A Victory...
-
espeir wrote:
Based on everything I know about it, I believe that it is NOT fully understood (despite what evolutionary biologists insist) and that there a better explanation for this phenomenon is required. Such a theory can never be presented, however, because of the close-mindedness of evolutionary biologists.
I don't understand how you can make those claims. Evolutionary biologists are constantly modifying their theoritical framework. Time and time again, one view of evolution has been replaced by another. Evolutionary theory seems to follow precisely the same general trend as do all other branches of science. However, you cannot fault them for refusing to consider ID when ID itself offers no theoritical framework of its own. It simply is not sufficient to claim that evolutionary theory does not account for the tremendous complexity of life when your own offers no means of even asking the question. In addition, speciation (a more commonly accepted term,I believe, than your 'interspecial evolution') remains a heavily debated area of evolution. But the fact that it occurs is well documented by not only the fossil record, but genetic similarities between species, as well as by superflous anatomical features found in some species. Plus, speciatioon is not difficult to understand given that members of a single species that move into new environments or are separated by geological changes in the earth itself, will ovbiously adapt in differnet ways to different enviroinments. The collected genetic changes over time will render them incapable of producing viable offsprings and thus produce new species. That is why I used my 'black hole' example. To say that simply because we cannot reproduce speciation for multicellular organisms in short time frames no more invalidates all the evidence supporting the theory than not being able to reproduce a black hole invalidates Hawkins radiation or not being able to reproduce continental drift invalidates plate techtonics. Hawkins might admit that his theories are perhaps less than perfect, but I have never heard him say "Gee, that must mean God did it". "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
The underlying theory of evolution is that species evolve via natural selection (which has not changed over time). That may be the case, or it may not be. However, in general, scientists have not given much thought to any other avenues as to the causes of evolution. In fact, most of the evolving theories you're talking about are simply seeking to explain why any particular species evolved as it did based on the framwork of natural selection...sometimes stretching that theory beyond its limits. In college I found the evidence for evolution substantial but lacking in the larger picture (being an engineering major, I placed a higher burden of proof on biology since I came from hard sciences). If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum. Let people decide for themselves based on the facts. It should not immediately struck down by some Nazi judge just who wants to push his own religious agenda. I think natural selection clearly wins over ID, though ID has a good point that current evolutionary theory is lacking...a point that cannot be communicated thanks to those who want to thwart any questions on the subject. Case in point: Why are we hairless apes? What extreme advantage does this cause over having hair and why would apes in our bloodline that had hair die off while we survived? And yes Hawking frequently says that there is a God (though not a personal one), as did Einstein. In fact, atheist astrophysicists are a rarity.
-
The underlying theory of evolution is that species evolve via natural selection (which has not changed over time). That may be the case, or it may not be. However, in general, scientists have not given much thought to any other avenues as to the causes of evolution. In fact, most of the evolving theories you're talking about are simply seeking to explain why any particular species evolved as it did based on the framwork of natural selection...sometimes stretching that theory beyond its limits. In college I found the evidence for evolution substantial but lacking in the larger picture (being an engineering major, I placed a higher burden of proof on biology since I came from hard sciences). If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum. Let people decide for themselves based on the facts. It should not immediately struck down by some Nazi judge just who wants to push his own religious agenda. I think natural selection clearly wins over ID, though ID has a good point that current evolutionary theory is lacking...a point that cannot be communicated thanks to those who want to thwart any questions on the subject. Case in point: Why are we hairless apes? What extreme advantage does this cause over having hair and why would apes in our bloodline that had hair die off while we survived? And yes Hawking frequently says that there is a God (though not a personal one), as did Einstein. In fact, atheist astrophysicists are a rarity.
espeir wrote:
If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum
another classic IDist talking point. "scientists" don't want to debate ID any more than they want to debate alchemy or astrology. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
The underlying theory of evolution is that species evolve via natural selection (which has not changed over time). That may be the case, or it may not be. However, in general, scientists have not given much thought to any other avenues as to the causes of evolution. In fact, most of the evolving theories you're talking about are simply seeking to explain why any particular species evolved as it did based on the framwork of natural selection...sometimes stretching that theory beyond its limits. In college I found the evidence for evolution substantial but lacking in the larger picture (being an engineering major, I placed a higher burden of proof on biology since I came from hard sciences). If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum. Let people decide for themselves based on the facts. It should not immediately struck down by some Nazi judge just who wants to push his own religious agenda. I think natural selection clearly wins over ID, though ID has a good point that current evolutionary theory is lacking...a point that cannot be communicated thanks to those who want to thwart any questions on the subject. Case in point: Why are we hairless apes? What extreme advantage does this cause over having hair and why would apes in our bloodline that had hair die off while we survived? And yes Hawking frequently says that there is a God (though not a personal one), as did Einstein. In fact, atheist astrophysicists are a rarity.
espeir wrote:
If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum.
You might have fun debating a brick wall, but I'm sure very few scientits enjoy it. ID is an attempt at an end run around debate. Kinda like me stating the universe was created 5 minutes ago by a flying speghetti monster, there is no possibility of finding evidence that can prove otherwise. ID is just a meaningless extra axiom in the system that doesn't belong there.
espeir wrote:
And yes Hawking frequently says that there is a God (though not a personal one), as did Einstein. In fact, atheist astrophysicists are a rarity.
Personal belief has nothing to do with science. Hawking as mentioned it in his popular writing, but you won't find god mentioned anywhere in is scientific publications.
-
Well, I'll point out first that you are completely wrong on all points. First of all, Newtonian physics is not "wrong". Newtonian physics is quite correct, in fact. It just so happens that Einstein's theory is an improvement upon Newton's theories. Secondly, science is designed to be challenged by rational thinking. Postulating the existence of some "higher intelligence" that directs "intelligent design" is not science, not scientific, not rational and not intelligent. Scientific theories are subjected to tests and experiment and peer review - that is what dignifies them from religion. Challenging science by inventing some wonderful sounding story about super-smart intelligent beings is repugnant. You can never falsify or prove the existence of such a "designer". Therefore ID is absolute rubbish. Indeed, ID is an infringement upon the constitution. It violates separation of church and state. Make no mistake about that. This is not fanatical behaviour upon the part of any scientists. This is the scientific community rejecting bunk theories and garbage in order to preserve the central aspects of what science is. Challenging science with religious mysticism will get you nowhere.
thealj wrote:
Well, I'll point out first that you are completely wrong on all points.
Thanks. You just saved me a lot of typing. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
-
espeir wrote:
If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum
another classic IDist talking point. "scientists" don't want to debate ID any more than they want to debate alchemy or astrology. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
You sure do employ a lot of stereotyping for an open-minded liberal. The truth of that matter is that the theory of evolution is lacking in some respects and scientists don't have the answers and are too chicken to admit that their religion (as they have turned it) is incomplete. It shakes their faith. ID is kind of a cop out because there should be a physical description for a physical thing. Just because science does not provide a good explanation does not inherently imply supernatural involvement (nor does it exclude it). However, a true "scientist" will evolve his theory, not attack those in a political environment who challenge it. Funny you bring up Alchemy. That was Newton's second favorite subject (behind theology).
-
espeir wrote:
If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum.
You might have fun debating a brick wall, but I'm sure very few scientits enjoy it. ID is an attempt at an end run around debate. Kinda like me stating the universe was created 5 minutes ago by a flying speghetti monster, there is no possibility of finding evidence that can prove otherwise. ID is just a meaningless extra axiom in the system that doesn't belong there.
espeir wrote:
And yes Hawking frequently says that there is a God (though not a personal one), as did Einstein. In fact, atheist astrophysicists are a rarity.
Personal belief has nothing to do with science. Hawking as mentioned it in his popular writing, but you won't find god mentioned anywhere in is scientific publications.
andy brummer wrote:
You might have fun debating a brick wall
That's just dumb. Reasonable people can come to their own conclusions. If someone decides to believe ID, then what does it matter? It's not like evolution provides a whole lot of practical applications. In the long run, a logical debate will bring out the winner. The political arena is not the place for this, and it's atrocious that "scientists" would resort to that.
andy brummer wrote:
Hawking as mentioned it in his popular writing, but you won't find god mentioned anywhere in is scientific publications.
Because those are technical journals. God is implied in physics but is not (and likely never will be) proven. Physics has turned many atheists into theists.
-
Okay, let's be pedantic. Your exact statement was: Well it turns out that Newton was wrong Newton was not wrong at all. Newton was imprecise and his theories failed to account for certain phenomena that occur when the velocity of an object approaches the velocity of light. Furthermore, Newton's theories did not contain elements of relativity and, unlike Einstein's theory, coordinate systems were important. To claim he was "wrong" is simply not correct and reveals your misunderstanding.
espeir wrote:
Secondly, science also demands reproducibility. Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified.
In fact, you are wrong about this. In a recent paper by some evolutionary biologists at Trinity College Dublin, they found evidence of reproducibility in evolutionary mechanisms at the molecular level by studying populations of drosophila melanogaster. While genotype and phenotype transtions were not observed to be reliably reproducible, the number of steps in the process was. This is not the only evidence.
espeir wrote:
It's amazing hos modern scientists have completely brushed aside this concept when it comes to evolution.
Not at all. Why do you even attempt to claim this?
espeir wrote:
Fourthly, ID does not even violate the fabricated "separations clause" because it does not endorse any particular religion.
Again, you are wrong. If you actually took time to read the decision of the court, you would realize where your mistake is in this interpretation. Furthermore, ID endorses theistic religions. Or, are you perhaps claiming that ID is not religion in disguise? If you want to take that avenue, that's fine, but then ID is not science either. Since ID is neither science or religion, clearly then you are advocating the teaching of fictitious and unfounded mythologies as competition to empirical evidence based science. You fail science 101 with flying colours. Just what do you want taught in the classroom then?
espeir wrote:
Fifthly, it IS fanatical behavior because ANY challenge to current evolutionary theory is immediately attacked.
Wrong again. Fair challenges that provide concrete and opposing evidence to evolution are fairly considered. Absolutely. ID is not a challenger to evolution becau
thealj wrote:
ID endorses theistic religions
In the same way, "evolution" endorses athiestic religions. So, they should kick it out of schools, too. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
How is this rational thinking?? Science is DESIGNED to be challenged. There are SUPPOSED to be alternate theories presented to challenge existing theories. In Georgia a court ruled that stating that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" in textbooks is unconstitutional! IT IS A THEORY (one not based on the scientific method, by the way)! This is madness and science has been usurped by religios nutbacks who have made science into an irrational religion! Go back in time 103 years from now. Physics was defined by Newtonian theories which had been so thoroughly tested that they had been accepted as fact. Well it turns out that Newton was wrong and that his theories were merely an approximation of reality. If those theories were not allowed to be challenged by Einstin in the same manner as reactionary evolutionists behave, scientific progress would have been thwarted. This is absolutely religious fanatical behavior on the part of American scientists. I'm absolutely amazed.
espeir wrote:
Well it turns out that Newton was wrong
No, Newton wasn't wrong; his theories we only an approximation, which is not the same thing. Einsteins theories do not negate Newtons; they simply extend them. What you seem to be missing here is that it's OK to challenge science in a credible way. The Intelligent Design crew is not using science to challenge science; they're using religion. They have absolutely no credibility in the scientific community.
-
You sure do employ a lot of stereotyping for an open-minded liberal. The truth of that matter is that the theory of evolution is lacking in some respects and scientists don't have the answers and are too chicken to admit that their religion (as they have turned it) is incomplete. It shakes their faith. ID is kind of a cop out because there should be a physical description for a physical thing. Just because science does not provide a good explanation does not inherently imply supernatural involvement (nor does it exclude it). However, a true "scientist" will evolve his theory, not attack those in a political environment who challenge it. Funny you bring up Alchemy. That was Newton's second favorite subject (behind theology).
espeir wrote:
You sure do employ a lot of stereotyping
sheesh. practice what you preach. you haven't gone a single post without making giant sweeping claims about some group.
espeir wrote:
don't have the answers and are too chicken to admit that their religion (as they have turned it) is incomplete
ah.. "evolution is a religion". more ID talking points. sigh. who do you think you're fooling ? and more importantly, why bother ? just come out and admit it - you'll feel a lot better.
espeir wrote:
It shakes their faith.
who ? the stereotypical scientist ?
espeir wrote:
However, a true "scientist" will evolve his theory, not attack those in a political environment who challenge it.
who are the scientists attacking people in a "political environment" ? are they the people who wrote the Wedge Document ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
The underlying theory of evolution is that species evolve via natural selection (which has not changed over time). That may be the case, or it may not be. However, in general, scientists have not given much thought to any other avenues as to the causes of evolution. In fact, most of the evolving theories you're talking about are simply seeking to explain why any particular species evolved as it did based on the framwork of natural selection...sometimes stretching that theory beyond its limits. In college I found the evidence for evolution substantial but lacking in the larger picture (being an engineering major, I placed a higher burden of proof on biology since I came from hard sciences). If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum. Let people decide for themselves based on the facts. It should not immediately struck down by some Nazi judge just who wants to push his own religious agenda. I think natural selection clearly wins over ID, though ID has a good point that current evolutionary theory is lacking...a point that cannot be communicated thanks to those who want to thwart any questions on the subject. Case in point: Why are we hairless apes? What extreme advantage does this cause over having hair and why would apes in our bloodline that had hair die off while we survived? And yes Hawking frequently says that there is a God (though not a personal one), as did Einstein. In fact, atheist astrophysicists are a rarity.
espeir wrote:
If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum.
But what exactly are they supposed to debate? For example...
espeir wrote:
Case in point: Why are we hairless apes? What extreme advantage does this cause over having hair and why would apes in our bloodline that had hair die off while we survived?
OK, I'll have that debate with you... First, we are not hairless apes. We have the same amount of hair, more or less, as any other ape. It is just very greatly reduced in size in most places on our bodes. One reason for that reduced hair length might be due to the fact that humans adapted to a life style that required covering greater distances than other ape species - we ran. To achieve that early hominids evolved a means of disappating heat that depended upon the evaporation of sweat which is facilitated by haveing larger areas of exposed skin. Your turn. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 14:06 Wednesday 21st December, 2005
-
thealj wrote:
ID endorses theistic religions
In the same way, "evolution" endorses athiestic religions. So, they should kick it out of schools, too. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote:
"evolution" endorses athiestic religions
it also endorses black whites, hot colds, honest politicians and men with ovaries. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
espeir wrote:
If scientists truly want to debate ID, then they should do so in a public forum.
But what exactly are they supposed to debate? For example...
espeir wrote:
Case in point: Why are we hairless apes? What extreme advantage does this cause over having hair and why would apes in our bloodline that had hair die off while we survived?
OK, I'll have that debate with you... First, we are not hairless apes. We have the same amount of hair, more or less, as any other ape. It is just very greatly reduced in size in most places on our bodes. One reason for that reduced hair length might be due to the fact that humans adapted to a life style that required covering greater distances than other ape species - we ran. To achieve that early hominids evolved a means of disappating heat that depended upon the evaporation of sweat which is facilitated by haveing larger areas of exposed skin. Your turn. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 14:06 Wednesday 21st December, 2005
Darth Stanious wrote:
To achieve that early hominids evolved a means of disappating heat that depended upon the evaporation of sweat which is facilitated by haveing larger areas of exposed skin.
Just like cheetahs have evolved to be hairless? Hair dissipates heat. Lack of hair is not an advantage in this respect. It also exposes the body to harmful direct sunlight. How many "running" mammals do you see in the wild that are hairless (or rather nearly so as you point out)? Look in the African savannah where every ggod evolutionary biologist will say modern man started out. There is not another hairless animal in this entire region. Explain! This is another example of how people can treat evolution as a religion. Your claim is completely incorrect, and yet you accept it because it more conveniently fits into your belief system. You don't have the slightest idea why humans are hairless, and yet you turn to a fabricated answer because you immediately think it "fits".
-
espeir wrote:
You sure do employ a lot of stereotyping
sheesh. practice what you preach. you haven't gone a single post without making giant sweeping claims about some group.
espeir wrote:
don't have the answers and are too chicken to admit that their religion (as they have turned it) is incomplete
ah.. "evolution is a religion". more ID talking points. sigh. who do you think you're fooling ? and more importantly, why bother ? just come out and admit it - you'll feel a lot better.
espeir wrote:
It shakes their faith.
who ? the stereotypical scientist ?
espeir wrote:
However, a true "scientist" will evolve his theory, not attack those in a political environment who challenge it.
who are the scientists attacking people in a "political environment" ? are they the people who wrote the Wedge Document ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Your arguments are typical of an atheist. Founded on nothing and providing just as much.
-
espeir wrote:
Well it turns out that Newton was wrong
No, Newton wasn't wrong; his theories we only an approximation, which is not the same thing. Einsteins theories do not negate Newtons; they simply extend them. What you seem to be missing here is that it's OK to challenge science in a credible way. The Intelligent Design crew is not using science to challenge science; they're using religion. They have absolutely no credibility in the scientific community.
I'm not saying ID is correct. I'm saying Newton was wrong and he was. Einstein's theories are not an extension of Newton's, but a reconstruction. Newton's theories turned out to be an approximation, but saying that a line is straight because you can only see part of a logarithmic curve is simply wrong. It's right as far as you can tell (which is the key here) but the problem is you can't always see everything or even know what you can't see. That is why there is no such thing as scientific fact...only theory.
-
Your arguments are typical of an atheist. Founded on nothing and providing just as much.
espeir wrote:
Your arguments are typical of an atheist
wait, was that a stereotype ? no way. that would make you a hypocrite. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
espeir wrote:
Your arguments are typical of an atheist
wait, was that a stereotype ? no way. that would make you a hypocrite. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
I was being ironic...And it worked well.
-
I was being ironic...And it worked well.
you're a fraud Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
To achieve that early hominids evolved a means of disappating heat that depended upon the evaporation of sweat which is facilitated by haveing larger areas of exposed skin.
Just like cheetahs have evolved to be hairless? Hair dissipates heat. Lack of hair is not an advantage in this respect. It also exposes the body to harmful direct sunlight. How many "running" mammals do you see in the wild that are hairless (or rather nearly so as you point out)? Look in the African savannah where every ggod evolutionary biologist will say modern man started out. There is not another hairless animal in this entire region. Explain! This is another example of how people can treat evolution as a religion. Your claim is completely incorrect, and yet you accept it because it more conveniently fits into your belief system. You don't have the slightest idea why humans are hairless, and yet you turn to a fabricated answer because you immediately think it "fits".
The answer is.. we don't know. There are a number of theories (such as the rather dodgy aquatic ape theory), but they ammount to not much more than just-so stories until we find paeleontological evidence to support them. What we do know is that it must have imparted a reproductive advantage at some point in our history, so the temptation is to work backwards from that knowledge. Good for producing hypotheses, but obviously not all that is required. Could we use ID theory to determine that God is hairless?
-
you're a fraud Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Hypocrite.
-
Hypocrite.
:laugh: :rolleyes: Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker