Ha, I did a Rip Van Winkle impression last night and didn't see the reference to the only ID article to ever get into a peer-reviewed journal; later to be taken out after seeing that the review process was completely passed over.

EastStang Wrote:And significantly, you have fish and birds and animals all at that layer (cambrian), not fish at one layer, then mammals and then birds.

Please, show me where on Earth that has been observed. Again, if that were actually true all evolutionary theory would have fallen apart. Since it is still strong and the basis for life science, me thinks it hasn't been observed.

First to answer you're prior Rip Van Winkle sleep fest. The theory of Intelligent Design is that when viewed from all scientific angles: including symbiosis, organic chemistry, biology, physics, astrophysics, mathematics, it is impossible, logically, empiracally and mathematically for there to be life on earth BY ACCIDENT and yes, I am not so intellectually dishonest to say that Intelligent Design is not based on the belief in the existence of God. Of course it is creationism by another name. The cornerstone of evolution is that life on the earth came about randomly which is flawed due to the lack of thousands of intermediate life forms and adaptations The fact is that it is just as impossible to disprove the existence of a creator God as it is to prove the existence of a creator God. It is also impossible to prove beyond all doubt that macro-evolution actually occurred. Can you show me which scientific peer reviewed organization has the cojones to now designate evolution as a scientific law equal in stature to the law of gravity, the first law of thermodynamics, etc? I thought not.

EastStang Wrote:Can you show me which scientific peer reviewed organization has the cojones to now designate evolution as a scientific law equal in stature to the law of gravity, the first law of thermodynamics, etc? I thought not.

Of course not. Laws & Theories are different things & serve different functions. But just because something is called a Law doesn't make it any more certain than a Theory. They are different things, not different levels of certainty.

All of Newton's Laws are wrong - mere approximations that work well enough under ordinary circumstances. And Newton's Laws are wrong because his Theory was wrong. Newton did not believe in relativity (the basic concept, not Einstein's full version) & argued against it in a series of letters with Leibniz. If your Theory is wrong, your Laws will be wrong as well.

EastStang Wrote:First to answer you're prior Rip Van Winkle sleep fest. The theory of Intelligent Design is that when viewed from all scientific angles: including symbiosis, organic chemistry, biology, physics, astrophysics, mathematics, it is impossible, logically, empiracally and mathematically for there to be life on earth BY ACCIDENT and yes, I am not so intellectually dishonest to say that Intelligent Design is not based on the belief in the existence of God. Of course it is creationism by another name.

So you admit that ID is nothing more than a negative argument and does not explain anything? All it does is say that Evolution isn't sufficient thus God did it? See that's not a scientific theory. Thanks for playing.

Quote:The cornerstone of evolution is that life on the earth came about randomly which is flawed due to the lack of thousands of intermediate life forms and adaptations

Except it isn't. First evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. Life could have been planted by extraterrestrials, formed through some form of abiogenesis, or created by a god and that would not change what evolution says. What it does say is that species have a common descent from some "first life" and that random mutations coupled with natural selection account for the diversity of life that we see today. Of all the evidence gathered, all of it is consistent with that theory.

Quote:The fact is that it is just as impossible to disprove the existence of a creator God as it is to prove the existence of a creator God.

Yes, but the evidence for a creator God is lacking so if we are being logical we will assume the null hypothesis.

Quote:It is also impossible to prove beyond all doubt that macro-evolution actually occurred.

Which is why nobody is doing that. But again you creationists like to put words into other peoples mouths in order to give yourselves easier things to argue against. It's called a strawman argument.

Quote:Can you show me which scientific peer reviewed organization has the cojones to now designate evolution as a scientific law equal in stature to the law of gravity, the first law of thermodynamics, etc? I thought not.

Why would they do that? A theory is powerful enough.

It's not just DNA. Al living organisms assemble Proteins wth the same mRNA code. The fossils are deposited in the same layers of earth all around the globe. Fossils in S. America match those in Africa about 80 million years ago. S. America and Africa are seperating something like 14 inches a year. Reverse that 14 inches in a computer and you get Gondwandaland 80 million yearsago. There is a preponderance of evidence. Do you believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale for three days? All the animals were put into an ark?

Speaking of which, did you hear the one about Noah's ark? After 40 days and 40 nights, Noah's ark finally landed on Mt. Ararat. Noah told all the animals on the ark to go forth and multiply. All the animals left the ark except a couple of snakes that lay quietly in the corner. Noah walks over to the snakes and asks, "Why don't you go forth and multiply?". "We can't," said one of the snakes, "We're adders!".

Anyway, it's funny that the Bible doesn't say anything about God creating the dinosaurs first, then wiping them out (oops!) and then making humans.

Interestingly, it is mathematically possible for life to form from inorganic dust in space.

Really though, we'll most likely never know the what brought life on our planet; but as stated above, the observed evolution of our planet still doesn't change. Found this nice little article recently published about RNA hypothesis on life's emergence.

Machiavelli are you agreeing with evolution or with intelligent design? As far as the Ark is concerned, its kind of interesting that almost every ancient culture has an ark story. The Sumerians, the Israelites, etc. One thing we do know the Koran has it landing on a different Mountain which is why the Turkish Government has not allowed expeditions on Mt. Ararat where satelite images have in the past detected something under the ice. Maybe it will pop out with all this global warming. To keep all those animals in close quarters without them eating each other would be a miracle in and of itself.

EastStang, do you believe that ID should be taught in science classes along with/instead of evolution or do you just not believe in evolution? For example, I don't believe in the convection current theory of plate tectonics (I'm not doubting that the plates move, just the mechanism) but have no objection to it being taught in science classes.

EastStang Wrote:As far as the Ark is concerned, its kind of interesting that almost every ancient culture has an ark story. The Sumerians, the Israelites, etc.

Well those are cultures in one area of the world. There more than likely was a large flood in the ancient middle east that became legend. We know of some of the books that were destroyed when the ancient Alexandrian library was burned to the ground. There was a three volume history of the world written by a Babylonian priest named Barosus. Volume one dealt with the time from creation to the flood; a time he took to be 432,000 years.

jh Wrote:EastStang, do you believe that ID should be taught in science classes along with/instead of evolution or do you just not believe in evolution? For example, I don't believe in the convection current theory of plate tectonics (I'm not doubting that the plates move, just the mechanism) but have no objection to it being taught in science classes.

I have no problem with evolution being taught in schools but I think the legitimate scientific issues with evolution ought to also be taught to kids in schools so that they know that they are not being taught something that is a fact, but a hypothesis and that there are some issues with the hypothesis. I don't even have a problem with schools avoiding Intelligent Design in science classes so long as they make a full disclaimer of the problems with evolution. I do find it amusing that at the beginning of the 20th Century a teacher could be prosecuted for teaching evolution and now at the beginning of the 21st Century a teacher can be fired for teaching creationism. My view is that both should be taught to the children so that they can make up their own minds what they choose to believe or not to believe. I don't understand what the scientific community fears from the teaching that perhaps the world was created by an intelligent designer - shall we say God. It could take one class to enumerate the gaps or problems in evolutionary theory and 10 minutes out of an entire year of teaching biology to add that some people believe that the world was created and did not happen by some random circumstance. If you have to give up something, I'd vote for no-longer dissecting crawfish. I haven't been able to eat one since high school.

The problem is that Creationism is not science, condradicts observed data, and offers no insight into the natural workings of our world; and thus has no real business in a science lecture. If a school wishes to have a class on theology, then it fits in nicely. I wouldn't expect the Big Bang to be discussed in a lecture of Hindu cosmology, etc.

EastStang Wrote:I have no problem with evolution being taught in schools but I think the legitimate scientific issues with evolution ought to also be taught to kids in schools so that they know that they are not being taught something that is a fact, but a hypothesis and that there are some issues with the hypothesis.

It's not a hypothesis - it's a theory. Big difference in the level of scientific hierarchy there, hoss.

I think we'll let the people who understand science make the scientific decisions about what should and shouldn't be taught to our children. Oddly enough, none of the other major industrialized scientifically literate nations seem to be clamoring for intelligent design to be taught in school. You'd think if it were the next scientific advancement in evolutionary theory, someone would have taken the lead to implement it. If you want to learn what to believe or not to believe, go to church. Science classes are there to learn what is and what isn't.

Fanatical Wrote:The problem is that Creationism is not science, condradicts observed data, and offers no insight into the natural workings of our world; and thus has no real business in a science lecture. If a school wishes to have a class on theology, then it fits in nicely. I wouldn't expect the Big Bang to be discussed in a lecture of Hindu cosmology, etc.

Wow! Really there has been observed life from non-living chemicals with no intervention by scientists aka creators!!! That is truly amazing if this has in fact ever been observed it would end the creationism debate, but it hasn't. If it has been observed in laboratory conditions it is because scientists aka creators put the chemicals together under the precise conditions needed to start the process for life. Any experiment like this would prove creationism NOT evolution. Creationism talks to the origin life, not how life is designed and functions. Creationists don't dispute DNA being the code for all life and because all living things share this code understanding it will only benefit mankind's quality of life.

The biggest fantasy for evolution is the majority of scientists agree the universe has a beginning. The beginning of the universe is where the disagreement originates and what evolutionists can't rationally explain. How could something start from nothing the volume of gas needed to form the universe would be beyond comprehension. Where did the gas come from, with no heat source and no gravitational forces in existence if the universe has no boundaries how could there be any pressure what would cause the gases to explode? The one thing evolutionists can not explain is the source for matter needed to create the universe.

Zero Wrote:

EastStang Wrote:I have no problem with evolution being taught in schools but I think the legitimate scientific issues with evolution ought to also be taught to kids in schools so that they know that they are not being taught something that is a fact, but a hypothesis and that there are some issues with the hypothesis.

It's not a hypothesis - it's a theory. Big difference in the level of scientific hierarchy there, hoss.

I think we'll let the people who understand science make the scientific decisions about what should and shouldn't be taught to our children. Oddly enough, none of the other major industrialized scientifically literate nations seem to be clamoring for intelligent design to be taught in school. You'd think if it were the next scientific advancement in evolutionary theory, someone would have taken the lead to implement it. If you want to learn what to believe or not to believe, go to church. Science classes are there to learn what is and what isn't.

The problem with your statement is evolution is the religion of atheists. So by teaching evolution in school it advances the religion of atheism.

Children are subjected to 5 days a week being told that God does not exist by teachers that hopefully parents have told them to respect and learn from.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:The problem with your statement is evolution is the religion of atheists. So by teaching evolution in school it advances the religion of atheism.

Children are subjected to 5 days a week being told that God does not exist by teachers that hopefully parents have told them to respect and learn from.

Evolution is not a religion. No one claims it is.

Atheists can understand evolution. Christians can understand evolution. Muslims can understand evolution.

Nowhere in evolutionary theory is a God invoked or disproved. Unfortunately, it's the 20th century version of the heliocentric universe - it cannot be explained through a literal interpretation of Genesis, hence some narrow-minded Christians have set out to try to destroy it.

Evolution is not the religion of atheists & makes the existance of God no more or less likely. Most American scientists are Christian (though they are less likely to be so than the general population) and almost all of them believe that evolution, and only evolution, should be taught in science class. Science is the study of natural phenomena. By most definitions God is supernatural, existing outside of space & time, unbound by natural laws. Unless you are willing to claim that God is subject to natural laws, the study of God should rightly remain restricted to philosophy & theology classes.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:

Zero Wrote:

EastStang Wrote:I have no problem with evolution being taught in schools but I think the legitimate scientific issues with evolution ought to also be taught to kids in schools so that they know that they are not being taught something that is a fact, but a hypothesis and that there are some issues with the hypothesis.

It's not a hypothesis - it's a theory. Big difference in the level of scientific hierarchy there, hoss.

I think we'll let the people who understand science make the scientific decisions about what should and shouldn't be taught to our children. Oddly enough, none of the other major industrialized scientifically literate nations seem to be clamoring for intelligent design to be taught in school. You'd think if it were the next scientific advancement in evolutionary theory, someone would have taken the lead to implement it. If you want to learn what to believe or not to believe, go to church. Science classes are there to learn what is and what isn't.

The problem with your statement is evolution is the religion of atheists. So by teaching evolution in school it advances the religion of atheism.

Children are subjected to 5 days a week being told that God does not exist by teachers that hopefully parents have told them to respect and learn from.

Atheists have no religion, nor is atheism itself a religion.

I don't know what school your children go to, but no one tells mine that there is no god. In fact I would be pissed if the existence of a god was discussed at all in my children's school no matter which side of the argument was being raised.

subflea Wrote:

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:

Zero Wrote:

EastStang Wrote:I have no problem with evolution being taught in schools but I think the legitimate scientific issues with evolution ought to also be taught to kids in schools so that they know that they are not being taught something that is a fact, but a hypothesis and that there are some issues with the hypothesis.

It's not a hypothesis - it's a theory. Big difference in the level of scientific hierarchy there, hoss.

I think we'll let the people who understand science make the scientific decisions about what should and shouldn't be taught to our children. Oddly enough, none of the other major industrialized scientifically literate nations seem to be clamoring for intelligent design to be taught in school. You'd think if it were the next scientific advancement in evolutionary theory, someone would have taken the lead to implement it. If you want to learn what to believe or not to believe, go to church. Science classes are there to learn what is and what isn't.

The problem with your statement is evolution is the religion of atheists. So by teaching evolution in school it advances the religion of atheism.

Children are subjected to 5 days a week being told that God does not exist by teachers that hopefully parents have told them to respect and learn from.

Atheists have no religion, nor is atheism itself a religion.

I don't know what school your children go to, but no one tells mine that there is no god. In fact I would be pissed if the existence of a god was discussed at all in my children's school no matter which side of the argument was being raised.

Actually my children go to a private Christian school, to many negatives with public schools. Private schools have better success rates if your measure is % of students graduating (close to 100%), % of students accepted to college (near 80%) as well as much lower discipline issues.

One of the area public schools taught about the Country called Kwanzaa in December.

I attended a Catholic HS, so I agree that most private schools do provide a better education.

A religious education is why I am an atheist now.