Serious question related to ID...
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
have yet to see a virus mutate into a sentient being
Have you been watching for millions of years?
-
bugDanny wrote:
Not as true as you'd like to believe. There are often times when scientists are scoffed at by other scientists because they are questioning fast-held beliefs.
Yes, new ideas are not just accepted because they're new. Science is a consensus, especially, in the softer sciences. If you have an experiment that shows relativity to be wrong and other scientists can reproduce it, relativity is wrong tomorrow. In paleontology, geology, archaeology, etc, it's more a matter of piecing information together in a way that is reasonable. It's much harder to come up with the smoking gun to break these ideas.
bugDanny wrote:
evolution, though a theory, is being taught too much like fact. Even the theory of gravity, in schools, is taught that we can observe this to happen, and it appears a force pulls objects down, etc., etc. But with evolution, they say these are the steps that it happened
I really get tired of repeating this here. Evolution like gravity is an observable fact. The THEORIES of Evolution and Gravity are the embodiment descriptions of how these natural processes work. Gravity is far ahead in that it's been thought about for a long time and had a very formal workup by Newton 400 years ago. Evolution is much younger having been published for something over 100 years. Evolution also suffers from some of the rigor of gravity in that you can't perform the same type of experiments and compare the results to the predictions of the theory. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
Evolution like gravity is an observable fact.
No, it's not. The one piece of evolution that people claim to have observed is viruses or bacteria mutating into other viruses, or the changing color of moths. But with all these 'observations' no one has yet been able to see one form of life evolve to become a different species. And that's what the THEORY of evolution is about, speciation.
Tim Craig wrote:
I really get tired of repeating this here.
And I really get tired of being misquoted. In your quotation of me I didn't say evolution was not fact, though in my opinion it is, I said that it is being taught too much like fact in our schools. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
bugDanny wrote:
has the flu virus ever become something other than a virus? Has anyone ever observed it sprouting legs or gills?
Ah, the joy of a well reasoned argument. I suggest that if that is the level of your logic then you do not have one.
bugDanny wrote:
The stupidity of others amazes me!
Tempting... ;P The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote:
I suggest that if that is the level of your logic then you do not have one.
Wha- :wtf: You said, this is how you can observe evolution, and I said, that's not a true representation of evolution because there is no new species involving. Where's the failed logic there? Evolution is all about speciation. If you don't know that, than you haven't done enough research in evolution. Looks to me like you couldn't come up with an intelligent reply, so you chose to insult me, like many, many people on this forum. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
Have you been watching for millions of years?
No. Have you? Has any scientist for that matter? Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
No. But I don't expect to observe a virus mutating into a sentiant being in front of my eyes. Neither would any scientist with any understanding of evolution. I was simply pointing out that the posting I was replying to was rather silly.
-
Trollslayer wrote:
I suggest that if that is the level of your logic then you do not have one.
Wha- :wtf: You said, this is how you can observe evolution, and I said, that's not a true representation of evolution because there is no new species involving. Where's the failed logic there? Evolution is all about speciation. If you don't know that, than you haven't done enough research in evolution. Looks to me like you couldn't come up with an intelligent reply, so you chose to insult me, like many, many people on this forum. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
bugDanny wrote:
that's not a true representation of evolution because there is no new species involving
Incorrect. Read up on micro and macro evolution.
-
bugDanny wrote:
that's not a true representation of evolution because there is no new species involving
Incorrect. Read up on micro and macro evolution.
Evolution, in the dictionary, under the "Biology" definition, is: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." To call the genetic change of bacteria to a new resistant strain of bacteria 'mircoevolution' is to confuse the issue, especially since this is not the type of evolution taught in schools. To use 'microevolution' to try to provide proof of 'macroevolution' is also flawed. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Evolution, in the dictionary, under the "Biology" definition, is: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." To call the genetic change of bacteria to a new resistant strain of bacteria 'mircoevolution' is to confuse the issue, especially since this is not the type of evolution taught in schools. To use 'microevolution' to try to provide proof of 'macroevolution' is also flawed. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
bugDanny wrote:
To call the genetic change of bacteria to a new resistant strain of bacteria 'mircoevolution' is to confuse the issue
Maybe it confuses you but it is an example of evolution - whether you like it or not. Changes do not have to result in speciation to be evolution. Some more information here: http://mikethemadbiologist.blogspot.com/2005/04/antibiotics-creationism-and-evolution.html[^] If speciation is of particular interest to you then it is easy enough to find information, e.g. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html[^] What I find strange about ID supporters is how much effort they put into proving the theory of evolution wrong. Proving evolution wrong does not prove ID is right. Wouldn't providing evidence of ID would be a better use of their time?
-
bugDanny wrote:
To call the genetic change of bacteria to a new resistant strain of bacteria 'mircoevolution' is to confuse the issue
Maybe it confuses you but it is an example of evolution - whether you like it or not. Changes do not have to result in speciation to be evolution. Some more information here: http://mikethemadbiologist.blogspot.com/2005/04/antibiotics-creationism-and-evolution.html[^] If speciation is of particular interest to you then it is easy enough to find information, e.g. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html[^] What I find strange about ID supporters is how much effort they put into proving the theory of evolution wrong. Proving evolution wrong does not prove ID is right. Wouldn't providing evidence of ID would be a better use of their time?
Dan Bennett wrote:
Maybe it confuses you but it is an example of evolution - whether you like it or not. Changes do not have to result in speciation to be evolution.
Not an example of evolution by the dictionary definition and the type of evolution as taught in schools (macroevolution, as some like to call it). One thing I've noticed in your speciation article is that life always came from other life, not from non-life. I also noted that too often a hybrid produced infertile plants and such. However, I don't have the biology background to directly refute all claims in that article, especially since it did not go into much depth.
Dan Bennett wrote:
What I find strange about ID supporters is how much effort they put into proving the theory of evolution wrong.
As far as I remember, I was not supporting that ID should be taught in schools as science, but objecting to how evolution is taught. And people claim that if ID was right, God left no evidence, but there is evidence of God not only in nature but in the Bible, miracles performed by Jesus, etc. But I don't have the energy today to get into that debate.
Dan Bennett wrote:
Wouldn't providing evidence of ID would be a better use of their time?
And, as you may know of proofs from geometry or such high school classes, If there are only two or three options, and all but one of the options are disproved, the remaining option is accepted as true. It's called a proof by process of elimination. So there is some sense to disproving evolution while backing up ID. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Ed K wrote:
Those religious folks just hammer down on science. Maybe the scientist would be better off going to a free society. Somewhere where their 'findings' wouldn't be questioned. Possibly go to Iran or China.
Brilliant suggestion for someone with your intellectual shortcomings. However, maybe you and your hero, Dub, should leave the country and raise the collective IQ a few dozen points? At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
your intellectual shortcomings
You can fall in line with the rest of the liberals here when they have no arguments. Just fall in and call names and insult.
Tim Craig wrote:
raise the collective IQ a few dozen points
If you want to measure them. GW's IQ is higher than Kerry's. So following that... Now if you want to climb back into the argument and maybe you didn't understand my remark. So if you want to try again....bring it on! ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
Maybe it confuses you but it is an example of evolution - whether you like it or not. Changes do not have to result in speciation to be evolution.
Not an example of evolution by the dictionary definition and the type of evolution as taught in schools (macroevolution, as some like to call it). One thing I've noticed in your speciation article is that life always came from other life, not from non-life. I also noted that too often a hybrid produced infertile plants and such. However, I don't have the biology background to directly refute all claims in that article, especially since it did not go into much depth.
Dan Bennett wrote:
What I find strange about ID supporters is how much effort they put into proving the theory of evolution wrong.
As far as I remember, I was not supporting that ID should be taught in schools as science, but objecting to how evolution is taught. And people claim that if ID was right, God left no evidence, but there is evidence of God not only in nature but in the Bible, miracles performed by Jesus, etc. But I don't have the energy today to get into that debate.
Dan Bennett wrote:
Wouldn't providing evidence of ID would be a better use of their time?
And, as you may know of proofs from geometry or such high school classes, If there are only two or three options, and all but one of the options are disproved, the remaining option is accepted as true. It's called a proof by process of elimination. So there is some sense to disproving evolution while backing up ID. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
bugDanny wrote:
Not an example of evolution by the dictionary definition
If you are relying on a one sentence definition in a dictionary then you are on very dodgy ground. If this is how evolution is being taught in your schools then they are doing a bad job of it. In my school both the micro and macro sides were taught.
bugDanny wrote:
One thing I've noticed in your speciation article is that life always came from other life, not from non-life.
That's true. The further back you go, the harder it is to find evidence and to be sure of the conditions in which life started (if evolution was indeed the mechanism). This is clearly an area they requires a lot more research. Maybe the theory will need to be revised. That's not a problem, that happens with theories.
bugDanny wrote:
However, I don't have the biology background to directly refute all claims in that article
And I don't have the biological background to support them :)
bugDanny wrote:
Bible, miracles performed by Jesus
If you regard the Bible literaly true then you have no need for dicussions about evolution. You know what happened. Personally, I don't, so I need stronger evidence. Of course there is also the issue of other religions all saying that their holey books are true - how do you show which is the right one.
bugDanny wrote:
If there are only two or three options, and all but one of the options are disproved, the remaining option is accepted as true. It's called a proof by process of elimination. So there is some sense to disproving evolution while backing up ID.
That's only true if you can prove that there are only a limited number of solutions to the problem - can you do that? This is the biggest single area where the ID supporters have got it wrong. Proving evolution wrong does not prove ID right. They have to do better than that.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
your intellectual shortcomings
You can fall in line with the rest of the liberals here when they have no arguments. Just fall in and call names and insult.
Tim Craig wrote:
raise the collective IQ a few dozen points
If you want to measure them. GW's IQ is higher than Kerry's. So following that... Now if you want to climb back into the argument and maybe you didn't understand my remark. So if you want to try again....bring it on! ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
Ed K wrote:
If you want to measure them. GW's IQ is higher than Kerry's. So following that...
So what? They're both politicians and probably have the IQ and intellectual capacity of slime mold.
Ed K wrote:
maybe you didn't understand my remark.
I understood your remark. It't the old one about how if people don't like it here, they should pack up and leave. Before I decided to bother replying to your inane post in the first place, I checked a few of your other posts. You're the one who simply puffs up his feathers, shits, and has nothing to say. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Evolution like gravity is an observable fact.
No, it's not. The one piece of evolution that people claim to have observed is viruses or bacteria mutating into other viruses, or the changing color of moths. But with all these 'observations' no one has yet been able to see one form of life evolve to become a different species. And that's what the THEORY of evolution is about, speciation.
Tim Craig wrote:
I really get tired of repeating this here.
And I really get tired of being misquoted. In your quotation of me I didn't say evolution was not fact, though in my opinion it is, I said that it is being taught too much like fact in our schools. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Ed K wrote:
If you want to measure them. GW's IQ is higher than Kerry's. So following that...
So what? They're both politicians and probably have the IQ and intellectual capacity of slime mold.
Ed K wrote:
maybe you didn't understand my remark.
I understood your remark. It't the old one about how if people don't like it here, they should pack up and leave. Before I decided to bother replying to your inane post in the first place, I checked a few of your other posts. You're the one who simply puffs up his feathers, shits, and has nothing to say. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
So what?
Impressive argument there!
Tim Craig wrote:
I understood your remark. It't the old one about how if people don't like it here, they should pack up and leave.
No you didn't. So please don't expend any more efforts.
Tim Craig wrote:
You're the one who simply puffs up his feathers, shits, and has nothing to say.
More insults!! You're quite impressive! Must have caught you on one of your better days. ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
Stan Shannon
Stan Shannon wrote:
Secularism is nothing more than another philosophical world view that should be competing openly with others, such as religion, with no help from government.
I guess I don't see government "promoting" secularism. That a much more secular society now exists and is exerting its rights via challenges to the old "it's chrisitianity so it's ok for government to promote that as long as it doesn't NAME a single branch" way of thinking. Christians see the fact that they're losing what they never should have had as the government persecuting them. wrote:
The left worships the "nonestablishment clause" but completely ignores the "free exercise thereof" clause.
The only left wingers who might expose this are as far to the left as Pat Robertson and his right wingers are to the right. There are no serious widespread movements to quell religion in this country. Just movements to get the government out of the religion business. No one is PREVENTED from praying in public schools. Only the school is prevented from mandating and leading group prayers. If an individual wants to sit there and quietly pray, no one is going to stop it. If he wants to start shouting it and distrupt the class, then he should get the same treatment as anyone shouting about anything and disrupting the class. And don't tell me that school children can just say no when the school tells them to pray. The governent has no business forcing anyone to declare their allegiance to any religion. And children who decide to opt out will be sitting ducks for their religious classmates to ridicule and harrass.
Tim Craig wrote:
No one is PREVENTED from praying in public schools.
Have you been out of the country? Yes they are...if they are Christians. They can't group or form a Christian club even if it isn't school sponsored. They can't carry a Bible into school. ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
No one is PREVENTED from praying in public schools.
Have you been out of the country? Yes they are...if they are Christians. They can't group or form a Christian club even if it isn't school sponsored. They can't carry a Bible into school. ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
That's bull, but I guess Pat Robertson uses myths like that to whip up the faithful. And if it were true, maybe they should take the advice you gave the scientists....move to Iran? I hear they love religion in schools there. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
That's bull, but I guess Pat Robertson uses myths like that to whip up the faithful. And if it were true, maybe they should take the advice you gave the scientists....move to Iran? I hear they love religion in schools there. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
That's bull
It's actually true. If Christians exited the US the freedoms enjoyed would come swiftly to a halt. The basis of freedom in the US are grounded in Christianity. 'Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle' and 'endowed by their Creator' makes that too clear.
Tim Craig wrote:
advice you gave the scientists....move to Iran
And you still don't have a clue! :| ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
Most churches just seem to be an outlet for the preacher to try to control people. Most of them envision America turning into a theocracy, much like Iran, only with Christianity being the state religion. I am against most organized religion, though I am not an athiest. I hate their whole idea of "hell". They try to terrorize people with it. It is always "you are going to hell if you read that version of the bible", or "you better get saved or you are going to hell". Then, there are some of them that believe in the "rapture". The rapture is an idea that they have that any second, they could literally vanish and go to heaven, then everyone else would have no chance to ever get saved. I guess we all better get ready to burn with the devil in the lake of fire for eternity. :rolleyes: :zzz:
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I hate their whole idea of "hell". They try to terrorize people with it. It is always "you are going to hell if you read that version of the bible", or "you better get saved or you are going to hell".
What is your idea of hell? ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.