skinnerclan.org

Ben Stien’s movie was flawed and biased, but the backlash against Intelligent Design after the movie came out is even more unintelligent and idiotic. — tempest (2561 auth) follow on May 13, 2008

Korinthian (11651 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 12:45 PM:
It’s not even a scientific theory. And where is the super defense?

tempest (2561 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 12:46 PM:
ID is a theory. Just like Evolution. I don’t care what your religion is, the idea of complete spontaneous evolution is silly if you give it any thought, and most people in the natural sciences agree. Basic physics, people, you cannot have something from nothing. So even if you believe everything evolved after a big bang event or something, which I can acknowledge is a valid theory, the origonal mass that created the bang had to come from somewhere. For that matter the void that the bang happened in had to be made my something. I can acknowledge that it may not have been a “god” in the traditional sense, but however you explain it, the original substance had to come from somewhere…

Korinthian (11651 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 12:47 PM:
Nowhere in there does it say why ID is a theory. Care to clarify?

TheRevolutionary (26363 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 12:48 PM:
Just because the big bang may have been triggered by a deity, doesn’t mean evolution is false. The two are completely and utterly separate theories.

tempest (2561 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 12:48 PM:
It is not a scientific theory? Will people realize that science and the supernatural are NOT mutually exclusive!!! It is as scientific as any other THEORY out there, creationism, evolution, all unprovable THEORIES.

TheRevolutionary (26363 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 12:49 PM:
Yeah just like all those other ‘theories’ like gravity and relativity right.

tempest (2561 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 12:50 PM:
Revolutionary, I could not agree more, that was my point. Evolution may be how we developed. But ID simply states that somewhere in the beginning process, a power “greater” than human beings had to have triggered or created something to get it started.

TheRevolutionary (26363 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 12:51 PM:
That isn’t ID as it is used here in the Bible Belt. It is a theory that is held to be mutually exclusive to evolution. That all life was created as is.

adamskinner (24714 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 12:52 PM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncaused_cause#The_argument

adamskinner (24714 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 12:55 PM:
ID is not mutually exclusive with evolution. It is mutually exclusive with an eternal singularity suddenly exploding.

Korinthian (11656 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 12:56 PM:
Adam: Oh please, ID is nothing but a poor attempt to discredit evolution.

adamskinner (24714 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:00 PM:
Okay, Korinthian – let me ask you a simple question: What do you mean by “evolution”?

Korinthian (11656 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:00 PM:
The theory of evolution.

TheRevolutionary (26379 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:01 PM:
He probably means what everybody means, descent with modification limited by natural selection.

tempest (2561 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:02 PM:
ID, in the pure sense that someone had to start it all, is commonly accepted in the natural sciences community. It does not in any way exclued the possibility of evolution from that point on.

adamskinner (24714 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:02 PM:
Okay – I fail to see how that conflicts with ID.

Korinthian (11656 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:03 PM:
Tempest: So far the only “proof” of that ID is a scientific theory you have supplied is saying that it is. You really have to do better than that. ID is not recognized as a theory by the scientific community, because there is no science to it. Easy as that.

TheRevolutionary (26379 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:04 PM:
First of all look up the first amendment ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.’ Ever heard of Thomas Jefferson and the wall of separation? Second, you obviously are ignorant as to just what a scientific theory is. It is not a wild ass guess, that would be a hypothesis. Theory is backed up by evidence, and lots of it.

LeeJH (5427 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:04 PM:
If someone started it all, who started them?

adamskinner (24714 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:05 PM:
And tell me, where is the “science” behind an eternally dormant singularity suddenly exploding? Or would you deny that that is a scientific theory as well?

adamskinner (24714 auth) said on May 13, 2008 01:06 PM: LeeJH: This is where Ockham’s Razor comes into play in defending ID.

Korinthian (11661 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:07 PM:
How is a complex entity a simpler answer than a compact singularity exploding? I assume that is what you mean by Occam’s razor defending ID, adam.

tempest (2561 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:08 PM:
I have presented the evidence. It is logical to assume it had to come from somewhere. Also, the idea of pure evolution has NO more evidence. And do not give me examples of natural selection, no one argues that, but actual evolution has just as little evidence. So it would be a hypothesis as well. And yes, Thomas Jefferson wrote about the wall of seperation in a letter. I am not arguing that the separation is wrong, I simply hate it when people assume it is some constitutional declaration.

LeeJH (5427 auth) said on May 13, 2008 01:09 PM: adamskinner: No, Ockham’s Razor goes against ID – inventing an intelligent being as an explanation makes the argument more complicated, not less.

adamskinner (24714 auth) said on May 13, 2008 01:12 PM: Kor: Ockham’s Razor states: “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”. It was stated “Well who created the creator?” implying an infinite regressive chain with no end. Ockham’s Razor stops that chain at the first link.

thesama (30749 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:14 PM:
tempest, you got that backwards, every fossil evidence used to support creationist arguments has been shown to be fraudulent, there is a heap of evidence in the fossil and genetic record which supports evolutionary theory.

LeeJH (5432 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:15 PM:
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Only someone who has no real, in-depth knowledge of the subject would suggest otherwise.

adamskinner (24714 auth) said on May 13, 2008 01:15 PM: Lee: An eternal intelligent being is no more far fetched than an eternally dormant (do you understand what that means?) singularity one day just changing state. All that matter. All densely packed. All just sitting there in a state of peace. Forever. Dormant. Then one day it changes. Why? What is your scientific theory?

Korinthian (11671 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:16 PM:
A omnipotent and omniscient god is never the simplest explaination for anything. Simple as that.

adamskinner (24715 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:17 PM:
The discussion is sidetracked with talk of evolution. ID has nothing to do with evolution – it does not attempt to refute it, and it’s completely compatible with it.

SkinnyT (1977 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:18 PM:
adamskinner: you don’t know what happened before the big bang you can’t presume it was dormant forever.

tempest (2561 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:18 PM:
thesama, your statement makes no sense at all. What kind of fossil record would you need to support creationism? I am curious? And I defy you to find ONE documented case of fossil record supporting evolution that was not fraudulent. Keep in mind, people, I AM NOT defending creationism, or trying to disprove evolution. I am defending ID, which allows for evolution. I am simply pointing out that you need to think, and do your own research before you try to defend a point.

adamskinner (24727 auth) said on May 13, 2008 01:18 PM: Kor: So tell me your simpler theory. I’m all ears. Why did it change?

thesama (30749 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:19 PM:
Well actually the big bang theory doesn’t rely on a singularity spontaneously changing state, the latest data seems to show the universe in a cyclical state of expansion and contraction.

adamskinner (24727 auth) said on May 13, 2008 01:20 PM: SkinnyT: What’s the other option? By saying “it was dormant”, I am saying “the singularity was the singularity”.

tempest (2561 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:21 PM:
Thank you adam, yes, the point of this is not refuting evolution at all. I was simply pointing out that it is only as credible of a THEORY as creationism or any other origon theory. I do believe, personally, in some forms of evolution, but I have yet to see anyone here site evidence that proves it…

adamskinner (24727 auth) said on May 13, 2008 01:21 PM: thesama: What “data” are you talking about? And does it really apply to the singularity?

tempest (2561 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:22 PM:
Either cyclical expanson/contraction or changeless singularity really makes the same point.

TheRevolutionary (26397 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:23 PM:
Are all of these forgeries? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor#Feathers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimetrodon#Relationship_with_modern_mammals

LeeJH (5432 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:24 PM:
Science doesn’t pretend to have the answer, but it doesn’t invent magical creatures to explain things either. The current consensus is that the big bang did take place, but science is currently looking to provide further details based on evidence and testable ideas. Science is as much about knowing where the gaps in our knowledge are as providing solid explanations that fit the evidence. Creationists don’t bother with any evidence. Also, evolution successfully explains the emergence of intelligence – something that demands an explanation due to its very complexity. Your intelligent being could only come into existence after the production of countless non-intelligent objects over a period of time – but given that production, it’s far more reasonable to expect the universe itself (which was relatively simple at the beginning) to come into existence first.

TheRevolutionary (26397 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:25 PM:
As for the big bang, there’s always M theory, which holds the cosmos need not have a beginning, our universe is just one small facet of the cosmos. Singularity was not a singularity at all, but a collision of two universes at a higher dimension

Korinthian (11671 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:26 PM:
Adam. I have no idea how it started. I guess the big bang is the most popular hypothesis. What I can tell you though, is that nothing is more complicated than a thinking being that created everything, is omniscient, omnipresent and can do anything at the snap of a finger. And whoever says that this isn’t about evolution has not really seen or heard of the movie.

tempest (2561 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:27 PM:
LeeJH, you are oversimplifying the issue. What was said below about the origin matter existing outside of time applies as well to any ID theory. The “being” would have to exist outside our knowledge of time, just as a pure evolution theory requires the original matter to exist outside of time.

thesama (30749 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:27 PM:
Well, you could just read Science Daily, check the American geological institute, or any other number of reputable and peer reviewed scientific publications on these subject. The simple fact is that there is much more evidence that supports the naturalistic view of the universe than the divine, ID in scientific terms would be more in the Hypothesis stage as without evidence of a creator it pretty much falls apart at its base. At least Science is willing to say “we don’t have enough evidence to say”, religious types like to “fill in the blanks” with passages from their holy texts, but that doesn’t make them true. The onus is on the claimant.

TheRevolutionary (26397 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:28 PM:
You still have yet to define ‘pure evolution’.

tempest (2561 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:29 PM:
Korinthian. No one said anything about an omniscient, omnipresent god. That is not an implication of ID, that is you putting words in our mouths. I do not believe in that sort of god, for one. ID simply states that something created it in the beginning. That is all.

adamskinner (24729 auth) said on May 13, 2008 01:29 PM: TR: So now you’re proposing supernaturalism as a defense for the big bang theory? === @Kor: So what you’re saying is you have no explanation, or more properly, you do not know what the defense for this question is. Perhaps you could find out.
[EDITORS NOTE: I said this because M-Theory is a unified theory of the different string theories, all of which rely on multiple “unseen dimensions”]

thesama (30749 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:31 PM:
ID simply states that, however modern ID proponents are most often religious types trying to bring mythology into the class room. Of course the creator could be a different intelligent species, who knows the universe as we see it could be just a molecule in a petri dish of some larger-scale universe…

TheRevolutionary (26397 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:31 PM:
The point is we are working off of two different philosophical assumptions. Tempest: the epistemological assumption that we can know nothing. Me: the ontological assumption that the nature of the universe (or what we perceive as the universe) can be predicted and described by empirical observation. While yours may be true tempest, it isn’t useful in any way for creating theory.

tempest (2561 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:32 PM:
Right. I am not claiming, and have not, that I know which way it was/is. I am supporting a theory that is just as valid as any other. And, thesama, i am sad for you if you just take what those publications say as fact. If you read them carefully, things defined in there are THEORIES! not evidence… Keep in mind, i am not trying to disprove evolution, but there is no irrefutable evidence behind it!

TheRevolutionary (26397 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:32 PM:
No adam, there is a mathematical basis for M theory, but we have yet to be able to prove it empirically. It is what I’d call a hypothesis still, but there are plausible explanations for the singularity.

thesama (30749 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:33 PM:
Theories must HAVE evidence to move out of “Hypothesis”.

adamskinner (24729 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:33 PM:
Let’s get our semantics in line before we start saying evolution has no evidence. What do you mean by evolution, tempest?

Korinthian (11783 auth) said on May 13, 2008 01:35 PM: Adam: I could make one up, if you wanted. But if you make a claim that it all came to be by magic, you better have something more to it than your word on it. @tempest: Yeah, that’s true. Didn’t mean to add the christian god’s properties. It’s just that most ID people are christian. But I do believe ID states “someONE” not something. But really, I’m still waiting for something more solid from you that rhetorics.

TheRevolutionary (26412 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:35 PM:
Singularity at the moment is at the same place as gravity, we know it exists, but have yet to describe the exact mechanism. That doesn’t mean we need to jump straight to ‘God did it’.

adamskinner (24729 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:35 PM:
From WP: “According to Witten and others, the M in M-theory could stand for master, mathematical, mother, mystery, membrane, magic, or matrix. Witten reluctantly admits the M in M-theory can also stand for murky due to the fact that the level of understanding of the theory is so primitive.”

TheRevolutionary (26412 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:36 PM:
The understanding is primitive. Our understanding of god is nonexistent.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:37 PM:
TR, not so much. My personal viewpoints are completely in line with how you define yours. READ what I have said, the only thing we disagree on is you saying that pure evolution(define: evolution without an intelligent start) is somehow more valid than an ID theory. The nature of the universe can be predicted and described, if we have perfect knowledge of its laws. We do not, and no scientist will claim that. So until that point, they are both theories. There is equal lack of evidence!

TheRevolutionary (26412 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:38 PM:
Oh, and congratulations adam! you can take 30 seconds at Wikipedia and now you’re qualified to quote it to disprove the work of physicists smarter than all of us.

adamskinner (24729 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:38 PM:
Espousing the singularity in the first place requires that one make a case for it’s change of state. If I have a cake, I might walk back the cat to the original batter, but I still have to explain why that even makes sense. How did the cake come from the batter?
[EDITORS NOTE: This might be followed by “It’s like saying ‘We have this cake, so it must come from a car!’ without being able to show how a cake is made from a car]

TheRevolutionary (26412 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:39 PM:
Just because I cannot describe the mechanism, doesn’t mean I will assume the supernatural.

TheRevolutionary (26412 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:40 PM:
no tempest, we have fossils of early hominids, feathered dinosaurs, and reptiles with mammalian dental structure. Thus theory.

adamskinner (24729 auth) said on May 13, 2008 01:41 PM: TR: Don’t sell me short! It only took me 20 seconds to find that material on WP. Truth to tell though, I’d already been to the page so I skimmed it and stumbled on that. If the guy who came up with the idea is like “Listen, I don’t really understand this thing, I’m just throwing it out there”, I don’t think it’s really a defensible position for the explanation as to why the singularity underwent a state-change.

TheRevolutionary (26412 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:42 PM:
lunged fish, terrestrial whale ancestors, need I go on?

adamskinner (24729 auth) said on May 13, 2008 01:42 PM: TR: But you do assume the supernatural when you espouse M-theory! What else could you possibly define “multiple dimensions” as? It is totally supernaturalism, plain and simple.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:44 PM:
Oh, an whoever threw the wikipedia references at me with the Australopithecus afarensis and such.. 1. NEVER use wikipedia to try and back something up, unless you want people to laugh at you, as it is a USER defined environment, and 2. I can show you just as much written evidence, some of it with testimonials from the archaeologists that dug them up, that they are either completely fraudulent or only theorized as to belonging together, and they do not know for sure that they were not collaborations from several animals. This is the problem with this our society, most of us were raised to think of evolution as fact, or at least as dominant, so no one learns to question the “evidence” presented.

TheRevolutionary (26412 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:44 PM:
Multiple dimensions do exist, Einstein showed that.

thesama (30750 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:45 PM:
What about the evidence presented in the genetic record, or has that all been falsified as well?

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:46 PM:
pure evolution: it all started with no ID, from some sort of timeless nothing, weather a big bang or constant expansion/contraction, etc. simple evolution is right in line with ID, the concept that someone got it started, but it may or may not have evolved from that point.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:46 PM:
what genetic evidence, sama?

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:48 PM:
Einstein theorized about multiple dimensions, as did hawking. As they never proved it, still a theory! for someone that is hammering me over the semantics of theory vs hypothesis, get it straight..

thesama (30750 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:48 PM:
look up the 2nd chromosome in the human genome.

TheRevolutionary (26412 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:48 PM:
early hominids, there you go. http://www.psychiatry.wustl.edu/Resources/LiteratureList/2002/July/Brunet.PDF

adamskinner (24729 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:49 PM:
So tell me, is there any way for us to observe these multiple dimensions?

thesama (30750 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:49 PM:
Actually technically those are still hypothesis… Gravity is actually still a Theory… you want to start debating that too?

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:50 PM:
Before you give them to me, TR, read through them and make sure they describe hard evidence, not the writer’s theory based on something circumstantial.

adamskinner (24729 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:51 PM:
Okay, we all know that you can’t observe these multiple dimensions. You may as well be telling me that these things are happening in the spirit realm.

TheRevolutionary (26412 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:51 PM:
If you’d read what I said, I didn’t state a categorical belief in M, but proposed it as an alternative. My official stance is: I don’t know the origin of the singularity, but it is explainable through better understanding of physics. Yours is: I don’t know the origin of the singularity, so God did it.

thesama (30750 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:52 PM:
Well I’m not sure I buy dimensional theory, too many competing viewpoints on that at this point, have to wait for more data to be published.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:53 PM:
thesama, maybe I am missing something, but I am only seeing people’s theories and hypothesis about the second chromosome… what is to say it was not come about some other way? Even the journal articles I am finding do not state that evolution is the only possibility

adamskinner (24729 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:54 PM:
TR: I am not espousing a belief in the singularity. I believe that God (Yahweh) created the universe according to a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

TheRevolutionary (26412 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:55 PM:
Actually I have tempest, I cited it in an anthropology paper last year. Sahelanthropus is evidence of moving back the divergence of human and chimp lineages.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:56 PM:
And TR, even that journal article admitted the possibility that the fossils found were not a pre-human ancestor. So still waiting…

TheRevolutionary (26412 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:58 PM:
I was actually referring to tempest there, but the argument still holds for you AS. I have seen evidence of big bang, and evolution, thus I agree. You believe such things because of the writings of bronze age tribesmen.

adamskinner (24731 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:58 PM:
This belief is in harmony with ID, and at odds with Big Bang Cosmology and Evolution as a theory of human origin. I believe that humans were created by God out of the dust of the earth, and he breathed life into that form’s nostrils, and that became a living man (Gen 2:7).

thesama (30750 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:58 PM:
Well it’s an example of evolution predicting a discovery based on the theory, which it did, however that has little to do with your “pure evolution” thing you keep rambling on about. Which apparently means you need the same theory to account for the creation and rise of life as you do for the creation of the universe. You can just choose not to believe the data provided by the scientific community because it doesn’t jive with your particular worldview all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that these are the observable results and the conclusions drawn thereof, without jumping to conclusions.

TheRevolutionary (26419 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:59 PM:
No journal article will state that unequivocally, but a review of the literature shows a very strong tendency towards belief in non-human primate ancestors.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 01:59 PM:
Simple science fact: Human DNA has more similarities(in paining and sequence) to chickens than primates. That is fact, not theory. Everything you are showing me is not hard evidence, it is someone finding something and explaining it in light of their own hypothesis. Most of them even admit that!

TheRevolutionary (26419 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:00 PM:
source tempest?

adamskinner (24731 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:02 PM:
+tempest: This similarity of disparate species for DNA does not speak well of gene duplication + mutation as a required aspect of evolution as a theory of origins. That whole idea just seems sketchy to me.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:02 PM:
Ok, TR, then we have an impasse, where it comes down to belief. I was pointing out that there is not solid evidence, which there is not. By what you just stated, it is based on a “very strong tendency towards belief in non-human primate ancestors” wich as any student of human culture will realize, is as likely to come from a cultural bias as from any amount of evidence. As I have said, I am not trying to refute evolution, just get you to see that it is no more provable than any other.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:04 PM:
http://www.genome.gov/12514316 article on the chicken DNA, I am sure you can find articles aplenty that show the statistical pairing with primates.

gnocchi (110168 auth) said on May 13, 2008 02:05 PM: adam: And then do you believe that your god planted all this evidence of human evolution to confuse us?

Korinthian (11794 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:07 PM:
Thanks for the link, temp. Now compare the numbers to say, a chimp.

gnocchi (110168 auth) said on May 13, 2008 02:08 PM: tempest: the article you link to says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you’re alleging.

TheRevolutionary (26428 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:08 PM:
Umm no. Where in that article does it say chickens are closer to primates? “chicken and human genes, [are] 75 percent identical on average” humans and chimps are on the order of 98.5% similar.

Korinthian (11794 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:09 PM:
50-60% of chicken DNA corresponds to human DNA. 97% in chimps.

adamskinner (24732 auth) said on May 13, 2008 02:09 PM: gnocchi: I’m not denying human evolution (survival of the fittest to pass on traits, genetic mutation, and the rest), only the idea that we can walk back the cat to a non-human ancestor.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:10 PM:
If you understand how DNA works, the article shows that basically we don’t understand why there are some similarities to the dna chains and some not. It was a sarcastic side point, I apologize, just something i stumbled upon. Lets get back to the point. My bad.

adamskinner (24732 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:11 PM:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2833-humanchimp-dna-difference-trebled.html === And for the unbiased: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html

gnocchi (110168 auth) said on May 13, 2008 02:11 PM: tempest: Your question makes no sense, since proto-humans are a breed of primate. The case of Piltdown Man shows how these frauds can be exposed through the same scientific methods that confirm the veracity of other finds.

TheRevolutionary (26428 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:12 PM:
If you believe in evolution, natural selection and mutation AS, why do you not take the next logical step, that todays animals are the natural result of such processes?

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:12 PM:
My understanding of evolution is fine. As I have repeatedly said, I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION! I am just trying to get you to see it is no more provable than any other theory or hypothosis.

gnocchi (110168 auth) said on May 13, 2008 02:13 PM: adam: Thanks so much for that “unbiased” source.

TheRevolutionary (26428 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:14 PM:
Adam’s article “We’re not any more different than we were,” says Britten. “But we see a bit more divergence than before because insertions and deletions are taken into account. It almost triples the difference.” Unexpressed genes account for most of the difference between our numbers AS.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:14 PM:
adam, how do you through out an article from a site like christiananswers.net and claim it to be unbiased?

gnocchi (110168 auth) said on May 13, 2008 02:15 PM: TheRev: That 3.5% adjustment in their figures really destroys the entire foundation of evolution /sarcasm

TheRevolutionary (26433 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:15 PM:
Yes it is not inherently more provable than other theories, but ID is not a theory. It amounts to throwing up our arms and saying ‘God did it, no sense investigating further’.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:17 PM:
TR: and pure evolution is just saying ‘i refuse to believe in anything greater than human intelligence, so I am gonna say it all came from nothing’ how is that different?

Crazalus (3709 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:17 PM:
Tempest, you’re idea of Evolution seems eerily similar to a certain “Dr” Hovind’s… not a good conection for you. Meanwhile, ID claims that life is too complex to have just happened, and therefore needs something intelligent to kickstart it. It says nothing about where the universe came from (at least, it better not, since that sets it into Cosmological origins, rather then the Biological field it’s trying to sneak into) so can you guys quit with the arguing over the singularity thing… that’s a totally different subject. *** And Tempest… the big flaw with ID is, where the fuck did the designer come from?? If life is too complex to just happen, then what designed the designer…? If you cannot answer that (without the usual “oh, it was some supernatural being that always existed”) then you don’t have any argument at all, other than Evolution not being a 100% proven Theory (which no Scientific Theory ever is… but ToE is the best supported Theory out there)

Korinthian (11799 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:18 PM:
There is no such thing as this “pure evolution” you keep refering to. Let’s leave the strawmen out of this discussion.

TheRevolutionary (26446 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:20 PM:
I call bullshit temp “TR: and pure evolution is just saying ‘i refuse to believe in anything greater than human intelligence, so I am gonna say it all came from nothing’ how is that different?” I don’t refuse to believe in anything greater than human intelligence. In fact my belief in evolution requires me to believe our intellect is not the upper limit. If an intelligence is greater than ours, it is not god, it still follows the laws of physics and is thus natural, not supernatural.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:20 PM:
Ok, to clarify! Evolution and ID are not theories!!!!! They are hypothesis. (not sure how to punctuate that..) That is my only real point, in saying that you cannot claim evolution has more or less evidence than, say, pure creationism. It all comes down to belief. I started this debate pointing out that ID and evolution can go hand in hand, but it has digressed into a debate on the understanding of theory..

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:22 PM:
I did not at any point in this thread state or argue the existence of anything supernatural.

TheRevolutionary (26446 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:22 PM:
We’ve been over the evidence debate buddy. Bacterial evolution and drug resistance, and human selective breding of livestock and dogs are two modern day, concrete examples of evolution in action.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: TR is using ambiguity to support his argument. Tempest is speaking of evolution as a theory of human origin (we all emerged from primordial muck), whereas TR is now speaking of minor, observable changes that lead to changes in a species]

TheRevolutionary (26446 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:23 PM:
“I did not at any point in this thread state or argue the existence of anything supernatural.” Then who was the intelligent designer?

adamskinner (24732 auth) said on May 13, 2008 02:26 PM: MyManyDetractors: I never stated that the link itself was unbiased. I said the link was FOR the unbiased. For those of you who won’t say, “Oh, it’s from a Christian website, so I’m going to discount (out of hand) anything on the page.”. For those of you who do say that, the link is not for you (because your bias will not allow you to even read the words).
[EDITOR’S NOTE: @MMD is a term I use when multiple people jump on me about the same thing]

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:26 PM:
TR! bacterial “evolution” and drug resistance, etc, are natural selection! not evolution! And nothing about intelligent design implies “supernatural” It could be anything from other dimensional beings, ‘gods,’ little green men, etc. And Crazulus, as far as the origin of that being, you cannot explain pure evolution without something existing outside of our knowledge of time either, so that is completely invalid.

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:33 PM:
It all comes down to this: You can not prove any origin hypothesis. They are all hypothesis because no one can produce evidence that the other’s theory cannot explain(as crazulus said)So it comes down to what you believe. And I am not dogging anyone for what they believe. Just don’t push it as fact.

Crazalus (3709 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:34 PM:
Tempest: “Pure” evolution doesn’t exist outside the minds of Creationists… you’re continued propogating of it shows that you aren’t even discussing the same subject. As to what came before BB (which I guess you’re trying to refer to) current BBT postulates that everything began at one instance… which includes time. So, there was nothing before BB to cause it, and we have evidence of things that just appear without cause, so we’re getting evidence to back up that particular Theory. Have you anything to back up ID yet? (like, where the designer came from… if that doesn’t get answered, you have nothing to do the designing and ID falls flat… Though the usual answer is something supernatural which automatically takes ID out of science)

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:36 PM:
Crazulus, now you are completely off. Seriously, who has postulated that it all came from nothing? That is ludicrous and goes against many of the basic physical laws of the universe.

Crazalus (3709 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:36 PM:
Almost forgot… Tempest Evolution IS NOT AN ORIGIN THEORY! The claim that it is is nothing more than yet another Creationist lie. So, even if we can’t prove a natural origin for everything, it does nothing to ToE. How about you fucking learn something before proving yourself to be suck a farking ignoramus about this subject?

Crazalus (3709 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:39 PM:
Bzzt… No-one has postulated that. But, they have postulated that, because there was no time prior to BB, there was no before in which anything could happen. The way we see time means that, to all intents and purposes, there was never nothing for everything to come from. And again, there are particles that are observed coming from nothing… so even your claim is wrong.

TheRevolutionary (26461 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:39 PM:
What is evolution then Tempest? Enlighten us with your definition, I’ve given you mine.

RealityApologist (55618 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:40 PM:
Evolution is simply the best explanation for observed phenomenon. The fossil record shows a clear progression—we’ve found numerous intermediary species bridging the gap between modern creatures and prehistoric ones—homologous structures (like skeletal structures) are best explained by common ancestry, the striking differences in life seen on isolated islands (e.g. Australia) indicates that species develop adaptations to specific environments—adaptations that eventually result in the emergence of new species—and we’ve observed natural selection drastically altering the traits of existing species. The fact that no one “sees” evolution happening totally misses the point of how science conducts itself; no one “sees” the earth spinning on its axis, the atoms making up your body, or the force of friction that lets you walk—we see the consequences of these things, compile our data, and create a model that best fits the data. If that model is good, it also allows us to make predictions about what will happen in the future, a criterion which evolution certainly meets (at least with regard to microevolution). The bottom line is that the theory of evolution (and it is a theory in almost precisely the same sense that ‘music theory’ is a theory about how music works) has problems, but adequately explains the development of life on Earth; why, then, should we postulate either a supernatural or extra-terrestrial designer when a purely naturalistic explanation is both plausible and seems to account for almost everything?

tempest (2562 auth) said on May 13, 2008 @ 02:44 PM:
Thank you RA! I personally do not agree with your conclusion, but your statement is the first one to make the same point I have been trying to make. As you said, evolution theory has problems, as does any other. Again, i still believe in evolution. Al I have been pointing out is that as an ORIGIN theory, ID has as much weight as any other. I am not christian, not creationist at all. Just open minded.

After this, the thread was pretty much “blah blah blah” with ad-hom.