(02-13-2009 10:36 AM)Wildebeest Wrote:  Of course there are disputes over the mechanism right now. Interpretation of limited data sets over time scales that aren't directly measurable in the laboratory are going to lead to those healthy scientific debates. There is no scientific debate that evolution and natural selection have occured and do occur.

Yes there is. Simply claiming there isn't is what religious fanatics do, when they're trying to protect their gods.

A "healthy scientific debate" allows for people to question all assumptions, conclusions, etc. If there are answers, the skeptics go away. Guess what? The skeptics haven't gone away.

When there aren't good answers, the religious zealots start faking answers. Ever read about Piltdown Man, Pepper Moths, and embryonic recapitulation? If there weren't skeptics, you'd still find those in textbooks. Oops, guess you flat earth evolutionists haven't read the memos.

(02-13-2009 10:39 AM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(02-13-2009 09:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I believe in evolution.

Evolution isn't something you believe in. The tooth fairy is something you believe in.

Dumb.

Quote:Evolution, like phlogiston, cold fusion and a geocentric universe, is something you can choose to accept or reject.

Exactly.

(02-13-2009 10:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yes there is. Simply claiming there isn't is what religious fanatics do, when they're trying to protect their gods.

A "healthy scientific debate" allows for people to question all assumptions, conclusions, etc. If there are answers, the skeptics go away. Guess what? The skeptics haven't gone away.

When there aren't good answers, the religious zealots start faking answers. Ever read about Piltdown Man, Pepper Moths, and embryonic recapitulation? If there weren't skeptics, you'd still find those in textbooks. Oops, guess you flat earth evolutionists haven't read the memos.

Absolutely. Religious fanatics are the ones driving the anti-evolution movement, not the scientists. Darwin's idea was a threat to the "God created man in his own image" doctrine of the church, so they need to try to squash it. Just as they squashed the heliocentric theory for as long as they could before they realized they were on the losing side of the truth. I hate to break this to you, but more and more churches are coming out and saying that evolutionary teaching are not necessarily anti-church.

And again, skeptics are welcome to participate in the debate. It would be even nicer if the skeptics event contributed to the scientific evidence to the debate as opposed to undermining science education in this country. Just because there are fringe elements out there doesn't mean they have a valid case.

Did you really try to use Piltdown man to discredit current evolutionary thought? Seriously? You might want to pick up some new journals if you think that's real. Maybe the neanderthal genome sequencing that just came out will finally put this evolution nonsense to bed. I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

The Discovery Institute thanks you for your support.

(02-13-2009 10:39 AM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(02-13-2009 09:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I believe in evolution.

Evolution isn't something you believe in. The tooth fairy is something you believe in.

Semantics.

(02-13-2009 11:37 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-13-2009 10:39 AM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(02-13-2009 09:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I believe in evolution.

Evolution isn't something you believe in. The tooth fairy is something you believe in.

Semantics.

Exactly...It seems the the most with the most staunch viewpoints seem to like to argue semantics instead of the issue....Like me.

(02-13-2009 11:37 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Semantics.

True, but it's important semantics. The tooth fairy, like intelligent design, requires a leap of faith, in order for confirmation and hence a belief.

Scientific theories don't need a similar leap of faith. A logical progression can be developed which you can either accept or reject. It isn't the same, as much as ID'ers try to project.

(02-13-2009 11:50 AM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(02-13-2009 11:37 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Semantics.

True, but it's important semantics. The tooth fairy, like intelligent design, requires a leap of faith, in order for confirmation and hence a belief.

Scientific theories don't need a similar leap of faith. A logical progression can be developed which you can either accept or reject. It isn't the same, as much as ID'ers try to project.

You have no idea of what you're talking about. You ought to consider taking a few courses in Philosophy of Science before you start writing, you're clueless.
Same lack of rigor that goes into evolutionary theory

So what is the answer? Since we didn't evolve, did we materialize out of thin air? Were we created 3000 years ago? Or when were we created? Because there should be fossils of us going back to that point and no farther. And any fossils (human or otherwise) from before that are obviously hoaxes then. I'm confused as to how this all works.

(02-13-2009 11:58 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  So what is the answer? Since we didn't evolve, did we materialize out of thin air? Were we created 3000 years ago? Or when were we created? Because there should be fossils of us going back to that point and no farther. And any fossils (human or otherwise) from before that are obviously hoaxes then. I'm confused as to how this all works.

Let's be clear.... You have a chicken and an egg. Then, first you have the .....................

So we evolved from chickens? Or we were hatched out of eggs? Or both? That might explain a few things.

Trilobite

Nice analogy for this thread, courtesy of a youtube classic.

(02-13-2009 12:18 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

Trilobite

That looks like a yummy piece of white and dark chocolate.

(02-13-2009 11:53 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  [quote='Wildebeest' pid='3985988' dateline='1234543845']
you're clueless.
Same lack of rigor that goes into evolutionary theory

So it looks like we're hitting on the main bullet points of the ID strategy:

(1) Try to convince people that evolution isn't supported by the scientific evidence

(2) Pretend that debate about mechanisms for evolutions call into doubt the veracity that it happens.

(3) When left with no other option, resort to name calling.

Why don't you just come out with the standard ID response "Hitler was a Darwinist" so we can invoke Godwin's law.

Look, I'm not going to stoop to your level and get into a name calling contest. My final recommendation to you is to spend some time to learn a little bit about the scientific method and the peer review process, and less time conspiring with your church-mates about how to destroy scientific education.

(02-13-2009 03:46 PM)Wildebeest Wrote:  

(02-13-2009 11:53 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  [quote='Wildebeest' pid='3985988' dateline='1234543845']
you're clueless.
Same lack of rigor that goes into evolutionary theory

So it looks like we're hitting on the main bullet points of the ID strategy:

(1) Try to convince people that evolution isn't supported by the scientific evidence

Uh, isn't it the evolutionist's job to provide the evidence? If you have so much evidence, then provide it...stop dancing around the issue. You make comparisons to gravity and quantum mechanics...yet those theories have clear evidence to support them.

The job is easy, just show some fish having wombats as offspring. I mean I'm not making any such claims.

Quote:(2) Pretend that debate about mechanisms for evolutions call into doubt the veracity that it happens.

Pretend? Seems like evolutionists' strategy is to scoff at any difficult questions so that they will be dismissed.
You know (well actually you don't) the leading scientists of the day did that to Copernicus as well, when his theories contradicted their icon Aristotle's.

Quote:(3) When left with no other option, resort to name calling.

Why don't you just come out with the standard ID response "Hitler was a Darwinist" so we can invoke Godwin's law.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

Quote:Look, I'm not going to stoop to your level and get into a name calling contest. My final recommendation to you is to spend some time to learn a little bit about the scientific method and the peer review process,

You really think these guys don't know the peer review process?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...oad&id=660

Quote: and less time conspiring with your church-mates about how to destroy scientific education.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Now you'll have to excuse me, I have a telecon w/ Java Man and Peking Man.

Again, so life doesn't evolve at all? Just so I understand and so we're not arguing semantics.

(02-13-2009 04:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Again, so life doesn't evolve at all? Just so I understand and so we're not arguing semantics.

You'll have to define that term for me, I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.

Well, I'm talking about animals (plants, etc.) changing over time in response to the environment, animals with certain variations becoming more successful than and outcompeting others due to random mutations that provide a survival/reproductive advantage. This is probably not an evolutionary biologists's definition. I'm just trying to get an idea of what it is you think isn't occurring. For the moment I'm referring to relatively minor changes, not whether fish can eventually turn into giraffes or something.

(02-13-2009 04:40 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Well, I'm talking about animals (plants, etc.) changing over time in response to the environment, animals with certain variations becoming more successful than and outcompeting others due to random mutations that provide a survival/reproductive advantage. This is probably not an evolutionary biologists's definition. I'm just trying to get an idea of what it is you think isn't occurring. For the moment I'm referring to relatively minor changes, not whether fish can eventually turn into giraffes or something.

Ok, but even in your first sentence you have 2 definitions. Animals changing or populations changing.

Animals changing? Yes, in a Lemarkian demonstration, animals can change, at least according to the Newsweek column I posted. I'm not sure this has been fully explored, or what it even means. Do we have newer species? Or just different gene expressions? Even species is hard to define, as there are examples where a M+F of two 'species' produces fertile offspring, while a F+M combination does not.
And even if it's a different species, how does that percolate up the taxonomic charts? When do we get different geni, families, and classes? And scads of other questions abound (who do you breed with when you're a new species?)

And the whole gene expression phenomenon is HUGELY IMPORTANT, but barely studied to date at all. Did you read about the 3 undersea creatures that were recently recognized as one species, but they had thought them three species for a century b/c the female, male and immature versions were so radically different?

Now, as to the populations changing, sure, that happens too. So what? I mean it is important for various reasons, from the health of a population to the interplay of local biosystems. But, it's not really "evolution" in terms of origin of species.

In the end, yaks still produce baby yaks...and no model based on scientific materialism exists to tell us where the first yaks came from.

(02-13-2009 04:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  You really think these guys don't know the peer review process?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...oad&id=660

Heh. You do realize how silly a list of several hundred PhD's, 75% of whom don't work in the biological sciences, some of whom never worked in science at all, many of whose credentials/affiliations are misleading or false, some of whom claim they were misled into signing the petition... looks given there are over a million biological scientists in the US alone, I hope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientifi..._Darwinism