What is Digg?351 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14ID is the Christian equivalent of your parents saying "Because I said so, that's why!"
- whitesanjuro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14unfortunately, both parties are wrong. His Noodly Appendage created the universe and when the faithful die, He will pleasure us in heaven with a Stripper Factory and a Beer Volcano!
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6ID isn't science. Evolution is not science. Creationism isn't science. In order for something to be pure science it needs to be tested and retested. Unless one of you can observe life being created from nature, evolution is not science. Unless you can observe God creating life then ID isn't science. It is all just philosophy. Should ID be taught in schools? It has as much right as evolution and the theory that life came from non life does. Origins should be reclassified into a philosophy class as evolution should. We should stop pretending evolution was proven a long time ago because it was not. There is a lot of evidence on both creationism and evolution. I believe more evidence currently exists on creationism than evolution actually. Will either side ever be proven 100% with science? No. Either side that someone takes, they take because of faith. Faith in either a god of some sort that created the world, or in the God of the Bible, or in Evolution, or in something else. Origins is completely based on faith. Faith in something. Someone who has truly faith in nothing, would say they had no idea. I choose to examine the evidence and put my faith in creation.
Eric Wilson - dannygo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think that a lot of the conflict stems from the need for Creationists to prove that their core belief structure can either co-exist or even single-handededly replace the theory of evolution.
What a lot of Creationists fail to understand (willingly or not) is that no matter how hard you try, science is not the natural-born-enemy of religion. Science does not discover truth, nor does it claim any of its texts are sacred or beyond question. That's what religion does. Science comes to conclusions arrived at by a process of observation, testing, assessment, and analysis--and submits those conclusions for further examination and testing. Nothing in science is beyond question nor irrefutable. Anyone who thinks to the contrary simply does not understand the basic nature of science.
And for those who think Creationism can viably co-exist with the theory of evolution I offer this: There is NO middle ground here, however devoutly you may wish there were. Religion is based upon blind faith supported by no evidence. Science is based upon confidence that results from evidence--and that confidence can be modified and/or reversed by further observation and experimentation. Science approaches truth, closer and closer, by hard and dedicated work. Religion already has it all decided, and it's "in the book." It's dogma, unchangeable, and unaffected by reality and whatever facts we come upon in the real world.
I guess what this all boils down to is that science and religion are not compatible. It's not a matter of negotiation or bargaining, it's a matter of facts versus mythology. Personally, I just cannot honestly submit to a singular (and sometimes literal) interpretation of how things are in this world let alone if I am to base them on mere poetic analogy. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"A question is: when was nature "born"? The day that amino acids were formed in the primordial ammonia soup mix? Before? After? What do you think?"
That's abiogenesis... completely separate from evolution. Within reason, you can believe whatever you like about what happened before RNA. If you'd like to believe in supernaturalistic causes for abiogenesis, it has no bearing on the rest.
"Man, no way..."
Actually, there have been fossil fragments suggesting bipedalism, but I've no time to look them up. It was last spring, I think. And it had more to do with leg bones. The most definitive aspect of Lucy's bipedal nature was the position of her foramen magnum, which was at the bottom, not the back of her cranium. The rest of your argument here makes no sense. With what from my comment there do you take issue?
"I'm simply pointing out that another one of the *big ideas* on evolution appears to be wrong."
You have this notion that a scientific theory is this static, monolithic thing--changeless and eternal. It is not. Some things we know with a high degree of certainty, some things a lesser degree. Some things are almost anybody's guess. We know with a high degree of certainty that chimps and hominids share a common ancestor--from genes, traits, fossil evidence, and other factors. What we do not know with certainty is precisely when or what traits branched off when. We have a fair idea, but like all science it's subject to revision.
Your fundamental error is that you think if a body of scientific knowledge does not explain everything, it is utterly wrong. But this is absurd on its face. We don't know what an electron is or precisely how the atom works (or if there are atoms in a meaningfull sense), but yet we know quite enough such that molecular theory allows us to make machines that manipulate electrons with deft. And just because Einstein's model of gravitation did a better job of explaining the movement of large objects in space, it doesn't mean Newton's laws don't also apply to large bodies as well. To wit: you needn't know everything to know some_things.
"Evolutionists assumed humans became humans because of their environment. Chimps loved the jungles and humans loved the arid rift valley."
I would say that this statement is not quite correct. First, it is known that geography plays a large role in selective pressure. Some scientists have postulated, and not unreasonably, that geographic pressures and climate changes in Africa pushed a population of our common ancestors toward bipedalism. It has never been the case that we knew this for certain, because it is not something that one can know with perfect certainty... as I said. All this article states is that new evidence suggests that geographic pressures may have been a necessary, but not _sufficient_ component of the push. That's all it says. Honest.
"The evolutionary model seems to "change" a lot if you think about it."
Well, not really. Darwin's core argument remains unchanged. These are just quibbles. In Chaz's day, no one knew anything about genetics, chemistry, or much of geology, and forget about most modern physics. Yet, each of those branches of science has done nothing but confirm his essential thesis: descent with modification over vast amounts of time and selective pressures created speciation.
"Remember when people first bought into this? IIRC, they started looking for a half-ape/half-man fossil (aka the missing link). Someone from england "faked" this find."
But that is a function of poor press, not poor science. And really, how far off is it to call an animal with some ape-like and some human-like traits an "apeman?"
As for the "fake," to date, there have only been two sets of "faked" fossil hominids even marginally accepted by the scientific community. One was never accepted as genuine (Nebraska Man) and was more a product of the poor state of fossil dating techniques in the 1920's, and the other (Piltdown Man) was offered up as real but the peer-review process discovered the forgery. In both cases, the scientific process quickly rooted out the fakes. That's because real science, unlike creationism and its cousin, ID, is _falsifiable_. There are error-checking mechanisms to root out the chaff, and they work remarkably well.
"Next, the idea changed from a half-ape/half-man to something more man like that could make tools.
A bit later the idea changed from a tool user to a bipedal thingy -- Lucy."
Um, yeah, that's because Lucy is much, much older than ***** Habilis. You seem to have a problem even grasping that we're discussing several completely different species here. Your argument here is like saying we "changed our minds" about wolves after discovering the poodle... when poodles were bred into being much, much later, and are completely different species.
"This is intersting, but I still don't quite understand why I am wrong. Further, I certainly don't understand WHY my conclusion is wrong."
I know you don't, because you haven't studied or comprehended a whit of what evolution is all about. You demonstrate deep, fundamental misunderstandings here, and I'm frankly tired of being your teacher. Go ahead and wallow in your ignorance. I couldn't be bothered to care. - pythoncoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Chimpanzees and hominids share a common ancestor. Your argument is like asking how you and your cousins can live at the same time. I don't mean to be overly harsh, but really, I would read up a bit more about evolution before criticizing something you don't seem to understand. Take a college-level biology and anthropology course."
Umm, no, I'm telling you what evolutionists are stating, that the chimp/human lineage SPLIT BECAUSE of environment (jungle / rift valley). Perhaps you should take a college-level class.
So, if chimps and humans DID split because of environment, THEN the chimps shouldn't be hanging out with the humans in the rift valley.
I graduated from college in 97, and actually did take an anthropolgy and biology class. - birdadderley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3** Thank you drahknon for not being an idiot.
Note what he says above: "__no one__ knows what factors started the hominid or chimpanzee lines"
We just speculated that everything comes from the same ancestor because that's what is most logical. We have no proof of a change from one to another; we _do_ have proof of mutants. Why then has no one speculated that hominids are merely mutants of humans or chimpanzees? A horse looks nothing like a dairy cow; the same way that a chimp looks nothing like ***** sapiens; however, some physical and genetic material do coincide. If you mutate a horse a certain way, and you mutate a cow in such away, their mutants might look quite similar. One might be tempted to then say; well, then horses naturally selected to be cows; however, this is purely speculation. Why is it, then, so safe to say chimps naturally selected to be another species? We've been studying drosphilia melongaster (fruit fly) for quite some time and have never come across a "new" mutant fly that can no longer breed with drosophilia (ignoring sterile flies).
For all of you speaking of biology and anthropology, go take some classes in biochemistry and come back here and post w/o your head up your ass. - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Evolution is a theory. So is ID. So while most evolutionists claim that all current scientific data fits the case for evolution, they still lack the whole picture."
Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Relativity is a theory. These could be demonstrated to be false, and if an experiment were ever to conclusively disprove them or identify holes in them which can be investigated, so much the better.
How is ID a theory? How can you disprove ID? How can you scientifically verify it? You can't. Run all the experiments you like, find GAPING FLAWS in the theory and then get the "Well, the Designer isn't subject to physical laws" excuse. That's not a theory, any more than my new theory that you're being manipulated by invisible, intangible strings manipulated by a giant invisible, intangible sentient octopus. We all have one.
I call it my Personal Cephalod theory, and as theories go it's just as valid as ID, and just as difficult to disprove. You can't see the octopus? He's invisible. You can't feel the octopus? He's intangible. You don't feel the strings manipulating you, and anyway you make your own decisions? No, it's the invisible octopus manipulating you and using his octopus powers to make you THINK you've got free will. You don't see how the giant octopus could possibly be scientifically possible? Who cares? He's a giant, invisible, intangible octopus, he doesn't NEED to conform to scientific law. You think it's very unlikely? Well, so what? Doesn't make it any less possible, and thus just as good a theory.
Go ahead, disprove that you're being manipulated by a giant, invisible, intangible Octopus. - pythoncoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm not a staunch ID supporter or refuter. To be honest I can't say that I know much about it outside of the article I just dug.
However, I am aware of the latest evolutionary curve-ball -- the discovery of chimpanzee fossils in the rift valley. Evolutionists assumed humans became humans because of their environment. Chimps loved the jungles and humans loved the arid rift valley.
Unfortunately the discovery of chimp teeth in the rift valley proves that humans and chimps were hanging out together. Man I'd love to have a pet monkey. - kenkyomausu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2God created the earth and everything in it, do you know how complex one of your freaking cells is?! that can not be a random chance that everything works together. the chances of everything just happening to work perfectly together? did you know if the earth was 1 mile closer to the sun it would be blazing hot, and if it was 1 miles farther away it would be to cold. Also, every major scientist knows that there was a major flood.
That was my 84 cents...^^
Also, ID is accepted by faith. i believe that the earth was made in 7 days by God. The proof i need is everything in the world. You may have no proof but i don't care, i trust that God will tell me someday. ^^ - mesoed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A lot of the scientific conclusions around ID are often dismissed by the scientific community. Why? Because if a scientist even hints at a conclusion that may end God (no matter the study), it's immediately dismissed as biased. Doesn't really follow scientific theory. The last great scientist that didn't get dismissed completely was Albert Einstein. Toward the end of his work he is quoted as saying that the more he studied the universe, the more he believed that something created it.
- SuidAfrikaner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2***KAEMARIL, I'm BACK***
Kaeamril, I will begin my pickup from your last post that was directed toward me.
I said..."you have consistently failed to defend evolution."
You said..."I don't need to. There's an entire scientific community out there that has been busily working on, and improving upon, evolution for over a hundred years."
You have just shot your logical foot by assuming that evolution is true. Just because everybody says it doesn't make it so. For instance, If everyone told you that I was a 23-year-old jock with a pretty girlfriend, a big man on campus, and a sports phenomenon, that would be false. If I was the only one that said that I was 18, mostly nerdy, slightly overweight, and introspective, that would be true. It doesn't matter if everyone says--which I know there are scientists who don't--that evolution is fact. That doesn't make it so. I would also like to point out here that in these debates creationists are NEVER allowed to take anything for granted. But that's the nature of the beast, I guess.
That said, I am going to propose that Evolution and ID, specifically Creationism, are the only two valid arguments existing in this arena. I am setting up a disjuctive syllogism here, so watch out:
Major Premise: Either Creationism or Evolutionism holds the key to explaining how we got to where we are. (I am leaving out Cephalod theories for now, because of TOTAL lack of evidence)
Minor Premise: Evolution is fatally flawed logically and scientifically, thereby becoming invalid.
Conclusion: Therefore, Creationism holds the key to our exisitence in the universe.
Now, for my attempt to demolish evlolution in a few little paragraphs... (although I know 100k's of pages have been written on this already)
First: Evolution requires genetic mutation as a means of biological change.
Refutation: Modern evolutionary thought calls for "positive" mutations; that is, mutations that either add a desirable characteristic to a species or improves it in some otherway. Alright, I think we are mostly geeks here, and we deal with hard numbers on a daily basis. Let's imagine tht we write a little script that generates 21 random ASCII characters in sequence. Then let's have the script compare that string to this phrase:
there is no cow level
The odds of the script "scoring" are this:
26 to the 21st power=518131871275444637960845131776
Your odds of success are 1/518,131,871,275,444,637,960,845,131,776
Ain't gonna happen. Now lets consider a (i think) six-mile long piece of DNA. I have no idea what oodles of number are involved there, but I can tell you one thing; if you start messing with that code, you better have a backup copy. Think Down's syndrome, etc. I don't have time to do the research. To think that evolution could, by any stretch of the imagination, by trial and erorr EVER arrive at something even so small as say, a beetle (do a little research on the bombardier beetle--now there's an impossible evolutionary product!) is, for lack of a better word, dumb. Evolution is mathematically impossible.
Second: The fossil record does NOT support evolution.
To condense, the missing link is still missing.
Neanderthal man: dicredited after scientists claimed the characteristic features of the skeleton could be explained by vitamin and diet deficiencies, And especially a "Neanderthal" skeleton was found in 1908--buried in a Polish suit of armor, in a tomb.
Java Man: Discredited by it's discoverer, when he revealed that human skulls had been found in the same stratum, which the had then hidden under floorboards in his house.
Piltdown Man--completely dicredited in 1953. Look it up.
Nebraska Man: his skeletal steucture was derived from a single tooth, later found to be that of an extinct pig.
Peking Man: Once again, an entire species constructed around nothing more than one tooth and a brain case, as well as other fragmented specimens around the site. However the dicovery of clearly human skulls on the same site would more probably indicate that Peking "Man" was a large monkey, hunted by men.
Nutcracker Man: later declared to be a kind of ape by its dicoverer.
"Lucy": The cucial knee joint cited as "proof" that Lucy walked upright was admitted by its discoverer to have been found 2 MILES away and 200 FEET LOWER in the strata. He didn't renounce his claim but instead cited "anatomical similarity" as his foundation for suppostion.
These are my main guns aimed at Neo-Darwinism. There are others, obviously.
I hereby contend that Evolution is severely scientifically deficient. That is not to say that there is a fantastic amount of evidence for Creationism or ID; in fact, much of the geological evidence for Creationism rests upon the Biblical Flood happening, but that is a WHOLE different ball game. I am not going to enter into that argument here.
I retract my previous comment about "a couple of pounds of bones;" that was little too fast from the hip.
To (once agian) return to the argument at hand;
ID is not science. It can't be proven or tested. We can collect data and interpret it as pointing to a Creator; we cannot test creation or replicate it. Isn't that the procedure for violating scientific claims? To set up experiments to confirm? Well, my friends, that is where ID/Creationism and Evolution both cannot possibly HOPE to be confirmed "scientifically," although I and others have tried to make evident the "hard" stuff that leads us to believe Creation. True, we can guess from the fossil and geological records as to human origin; but both sides must remember their deficiencies. I sincerely thank God, however, that my faith is based on more than science; rather, I know God exists because I have "seen too much" not to realize that more than "fate" is guiding human events in this world.
Unless something spectacular comes up, I think this will be my last post.
Kaemaril, it has been a fantastic "brain-stretching" discussion here. I hope you will seriously consider the stuff that has been said by us Creationists. If something like this ever comes up on digg or /., I will be there. (I post on /. as "Graves_d.)
Although I take what we have been talking about very seriously, the following quote comes to mind...
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics...
Even if you win, you're still retarded."
Ah, the nature of our times. Sorry to all you retarded people out there.
-SuidAfrika - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2berean : One, you have no evidence that denies creation
Again, define "creation". Obviously, we cannot have evidence that denies creation (as defined as the heavens (sky), Earth, the various planets etc) as obviously creation exists.
If on the other hand, you're defining creation as the process as described in the book of Genesis, then we have strong evidence that the universe was not created in the literal manner of the bible as believed by, say, some fundamentalists.
Admittedly, that first day could well have been several billion years old, and all that malarkey.
"And it was so. God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars"
We know, from scientific evidence, that the sun is not a great light, and we also know that the moon does not produce any light of its own. We know, from scientific evidence, that the stars are significantly older than the moon by a huge amount,so they were not made at the same time.
If you want to argue that the book of Genesis is the literal truth, that a day was 24 hours etc you will get soundly spanked. If you want to be more open to interpretations, suggestions that the first day was a couple of billion years, etc, the text is not a literal truth but a metaphorical one then OK, maybe.
But, if you really wanted to do so, you could probably sit down with just about any creation myth and find ways to bend it, interpret it, use metaphor and so on to make it fit current scientific knowledge.
Your "other claim" is irrelevant. You have done nothing but post links to URLs and told us they're evidence. Great. Give me ten minutes with Google and I'll give you twice as many sites with "evidence" for evolution etc and I'll post them here and call them evidence. Doesn't mean a thing. FWIW, I don't have a "repugnance" for the creation myth of the bible. I don't believe it's the actual way it went down, that's all. I have similar doubts about the Torah, hindu preachings, buddhist, etc. Just because I strongly disagree with your beliefs doesn't mean I find them repugnant. I'd be grateful, however, if you'd keep your beliefs out of my science until you can scientifically verify them. This will mean a) Disproving the scientific knowledge accumulated over the last few thousand years and b) Disproving all OTHER creation myths in ordere to prove that your creation myth is the actual method of creation. That last one's the kicker. If you can manage that, then the entire world will unify under the one religion. Don't see that happening anytime soon... - SuidAfrikaner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2***A VOICE OF RATIONALISM (I hope)***
I don't have time to read all 204 comments on this BUT I think I have a grip on it.
I will admit I am what you would call a fundamental Christian, meaning I take the Bible literally. I am being open here in hopes of getting you all to listen...
I believe in intelligent design (specifically, that God created the Universe). Evolution is nixed because it is a mathematical impossibility--e.g., when you realize that the human genome is so complex that if there is a fraction of a percent of abnormality, you wind up with something like Down's Syndrome or worse. When you think about the odds of a mutation causing something positive, it doesn't work. Period. When you think about randomosities evolving into something like a human, which is infinitely more complex than even our most advanced science can tell us--there is no way something like that can just become what it is over 5 billion years, even. Further, if you ask an astrophysicist who knows about the incredible balance our planet hangs in, he can tell you that the odds of our being here by some random intergalactic kablooey or nil.
One more note: when you plug in the biblical young earth theory as outlined in Genesis, it works. If our earth was 5 billion years old and had been steadily decreasing in rotational speed (as it is now), it would have flown apart a long time ago. If our magnetic field (once again, considering current rate of decay) had been as strong as we calculate it should have been two million years ago, it would have caused serious issues for anything trying to evolve. One (but not the only) reason I am a Christian...is because it works. - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Science is bound by these laws, God is not. That is why scientists MUST believe in God if they are to be logical. For things to exist the way they do, something must exist outside their laws. Outside time and space and the physical realm. Whatever you want to call that being, it exists."
And, right there, is why Intelligent Design is bad science. Can't explain something? Something looks kind of out of whack in your theory? In ordinary science that's a kind of a tip that there's a problem with your theory.
Here, however, you can just say "Yeah, well, God ... er, I mean the intelligent designer obviously, isn't bound by the laws of science ..." - gallamine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When has a random mutation ever produced *more* and *usable* genetic information? That's the main tenant of macro-evolution. Mutations can produce information, but it's not usable, and they certainly can remove information. Neither of which works to advance the species.
- h4lfl1ng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well there is no proof for Evolution, Evolution and Creation (intelligent design) are both a religion, meaning that you have to believe in it faith. I personally believe in Creation. I think that Creation should also be thought in schools, or neither. Because schools teach that Evolution is true, when it has never been proved. I think that believing that everything started from a big bang that came from nothing is just plain stupidity. An explosion cannot create something as beautiful as the Earth, and the whole universe. Just my 2 cents.
- blt93932, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Look at the definition of science:The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Science isn't meant to study the past, simply because the past can not be observed because it already happened. You can't observe something that happened 1000's of years ago, only something that is happening.
- lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2artemus:
Well, you can't really argue against the inargueable, something that does not rely on empirical proof. How do you *prove* intelligent design? It is impossible.
It IS possible to prove, and converse disprove, Darwinism and natural selection. It just happens that not enough proof has been found to discredit Darwin. You can't just find one or two small things and call Darwin a hack. You need a lot of it.
ID may not be just of the Christians, but it certainly is drifting into religion and dogma. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2kaemaril, explain to me how things came to be? What gives us life? Life cannot come except from previous life, as science teaches. If the Big Band and evolution were reality, then, how could we be alive? How is it that we cannot bring someone back from the dead?
Since life cannot exist without prior life, there must be a source of life. That lies outside of science. God, of course, is the answer.
Where did energy and matter come from? There must have been a beginning, because matter and energy do not have the ability to exist on their own. Something, then, outside of science, must be their cause. Just as something outside science must have caused life.
Science itself proves God by stating such laws, though scientists may not admit it. There must be a cause outside of science for creation. Through thorough research and study, I believe you will find this to be the Biblical God, as evidenced by the resurrection (which is still strong, STRONG evidence for the accuray of the Bible) of Jesus Christ. - drseth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Who the hell is saying mammals evolved from insects? Nobody."
Scientists are. 75% of the people on this board are. People claiming to think they know what to teach elementary students are.
Where did they come from? The magic pond spontaneously formed mammals? Incredible. - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1bluezdood: The "appearance"? Surely, if he's god, he can simply make something spontaneously appear that's already billions of years old?
In which case, of course, science can't do much about that. However, nor can it do much about MY theory, which is that my own personal invisible Cephalod created the entire universe 30 minutes ago from nothing ... however, every single atom he created was several billion years old, so it looks like the universe is actually 15 billion years old, even though - in fact - it's only 30 minutes old. Naturally, everybody's perceptions and memories were created in such a way as to have people believe that a civilisation has existed on this planet for thousands of years, that everyone remembers a full and varied life instead of just 30 minutes, etc, that all scientific experiments and observations will point to an age of 15 billion years, etc. He's a tricky one, that cephalod.
Science can't disprove or prove either my theory or your belief about God creating everything very old only a few thousand years ago. All it can do is look at what's there, study that, and try to explain it.
If science happens to have been blindsided by either a practical joker god or an invisible cephalod, so be it. All we can do is look at the night sky and observe and try to explain what we see. If it happens to be a giant blue sheet with white dots on it, but God is tricking us into seeing a vast panoply of the universe in all its splendor, then so be it.
Pretty crappy joke, though. - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, good is defined as I see fit. In your case "good" is defined as you see fit. You, for example, may think that somebody working on the sabbath is an abomination and should be killed. Sometimes that may fit with societal norms (robbing is bad), sometimes it may not (killing people working on the sabbath is bad).
God can give you instructions ("Don't kill anyone ... except Sodom and Gomorrah, oh and witches and heretics and my enemies...") but ultimately it's down to you to comply with them. Isn't that freewill?
You have the choice of being good or bad. Or are you saying the only reason you do "good" is because you fear reprisals if you don't?
That being the case, the atheist/agnostic has exactly the same limitations, except he need fear only society's justice if his personal ideas of what "good" is conflicts with society's definitions. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Most of these statements about the Bible are unfounded. We have plenty of evidence to support the Bible's accounts. Read the sites I provided before you make assumptions about lack of proof. The arguments for Christ's resurrection are amazing, and if you haven't heard them yet, don't deny them. If Christ was resurrected, and He quoted the Bible, maybe there's something to it.
- drseth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"drseth provides a perfect example of what ID proponents do. Since they can't provide evidence FOR intelligent design, they resort to attacking evolution. Not to mention the fact that you have a clear misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is."
....and what have you done to further your cause by stating this?
Listen. If you hold to evolution or natural selection, you have to imagine how non-living carbons, hydrogens, oxygens and nitrogens got together and formed life. Let's say for the sake of argument that they evolved life. So, you have a living being in pond going about its business living life. Would it not also have to be true that eventually, the living being had to evolve the process of "death"? Darwin himself said that if anything harmful to an organism was ever shown to evolve, then this would disprove his theory. It seems death is about the worst that could happen to an organism. - mattyG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1right since so many evolutionists are open minded right berean
- kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm sorry? Robbing a bank or killing your neighbour is only morally reprehensible to christians?
Firstly, it is certainly possible to derive a moral code without divine assistance, so even atheists and agnostics need not necessarily be rampaging mass axe-murderers.
Secondly, you've just managed to insult a VERY large percentage of the population of this planet. You'd better HOPE that they've got a moral code, or you could be in very deep trouble.
Thirdly, moral codes against killing, theft etc verifiably predate christianity.
Fourthly, the Jews (remember them? JC was one...) were given their commandments by the same guy as Christians...
As to non-accountability, perhaps the man who lives a good life solely for its own benefit, without fear of retribution, is just as good (if not better) than one who behaves only because he's worried about accountability? Put succinctly, who's better? The man who is good for the sake of it, or the man who is good solely so he doesn't head for the lake of fire? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"right since so many evolutionists are open minded right berean"
This isn't about ad hominems. I'm not suggesting that evolutions are closed-minded, merely that the arguments on this board thus far have been. Please refrain from "creationists" or "evolutionists" arguments. They don't get you anywhere. - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nightshade : Newton dabbled with alchemy, doesn't mean alchemy should be considered a valid science. Nobel winner? So's George Bush :)
Anyway, though I might be wrong (so let me know if I am) I thought Smalley was more "anti-the-current-theory-of-evolution" than "pro-ID" - NightShade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1kaemaril:
Rana and Ross's book on Origins of Life would be more properly considered an old-earth creationist book than an ID book; however, Smalley's post-publication endorsement of the book stated that it demonstrated that evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense could not have occurred.
But given that all creationists are IDers [but not all IDers are creationists], I suspect that the fact that Smalley feels that old-earth creationism as presented by Ross and Rana is scientifically sound, that he would feel quite comfortable with ID as well.
We must also remember that the ID movement as it exists today does not have its roots in Judeo-Christian thought, or that of any other religion for that matter. The book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," the publication of which marked the beginning of the modern ID movement was written by an agnostic. The fact that many, but not all, members of the ID movement are Judeo-Christian in doctrine doesn't change the fact that this is a movement that was launched, in no small part, by an agnostic. - Fieri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Intelligent design is so obvious. I mean, come on, WE ARE HERE. If you folks weren't so adamant against any form of God, you'd do the same thing you would if you found a watch in the middle of the jungle: Assume that someone had been there.
- kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All the energy and matter in the universe already existed inside the cosmic egg, according to the Big Bang theory"
Oops, missed this bit.
Cosmic egg?
All energy and matter already existed? This is not the energy and matter that exists today, and it was this that I was referring to. There was no hydrogen in the egg, for example. No Helium, Oxygen, Carbon, etc.
I dug out a few "Big Bang" pages (see? I can do the supply the URL game, too) and this one looked promising (bear in mind, I'm typing this at 05:14...):
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
In the minuscule fractions of the first second after creation what was once a complete vacuum began to evolve into what we now know as the universe. In the very beginning there was nothing except for a plasma soup. What is known of these brief moments in time, at the start of our study of cosmology, is largely conjectural. However, science has devised some sketch of what probably happened, based on what is known about the universe today.
Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.
As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened.
After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day common matter.
After about one to three minutes had passed since the creation of the universe, protons and neutrons began to react with each other to form deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, soon collected another neutron to form tritium. Rapidly following this reaction was the addition of another proton which produced a helium nucleus. Scientists believe that there was one helium nucleus for every ten protons within the first three minutes of the universe. After further cooling, these excess protons would be able to capture an electron to create common hydrogen. Consequently, the universe today is observed to contain one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen. - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"ID merely claims that mathematical reasoning and common sense observation points to "a designer of life." What this/he/she/they that created life is varies by ID proponent. The basic breakdown is that ID is a theory supplemental to, rather than opposing of Evolution."
So evolution (used to be known as "natural selection", kind of goes out of its way to demonstrate the ways that organisms can change without actually needing a designer) is supplemented by a "theory" that points out that, in fact, you do need a designer?
Irreducible complexity and specified complexity don't really work well together with evolution. - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The number of comments to this digg as well as the many other places online would suggest that their IS, in fact, a wide spread debate and differing opinions on the question of our origin.
Ahem. ME : I HAVE A THEORY THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY A GIANT INVISIBLE, INTANGIBLE OCTOPUS CALLED RUPERT, ONLY THIRTY MINUTES AGO. WHY WON'T SCIENTISTS TREAT ME SERIOUSLY?
200 comments later calling me an idiot, and telling me that I'm wrong God created the universe, or scientists saying there's no foundation for this idea whatsoever ...
ME : The number of comments would suggest that their IS, in fact, a wide spread debate and differing opinions on the question of our origin. So my theory has been given validation! Now I want it taught in schools!
"To all the anti-religious zealots, please remember that your zealotry is also based on a type of faith. Evolution is after all a theory of science and not a law."
Ah, the "science is really just a different kind of faith" argument. It's an old chestnut, isn't it? Still, the old ones are the good ones ...
Oh, and the book of Genesis is after all a theory of Christian religion and not a law. Why, then, are people so keen on ramming it down our throats in science lessons as well as Sunday school? - mannyg3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Evolution is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. It have no evidence.
- knid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone else see the problem with this statement:
"Evolution takes pieces and parts and re-uses them." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For those of you trying to argue against these evolutionists, I support what you're doing, but doubt that any good will come of it. Most are closed-minded and won't even consider what you say. Their arguments are faulty and unfounded and full of arrogance and indoctrinations without education. Speak not into the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom in your words.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1also, on the subject of Christianity being brainwashing, i'm not sure what you mean by that. there's a reason why this belief has survived for thousands of years. On the issue of evolution, this theory/belief is driven by the lifestyle of today's society of denying God from all aspects of our culture. Also, there is plenty of evidence that this world is much younger and is designed and did not appear from chance. It is far more conceivable to believe that we were created then randomly evolving. But in the end, it comes down to your own believes and morals that dictates which side you take. Everyone is ignorant in a certain way, but only one side is more right then wrong.
- drseth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"A common mistake people make that causes them to dismiss evolution is to grossly underestimate the timespans involved. Speciation occurs over MILLIONS of years and hundreds of thousands of generations."
"I would assume that if humanity reproduced at the rate of bacteria, that is, a generation every 20 minutes or so, an outside beholder would see evolution in process."
Actually, you're wrong. Some scientists took a culture of bacterial clones, E. coli, I think and put them through different environmental stressers (different food, different temperature, different light) until the bacteria had gone through 250,000 generations of reproducing. They isolated their DNA and sequenced it and guess what? They were still E. coli! They had MICROEVOLVED adaptations to deal with the stressors, but they were still bacteria. - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Okay, now you're playing word games. Anyone can see what that is saying. "
No, *I'm* not playing word games. I even said that could be construed as a metaphor.
However, for some people who believe the Bible to be the LITERAL truth and NOT metaphorical, we have scientific evidence that this is very much not the case, for at least this particular bit. And if one bit of a literal truth is proven wrong, surely that must cast at least a teensy tiny bit of doubt on the literalness of the rest. - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1maxpeck: The long and short of it....science can prove ID without the fear that one cancels out the other...even Einstein thought so.
OK, I'm all aquiver with excitement at this news. How, exactly, can ID be proved? Putting aside, of course, the fact that ID types don't WANT ID to be proved. ID is nothing but a spoiler tactic, a way of saying "Hey, look, evolution isn't the only theory anymore, so you must let us teach that evolution isn't real, that we're not evolved from monkeys*, and teach them about Intelligent Design... we must show them how Go --- uh, I mean, an intelligent designer, made the universe. In 7 days. And had a quick rest on the sixth day, probably, too..."
* Not that we ever were, but why spoil a perfectly good angry line? - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"There is nothing that I am aware of from the geoligical or fossil record that indicates that the 24-hour creation day could not be so, other than our tendency to put God in a box."
No?
Day 1 - God creates the universe entire
Day 3 - God forms the land out of the seas. Strata in the rock suggests it's been aged over an embarassingly long period of time but even so ...
Compare the ages of stuff dug out of geological and fossil records with the ages of the various stars, or the current estimated age of the universe. It adds up to a difference of a lot more than 48 hours.
But heck, I might be wrong. It's 04:07 over here. Maybe God's a practical joker, and decided to make the brand new Earth APPEAR to be several billion years old than the bible purports, just so that in 2,000 years time he'll be able to get a chuckle with those scientists and that wacky scientific method. Being God, of course, he could do that.
Of course, I'm not familiar with any particular section of the bible which portrays him as a huge fan of practical jokes. Perhaps someone who's read it more recently and more thoroughly than I could point out the section in Genesis where God creates the whoopee cushion and proclaims that it is good. - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1maxpeck: Isn't science to the uninformed, magic?
No. That's technology. Clark's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - xraYman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Think about what you are looking at right now (your computer). Now think about your brain. Which is more complex? If your pc has a manufacture (creator), is it really a leap of faith to believe your brain (and the rest) is the product of an intelligent designer? The alternative is a bigger leap of faith. Admit it! "Well Johnny, you just came from microscopic ball of antimatter about the size of a pinhead." Hmmm, intelligence or is it possible that so many of us have blindly accepted what the "scientists" and teachers have spoon-fed us for years?
- jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They're both systems of faith. Faith, despite new-wave thinking, is merely belief. The Greeks used the same word for both. People seem to think religious people just jump to conclusion with no regard for reason. Some might but to truly defend any position one must have some foundation of reason. The same is true for science. The idea that all scientists or that even all "reputable" scientists except evolution as fact is a myth. The more loudly this myth can be proclaimed, the intimidating they can be towards anyone who disagrees with them. Thus, they don't have to deal with the merits of either position. Hardly sporting.
- dezrtfox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Aren't humans a combination of both ID and Evolution? I think the explanation was clearly laid out in an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation. :-)
- pythoncoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"You have this notion that a scientific theory is this static, monolithic thing--changeless and eternal.
[snip!]
Your fundamental error is that you think if a body of scientific knowledge does not explain everything, it is utterly wrong."
Stop being so presumptuous. You're assertion is wrong, sorry!
"But this is absurd on its face. We don't know what an electron is or precisely how the atom works (or if there are atoms in a meaningfull sense), but yet we know quite enough such that molecular theory allows us to make machines that manipulate electrons with deft."
That's the thing. We know enough about electrons to predict their behavior because we can *observe* it. However, we can't observe evolution in action.
With electrons and such, you can perform tests, monitor output and conclude that behavior exhibited over and over given the same variables can be accepted as true. Evolution on the other hand doesn't really `test' well. It is more along the lines of we have data that is cohesive, now let's guess as to how this data came to be.
I guess we need a scientific historian on hand. It *seems* to me that if a model was sound, then it's suppositions would be proven true.
"To wit: you needn't know everything to know some_things."
I concurr!
"I would say that this statement is not quite correct. First, it is known that geography plays a large role in selective pressure. Some scientists have postulated, and not unreasonably, that geographic pressures and climate changes in Africa pushed a population of our common ancestors toward bipedalism. It has never been the case that we knew this for certain, because it is not something that one can know with perfect certainty... as I said. All this article states is that new evidence suggests that geographic pressures may have been a necessary, but not _sufficient_ component of the push. That's all it says. Honest."
I've never believed that evolutionists *knew* that the rift valley caused the `rift' in species. It was just a popular (most popular, I believe) supposition that seems to be incorrect.
"Well, not really. Darwin's core argument remains unchanged."
Yeah, but I'm thinking of the "evolutionary model." I concede that the core argument remains unchanged. However the model used to prove it has undergone some radical revisions.
"Remember when people first bought into this? IIRC, they started looking for a half-ape/half-man fossil (aka the missing link). Someone from england "faked" this find."
""But that is a function of poor press, not poor science. And really, how far off is it to call an animal with some ape-like and some human-like traits an "apeman?"""
True.
"the other (Piltdown Man) was offered up as real but the peer-review process discovered the forgery. In both cases, the scientific process quickly rooted out the fakes."
I think piltdown man (the english fake) was not discovered to be a fake for quite some time. I think it was around 30+ years.
"That's because real science, unlike creationism and its cousin, ID, is _falsifiable_. There are error-checking mechanisms to root out the chaff, and they work remarkably well."
I don't know if ID is science or not -- I don't know much about it, remember?
"Um, yeah, that's because Lucy is much, much older than ***** Habilis. You seem to have a problem even grasping that we're discussing several completely different species here."
No, I'm just saying that the missing-link changed quite a few times. I do concede that Lucy seems to be pretty close.
"I know you don't, because you haven't studied or comprehended a whit of what evolution is all about. You demonstrate deep, fundamental misunderstandings here, and I'm frankly tired of being your teacher. Go ahead and wallow in your ignorance. I couldn't be bothered to care."
Condescension! Nice. Really once things have sunk to this level, whats the use in going on? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If on the other hand, you're defining creation as the process as described in the book of Genesis, then we have strong evidence that the universe was not created in the literal manner of the bible as believed by, say, some fundamentalists."
Yes, Biblical creation is what I'm referring to. Biblical means a literal 7-day creation period, and that stance, regardless of what some say, is defensible when you go back to the original text.
"If you want to argue that the book of Genesis is the literal truth, that a day was 24 hours etc you will get soundly spanked."
An empty claim.
As for your other statement, you are clearly closed-minded on this subject. If you refuse to do the research, you might find it best that you don't waste your time trying to argue your position, as you are unaware of the arguments to the contrary.
I am done here. The evidence has been provided, and rejected by minds that have not sifted it. To claim that you can find sites that reject my evidence is fine if you can back it up, but you won't know until you try. What would you say if I claimed that I can find sites that deny all the evidence for evolution, and so I don't need to research it?
I believe your mind is closed, and I've spoken the truth lovingly, but sternly, and with all good intention and factual support provided. Do with it what you will. - SuidAfrikaner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"We know, from scientific evidence, that the sun is not a great light, and we also know that the moon does not produce any light of its own."
Okay, now you're playing word games. Anyone can see what that is saying.
"We know, from scientific evidence, that the stars are significantly older than the moon by a huge amount,so they were not made at the same time."
Again, we Creationists hold to the understanding that God created the Universe "old," e.g., Adam was not created as a baby. Likewise, stars would have been created with their lightwaves already touching earth.
"If you want to argue that the book of Genesis is the literal truth, that a day was 24 hours etc you will get soundly spanked."
There is nothing that I am aware of from the geoligical or fossil record that indicates that the 24-hour creation day could not be so, other than our tendency to put God in a box. - mrhaines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All religion aside, I think it is important to note the nature of science. The foundation of science is the ability to test hypotheses. The debate over the origins of life is inherently a philosophical debate. We can gain insight into the workings of the universe, even how it has progressed over time, but the question as to why it has happened in such an orderly fashion, or where it all started for that matter is really not something that science can answer. In my mind as an anthropologist, and as a believer in some sort of order to the universe, it seems as if there is not as much conflict between religious belief and science as some may think. By keeping an open mind, we are able to see that some of our long held presuppositions (scientific or religious) may in fact be wrong. Scientists should be open to the idea of an inteligent designer whether it can be proven or not. ID people should be open to science discovering exactly how this intelligent designer decided to create his/her creation. I think we need to analyze our own biases, and our own assumptions before we criticize other peoples ideas as hokey or untruthful.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 348 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is