will be a fact that theories can be falsified . . . wait.

[ThePracticalPundit]

Theories are fact.



http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

You sure you want to stand behind this statement?

Facts can't be falsified. Theories can.
Just proclaim your statement above as a "Theory." Then it will be a fact that theories can be falsified . . . wait.

That is some remarkable insight and commentary, Hounded. Nailed it. :?

[HoundedHawk]

No "evolutionist" I know takes the position you attribute. When asked how life originated, they uniformly answer "I don't know" and discuss current hypotheses. They don't claim to have the answer, and they don't abandon the scientific investigation of it.
In essence they are inserting their own type of "miracle" in those areas since there is no rational natural explanation for it. They have nothing natural so are therefore going on faith.

They're not inserting a miracle or anything else in those areas; you are.
I disagree. In essence they're going to need a "miracle" to explain the formation of the first DNA or single cell. In this case "I don't know" = miracle. Actually, they need a miracle to explain the sense of sight, hearing, etc. They won't call it a miracle, but that's what they're going to need. I am ashamed I used to be a full blown evolutionist. What faith I had.

[HoundedHawk]

You sure you want to stand behind this statement?

Facts can't be falsified. Theories can.
Just proclaim your statement above as a "Theory." Then it will be a fact that theories can be falsified . . . wait.

That is some remarkable insight and commentary, Hounded. Nailed it. :?
I know. It sounds about as imiginative as proclaiming a theory as a fact.

[TallGrass]

In essence they are inserting their own type of "miracle" in those areas since there is no rational natural explanation for it. They have nothing natural so are therefore going on faith.

They're not inserting a miracle or anything else in those areas; you are.
I disagree. In essence they're going to need a "miracle" to explain the formation of the first DNA or single cell. In this case "I don't know" = miracle. Actually, they need a miracle to explain the sense of sight, hearing, etc. They won't call it a miracle, but that's what they're going to need. I am ashamed I used to be a full blown evolutionist. What faith I had.
What in the world are you talking about? Miracle for your eye to work?

[HoundedHawk]

They're not inserting a miracle or anything else in those areas; you are.
I disagree. In essence they're going to need a "miracle" to explain the formation of the first DNA or single cell. In this case "I don't know" = miracle. Actually, they need a miracle to explain the sense of sight, hearing, etc. They won't call it a miracle, but that's what they're going to need. I am ashamed I used to be a full blown evolutionist. What faith I had.
What in the world are you talking about? Miracle for your eye to work?
A miracle for the entire scope of all that is needed for your brain to interpret electrical signals from photon induced electricty from two ping pong ball sized pieces into three dimensional color moving conscious images coming about completely by random mutation and accident.

[bearbull24.5]

In essence they are inserting their own type of "miracle" in those areas since there is no rational natural explanation for it. They have nothing natural so are therefore going on faith.

They're not inserting a miracle or anything else in those areas; you are.
I disagree. In essence they're going to need a "miracle" to explain the formation of the first DNA or single cell. In this case "I don't know" = miracle. Actually, they need a miracle to explain the sense of sight, hearing, etc. They won't call it a miracle, but that's what they're going to need. I am ashamed I used to be a full blown evolutionist. What faith I had.

Oh ye of little faith

[OlePeep]

Public school teachers present programs like that dino show to their students. I remember such presentations; hell, I remember them in an anthropology class in college, and thinking the same thing. There are no "These are just speculation" disclaimers. I'm talking about how the material is presented to the non-scientific public, which should be able to trust their experts to communicate what they know and don't know honestly. Given the heat of the debates surrounding these issues, I think uncertainties get kicked to the curb in the public domain, in favor of conveying a false sense of authority. Peer-reviewed literature is not accessible to most people; that fact should not influence the way the science is presented to the broader public.

Teaching is imperfect because people are imperfect. I won't argue otherwise, but the poor teaching of information does not invalidate the central facts, neither does it indicate intentional dishonesty or a vast evolutionary conspiracy to mislead. Yes, evolution is poorly understood by most laymen, and poor teaching and misleading popular media don't help the situation, but that doesn't mean the essential science is bad. Most adults I know can't spell particularly well, and construct sentences with all the grace of a hippo on ice skates, but no one suggests we scrap English and go back to speaking Aramaic.


I agree w/ a lot of this, but why do you hate Jesus?

[ThePracticalPundit]

Public school teachers present programs like that dino show to their students. I remember such presentations; hell, I remember them in an anthropology class in college, and thinking the same thing. There are no "These are just speculation" disclaimers. I'm talking about how the material is presented to the non-scientific public, which should be able to trust their experts to communicate what they know and don't know honestly. Given the heat of the debates surrounding these issues, I think uncertainties get kicked to the curb in the public domain, in favor of conveying a false sense of authority. Peer-reviewed literature is not accessible to most people; that fact should not influence the way the science is presented to the broader public.

Teaching is imperfect because people are imperfect. I won't argue otherwise, but the poor teaching of information does not invalidate the central facts, neither does it indicate intentional dishonesty or a vast evolutionary conspiracy to mislead. Yes, evolution is poorly understood by most laymen, and poor teaching and misleading popular media don't help the situation, but that doesn't mean the essential science is bad. Most adults I know can't spell particularly well, and construct sentences with all the grace of a hippo on ice skates, but no one suggests we scrap English and go back to speaking Aramaic.


I agree w/ a lot of this, but why do you hate Jesus?

I get the humor... at least I hope I do. Nevertheless, this is the conclusion a lot of people draw. Fortunately, I don't have to answer to any mortal about it.

[ThePracticalPundit]

I disagree. In essence they're going to need a "miracle" to explain the formation of the first DNA or single cell. In this case "I don't know" = miracle. Actually, they need a miracle to explain the sense of sight, hearing, etc. They won't call it a miracle, but that's what they're going to need. I am ashamed I used to be a full blown evolutionist. What faith I had.
What in the world are you talking about? Miracle for your eye to work?
A miracle for the entire scope of all that is needed for your brain to interpret electrical signals from photon induced electricty from two ping pong ball sized pieces into three dimensional color moving conscious images coming about completely by random mutation and accident.

Hounded, I honestly mean no personal disrespect when I say there's absolutely no point discussing this with you. You don't understand the opposing arguments, not because you're unintelligent or incapable, but because your world view is arrayed against it, therefore you make no effort to entertain the arguments. You just compose pithy retorts. I'll pass.

[Gushawk]

When you start from the premise that the stories of Genesis are literal truth and that there can be no other answer inconsistent with that premise, you're sort of limited in your ability to understand opposing arguments. Fruitful discussions with Hounded can be had on a variety of topics; this just isn't one of them.

[sergeanthulka]

When you start from the premise that the stories of Genesis are literal truth and that there can be no other answer inconsistent with that premise, you're sort of limited in your ability to understand opposing arguments. Fruitful discussions with Hounded can be had on a variety of topics; this just isn't one of them.


Sorry, Gus...but this is just simply untrue.

You could easily make the same statement about those committed to philsophical naturalism.

I challenge you to actually trying to have a fruitful discussion with Hounded on this & I think you'll see -- he'll play along (even in the midst of an array or personal insult & mocking).

[Gushawk]

He may play along, but to suggest that his mind is open to the possibility that Biblical accounts of Eden, Noah, etc. may be factually inaccurate doesn't square with my experience. Of course, he would likely say the same thing about my mind being open to the possibility that those accounts are factually accurate, which is probably true barring the discovery of compelling fossil evidence to the contrary. I'd like to think that the basis for our respective close-mindedness is somewhat different, but you and he are free to disagree with that assessment.

[sergeanthulka]

He may play along, but to suggest that his mind is open to the possibility that Biblical accounts of Eden, Noah, etc. may be factually inaccurate doesn't square with my experience. Of course, he would likely say the same thing about my mind being open to the possibility that those accounts are factually accurate, which is probably true barring the discovery of compelling fossil evidence to the contrary. I'd like to think that the basis for our respective close-mindedness is somewhat different, but you and he are free to disagree with that assessment.

I think there are some compelling evidences for a global flood in the fossil record. Hounded could likely point you to them better than I...

[Gushawk]

I think there are some compelling evidences for a global flood in the fossil record. Hounded could likely point you to them better than I...

You mean the one that formed the Grand Canyon a few thousand years ago?!?!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

[sergeanthulka]

I think there are some compelling evidences for a global flood in the fossil record. Hounded could likely point you to them better than I...

You mean the one that formed the Grand Canyon a few thousand years ago?!?!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

So (unless I'm misreading you), basically you're doing exactly what you were accusing Hounded of 20 minutes ago...

[Gushawk]

I think there are some compelling evidences for a global flood in the fossil record. Hounded could likely point you to them better than I...

You mean the one that formed the Grand Canyon a few thousand years ago?!?!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

So (unless I'm misreading you), basically you're doing exactly what you were accusing Hounded of 20 minutes ago...

No, actually I'm not.