I would not oppose an examination of Intelligent Design to demonstrate its failure to adhere to the scientific method, however I suspect that many who advocate teaching ID in schools would not be satisfied with such an arrangement.
There is also the issue that many who advocate teaching ID in schools -- including the school board members attempting to approve its inclusion -- not actually understanding what ID really is. Many mistakenly believe that ID is six-day special creation of individual species.
Why would they ever need to do that? What does one (or five, or any number) incidence of fraud have to do with the veracity of a body of scientific knowlege?
I have heard it claimed that the existence of even one fraud or hoax in the field of evolution is proof that the theory is false. While Nebraska Man was neither a fraud nor a hoax (it was a mistaken find easily exposed through peer review), there are at least two known examples that are genuine. I asked this individual if phony stories such as the "Missing Day in Space" tale are proof that Christianity is false. The individual did not respond.
"Nebraska Man" was one of many dishonest attempts by evolutionists to "prove" evolution.
It appears as though you are unaware of the actual history regarding the "Nebraska Man" find. There was no dishonesty involved. Moreover, it was never presented as "proof" of anything.
They claimed that they had found fossils of the mising link in Nebraska.
Not true. A single tooth had been found, and that tooth was all that was claimed.
Text books were printed with pictures of what Nebraska man looked like.
I am unaware of any such textbooks. Please provide a citation. I am only aware of one drawing of Nebraska Man, and that was for a layman magazine, and was not endorsed by the man who originally found the tooth, who himself admitted that any artistic rendition was pure speculation and nothin gmore.
Articles were written detailing how Nebraska man lived
Please cite some of the articles to which you refer. I am unaware of any rampant speculation regarding Nebraska Man in the scientific community prior to the discovery that the tooth was porcine.
- all based on the finding of a *single tooth* - which turned out to be a pigs tooth btw.
In other words, it was a case where a find was submitted to the peer review process and determined not to be significant. If there was dishonesty, as you claim, then I would think that the revelation that the tooth was from a pig would have been supressed.
This does nothing to inspire confidence in the argument for me.
It is understandable that you lack confidence, given how completely misinformed you are on the subject.
Please explain or reference the sexual activities in which guild members engaged. Be specific and explain exactly how you came to be aware of their specific sexual practices.
There are those in the evolutionary camp that would argue that science displaces the need for God, and therefor, science itself should assume the social role of determining moral values.
Such individuals are clearly in the minority. Their opinion does not change the fact that the theory of evolution makes no statements whatsoever regarding the existence or nature of any deities.
It doesn't matter, it's really, which ever one wins.
It does matter. Dismissing a "God" who demands human sacrifice, for example, could arguably improve human society.
I disagree with that. Take two people and put them in a pool and tell them to swim laps. One will last longer than the other, and is better.
This would demonstrate that one individual is arguably a better swimmer. From this, I cannot deduce who is better at Calculus. "Better" is a relative standard, requiring a frame of reference.
You could, concievably, with more work, evolve a mathematical metric that values all of a person's probable contributions to society, and arrive at an empiracle definition of who is better.
Nonetheless, the standard is still arbitrary, as it is defined by "potential contributions to society". Not only is the declaration itself arbitrary, but the contributions possible could well vary based upon the society in question.
The flipside of the evolutionary topic is, well, what if we just say there is no God and move on?
I do not see how this is, in any way, an "evolutionary topic". The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the subject of deities.
Dismissing the existence of God in no way advances the human condition.
To which "God", out of the thousans of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you reference that particular deity to the exclusion of all others?
Consider, why does one need to foolishly accept that a better adapted emergent species is not fundamentally better than a less adapted one?
I do not see that one does need to do this at all. "Better adapted" is itself a relative condition, and there is no means to judge any one species as "fundamentally better" than another in an absolute sense. I do not understand what point you are attempting to argue.
They are claiming that God couldn't have made those enzymes, or the manner in which they function.
The letter string "God" did not occur anywhere within the article. I believe that you have misinterpreted the claims made in the article, or you have mistaken read a different article than the one referenced. Your conclusion cannot be drawn from the actual article.
When science thinks they understand something, credit should be made to God.
To which "God", out of the thousands of deity constructs worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you reference that specific God to the exclusion of all others.
And there were thousands of witnesses to miracles he performed, and that he rose from the dead.
Please provide references to independent accounts for each of the "thousands" of witnesses.
If the government is going to literally open the floodgates to allowing criminal scum to waste toner and paper of others, then we need to declare open season, track down junk faxers and kill them. Blow their brains out, cut the brake lines in their cars, douse them in gasoline and set them on fire, whatever. People who do that do not deserve to live.
Brilliantly put. I myself am not a fundamentalist, though I am a firm believer in God, the Bible, and ID.
So you believe that all life emerged from a common ancestor and diversified through evolution and -- for biological structures that could not evolve naturally -- the assistance of an unspecified designer who "designer" those features and added them to the population over a period of 4.6 billion years?
I'd say "formally rising" and now "waning". The ID people have been quietly nursing their wounds since U.S. District Judge Jones, really put them in their place last December.
It appears now that the creationist movement is again repackaging their false claims and blatant misrepresentations as the "Critical Thinking" movement.
And if you can't, then both Evolution (hate that term implies to little) and ID (or creationism whichever you prefer) can't be denied as possible. Thus them being a Theory
This is not a logical conclusion. An explanation must satisfy several criteria to be considered "theory" in science. Evolution satisfies these criteria. Intelligent Design does not.
So my challenge to you is. . . Prove the Theory of ID is false. Prove Evolution is false. Take your pick. You can't do either.
This is also untrue. Evolution can be falsified through the emergence of contradictory evidence. For example, complex mammal fossils from the Precambrian era would demonstrate that the theory is false. On the other hand, I am aware of no hypothetical criteria that would falsify Intelligent Design. Unless such defined criteria exists, Intelligent Design cannot be considered a theory.
I would disagree; there is nothing inconsistent between the theory of evolution, a biblical view of creation, and observed reality.
On the contrary. There is ample evidence to suggest that humans have not existed contemporaneously with all life that has existed. Physical evidence suggests that humans are a relatively recent emergence of biological life on this planet.
There is however incompatibility between abiogenesis and creation.
I did not reference abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution does not assume either kind of creation as it's basis, instead it is simply a model for the way living things change to survive in there environment.
This is correct. Evolution begins at the time that the first imperfect replicators exist. The theory then explains how those first replicators became the ancestors of all diverse life on earth.
I personally believe in a young earth (10,000-20,000 years),
This age is not supported by physical evidence.
I also believe that evolution occurs all the time.
This statement is supported by physical evidence.
There is no inconsistency here,
There is no inconsistency between stating that the earth is 10,000 years old and that evolution occurs. However, there is an inconsistency between physical evidence for the age of the earth and claiming that the earth is 10,000 years of age.
I believe God created life and gave it the marvelous ability to survive.
This claim is not falsifiable, and addresses a scope beyond the realm of scientific inquiry, and thus is not scientific. It may be true, however it is incompatable with science.
I do not believe that man arose from ape or that mammals came from the sea, but there is nothing in the theory of evolution that would compel me to.
It appears that you are unaware of the evidence and information within the theory of evolution.
Now if you where to say that creationism is incompatible with a naturalistic view of the world I would agree, however you are using an old bait and switch tactic to farther your argument.
I am not. I am stating that young-earth creationism is inconsistent with observed reality.
You are using abiogenesis as it is applied with the theory of evolution to argue against a creator God.
I am not. I do not apply abiogenesis to the theory of evolution, because abiogenesis does not apply to the theory of evolution. I also have not denied the existence of a creator God. I do not understand how you have drawn such conclusions from my statements.
Abiogenesis is no more a testable theory than creation.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. It has not yet risen to the level of theory. "Creation", as is commonly used, can never be a theory because it involves claims that are fundamentally unscientific.
Even if we could create life from nothing in a lab that only shows it is possible it no more proves that life formed from non-life than it does that an intelligent being could create life.
I have never claimed that humans creating life from "nothing" would qualify as proof of abiogenesis. In fact, I do not believe that life from "nothing" is possible, as that would violate the law of conservation of matter and energy. I did not reference the origin of the first life forms at all, so I am puzzled as to why you frame your argument around it. I merely stated that special creation as described in Genesis is inconsistent with observed reality. I said nothing regarding the existence of any creator deities, nor did I say anything regarding the ultimate origin of the first life forms.
It's called "Carbon dating". Carbon dating is usually accurate to within a few hundred years. Hell, with a timeframe in the hundreds of millions of years, it'd only have to be accurate to a few tens of thousands of years to be useful.
Carbon dating is not used for time periods in excess of 50,000 years. When dating rocks surrounding fossils to determine the approximate age of the fossils, multiple radiometric dating methods are used.
It used to be that evolutionists believed Archaeopteryx (fancy word for "ancient wing" or "ancient bird"), was a link between reptiles and birds. Many evolutionists no longer believe this. Closer examination of its fossilized remains revealed perfectly formed feathers on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its leg and wing bones were thin and hollow. Its supposed "reptilian features" are found in birds today. And it does not predate birds. Fossils of other birds have been found to have lived in the same period as Archaeopteryx.
Do you have a reference to support your claim that Archaeopteryx is no longer considered a transitional form? Please provide references. I have only heard this claim from creationists, many of whom fundamentally misrepresent the features of the find.
First, they compare it to the "reptile-to-bird" fraud (and yes, it's been proven by NON-CREATIONIST scientists to have been known to be WRONG and NOT what it was said to have represented, yet was displayed and proclaimed as such anyhow - that's fraud, it's a lie... BUT that's not the point here...);
Please provide a citation for this claim. I have never seen any documentation to show that Archeopteryx is a fraud.
Has anybody wondered what the missing link is between Windows 3.11 and 95? There is a very wide gulf there, both in the OS and the version number. They have to be related, though, because the have so much common DNA (dos).
I believe that you are attempting to make an analogy to suggest that common features does not suggest common descent. Your analogy, however, is faulty, as you are entites that replicate imperfectly -- biological life forms -- to entities that do not replicate at all. As such, your analogy demonstrates nothing.
Actually, nothing in science is "proven". Explanations can only be further supported as potentially valid through additional evidence, or they can be disproven through contradictory evidence.
I have a question that I've never really understood the answer to: why is creationism as a belief incompatible with science (including evolution)?
When speaking of "creationism" in the context of evolution, the reference is typically to "special creationism", which postulates that a deity, God, created all species individually, rather than species emerging from common descent through evolution. Such a claim is inconsistent with observed reality.
Evolution approaches theories by assuming a HUGE number of assertions are true, trying to find evidence to back them up (all the time skewing your interpretations of the evidence based on your assumptions), and teaching those assumptions as facts to the unknowing masses in the mean time.
What assertions does evolution assume to be true? Be specific, and provide as many as you can.
I'm not saying that we need to _assume_ that God made the universe either (that happens to be my opinion, but that's beside the point),
Such an assumption has no bearing on evolution, as evolution says nothing regarding the origin of the universe, nor does it say anything regarding the existence of any deities. It does, however, beg the question of why the specfic deity God is being assumed to the exclusion of all other deities worshipped and/or acknowledged throughout human history.
but why can't we at least accept the fact that we don't have enough scientific evidence to make even an educated guess as to what the true origin of the universe is?
I do not understand the relevance of this question. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the origin of the universe.
The sooner we realize that faith in evolution is no more scientific than those damn bible thumping fools, then the sooner we can just quit arguing and realize that our way is not the way.
Perhaps you should address the evidence and explain why a validated, tangible specific prediction is somehow equivalent to "religious faith". Supporting your claims, rather than just asserting them, would give you a great deal more credibility.
What I find interesting is that a number of the "new" features in this game, such as NPC schedules and shops that lock up at night, were implemented in Morrowind as well via user mods. Curious. I wonder if the next Elder Scrolls game will feature a requirement that a character eat and sleep (as per the Primary Needs mod of Morrowind).
Slashdot Mirror
I would not oppose an examination of Intelligent Design to demonstrate its failure to adhere to the scientific method, however I suspect that many who advocate teaching ID in schools would not be satisfied with such an arrangement.
There is also the issue that many who advocate teaching ID in schools -- including the school board members attempting to approve its inclusion -- not actually understanding what ID really is. Many mistakenly believe that ID is six-day special creation of individual species.
Why would they ever need to do that? What does one (or five, or any number) incidence of fraud have to do with the veracity of a body of scientific knowlege?
I have heard it claimed that the existence of even one fraud or hoax in the field of evolution is proof that the theory is false. While Nebraska Man was neither a fraud nor a hoax (it was a mistaken find easily exposed through peer review), there are at least two known examples that are genuine. I asked this individual if phony stories such as the "Missing Day in Space" tale are proof that Christianity is false. The individual did not respond.
"Nebraska Man" was one of many dishonest attempts by evolutionists to "prove" evolution.
It appears as though you are unaware of the actual history regarding the "Nebraska Man" find. There was no dishonesty involved. Moreover, it was never presented as "proof" of anything.
They claimed that they had found fossils of the mising link in Nebraska.
Not true. A single tooth had been found, and that tooth was all that was claimed.
Text books were printed with pictures of what Nebraska man looked like.
I am unaware of any such textbooks. Please provide a citation. I am only aware of one drawing of Nebraska Man, and that was for a layman magazine, and was not endorsed by the man who originally found the tooth, who himself admitted that any artistic rendition was pure speculation and nothin gmore.
Articles were written detailing how Nebraska man lived
Please cite some of the articles to which you refer. I am unaware of any rampant speculation regarding Nebraska Man in the scientific community prior to the discovery that the tooth was porcine.
- all based on the finding of a *single tooth* - which turned out to be a pigs tooth btw.
In other words, it was a case where a find was submitted to the peer review process and determined not to be significant. If there was dishonesty, as you claim, then I would think that the revelation that the tooth was from a pig would have been supressed.
This does nothing to inspire confidence in the argument for me.
It is understandable that you lack confidence, given how completely misinformed you are on the subject.
Please explain or reference the sexual activities in which guild members engaged. Be specific and explain exactly how you came to be aware of their specific sexual practices.
Yes. "Nebraska Man" explains nothing.
There are those in the evolutionary camp that would argue that science displaces the need for God, and therefor, science itself should assume the social role of determining moral values.
Such individuals are clearly in the minority. Their opinion does not change the fact that the theory of evolution makes no statements whatsoever regarding the existence or nature of any deities.
It doesn't matter, it's really, which ever one wins.
It does matter. Dismissing a "God" who demands human sacrifice, for example, could arguably improve human society.
I disagree with that. Take two people and put them in a pool and tell them to swim laps. One will last longer than the other, and is better.
This would demonstrate that one individual is arguably a better swimmer. From this, I cannot deduce who is better at Calculus. "Better" is a relative standard, requiring a frame of reference.
You could, concievably, with more work, evolve a mathematical metric that values all of a person's probable contributions to society, and arrive at an empiracle definition of who is better.
Nonetheless, the standard is still arbitrary, as it is defined by "potential contributions to society". Not only is the declaration itself arbitrary, but the contributions possible could well vary based upon the society in question.
The flipside of the evolutionary topic is, well, what if we just say there is no God and move on?
I do not see how this is, in any way, an "evolutionary topic". The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the subject of deities.
Dismissing the existence of God in no way advances the human condition.
To which "God", out of the thousans of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you reference that particular deity to the exclusion of all others?
Consider, why does one need to foolishly accept that a better adapted emergent species is not fundamentally better than a less adapted one?
I do not see that one does need to do this at all. "Better adapted" is itself a relative condition, and there is no means to judge any one species as "fundamentally better" than another in an absolute sense. I do not understand what point you are attempting to argue.
They are claiming that God couldn't have made those enzymes, or the manner in which they function.
The letter string "God" did not occur anywhere within the article. I believe that you have misinterpreted the claims made in the article, or you have mistaken read a different article than the one referenced. Your conclusion cannot be drawn from the actual article.
When science thinks they understand something, credit should be made to God.
To which "God", out of the thousands of deity constructs worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you reference that specific God to the exclusion of all others.
And there were thousands of witnesses to miracles he performed, and that he rose from the dead.
Please provide references to independent accounts for each of the "thousands" of witnesses.
Two better words: KILL THEM.
If the government is going to literally open the floodgates to allowing criminal scum to waste toner and paper of others, then we need to declare open season, track down junk faxers and kill them. Blow their brains out, cut the brake lines in their cars, douse them in gasoline and set them on fire, whatever. People who do that do not deserve to live.
So, who put you in charge of determining what is rational, testable, and predictive?
I am not aware of any special qualifications required to realize that ID has put forth no tests or predictions.
Brilliantly put. I myself am not a fundamentalist, though I am a firm believer in God, the Bible, and ID.
So you believe that all life emerged from a common ancestor and diversified through evolution and -- for biological structures that could not evolve naturally -- the assistance of an unspecified designer who "designer" those features and added them to the population over a period of 4.6 billion years?
I'd say "formally rising" and now "waning". The ID people have been quietly nursing their wounds since U.S. District Judge Jones, really put them in their place last December.
It appears now that the creationist movement is again repackaging their false claims and blatant misrepresentations as the "Critical Thinking" movement.
And if you can't, then both Evolution (hate that term implies to little) and ID (or creationism whichever you prefer) can't be denied as possible. Thus them being a Theory
This is not a logical conclusion. An explanation must satisfy several criteria to be considered "theory" in science. Evolution satisfies these criteria. Intelligent Design does not.
So my challenge to you is. . . Prove the Theory of ID is false. Prove Evolution is false. Take your pick. You can't do either.
This is also untrue. Evolution can be falsified through the emergence of contradictory evidence. For example, complex mammal fossils from the Precambrian era would demonstrate that the theory is false. On the other hand, I am aware of no hypothetical criteria that would falsify Intelligent Design. Unless such defined criteria exists, Intelligent Design cannot be considered a theory.
I would disagree; there is nothing inconsistent between the theory of evolution, a biblical view of creation, and observed reality.
On the contrary. There is ample evidence to suggest that humans have not existed contemporaneously with all life that has existed. Physical evidence suggests that humans are a relatively recent emergence of biological life on this planet.
There is however incompatibility between abiogenesis and creation.
I did not reference abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution does not assume either kind of creation as it's basis, instead it is simply a model for the way living things change to survive in there environment.
This is correct. Evolution begins at the time that the first imperfect replicators exist. The theory then explains how those first replicators became the ancestors of all diverse life on earth.
I personally believe in a young earth (10,000-20,000 years),
This age is not supported by physical evidence.
I also believe that evolution occurs all the time.
This statement is supported by physical evidence.
There is no inconsistency here,
There is no inconsistency between stating that the earth is 10,000 years old and that evolution occurs. However, there is an inconsistency between physical evidence for the age of the earth and claiming that the earth is 10,000 years of age.
I believe God created life and gave it the marvelous ability to survive.
This claim is not falsifiable, and addresses a scope beyond the realm of scientific inquiry, and thus is not scientific. It may be true, however it is incompatable with science.
I do not believe that man arose from ape or that mammals came from the sea, but there is nothing in the theory of evolution that would compel me to.
It appears that you are unaware of the evidence and information within the theory of evolution.
Now if you where to say that creationism is incompatible with a naturalistic view of the world I would agree, however you are using an old bait and switch tactic to farther your argument.
I am not. I am stating that young-earth creationism is inconsistent with observed reality.
You are using abiogenesis as it is applied with the theory of evolution to argue against a creator God.
I am not. I do not apply abiogenesis to the theory of evolution, because abiogenesis does not apply to the theory of evolution. I also have not denied the existence of a creator God. I do not understand how you have drawn such conclusions from my statements.
Abiogenesis is no more a testable theory than creation.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. It has not yet risen to the level of theory. "Creation", as is commonly used, can never be a theory because it involves claims that are fundamentally unscientific.
Even if we could create life from nothing in a lab that only shows it is possible it no more proves that life formed from non-life than it does that an intelligent being could create life.
I have never claimed that humans creating life from "nothing" would qualify as proof of abiogenesis. In fact, I do not believe that life from "nothing" is possible, as that would violate the law of conservation of matter and energy. I did not reference the origin of the first life forms at all, so I am puzzled as to why you frame your argument around it. I merely stated that special creation as described in Genesis is inconsistent with observed reality. I said nothing regarding the existence of any creator deities, nor did I say anything regarding the ultimate origin of the first life forms.
It's called "Carbon dating". Carbon dating is usually accurate to within a few hundred years. Hell, with a timeframe in the hundreds of millions of years, it'd only have to be accurate to a few tens of thousands of years to be useful.
Carbon dating is not used for time periods in excess of 50,000 years. When dating rocks surrounding fossils to determine the approximate age of the fossils, multiple radiometric dating methods are used.
I just can't wait until this Fossil turns out to be irrelevant or even false.
Clearly you have studied the fossil and have insights that most of us do not. Please share your reasoning for this prediction.
like many other "missing link"s that have been discovered before.
I am not aware that such an event is a common occurence. Perhaps you have references to "many others" for which this has happened.
It used to be that evolutionists believed Archaeopteryx (fancy word for "ancient wing" or "ancient bird"), was a link between reptiles and birds. Many evolutionists no longer believe this. Closer examination of its fossilized remains revealed perfectly formed feathers on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its leg and wing bones were thin and hollow. Its supposed "reptilian features" are found in birds today. And it does not predate birds. Fossils of other birds have been found to have lived in the same period as Archaeopteryx.
Do you have a reference to support your claim that Archaeopteryx is no longer considered a transitional form? Please provide references. I have only heard this claim from creationists, many of whom fundamentally misrepresent the features of the find.
First, they compare it to the "reptile-to-bird" fraud (and yes, it's been proven by NON-CREATIONIST scientists to have been known to be WRONG and NOT what it was said to have represented, yet was displayed and proclaimed as such anyhow - that's fraud, it's a lie... BUT that's not the point here...);
Please provide a citation for this claim. I have never seen any documentation to show that Archeopteryx is a fraud.
Has anybody wondered what the missing link is between Windows 3.11 and 95? There is a very wide gulf there, both in the OS and the version number. They have to be related, though, because the have so much common DNA (dos).
I believe that you are attempting to make an analogy to suggest that common features does not suggest common descent. Your analogy, however, is faulty, as you are entites that replicate imperfectly -- biological life forms -- to entities that do not replicate at all. As such, your analogy demonstrates nothing.
I still say you believe them and can't prove it
Actually, nothing in science is "proven". Explanations can only be further supported as potentially valid through additional evidence, or they can be disproven through contradictory evidence.
I have a question that I've never really understood the answer to: why is creationism as a belief incompatible with science (including evolution)?
When speaking of "creationism" in the context of evolution, the reference is typically to "special creationism", which postulates that a deity, God, created all species individually, rather than species emerging from common descent through evolution. Such a claim is inconsistent with observed reality.
Evolution approaches theories by assuming a HUGE number of assertions are true, trying to find evidence to back them up (all the time skewing your interpretations of the evidence based on your assumptions), and teaching those assumptions as facts to the unknowing masses in the mean time.
What assertions does evolution assume to be true? Be specific, and provide as many as you can.
I'm not saying that we need to _assume_ that God made the universe either (that happens to be my opinion, but that's beside the point),
Such an assumption has no bearing on evolution, as evolution says nothing regarding the origin of the universe, nor does it say anything regarding the existence of any deities. It does, however, beg the question of why the specfic deity God is being assumed to the exclusion of all other deities worshipped and/or acknowledged throughout human history.
but why can't we at least accept the fact that we don't have enough scientific evidence to make even an educated guess as to what the true origin of the universe is?
I do not understand the relevance of this question. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the origin of the universe.
The sooner we realize that faith in evolution is no more scientific than those damn bible thumping fools, then the sooner we can just quit arguing and realize that our way is not the way.
Perhaps you should address the evidence and explain why a validated, tangible specific prediction is somehow equivalent to "religious faith". Supporting your claims, rather than just asserting them, would give you a great deal more credibility.
What I find interesting is that a number of the "new" features in this game, such as NPC schedules and shops that lock up at night, were implemented in Morrowind as well via user mods. Curious. I wonder if the next Elder Scrolls game will feature a requirement that a character eat and sleep (as per the Primary Needs mod of Morrowind).