Make the case for Intelligent Design.

The scientific principle known as "Occums Razor" states that (simply put) given two possible explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is usually the correct one.
What could be simpler than ID?  
Why must we have all these complicated convoluted explanations that include "millions of years" and "random genetic mutations" and all that?  Isn't it simpler to just say "God waved a magic wand" and be done with it?

I would argue that Occam's Razor actually opposes ID.

Although biology is complex, it's ultimately nothing more than the consequence of a set of austere, natural laws (which no doubt have a simple origin).

Contrast this with an infinitely complex being (with a personality) who decided to magic complex organisms into existence.

Evolution:
I assume by evolution that you mean something passes by degrees to a different stage or stages..

Right?

Natural Selection:
"The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated."  http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-selection

Those two seem to be at the foundation of evolution science.


So, you asked:
"I'd like to know exactly what are the problems with evolution science?"

Well, the problem with evolution science is that it does not explain how it all got started.

Right?

Nor does It does it explain why.

> Well, the problem with evolution science is that it does not explain how it all got started.

It doesn't try to. But there exist plausible explanations for how it all got started; all it takes is a sort of chemical heredity (something like this: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/replicatingrna.html), which is simple enough. Once you have that, natural selection is adequate for getting you to biological heredity.

Granted, we don't know if this is definitely what happened, let alone which chemicals were involved (we're working on it), but that's not the point.

> Nor does It does it explain why.

Why it all got started? If so, why does it need an explanation? It's just one of those things.
Chemicals react all the time, but no one asks for a 'why'. It's only with hindsight that some decide there *must* be a 'why'.

As Dawkins once said: the problem with evolution is that everyone thinks that they understand it.

It's time to establish, hopefully once and for all, exactly what is scientific about the ID postulate?  Points will go either to whoever can establish that ID is a valid scientific principle worth teaching alongside (or replacing) evolutionary theory, or to whoever can most clearly show that ID is not a viable science and should be relegated to the dustbin of pseudoscience along with astrology and alchemy.  In my mind, it's either one or the other, but I guess we'll soon find out.
-----
Many people have written books on both sides of this question, some reasonable and some not.
If you think that the question will be conclusively settled here, you have greater faith in human reasoning that I have. The best you can hope for is that you will be satisfied.
----
The main difficulty with ID as a science is that it is impossible to falsify it.
-
The main difficulty with evolution is that it is so easy to falsify some of the original parts. (ie evolution evolves)
-
In the end ID will say that the designer used whatever parts of evolution is firmly established to create the design.

For the purposes of this discussion we're not addressing how or why cellular life began, but more the overall ideas of ID vs. biological evolution.  Here is a simplified view as I see it:

ID proposes that general classes of species were dropped onto Earth largely fully formed, and only subtly change features over time, but do not spawn new species.  For example, it has no qualms with Darwin's finches as a result of adaptation, but says that a finch could not have come from more primitive forms of bird, and those birds could not have come from reptilian dinosaurs.

Evolution through Natural Selection takes the view that if you take a very basic life form, apply subtle change through environmental factors and spread it out over millions of years, entirely new species can indeed come from other species.  This is presented in a biological family tree of sorts, with every living thing, past and present, represented in an unbroken timeline and line of heredity.  It is understood that if you go back far enough, all life came from very primitive organisms.

The issue isn't whether or not a supreme being guided this evolutionary process over millions of years as it's believed by religious moderates, but a more the literal translation of Genesis where life forms were created in a very short period of time (a matter of literally days), and all creatures, including mankind, were as intricately designed fully-formed as a sculptor would shape a figure from clay, fire it in a kiln, and put it on a shelf.

Some of the key principles of science are: explanation, evidence, falsifiability, and application.
ID (which is Creationism in drag) fails on all counts. A brief elaboration on each:

Explanation.

ID does not explain anything. It attempts to solve a mystery by invoking a bigger mystery; and it doesn't even do this in style. It provides no details on the history of the world - just 'God did it'. That is most certainly not science. You will never see anything remotely similar published in a journal (not even a disreputable one).

On the other hand, evolution seems to explain everything we observe in nature. And essentially all biologists agree that biology only makes sense with evolution.

Evidence.

There is no scientific evidence for ID (the existence of a book is of course not scientific evidence). All arguments ever posed for ID do not lead deductively (nor even inductively) to a God; Paley's argument is a prime example.

To the contrary, the evidence seems to oppose ID (which brings us to the next section).

Evolution however, is backed by mountains of evidence, from many different fields of science.

Falsifiability.

Some of the claims of ID are indeed falsifiable. And unsurprisingly, the 'theory' fails. For example, the age of the Earth is contradicted by countless fields of science - from geology to astronomy, the existence of Adam and Eve is contradicted by modern genetics, et al.

The theists then have two options:

 i) They disregard this evidence; or
 ii) they adjust their theories so as to remove the contradictions.

Option i) is not how science works. And ii) results in an unfalsifiable 'theory', which is useless in science. In either case, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, makes many falsifiable claims (all of which seem to have passed with flying colours).

Application.

Evolution has countless, powerful and often life-saving applications. Such as in artificial selection, genetic engineering, molecular biology, evolutionary algorithms, medicine, etc. It's a powerful idea, and is lucrative too. Its own applications fund further research into it.

ID on the other hand has no application (and let's not discuss its funding).

This subject is very difficult to discuss. First - what is "ID" and what is "evolution". It is easy to create a distorted view of either  theory.

Gx,

You said:
=========================================
Here is a simplified view as I see it:

ID proposes that general classes of species were dropped onto Earth largely fully formed, and only subtly change features over time, but do not spawn new species.
=========================================


1.  That simplified view is not expressed in the definitions of ID that are easily found.

The following is one example you will find when you look-up the definition.

"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,..."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Also see
    http://media.www.arbiteronline.com/media/storage/paper890/news/2007/04/02/News/Breaking.Down.The.Definition.Intelligent.Design-2816370.shtml

    http://www.answers.com/topic/intelligent-design
   
   
None of these definitions say ID is about "general classes of species were dropped onto Earth largely fully formed," or about the narratives in Genesis.


2.  Here is a bit more about ID and a fundamental difference it has with creationism.

"The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence."
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php


3.  It seems like you're trying to force ID into a definition that is not generally unacceptable and then you want us to argue against it.  You're treating ID the same as creationism.

Occam's Razor does'nt support  ID,  I think God as a concept is far more complex than anything I can think of.

While not answering your question personally I think ID is simply "I don't understand it so God did it". In reality the combination of very simple rules can produce immense complexity,  (eg fractals).  

There are two things that make evolution not as solid as say, Newton's laws or Boyle's laws.  One is that a lot of time is necessary in order to observe change; you can't run an experiment like you can with physics and chemistry and prove with a definite result what happened.  The second is that physics and chemistry and biology are predictive and let you make a specific statement about what to expect in the future, whereas it isn't so clear with evolution if you can do the same.

I'm referring to the ideas outlined in the work; Of Pandas and People, originally written as a creationism manual, and then modified (removing creationism references) to become more neutral school textbook, it coined the term "intelligent design".  It is a key reference book for the ID movement.  

An overview of this book is featured in the PBS documentary: Judgment Day, Intelligent Design on Trial.  You can view this in segment in part three of the documentary on their web site.

The book outlines the idea that all life forms on Earth began abruptly through an "...intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact--fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."  

This view of ID is not commonly communicated, as it's clearly a veil for creationism, but it is core to the case for ID.  Otherwise, ID would be identical to evolution, with the only debate being the source of species guidance; intelligence or natural selection.  If someone else has a different take, let me know.

ID also heavily leans on the idea of "irreducible complexity", or the notion that certain features of an organism can't be reduced any further and still be functional.  A fish's scales or bird's feathers are good examples.  Proponents of ID will site Michael Behe's example of a flagellum's tail, which acts as a complex motor to propel it.  Remove one of the mechanisms that build the motor, they'll argue, and the tail becomes useless.  

But the counter-argument is that complexity is not irreducible, it's just that the reduced functions serve different purposes.  The flagellum's tail for example, when reduced in complexity, becomes ideal as a barb to attack other cells with, very similar to barbs in other organisms.


Also, I think Dan's statement at the start is tongue-in-cheek.

Lets apply the theories to each other.
They are both struggling for survival, each (in the head of the individual) believing itself to be the right one.
Survival in this case means that a significant number of people believe one of them to be right, the other will eventually die out from disuse.

Evolution (as a theory) came about suddenly and fully formed about 200 years ago as a single mutation in the head of one man. It has been successfully and rapidly gaining ground against ID ever since.

ID, however as an idea has been around for several thousand years and should be well established, all it needs to do is spread itself into each new mind in such a way that that mind feels that it is the correct explanation.

After the 'Darwin Mutation' arrived, ID has been forced to adapt in several ways to ensure it's survival "OK we will allow that species may change a bit if you breed them, BUT we still say that they have always been individual species".

The Darwin Mutation however was placed fully formed into an already established tutoring system (Schools, parents, culture groups etc.)and has not allowed any adaptation to occur to it. "It works for plants and animals, anything that has a growth and survival pattern so it needs no modification".

I think the above shows that in each other's eyes both theories have a very good chance of survival, survival in this case meaning that a significant number of people believe them to be right, and so therefore both are correct.

 

Hey, GfW! Long time no see. I agree with your comment about complexity. In my initial comment, I was just providing some food for thought.
WaterStreet,
>> You're treating ID the same as creationism.
There's more than a similarity... the "two" theories have been shown in a court of law to be the same.
Also,
>>it does not explain how it all got started. ... nor why.
I agree with InteractiveMind's response. And add:

If one has a theory about, say, why a program fails, one starts with a huge pile of "givens." The theory does not need to include anything about how silcon wafers are formed into CPUs. It might be fun to approach evolution that way. Given: Somehow, simple life started. Now lets make a theory about how it became as complex as it is today.

GX,

You seem to be picking and choosing the ideas that meet what you think ID should be.  Your definition of ID is not the same as those from web links I provided.


Dan,

Are you trying to tell us that a court decides what a theory is?  
Doesn't sound right.  Exact links please.

>There are two things that make evolution not as solid as say, Newton's laws or Boyle's laws.  One is that a lot of time is necessary in order to observe change; you can't run an experiment like you can with physics and chemistry and prove with a definite result what happened.  

When dealing with bacteria, which can reproduce large numbers in a few hours, you can make these kinds of tests.

>The second is that physics and chemistry and biology are predictive and let you make a specific statement about what to expect in the future, whereas it isn't so clear with evolution if you can do the same.

On the quantum level, there's a lot that physics cannot predict.  It's when dealing with large macroscopic numbers of particles that predictions become possible.  Similarly, there are many predictions that can be made within evolutionary science, even if changes within individual populations are chaotic.

WaterStreet,
Mention of the Dover case was in Graphixer's link and I assumed it was common knowledge to participants here:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
In particular, see the "Decision" section.   All the plaintiffs neded to do was show that IDism was the same as Creationism, since the latter had already been ruled upon.  Among other compelling evidence, was an early draft of a Creationism text in which it was apparant that a wordprocessor's find-and-replace tool had been used to replace each instance of "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design"  It was pretty blatent; as I recall it missed one instance where Creationism had been mistyped [Sorry, I can't locate that reference].

WaterStreet, from the answers.com link you posted, here's part of the first paragraph of the Britannica listing:

Intelligent Design

Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an "intelligent designer."
...
Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God, proponents of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are "irreducibly complex" in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning. From this premise they inferred that no such system could have come about through the gradual alteration of functioning precursor systems by means of random mutation and natural selection, as the standard evolutionary account maintains; therefore, living organisms must have been created all at once by an intelligent designer.


The 'all at once' seems to be central to the ID proposal.  However, I haven't read all the literature, which is why I asked someone to make the case for ID, and they can do it using whatever definition they choose to defend.

I'm most interested in explanations from biblical literalists, as simply saying an intelligent designer guided Darwinian evolution is not something I can argue with, as no one will ever know that for sure.  But I do want to know why someone would consider ID a scientifc principle worthy of study in a science class.


RobinD, just a couple of corrections; Darwin was born 200 years ago, but didn't publish Origin of Species until 150 years ago.  He wrote it after decades of study as a naturalist, geologist and biologist.  The idea wasn't 'fully formed' at the time, and has been added on to over the last 150 years.  It continues to be modified and re-examined to this day, as most all scientific principles are.  This will continue to be the case as we add even more finds to the fossil record, and make further medical advancements based on the core idea.

I just can't be bothered! I realise now that I should have a folder with text files containing stock arguments for these kind of threads.
I really don't think you need to bother Graphixer. Creationsists can never really threaten scientific knowledge, because the truth always wins out, doesn't it? And even if they take over the earth for a while, it would only be a flash in the pan, like Marxism.
I'm just grateful that I'm not a creationist, that I can I think. And I am truly sorry of the poor state of education of people who do believe that bunk.

Graphixer, thanks for noticing my post.
I did grossly exaggerate and simplify there. The subtle point I was trying to make was that both these ideas are acting as living organisms. They will survive or not, as long as people believe the ideas they will still exist, like a species they can also change and adapt, an idea that does not adapt can die out rather quickly.
There is a significant difference in the time these ideas have been around, the idea that a superior creator built the heavens and the earth has existed at least since recorded history began.
Darwin was born 200 years ago, but the seeds of the events and stimuli that caused him to arrive at his idea may have been around before then (What if his dad wasn't a minister etc.) And he certainly had his ideas forming before he published his book, nothing to write about otherwise. Popular belief has it that he was struck by the idea in the Galapagos islands. It may have been an embryo of an idea at that time, but once he was able to discuss it with others and spread the theory it was fully formed enough not only to be able to explain different species, but able to convince scholars who previously had only been given one idea how all the different organisms came to be on this earth. To convince someone who has been brought up with one simple explanation for all things takes some doing, so it must have been a powerful and quite mature theory by then.
One definition missing from this thread is Truth. How is the truth determined? You can do as many scientific tests as you like that all have the same result and all you can say at the end is that it will probably have the same result next time as well. Truth, like it or not is actually defined by what most people believe.
If you begin to teach ID in science lessons, once a large enough group of people believe it to be part of science then it will be. If you want to know if that is right or wrong, then wait a hundred years or so and see if it is still being taught in science or if it has broken away into its own field.
It is of course possible that ID will have been forgotten by then, completely overtaken by the new kid on the block.
 

>> what is scientific about the ID postulate [?]
Isn't the ID theory like any other? We start with:
    There is something that happened and we don't know how it happened.
    Let's think of stuff that might explain it.
In physics, there are plenty of cases where an unseen force acts upon matter. We give it a name such as gluon or gravity or whatever, but having named it does not really change the fact that we just don't know how or why it does what it does. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are postulated to explain things we can measure but don't understand.
What's so different about postulating a Creator with unlimited powers?

Darwin actually wrote several books before On the Origin of Species, and several books after.  The Galapagos experience was very early in his life, which gave him plenty of time to hash out the basic principles of natural selection, in consultation with other eminent scientists.  While there are some issues around the quick publication of Origin, the ideas weren't hastily drawn out of thin air.

At issue here isn't whether or not some human notions gain enough of a following in the general population to become human 'truth' (e.g., 'the Earth is flat'), but whether or not ID even has the potential to stand up as a scientific principle backed by sound evidence, or if it just a smoke-screen for creationism.  The latter seems to be the prevailing idea.

Perhaps part of the problem here is the English language?  The word "Theory" can be widely defined in general discussion, but has a very specific meaning in science.

From the Free Dictionary:

the·o·ry
1.  A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2.  The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3.  A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4.  Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5.  A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6.  An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Such a wide set of definitions practically renders the word meaningless.

However, 150 years of the development of our understanding of Darwinian evolution, and millions of transitional fossils, clearly puts the "Theory of Evolution" into definitions 1 and 2.

ID clearly falls into definitions 4-6.

It makes me cringe when someone dismisses evolution is "just a theory", as if some unstudied individual came up with some random notion and the entire scientific community collectively decided to just run with it without further study.

The reason I heard for including ID in science lessons was so that the teacher did not dimiss out of hand any statement by a child who may have been brought up by religious parents. Apart from being cruel, this could discourage a possible future great scientist from continuing with the subject.
Remember that Darwin was a minister's son and would have been considered as coming from a religious family.
It's not that ID is to be considered as scientific as chemistry or physics, but that the teacher of the subject must be able to communicate with his pupils.

Gx and Dan,

I now see the points you made about the definition of ID -- Thanks

RobinD says:
The reason I heard for including ID in science lessons was so that the teacher did not dimiss out of hand any statement by a child who may have been brought up by religious parents.


The same could be said about any number of things.  

How about dinosaurs?   Should public schools teach the idea that dinosaur bones are planted by Satan to trick us?  How about the idea of the Grand Canyon taking a day to be created rather than forming over millions of years?  And how about the creation of the universe itself?  Should a seven-day creation be taught?  Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on creation stories...should other world views be taught?

There are many real-world concepts that can't be reconciled with biblical scripture.  Should we teach all of the possible alternatives?  Its it worth hobbling our collective scientific understanding just to save some teachers a bit of discomfort?

>Should public schools teach the idea that dinosaur bones are planted by Satan to trick us?
No, that's not my understanding of it at all.
If a child in a class puts his hand up to answer the question about dinosaurs and says that there ween't ever any and that the teacher is wrong. The teacher should be able to respond with a lot more understanding than GX just did by listing a load of questions as if the listener doesn't understand a basic concept.
In the case of this child, he does have no understanding of the basic concept, he has been sheltered from all of this, goes to church regularly with his parents, they have no television, or if they do the watching is carefully monitored. And he is a good boy and likes to do right by his parents.
The teacher is unable to respond properly if all he knows about ID/Creationalism is that people say that God created the world 6000 years ago, scientists are evil and everything they say is trying to steer you from the rightous path. This would influence the teacher's interaction with that child so much that he would be unable to communicate his ideas of fossil creation, condensing stars etc. Anything the teacher tried to explain would be met with a blank stare which would eventually cause anger and certainly would cause the child not to want to listen to science any more.
The teacher needs to understand what it is that the child believes so that he can explain his subject in terms that the child can understand. That's all, it isn't necessary for anybody to be taught religion in a science class, but it is necessary for the science to be explained and not beaten in with ridicule and threats of detentions.
 

Just to give an idea of the shift you are expecting from the child. How easy would it be for someone to convince you that ID was in fact the correct explanation and that huge areas of science have been built on a false premise?
Hard? impossible? This child has had little real-world experience to help him, everything he has ever asked has been answered by his scriptures and now you want him to believe something different. You need to be talking as if you understand what he believes, you don't need to believe it yourself, but if you don't understand it you may as well be speaking two different languages.
 

I nearly got myself stuck in a loop there.
The teacher needs to understand the Creationist concept.
So the teacher needs to be taught it.
The teacher might learn this best at school, so all the pupils need to be taught it in case they become teachers.
#Might as well teach it in science lessons.
 
But I have a solution, well it's hardly new. At school we had through several years, a subject that varied its name from Scripture, to RE, RK, and RI.
RE was religious education, I think we 'did' stories from the Bible in this one.
RI we had a Reverand somebody who believed we should have Religious Instruction, we gave him a hard time.
RK was religious knowledge. Only for about one year and with one teacher, we were told about several of the worlds different major religions, what books they used, the buildings they worshipped in, and in a small detail, what it was that they believed in. That is the place to teach the subject, and having been taught it, anyone with a difficulty in a science subject due to conflicting beliefs should have the necessary reference points to be able to understand.
 

I feel that students should be given every chance to learn different theories.  If we just teach about evolution, that is setting a limit upon

The issue with discussing the theory behind God is that religion is a touchy subject in schools, whether it be through differing faiths, same faith different view, or lack of faith.  I remember in my secondary school RE consisted mainly of ethics, yet the school next door RE was taught twice a day and the subject was completely based upon religion.  So where as teaching evolution within my school wouldn't seemingly offend many, in the other it likely would (heck, I don't even know if they would teach such a thing!).

I still don't think that people are aware of the costs of this sort of thing. Just think of it, all the panels for the tourists at the Grand Canyon are going to have to be changed - from 6 million years ago, to sometime around the flood.

>>Isn't the ID theory like any other? We start with:

    There is something that happened and we don't know how it happened.
   Let's think of stuff that might explain it.

In physics, there are plenty of cases where an unseen force acts upon matter. We give it a name such as gluon or gravity or whatever, but having named it does not really change the fact that we just don't know how or why it does what it does. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are postulated to explain things we can measure but don't understand.

What's so different about postulating a Creator with unlimited powers?<<

If naming gluons or gravity or whatever were the end of the process, then there would be no difference at all.  But after you create a scientific model, there's lots of work to be done in testing and attempting to falsify or refine the theory.  

With the concept of a supernatural creator being, there's no chance of falsification and no testing.  Often there's little in the way of internal logical consistency.  Thus competing models (or religions) have no built in quality gauge to determine their fitness.

Isn't the real problem not the Creator Postulate, but rather the intentional ignorance (and willful discarding) of entire categories of human knowledge?
For instance, one can't understand plate techtonics or astrophysics in a context of a 6000-year-old universe.  One can't be a top biological researcher without understanding the idea that bacteria mutate -- evolve over time.  One really can't be a clear thinker if one allows oneself to insert "Here, a miracle occurred." at any point in a formal proof.
I don't want the leaders of tomorrow -- the children of today -- to be taught such vague ambiguous notions as Creationism in a science class.  I want them schooled in how to think rationally and logically, so they can make informed decisions throughout their lives.
RobinD,
Point well taken.  Teachers should be taught how to handle the situation.  It's not much different from when a young student volunteers "The ghost of my uncle creeps into my bed each night and touches me at the dirty place."  Or "When I grow up I want to be an X-Man, like Wolverine."  The teacher should be able to show the student how to differentiate between imagination, fiction, and reality.

>Isn't the real problem not the Creator Postulate, but rather the intentional ignorance (and willful discarding) of entire categories of human knowledge?<

Any institution that negatively portrays "doubters" has the potential for this kind of ignorance...  And for many historical reasons, religion gets *really* liberal treatment, up to and including actual assumptions of truth for many dodgy ideas.

This leads to absurdities, like the geocentric universe, the 6000 year old earth, or the pope dictating that condoms actually help spread AIDS.

>> or the pope dictating that condoms actually help spread AIDS.

You need to be a little careful here, about what he actually said and what he actually meant. Handing out condoms does not reduce promescuity, it actually increases it. And the handing out of condoms must be liberal because people will reuse them. He also in his African tour had a go at the couurpt politicians and their western buddies who rip off the populations and stuff the money in Swiss bank accounts. This got virtually no press coverage in the West.

You're still attacking IDism by saying that it is not Science. That may very well be the case, since it does not uphold the scientific methodology of theory, experiment and observation. But that does not address the issue. The issue being then whether the principles of evolution can be taught in Scoience classes, since the methodology is not wholly maintained. Furthermore you are also ignoring the social issues involved. For example I presume that the shops shut on Sundays in the United States, and I ask myself why?

>You need to be a little careful here, about what he actually said and what he actually meant.

I wasn't there when he spoke, but the Catholic stance towards birth control, and condom use in particular *is* absurd.  The majority of North American Catholics simply disregard that bit of dogma.

>But that does not address the issue. The issue being then whether the principles of evolution can be taught in Scoience classes, since the methodology is not wholly maintained.<

Are you saying that evolution is somehow not science?  Maybe we should teach it in economics class?  String theory is often criticized on the fact that it is not testable (among other things) yet it still belongs in the physics department.  One can criticize evolution theory and methodology and still recognize that it is a scientific endeavor.  The same can't be said for ID (at least in any form put forth in this thread.)

>Furthermore you are also ignoring the social issues involved. For example I presume that the shops shut on Sundays in the United States, and I ask myself why?<

I don't see why it matters?

I don't see what is "absurd" with the catholic position on birth control. You may not like it, but as a former catholic I have had no problem with it. The fact that many catholics ignore it doesn't make it false.

The IDist are saying that Evolution is not science. Ultimately anything historical is conjectural, since there are no witnesses there to recall it, nor is it reproducible. That is a very important point, which you have not dealt with. It is not sufficient to try to cover the holes in Evolutionary theory by saying that sooner or later you'll get it right. You are trying to teach something which goes against people's personal beliefs - indeed you put in the classroom where their children are - by not dealing with the issues. It is all very good to say that over millions of years such changes are possible, but you don't know the mechanism which does this. The justification for this stance, that the IDists have no alternative is not scientific. The question which ought to be asked, given the opposition to such teaching, and given the incompleteness of the theory,  is whether it ought to be taught at all. That is not to exclude it from scientific investigation, say at universities and such, since, as you put it, it would be a "scientific endeavor". The IDists are saying that if Evolution is to be taught, so should ID along side. My point however is whether Evolution is far enough along the road to allay the fears of the community - and by the community I mean the population of the United States, who by all accounts, don't accept evolutionary theory.

Your quote on String Theory is a c ase in point, for if you read Lee Smollin's book "Trouble with Physics" you'll see that the scientific community has, over the last thirty years, virtually excluded any other approach other than String Theory from being persued in Universities. In fact it could well be that the community has been wasting it's time persuing such a course. That String Theory ought to be taught anywhere is for me an abhorrence. Luckily it is too complex to be taught in schools and frankly if the lay public knew what quantities of money has been spent in it's direction they too would be upset.

Now the reason why the shops are shut on Sundays is because of the Sabbath day, in the Judeao-Christian calander. You'll find that most countries observe such a "day of rest" due to religious considerations. These considerations are of course social considerations. These too play a role in society and go towards decision making. I raised this point regarding Creationism and the Amish, but so far nobody has taken me up on it.

Regarding shops being closed on Sundays:

Small, independent 'shops' might close on Sundays for practical purposes, but not larger grocery and department stores that can afford larger numbers of employees.  It is no longer culturally taboo to work on Sundays, even if it's a biblical offense worthy of stoning.  But there are lots of religious remnants that remain in secular life.  These are testaments to our history, but not necessarily our current philosophy.


Regarding the Amish teaching creationism in their own schools:

The Amish are a culturally isolated group.  They could teach that rocks are living creatures deserving of individual rights, and it would have practically no effect on American society overall.  However, every other public school around the country, with socially and culturally diverse populations, have students that will go on to dramatically affect our nation's science, industry and policy.  If you teach one group's religious philosophy, you will undoubtedly offend someone, so these institutions' curriculums should remain as neutral and fact-based as possible.

Do the Amish even have science classes in their schools?  They certainly don't have auto shops.

>It is not sufficient to try to cover the holes in Evolutionary theory by saying that sooner or later you'll get it right.

We will never get it "right."  The model is never the same as the reality, it only serves to explain and illuminate reality.  That's not really an issue, as all science has the "work in progress" sign.

>Your quote on String Theory is a c ase in point, for if you read Lee Smollin's book "Trouble with Physics" you'll see that the scientific community has, over the last thirty years, virtually excluded any other approach other than String Theory from being persued in Universities. That String Theory ought to be taught anywhere is for me an abhorrence. <

I think that string theory may be a dead end, or it may help spawn some other new theor(y|ies) that may or may not be better.  The point is that scientific theories have built in measures of fitness, unlike religions.  (And thanks for the reference.  Sounds like a book I would enjoy, and I've got a birthday coming up.  :)

>The question which ought to be asked, given the opposition to such teaching, and given the incompleteness of the theory,  is whether it ought to be taught at all.

Evolution could be falsified in any number of ways, but such evidence we have found has not succeeded in doing so.  Issues of incompleteness aside, evolution has deservedly been the leading paradigm for many decades.  To not teach it would be a disgrace, if only for that reason.

I have no problems with teaching children that there is such a concept as ID, and going into the debate between the different sides.  I wouldn't spend a huge amount of time on it, for the simple reason of having a lot of other topics to teach as well.

What I strongly object to is that ID should be drummed into children's heads as the gospel truth.  Indoctrination is not education.   Neither should science be presented as "truth" that way either.  When I was teaching physics and chemistry we also looked at historical theories, such as phlogiston and aether.  We discussed what theories are and what laws are, and how they change over time and why.  Part of a general education in science should include understanding the processes of science.

>My point however is whether Evolution is far enough along the road to allay the fears of the community - and by the community I mean the population of the United States, who by all accounts, don't accept evolutionary theory.<

Evolution, as a theory, is mature and well accepted by the scientific community.  While some two thirds of the US population may wish that creationism was taught alongside/in place of evolution, you've already made the point that those two thirds only want Christian creationism to be included...  For the public school system, that alone should make it a no-brainer.

>The IDist are saying that Evolution is not science. Ultimately anything historical is conjectural, since there are no witnesses there to recall it, nor is it reproducible. That is a very important point, which you have not dealt with.<

Black holes have never been witnessed nor reproduced...  There are a lot of unanswered questions about black holes. Do we teach about those?  Yes.  We make the best of what little evidence is available.  

Coincidentally, positing the existence of black holes does not contradict any major religious texts...

... an excellent point that I was trying to make in my Plate Techtonics thread.  If it weren't for a very few passages in some ancient book, written at a time when the writers had virtually no understanding of the physical universe, and much of which is accepted by all as allegorical and/or poetry anyway, evolution would not be a controversial issue.

Dan: that's another of your "what-ifs". You can't undo the situation by posing a hypothetical "what-if" and draw a conclusion from it. The Creationists (amongst others) claim that their scripture has been guided by God, so they don't need to have an understanding of the physical universe. The problem is that it *is* a controversial issue and how to tackle it.

I'm neither a theologian nor a paleontologist. I look at the problem from a lay point of view - like most people. And the arguments on both sides are somewhat wooley.

Now this "all science has a work in progress sign". You might believe that, and indeed it could be true, but that is NOT the way in which it is presented. In schools particularly things are presented as the absolute truth, since there is little time to go into the philosophical niceities. Kids will come home from school spouting the things which are in direct opposition to their parents beliefs. That is the issue which the Creationist have. It may be that Christian Creationism is a "no brainer" in public schools (due to the separation of church and state) but does that make them atheistic or agnostic? The United Kingdom has introduced "faith" schools (which they had previously in the form of Jewish and Catholic schools). Is that the only direction to solve this problem?

Which brings me to Graphixer's point about schools be neutral and "fact-based" as possible. What facts and based on whose philosophy? (Again look at the scientific community regarding String Theory and the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM) Surely anything which is *that* controversial ought to be ommitted? Yes, I agree, one can always offend *somebody*, but it seems to be that a plurality is involved here.

These socialogical problems have to be addressed. It is counter-productive using phrases like "the pope dictating", "drummed into the heads" and "indoctrination". You must respect the other person's point of view.

What facts and based on whose philosophy?

Mine, of course!  :-)  But seriously...

I hate to put a number to it, but if we've gone over, say, a hundred years with one particular conclusion, derived through the scientific method, and being the overwhelmingly prevalent throughout the scientific community, and in multiple disciplines, I think it's safe to say that this conclusion can be taught as fact until someone comes up with an equally plausible, yet scientific, explanation to counter the prevailing conclusion, and that alternative can stand a fair test of time.

Regardless of what Ben Stein believes, there are great rewards and fame waiting for any scientist who can outline a viable alternative to 'evolution through natural selection'.  ID is not a viable alternative.

SStory, this question was custom made for you.  I'm shocked you haven't chimed in yet.

Well said graphixer. There are clearly things that should be labelled as facts.
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Evolution itself is the fact, while "natural selection" is an evolutionary theory.
Facts are not concrete things, but they are solid enough to walk on ....
 

>>> I hate to put a number to it, but if we've gone over, say, a hundred years with one particular conclusion, derived through the scientific method, and being the overwhelmingly prevalent throughout the scientific community, and in multiple disciplines, I think it's safe to say that this conclusion can be taught as fact until someone comes up with an equally plausible, yet scientific, explanation to counter the prevailing conclusion, and that alternative can stand a fair test of time.

Whether or not the majority of the scientific community believe it doesn't matter, it is still a theory and therefore not a fact.  It is absurd to say that just because so many of a certain community believe something it instantly makes it fact, without any hard proof.  It should still be taught as a theory, merely expressed as the majority opinion, until such times that it can be stated once and for all that it is true - then it can be taught as fact.

Thank you angus. This point is brought out in Lee Smollin's book. Somebody in the String Theory field actually suggested that the provisions of scientific theory/fact should be changed so that String Theory could become "fact". Certain people in the field have boycotted Cambridge University Press for publishing a book on an alternative to String Theory. It is NOT true that the "scientific community" is at one on such things. There are only "at one" when threatened from the outside. This after all is only human nature.

I would be happy to accept the "majority scientific view" if you were happy to accept the "majority public view", which apparently you are not.

>if you were happy to accept the "majority public view", which apparently you are not.

Every poll I've seen on the topic indicates that the majority of Americans want evolution taught in schools.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

From your "poll" :-

"Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright"

which is not what you implied in your post, Paul, is it?

The majority still want evolution taught, which is exactly what I implied.

>and being the overwhelmingly prevalent throughout the scientific community, and in multiple disciplines, I think it's safe to say that this conclusion can be taught as fact
As I said up there ^ somewhere, truth is what most people believe it to be.
 

angus_young_acdc says:
"It is absurd to say that just because so many of a certain community believe something it instantly makes it fact, without any hard proof."

We've got museums and universities full of hard proof.  We've got entire scientific disciplines based on evolutionary ideas.  The medical advancements alone are hard proof.  We'll never have every fossil that ever lived, but I'm not sure what everyone's on the fence about?  

Back to my original sub-question...what exactly is the case against evolution?


BigRat says,
"I would be happy to accept the "majority scientific view" if you were happy to accept the "majority public view", which apparently you are not."

Do you accept the 'majority public view' on every issue?

RobinD says:
"As I said up there ^ somewhere, truth is what most people believe it to be."

Maybe personal truth.  But the broader 'truth' is what is reality, sometimes despite what most people believe it to be.

Before the plate techtonics theory was accepted, there was great discord in the scientific community.  
Anyone can look at any map of the globe and see that Africa looks like it could snuggle up to South America like a jigsaw puzzle piece, so the public view was along the lines of "Perhaps they were next to each other at some time in the past."  But science at that time could not describe a mechanism.  Such proof as matching rocks and fossiles on each side (at locations where the continents look like they might have been connected) had to be resisted.  Maybe there were land bridges at one time (eventually, there were more land bridges than land!).
The point is that scientists wanted to go with the obvious, but needed to constrain themselves to the known; the provable.  There had to be a cohesive theory.  
If somebody presented a theory like "God pushed the continents apart," it would not get any traction.  It's a ridiculous theory.

>But the broader 'truth' is what is reality, sometimes despite what most people believe it to be.

Are you suggestion a truth that can be determined by some other means than observation and understanding? A truth that may not be apparent to most people but that they could be convinced by if they had it explained to them and were prepared to listen?
You believe what you do because of what you were taught. You believe that science belongs in science lessons and that things with a religious base for understanding do not. This is because of the way it was when you were at school.
If your school (and all the others near you) had taught a little bit of religion in the science clases then you wouldn't feel there was so much separation between them. I know you can read, and make your own decisions based on your own observances, but those decisions are influenced by your own upbringing and environment.
 

*suggestion = suggesting

RobinD,

I'm suggesting that sometimes people make up their own truths based on little more than rudimentary observations coupled with what they want to believe, and that sometimes people deny plausible reality in order to maintain these personal 'truths'.

The prevailing thought for likely thousands of years was that the Earth was flat.  Was that a truth?  Not in my book, and not because we know it to be false in hindsight.  For quite some time, there was no scientific reason to believe in a flat earth, or a spherical one for that matter, so there was no need to teach it as fact one way or the other until Aristotole and Eratosthenes outlined the evidence for a sphere.

"Truth", as well as "Theory", are words that have a fairly wide range of meanings.  I don't know if we need to get into debating semantics here.

Regarding what I believe being a result of what I was taught; I tend to agree.  All the more reason to keep science separate from religion.  If I was taught Opera in Algebra class, I might have a skewed sense of what Algebra is, or I might have focused on Opera instead of Algebra.

I actually was taught Opera in Algebra class, but that's a long story.

Sorry, my emphasis on the word "suggesting" didn't pertain to your typo.  I was just stressing the point.

> ...if you were happy to accept the "majority public view", which apparently you are not.

I'm happy to accept "majority public view", but not as 'Science'. As always, and said over and over, it is _not_ what is true nor what is fact. It is "What is 'Science'?"

Further, I went through elementary school, junior high school, high school, college, put daughter through them all -- and she's now a teacher -- and I've yet to see the theory of evolution taught as a 'fact'. Everywhere I've seen it in schools, it was always noted that it was a theory, not fact.

There were indeed numerous facts that were presented for evidence, but supporting facts are not the same as stating that the theory itself presented a true and complete accounting of the facts.

Even so, AFAIK, the general controversy is around "public" schools, usually particularly in the U.S.A. That implies that the discussion should be about general concepts rather than excruciatingly minor details. What's appropriate for teaching in public grade schools has little relationship to what's available at university graduate levels.

To me, that means a greater emphasis on "What is 'Science'?" as a method rather than "What is true about the Theory of Evolution?" The precise details of evolution are less important there than getting the fundamental methodologies across.

I cannot see how the teaching of something that is not 'Science' can possibly further enhance that emphasis.

Tom

no probs with your emphasis, if you'd meant to refer to my typo then you would have only emphsised the 'ing'.
Your first paragraph 'people make up their own truths', yes definitely, but if they were to join in a discussion like this they would need a little more than rudimentary observations to be able to make a point (although to some deep thinkers we are only being rudimentary here).
The prevailing thought at the moment is that the earth is sort of round, we have extra-planetary pictures and a lot of nice mathematics to show this, but it is only a possible explanation - all the measurements we can try fit with the round-earth belief, but the same was probably true when the earth was believed to be flat. Somewhere in string theory I think it hints that there isn't really anything material in existance at all, just a bunch of energies that if in what we call a solid will repel another bunch of energies such as a finger with a force harder than one which is in a plastic state, will reflect what we perceive as light depending on the type of surface it has combined to make, and absorb or emit heat to adjacent bunches of energy. Anyone taught this theory at school will think that the idea of a round earth or of our understanding of chemical reactions very entertaining and will probably want to know why it ever used to be taught in science.
Semantics phooey!, if we think we have a problem due to an understanding of what we mean by certain words then we can sort that out, at the moment I don't think that is getting in the way.
 
 >All the more reason to keep science separate from religion
A key point, this could be a good reason to try to amalgamate them. You and I and many other people see these as widely different subjects, one based on reason and the search for truth, and the other based on faith and the belief in a higher being. Be careful here, earlier you were upset that someone called Darwin's Theory of Evolution 'just a theory'. You could be seen as equally dismissive of someone's beliefs if you descibed them as 'just superstition'.
If ID/Creationism was taught in schools alongside science then within a single generation you would find that people who felt they should be separate subjects were almost a minority and certailnly old fashioned.
The world (if it is round) would still be turning, and there may or may not be new explanations for what keeps it going. As long as the proper principles are upheld then people would still continue to learn, but they would also have no problem with the principles of ID being taught in the same lesson as dissections, the periodic table and electric motors. (ooh, did I just mention three subjects or one?)
Opera in algebra made me laugh, I'd really lke to know more.

RobinD says:
"If ID/Creationism was taught in schools alongside science then within a single generation you would find that people who felt they should be separate subjects were almost a minority and certailnly old fashioned."


I'm not sure what your point is?  We actually had creationism in schools for thousands of years, and it's only been the last 80 or so years that evolution was allowed to be taught.  Does that make creationists old fashioned?  Does anyone want to go back to where we were 80 years ago?

And if you're implying that "flat-Earth theory" should be taught alongside "round-Earth theory", you're welcome to make that argument...while I giggle.  :-)

Quickly on the opera/algebra...HS my math teacher loved opera and thought his classes were a good opportunity to impart some cultural knowledge on us.  He played opera music in class while we worked out problems, and gave extra credit if we reviewed opera programs on TV.  I was a horrible math student, but I loved music, so I snapped up the extra credit every chance I could...likely to the detriment of my algebra studies.

Who knows if this made me a worse math student, but I certainly appreciate music a bit more.  If religious concepts are affirmed in science classes to students with little interest in science, would those students then have a greater appreciation of religious beliefs, to the detriment of scientific concepts?  I'm not sure.

>If ID/Creationism was taught in schools alongside science then within a single generation you would find that people who felt they should be separate subjects were almost a minority and certailnly old fashioned.<

I expected some arguments about how scientific ID is, but it's almost like people are saying they just want it in science class because religious people want it there.

The scientific community has trounced ID.  Legally, the issue of getting it into public schools is dead in the water, in every country that maintains a barrier between religion and state.  

Seems to me that all that's left is a whole lot of whining.

I can see Creationism taught in this one situation:  When doing an historical review of what people used to think before they knew better -- flat earth, turtles holding it up, Aristotle's geocentric view (spheres and epicycles), Newton vs Einstein, and so forth.

Good one Dan!
A good case for ID being taught in science lessors.

>I'm not sure what your point is?
Simply that if you had been taught both subjects alongside one another within the same lesson, you would not feel that they are so separate as you feel they are at the moment. So if you begin to teach them together in schools now, in 20 years or so the new generation would be quite happy with the idea of teaching ID in science class.
You didn't pick up on my question 'did I mention one subject or three?' after I said dissection, periodic table and electric motors. I was taught these in three separate subjects. Those schools that teach them all together in a single lesson called science don't have a problem with mixing them together (of course these three aren't exactly contradictory).
I like Dan's last comment, teach it as a 'used to think that' and it can have a place in science lessons.

RobinD...dissection, the periodic table and electric motors all fall under the subject of science, which I'll grant is a pretty big subject.  But ID is not, in any sense, scientific.  At least, nobody has presented a case for it being scientific.

But I'll grant the 'used to think that' condition might be fine...the catch is that there are plenty of people who still think that, so we're not quite there yet.

Gx,

"...I'd like to know exactly what are the problems with evolution science?"

I certainly have no objection to teaching anything scientific, objective, and what is truthful and not misleading.  I suspect the problem is telling the whole truth about evolution science.  

Okay, so I'll bite (all the way down).  Let's not teach ID or any religious notions at all, but instead, teach evolution science properly.

If that is done then I don't see any issue with not mentioning religion or ID at all.

This should mean that public schools teach evolution truthfully and clearly:
(a) Be exact in what they're saying when they mean evolution and natural selection;
(b) Be scientific and professional in making clear what evolution does not include; and
(c) always point out if something is a scientific controversy and what is currently unknown to science. Such as:
    (i)    how it all started
    (ii)    why it all started
    (iii)    how the first living things arose
    (iv)    how intelligent life arose
   
    (Religion or ID don't have to be mentioned in any of this)
   
You said: "In my mind, it's either one or the other...".

Okay.

Then teach the truth about what science believes, but tell the whole truth and give the entire picture.

In answer to your question, some might even say that that is the case for ID

Sounds good to me WaterStreet.  I think it's just as important to outline the things we don't yet know, in addition to the things we do.  Sometimes it's more important.

However, I feel like I've just walked into a trap.  What exactly do you consider the "whole truth about evolution science"?  If it's simply what you've outlined, then I mostly agree.

In any event, do you realize we've now spent more time debating the teaching of evolution/creation, in this thread alone, than any HS science class has probably ever devoted on the subjects?

And it isn't really even a debate without the fringe evangelical view.  Where is SStory anyway?

OK, I'll argue SStory's case for him:
I have a perfect knowledge of certain things because I have heard the WORD of Jesus Christ, our LORD. There is a reaction one gets when filled with the spirit and that sensation is one of rightness. When I think about the idea of man, created in the image of our LORD, having once been a filthy feces-flinging ape, covered with fleas and lice, surviving by scavenging marrow from the bones dead animals, whose forefathers were rats and amoebas ... it feels wrong. It does not feel godly. When I pray to our Father, Which Art In Heaven about this, I get a strong feeling that the Bible is correct in every particular.
I've watched the truly excellent movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (BTW, I can't understand why it was not nominated for best film of the year) I know in my heart that its message is right. The Holy Spirit, an indivisible part of the the Holy Trinity, speaks to me in that still, small, voice and whispers the truth.
If Darwinist and other misguided scientists would only open their heart to Jesus, who died on the cross for their sins, they would soon come to know the truth. The evil spirits which consume these pitiable people would flee as they did from Saul. They should each take that "road to Damascus" experience the holy blindness and feel the power of the Light when Jesus leads them to the truth.
-- SStory

"However, I feel like I've just walked into a trap."

lol

It's not a trap, unless it's a trap to ensure that the scientific method is open and truthful about what it is trying to explain, what is controversial in science and what is unknown to science.  So that at the end of the day students have learned what is known to science and what is not known.

What you might be thinking about the "trap" part is that students also need to walk out of the class room knowing that they didn't get the full answer as to how things came to be as they are.

They would get a good education as to what science means by such things as evolution and natural selection.  But, they would also find out that science (currently) has not answered, or resolved scientific controversies, as to how it all started and the major steps leading to life and then human intelligence.

That's what I meant by the whole truth.  I could have said the "whole scientific truth" meaning that it should not mislead but tell what is also unknown or controversial in science.

This can be done without ever mentioning ID, religion or a creator.

If telling this whole scientific truth leaves a truthful gap that results in some students wondering about a creator then so be it.  

How ironic, huh!

So for some (and back to your question) this might be a problem with teaching evolution science.   That problem being that it has to be taught in a full, non-misleading, scientific way.

>OK, I'll argue SStory's case for him

that post is brilliant for an argument, but quite useless if you are expecting a discussion :7)

>>...expecting a discussion ...
Surely it's obvious that a religious belief can't be out-argued by using the tools of logic. The very definition of faith is belief in something without proof. The ID belief system has no measurable proof to support it.
The best that an ID believer can do with reason and logic is try to kick wedges into what he perceives as flaws in a different theory.  However, mentioning Hitler and Stalin might be worth a try...

If history had turned out different then Hitler and Stalin might be considered great leaders, forward thinkers and the saviours of whatever was left of mankind. I think we prefer it the way it is though.
 

I'm with ya WaterStreet.  Science doesn't have all the answers.  

Leaving questions unanswered may lead some toward religion, as it's generally human nature to not want to leave questions unanswered.  But conversely, this also may lead some toward further science education in a search for understanding.  

We could use a lot more inquisitive minds in the sciences.

Dan, I love your SStory 'impression'!  Throw in two or three more mentions of Jesus, and I think you're on your way to a new career.

Dan,

That's kind of funny and I do have a sense of humor.  However I am being silenced in talking about anyone is such a way.  So, I'll leave that one alone.  I also don't agree with your portrayal of me, but I can see where you are coming from.

I haven't had a lot of time in the last week...sorry that I do have a life outside of the forum.. I suppose we all do and I have been posting in many different threads, but then life beckons me and I have to take a break to handle such things...I'm not out of the match...just busy at times.

>>The fundamental problem with IDism is that it is based on religion. And the fundamental problem with >>religion is that it is culturally based.

Just because someone believes there is a God doesn't make him and idiot or mean everything he/she says should be automatically excluded from the conversation.  From what I have seen and read, ID isn't based on religion, though many of those who believe in ID are also Christians or religious.  ID seems to simply states that there is an obvious order and design to the universe, our cells, and all that exists.  The organization, complexity, orderliness, consistency, etc. cry out that someone or something had something to do with these things that exist... i.e. there was a first cause.  It doesn't try to argue that God is the first cause--of which I am 100% convinced--but that there had to be a first cause and that things of this complexity don't just happen by so called "chance"

Does anyone disagree with that definition (excluding my personal claim that there is a God)?

I must admit that this thread is humorous and it is interesting to have not participated right off the bat so that I can later see all of the conversation.

I think the truth is that it isn't about the truth, but about what an evolutionist wants to believe and what he doesn't want to believe that is the real reason for rejecting the idea of ID. (perhaps that's another thread).

I'm also convinced that there is no amount of evidence that could be presented to convince some of ID.

One great example, however, is the complexity of DNA. It is now by far the most compressed language or code that we know of in the universe.  I'm told all of the DNA for everyone who ever lived could be placed in a thimble or something smaller.  That's like WinZip on overdrive.  I am a programmer and have been for many year. I also speak two languages fluently, and parts of others.  Languages are used to communicate ideas.  Codes are also.  It is logical that if there is a complicated program, that there was some sort of "programmer."  If there is this language, there should be someone who wrote it down, invented its structure."  We wouldn't look at the golden gate bridge and say, 45 million years ago, slime started oozing, lighting struck and little by little parts came together to make a span to cross the San Francisco bay.  It came about by no intelligence, no designer and sheer luck.  If a pole didn't seem just right "Nobody" chose to discard that pole and another was put in its place.  The bridge didn't come about all at once, but had successive generations, between slime to the metallic constructed bridge that we now see.  BTW, all of you who don't believe the bridge came about this way, but that there had to be someone who designed it and that it wasn't made it just a few years are really dumb, poor ignorant people and obviously not educated.  No there aren't any of the links between the slime and the current version of the bridge, but you must have faith that they exist.  After all we can't believe in a bridge designer.  (yes this is sarcasm, but I hope it makes a point)

It is ridiculous to look at the human body, the cell, reproduction and all of the complexity and leave it up to poor chance and natural phenomenon, and assert that belief in a designer is foolish and ignorant.  It is also ridiculous to do the same with the Golden Gate Bridge.  Now I know this argument will be contradicted by someone who will say, "You can't compare organic things to inorganic things."  I say, "says who?"   Why not?  The idea  that there is organization, complexity beyond belief, and an incredible body pointing to a designer and the idea of a non-living thing (man made) obviously pointing to a designer, doesn't appear to be illogical to me.

That reminds me of a judge and attorney in a court here who didn't like the evidence because they were crooked and friends and trying to sway the case in one direction deciding to make the evidence of the other side inadmissible.  The truth wasn't found out in that case and any evidence given was rejected by bias alone.

I'll check back on the thread in a few days...enjoy your arguing.

You seem to have plenty of time for evangelizing, but you don't have any time to back up your statements about ID?

Should I close this thread?  The whole point was to get the case for ID, and so far, nobody has offered it.

Looks like I spoke too soon.  Nice post SStory, but it doesn't answer my question.

You're looking at the wrong things.  If you simply looked at the human body, or the Golden Gate Bridge, without any concept of where either came from, of course you'd assume they were both designed.

But evolution says we came from far simpler forms.  If a clump of iron atoms developed so they could reproduce, and that reproduction was guided by environmental factors, and you added a few million years of development time, perhaps these simpler forms could become a Golden Gate Bridge.

As we've discussed, we don't yet know how these simpler forms came about.  But to state that humans couldn't have happened randomly, therefore an intelligence must have produced us...that's the most egregious straw-man argument I've ever seen.  It doesn't factor in our reproduction and mutations, which is at the core of the development of life.  Life is not a bridge, or a car, or a watch.

As for what I want to be true, that's the most outrageous form of the pot calling the kettle black that I've ever seen.  I don't want evolution to be true.  Evolution doesn't satisfy some agenda of mine.  I just accept that it is true, or at the very least, our best understanding of what is true.

There is an amount of evidence that could convince me that ID is a likely scenario.  I'm waiting for even a tiny bit of that evidence.  What else have you got?

>If a clump of iron atoms developed so they could reproduce
They didn't bother, they just waited until the carbon based lifeforms needed a bridge to cross over the bay.
A bridge is a really good example, the structure that it rested on while it was being built has all been taken away. Only the bridge is left for you to see and wonder about, but it would be much easier to understand how it was built if you could still see some of the constructional supports in place.
 

Very nice RobinD!
There is no evidence at all of the caissions, or cranes, or cable spinning equipment, or thousands of workers, or... anything.  
Seeing the bridge for the first time, and wondering how it came to be, we'd need to deduce all of that stuff.  Or, if it seemed so unlikely that such a convoluted sequence occurred, we might just say that the Bridge God created it.

RobinD, DanRollins,

What you are saying doesn't exist...the scaffolds and the "workers" who built the bridge, is actually a case for a builder and designer.  Not the absence of one.

>But evolution says we came from far simpler forms.  If a clump of iron atoms developed so they could >reproduce, and that reproduction was guided by environmental factors, and you added a few million >years of development time, perhaps these simpler forms could become a Golden Gate Bridge.
It takes a lot more faith to believe something like this than it does to believe there was a first cause that designed and made it.

>Evolution doesn't satisfy some agenda of mine
This may not be true of you Graphixer, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and I don't want to be accused of bashing anyone, but I believe the theory of evolution came about not as a result of real science, but a desire for one thing.  That is to disprove that there is someone to give an account to by coming up with some other explanation for existence, so that man can enjoy his sin and have no fear of punishment and no one to be in ultimate authority over his life.  Maybe that isn't true of you, but I submit this as why I believe the theory came about.  

There is tons of evidence for micro evolution which is a fact.  It is that within a species the species can make small adaptations to fit the environment.  However the species never becomes another species (macro evolution).  There is no solid proof for macro evolution. It is a theory and a belief.  The evidence for it is full of holes.  No real missing links have been found.

One big question I'd have for evolution vs. ID is this.  It would seem logical to me that if evolution were a fact, that there would be many traces of transition.  In fact would all monkeys have turned into humans at the same time?  If not, why then do we not see or hear of a monkey in a zoo somewhere finally becoming human the zoo keeper awakening to find a human in the cage where the monkey was.  It would seem logical that not every organism would have just evolved (a slow process taking millions of years) at the same time. So there should be staggered evolving creature...i..e monkeys about to become human and such.  We don't find that any where.

The finches that Darwin discovered grew bigger beaks (micro evolution).  They bigger beaked ones survived during more adverse conditions. The smaller beaked ones died.  However, I am told that later the next generations down the line the beaks returned to smaller ones when the larger ones weren't needed.  So this only proves micro evolution (the species adapted temporarily to the environment and then returned to the original)...and not macro evolution. It didn't continue to become and eagle or something else.

Graphixer, I am glad that you say you are open to ID if you have enough evidence. What kind of evidence do you need?  How do you explain the programming nature of DNA?  Random chance?  You could drop that many pieces of something in a pile an incredible amount of times and never see it assemble into the correct sequence of code in a strand of DNA.  Chance?  I say not likely.
How long could you take letters and drop them on the floor before you think they would be arranged to spell out the words in "The Origin of Species"?  I bet you'd never live to see it successfully happen.  The fact that DNA is so precise... Bill Gates said,
"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."
He's write.  And as a programmer I know of no program or programming language that didn't have a designer, creator and programmer.

Below is a simple vb.net piece of code.  I could have written it in C or a host of other languages.  This would never just come together by itself.  It is complex(in that it wouldn't happen by chance) and organized and designed by me.  (in reality its a simple piece of code) I'm just saying it wouldn't write itself...unless I wrote another piece of code to generate it. Still that piece of code would have been designed.

for n as integer=0 to 10000
     console.writeline(string.format("{0}: {1} x {2} = {3}",n,n,n,n*n))
next n

BTW, the above would output:
0: 0 x 0 = 0
1: 1 x 1 = 1
2: 2 x 2 = 4
3: 3 x 3 = 9
n: n x n = n(squared)

So compare this simple code with that of DNA which even Bill Gates said was a program, but far more advanced.....  I say he is absolutely right on target with that statement.  So the question is to the origin of the programmer.  What was the first cause of the program (DNA)?  Chance?  Not in a billion years.

As for ID in schools. If you can teach one theory. You should be able to teach another.  Even if you don't ascribe the designer to God, but just say the theory of ID proposes that life is too complex and organized to have just happened and it must have been designed by something or someone.  That wouldn't get into the God aspect, but would give children the freedom to see that there isn't just one idea.  I have no problem with my children learning evolution as a theory if they also get to learn ID.  Evolutionists know that if the kids are giving a choice, they'll probably choose design over monkeys and slime everytime, so that is why they try to discredit the ID theory and disallow teaching of anything other than evolution. I welcome a fair playing field. That is not what is happening in schools.  I will probably teach my own kids about the theory of evolution. In fact I have already mentioned the ideas to one of them.  Christians are not afraid of the theory of evolution. Evolutionists do seem to be afraid of ID.

SStory says:
"It takes a lot more faith..."

It takes a lot more than faith in what?  Faith in science?  Faith in fossils? Faith in petroleum?  Faith in observation?  Faith in medicine?

These are all real-world things.  No 'faith' is necessary.

And where do you think oil comes from anyway?  Another one of Satan's tricks?  Did Jesus anticipate that we'd need to drive cars so he stocked up for us?

The 'scaffolds' and 'workers' are biology and environment.  It's not magic, we see it every day.


And again, DNA and complexity didn't happen overnight.  

You seem to have no concept for what a million years is.  A million years.  Think about it.  Start with the most simple organism imaginable and multiply your micro-evolution over a million years.  Three million years.  Five million.  Forty-five million.

You can't come to terms with even the possibility that little tiny changes over millions of years can yield vastly different life forms?  What am I saying?  You can't come to terms with an Earth that's more than 6000 years old!

And again, you present straw-man arguments of monkeys birthing humans and species never becoming other species.  We can't view natural macro evolution because again, macro evolution takes time.  Lots of time.  So every fossil is a transitional fossil.  

Think about that.  Every fossil.  Every single one. You are a transitional fossil.  We haven't found every piece of the puzzle yet, but we have plenty of pieces to build a very good family tree.


And regarding teaching multiple theories, should we teach them all?  How about the theory of creation by Zeus?  How about the Scientologist's view of space alien, Thetan creation?  How about the Buddhist view? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  And how about the theory that I created the Earth and stars all by myself?

Can you prove I didn't?

I welcome a fair playing field too...one in which I can present my theories.  Unfortunately, my theories aren't science, and neither is ID.

And you're darn right I'm afraid of ID.  Well, those devoted to ID anyway.  I'm afraid that any whim can be taught as fact, and any idea given equal credibility because Jesus, or a flying pink unicorn, or whatever deity is in fashion that year deems it so.  I'm afraid that people who welcome the destruction of the Earth often run our governments.  I'm afraid that these people have been wrong about the impending end of days and return of their savior for thousands of years now, and I'm afraid that one day they'll get impatient and set on a path toward bringing about Armageddon themselves...if they haven't attempted to do so already?

There is clearly no science in your posts, only wishful thinking.  So again, what else have you got?

SStory,

"Evolutionists know that if the kids are giving a choice, they'll probably choose design over monkeys and slime everytime, so that is why they try to discredit the ID theory and disallow teaching of anything other than evolution. I welcome a fair playing field."

The kids will be given a choice when they learn ID at home and when they and like-minded students ask questions in class about the unknowns in science.  As should happen, per my last postings, when fairly teaching the whole truth of science covers what it considers to be scientific controversies and what science does not know -- namely how/why it all got started and the major steps from matter into life forms and then to human intelligence.  Those kids who were taught to believe in ID only have to ask their questions about these issues in class, in order to bring the ID issue out if the science teacher is telling the whole scientific truth.  These kids don't have to even mention a creator, ID or religion, just simply ask certain questions about what the science knows for sure.  Teachers should teach accurately and not mislead, and kids need to ask questions.  That's what an education system should do.

No problem.

WaterStreet,

Sounds great, but it isn't happening here in the US.  That point of view is discriminated against.  And I disagree with you.  Science should present differing views.

Graphixer said,
>We can't view natural macro evolution because again, macro evolution takes time.  Lots of time.
This is why I told him it takes a lot of faith, because the fact is it is based upon something that can't be measured or seen.... millions of years... says who? How can you prove it?  You can't.  It is his faith in this being true as some attempt to explain evolution in a way that can't be tested.

Graphixer,

>And regarding teaching multiple theories, should we teach them all?  How about the theory of creation by >Zeus?  How about the Scientologist's view of space alien, Thetan creation?  How about the Buddhist >view? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  And how about the theory that I created the Earth and >stars all by myself?
This thread isn't about Creationism, but ID.  ID doesn't claim a God.  It merely says there is order and design and someone or something had to be the first cause.  So yes that seems to be a reasonable theory and it should be taught so that kids have a choice of two theories.  This has nothing to do with which religion or which god is being taught or even that one be taught....(whether or not Creationism should be taught in the public schools is another thread, so I won't answer it here)

>And how about the theory that I created the Earth and stars all by myself?
OK if you did that, and you wish to prove it, make a million dollar appear in the floor right beside me.  That should be easy for you if you created the Earth, or do you just not want to?  I'm sure that God probably doesn't want to because I might not be able to handle it properly.  However, if you did create the earth and are willing then do this one simple thing.  

There is plenty of science in my post.  Maybe you should define science.  When I say that something is orderly and structured and complex and therefore designed by someone or something, then that is called a hypothesis (http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml)

So with that hypothesis and a mind open to evolution being wrong, in other words an open mind to where the facts lead, once could test this hypothesis. To do so he'd probably consider things that are known to have been designed and compare the two.  Sounds scientific to me.

>I'm afraid that one day they'll get impatient and set on a path toward bringing about Armageddon >themselves
True Christians would never do this.  There are some religions, I can think of one in particular which you should be concerned about that does have this goal in mind...but I guess that is another topic.

To me you seem to be continually off topic in these things, but don't seem to be reprimanded for it like I am.  You brought up ID, and want to make it a synonymn to Creationism.  You bring up Zeus and all sorts of "dieties" which really are outside the bounds of ID.

I don't really care, because I don't mind an open discussion, but if WaterStreet is going to condemn me for such things it should work across the board.

I have presented several good arguments. You don't like them so to attack them you use the childish argument, "they're not science"  I disagree.  How about you disprove ID.  That would be better suited to this discussion about ID vs Evolution.

>When I say that something is orderly and structured and complex and therefore designed by someone or something, then that is called a hypothesis<

Try framing that hypothesis in operational terms.  
Eg.  
a) Humans do not share genetic heritage with any other creature.  
b) Species never speciate.

These are testable hypotheses.

The idea that say, DNA is too complex to be naturally created, is a very fuzzy idea.  How do you quantify "too complex?"  How do you demonstrate the level of complexity?  What natural complex structure would you accept as disproving this idea?

 
Just because you do not agree with SStory's beliefs, doesnt mean you should be mocking his religion.  Mocking Jesus, God, Buddha, Gandhi, or anyone else is not the point of this discussion.  If you want someone to discuss with you about this, its bound to bring up some sort of deity, because thats what ID means.  
   
As far as science with ID, you are not going to find nearly as much of it.  The people who wrote the Bible, Koran, and all your other old history documents knew nothing about science and what an atom or cell even was.  What you have with ID is documents that were written about ID, and other things in the documents are found true or proven, thus ID is taken as truth.  The Evolution Theory only arrived recently compared to how long the earth has been in existence (whether you believe it is thousands or billions), thus there is some use of science in the explanation.  Look at how much money has been spent on trying to find scientific proof for evolution rather than ID.  The other part is people who believe in ID dont NEED proof.  They already believe it was a superior being who created everything.  The people who dont buy into it are the ones who want proof in the other direction, thus its more sought after.  My point is, you are never going to find as much science behind ID as you do for the Evolution Theory because of this.  
   
My issue is there is a lot of evidence to poke holes in the evolution old world theory.  I wont go into detail for a lot of it, because I do not have to time or the finger dexterity to write all the evidence out there.  The problem is people dont truly want to hear the evidence so they do not read it, but there is plenty out there.  I have included several examples that make the Evolution Theory questionable.  If you really are interested you can read up on these things at your leisure.  
   
Fossils:  
The Malachite Man  There were 10 modern human bodies found in Dakota Sandstone that is supposedly from the Lower Cretaceous (140 million years ago) which is known for its dinosaur fossils.  Meaning dinosaurs and humans had to have lived at the same time and buried at the same time by some catastrophic event.  There are many religious and non-religious documentation that claims of a huge catastrophic flood thousands of years ago.  If you do your checking, youll find that this isnt only in the Bible.  The bible is only known well because its only the all time best selling book.  More people have the Bible than any other book, thus its going to get publicity.  
   
The Fossilized Hammer which was a hammer that also was found in Lower Cretaceous rock along with other fossils of that time period.  
   
The fossilized human finger was proven to be a human finger and not just a shaped rock.  It was in the Middle Cretaceous levels along with worm fossils of the time.  
   
How can these things be modern humans only have been around 200k years.  Even Homo genus has only been around for 2.5 million years.  Something is seriously wrong here.  Either their dating is wrong or their theory is wrong.  
   
Now you can look at the complexity of life and creatures in existence.  Bombardier beetle, birds, fish all baffle scientists for one reason or another.  Ill discuss the bombardier beetle briefly.  Scientists cannot explain how or where it came from.  The capabilities of this beetle are nothing like any other creature on earth.  Where did it come from?  Where did its capabilities come from?  The design of the creature had to be perfect for it to work also.  How many beetles had to die before the design was correct?   If there were that many attempts from nature to create this beetle, why not still?  Why not other times, other places?  Why are there not other beetles with similar capabilities?  
   
Darwin said Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight, successive variations.  She can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.  If this is the case, why are there no fossils to support this?  We see the different species, but not the in betweens.  So are people saying Darwin was wrong?  Are modern scientists wrong?  This has to happen over millions of years, so there should be plenty of in between fossils.  Lets take the flagellum mechanism on bacteria.  Its has forty separate moving parts to create this.  Natural selection would only work after the flagellum is operational.  What about in between?  If a bacteria grew a tail it would be useless without the rest of the parts needed to use it just as growing one of the parts without the rest of them.  According to Natural Selection this wouldnt happen because the tail has to be an improvement.  If you say that all the parts grew at once, this goes against the theory of slow small changes.  Growing forty parts is not a small minor change.  Charles Darwin also said, If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  I would say just this example is enough to fit his concern.  
   
Another problem with the Evolution Theory is the methods used to test for age of matter.  Most of these techniques assume perfect conditions.  They only use data that fits their theories and desires.  A lot of tests have shown incorrect.  They have also found that different conditions will cause the reactions to speed up or slow down.  Lets take C14 dating.  They actually did C14 dating on a sample from a LIVE oyster.  They dated it to be 20,000 years old.  They have found that anything exposed to water and especially in water has the age from this test accelerated.  Most Radiometric dating has been found to be affected greatly by heat.  But do people running the tests truly look into this?  No, they just keep on blindly testing and stating as fact.  
   
My view on all if it is neither can be proven.  Both are accepted on faith.  The only difference is, by using ID, you have all your questions answered.  God made it that way is the answer.  Is this more comforting for some people?  Sure.  With Evolution Theory, there are not answers for everything.  Some people must have answers, other dont need them.  Since neither can be proven, they are both theories.  Thus they should both be taught as theories for the creation of Earth and life not just one over the other.  The problem is not that there is no science behind ID, it is the science behind Evolution theory is seriously flawed, thus hard to believe.  The other side is ID has no scientific proof, so hard to believe.  Either way both can be hard to believe.  

>the scaffolds and the "workers" who built the bridge, is actually a case for a builder and designer
I'm not sure how you were using this analogy, perhaps different than I was.
I was saying what Dan saw, that with just a bridge (actually a whole colony of bridges, and of many different types, their one thing in common is that they cross something), it requires some imagination to come up with how it got there, you might also wonder why - especially if you were from a race of flying creatures.
In the case of the bridge there was a designer and a plan, however with living things I do not believe there is a plan, what's here is because it has adapted to its surroundings enough not to be killed by them.

>The Malachite Man  (turned out to the the Moab man)
>Fossilized Hammer  (Relatively modern hammer encrusted in stone)
>fossilized human finger (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/finger.htm )

Carl Baugh = scammer

>My view on all if it is neither can be proven.  Both are accepted on faith.

Not exactly...

What I Believe But Cannot Prove
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/11/what-i-believe-but-cannot-prove/

SStory says:
This is why I told him it takes a lot of faith, because the fact is it is based upon something that can't be measured or seen.... millions of years... says who?

Says every fossil in every natural history museum on Earth.  Again, no faith necessary.  The evidence is right in front of you.  Heck, the evidence is sitting in your car's gas tank right now.


ID doesn't claim a God.

If that's your logic, then evolution doesn't disclaim a god.  A deity could have guided evolution over millions of years.  Who are you to say that it didn't happen that way?


OK if you did that, and you wish to prove it, make a million dollar appear in the floor right beside me.

Maybe I work in mysterious ways?

But let me get this straight...the creator of the Universe should give you a million dollars in order for you to believe in him?  How many millions has Jesus given you?  You must be pretty wealthy if that's the case?  


There is plenty of science in my post.

So what are the tests and research that's been done in the field of ID?  What peer-reviewed journals has the ID hypothesis been outlined in?  What is the physical evidence that allows such conclusions to be made?  These things are part of the scientific method, so please provide references to that stuff if you want to prove your position.


To me you seem to be continually off topic in these things, but don't seem to be reprimanded for it like I am.

It's my thread, and I'll glide if I want to.  I posed some questions, and my statements are very much on topic.  You're welcome to answer the questions, or continue to ignore them, it's up to you.  You've also very welcome to start your own threads.  Just stick to the EE guidelines and you won't have any problems.

As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to speak freely in this thread, but just be warned that invoking Jesus will not gain you any traction on this topic.

And how exactly is ID not a synonym for Creationism?  Your definition of ID is that life was created. That's the very same definition of creationism.  ID just doesn't name names.  What if it was an alien intelligence that dropped life on this planet?  Are you OK with that ID hypothesis?  What if Zeus really was the supreme intelligence that created life?  How do you know he wasn't?


...in other words an open mind to where the facts lead, once could test this hypothesis. To do so he'd probably consider things that are known to have been designed and compare the two.  Sounds scientific to me.

Talking snakes and virgin births sound scientific to you, so I'm not sure you're the go-to man for a science lesson.  But again, you can't compare carbon-based, reproducing, organic life to a non-living mechanical object.  Well, evidently you can, but it's ridiculous to do so.

How about we take your model a step farther an make a scientific comparison between St. Paul and a tin can?  Still think these things are worthy of applying the same philisophical constructs to?  How about John the Baptist, a dog collar, a tea pot and a wind chime?  Is one of those things not like the others?


How about you disprove ID.

You're the one making the 'hypothesis', remember?  The burden of proof is on you to test your ideas and post your results, or show how the idea has been tested by others.  But Dan's right...you offer nothing other than; 'Just look at how complex we are...we just have to be designed!'.  How is that science?

I mean, just look at how good a lemon looks...it just has to taste sweet and delicious?  Are you willing to go along with my sweet lemon theory?  What does the evidence say?

And BTW, I also asked for the holes in evolution, but you haven't offered anything in that arena either.  Or is your case closed and I should put this thread to a vote?

Where is the proof that the Malachite man and the other bodies were mining accidents?  OR any other version of their excuses that they aren't real?  

How do they explain the coating of FeO around the metal preserving it?  That doesn't happen in modern atmospheric conditions.  What aout the enclosing rock and the fossils found in it being lower cretaceous?

They can't even determine if the "finger" is even the original any more.  very easily replaced by someone.

If something isn't proven and you believe it, it's called faith.

>They can't even determine if the "finger" is even the original any more.  very easily replaced by someone.

I can see why you put your trust in their findings then...

> I can see why you put your trust in their findings then...

not any more unbelievable than trust in the Evolution Theory and it's findings.

The point I'm getting at is if it's "proof" against Evolution theory, then it's automatically determined to be false and scientists are out to disprove it any way they can.  If the "proof" is against ID, it's automatically embraced and accepted with little scrutinization.  That's the problem with the science community.

CCSOFlag says:
We see the different species, but not the in betweens.

We do see the 'in-betweens', just not every in-between.


The other part is people who believe in ID don't NEED proof.

I suppose I can't argue with that.  Case closed?


I'll discuss the bombardier beetle briefly.  Scientists cannot explain how or where it came from.  The capabilities of this beetle are nothing like any other creature on earth.

Except for the other 500 different species of similar beetle.  Most creationists don't use the bombardier beetle example anymore, as it's been shown to have a very logical evolutionary existence.


Let's take the flagellum mechanism on bacteria.  It's has forty separate moving parts to create this.  Natural selection would only work after the flagellum is operational.  What about in between?  ... Growing forty parts is not a small minor change.

Ah, but using this tail as a stinger or a barb explains fits evolution perfectly, and other organisms have the exact same structure, minus the pieces needed for propulsion.  You don't need to develop a fully formed tail right away when you can use a less developed feature for another purpose.

The flagellum argument isn't applicable anymore either.


As for the rest, I agree with Dan...Carl Baugh is a scammer with a clear religious agenda.  I mean come on...he made up his own university and gave himself a doctorate from it.  If you're going to accept those credentials, then I'm crowning myself Pope and taking over as ruler of the Vatican.

PaulHews,

I may not be that kind of scientist for sure. I may not frame it the way you like.  However your examples are good. I'm sure there could be more related to ID and exploring it honestly and openly, asking the scientific questions who, what, when, where, why, how would be science.  Science comes from the word for knowledge.  Science is "looking for knowledge and truth."  it is a good thing, but it means looking at all possibilities.  How about your highly scientific guys really looking into ID and see what kind of proofs you can come up with.

The point I'm getting at is if it's "proof" against Evolution theory, then it's automatically determined to be false and scientists are out to disprove it any way they can.


So on one hand, we have a single devout creationist who found these 'fossils' and won't let anyone else examine them.  And on the other hand, we have every scientific discovery in the last few hundred years affirming evolutionary processes, and millions of accessible fossils that can be scrutinized by anyone who's interested.

And these are on equal footing how exactly?

How about your highly scientific guys really looking into ID and see what kind of proofs you can come up with.

This is where science and creationism splits paths.  Science examines the facts and draws conclusions from them.  Creationism (ID) starts with conclusions (life was designed) and then searches for facts to support it.  Only with ID, there are no facts to support it.

How is that science again?

Science is "looking for knowledge and truth."  it is a good thing, but it means looking at all possibilities.


All possibilities?  Really?  Are you sure you want to open up the sciences to all possibilities?

To put the DNA thing in perspective let me provide a short example from the world of computers.  Some of you may not be computer science majors, so I will provide a little background:

The computer uses electricity. Solid state devices capable of maintaining an on or off value--in fact trillions of them.  ON, we represent by 1, and OFF we represent by 0.  This is called binary.  Everything done in the computer eventually boils down to a bunch of transistors and such being ON or OFF, changing from ON to OFF, OFF to ON.  One of these single values is called a bit. There are 8 bits in a byte.  With a byte we can represent the numbers 0 to 255 (256 values) which is 2 to the 8th power.  Forgetting about Unicode which uses 2 bytes per character, for simplicity let's talk about ASCII.  The computer knows nothing about letters.  It uses codes to represent the letters (numbers).  From the ASCII table the capital A is decimal 65, B is 66, C is 67. You can add 32 to any of those to get the lowercase equivalent code.  65 is in decimal, but the computer works in binary.  So the 3 bytes in binary to represent ABC would be 01000001 01000010 01000011. The computer doesn't need to spaces I put in, so let's look at it in the sequence of 1's and 0's that it really is:
010000010100001001000011.

Now, having provided all of this as background for my point, maybe one of you genius mathematicians can tell me what are the odds of the following:

Taking the text of the Declaration of Independence, from http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm, and pasting it into Word and getting the number of characters minus signatures, but including spaces, yields a total of 8073.  Now multiply that by 8 which gives 64584 0's and 1's necessary to store this in ASCII on a computer.  What are the odds that if you dropped 64584 0's and 1's on the ground for a million years that they'd ever assemble side by side (the 1's and 0's being turned the same way and beside each other--not a upside down 1 and a right side up 0) into the ASCII representation of the Declaration of Independence?  

Call me what you like, but I say next to none without someone helping it.

Now this is only 64584 0's a 1's. DNA is not binary, but quadrinary(if that's a word), in that it is encoded by AGCT (four possible values).  There are 3 billion sequences in the human genome (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml).  So I ask you mathematicians, what are the odds, that given a million years of dropping 3 billion ACGT letters on the ground that you'd get the 3 billion to land in the right order, with all of the letter facing the same direction?

Again, I say highly unlikely.  Will anyone honestly consider this question and do the math?

Thanks

>>Are you sure you want to open up the sciences to all possibilities?
In terms of science looking for what the truth, the facts are and investigating them without some bias, yes.
Look at evolution, look at ID.  Search and explore both possibilities well, without predetermining the outcome.  Again from my illustration above. To believe that those 3 billion ACGT's would line up just right in a million years by chance takes a lot of faith to believe.

>>Creationism (ID)
Again, you are jumping from ID to Creationism.  You can believe in both, but to believe ID does NOT require one to believe in Creationism and God.  I happen to believe in both.  ID just says there had to be a first cause and things were obviously designed.  You saying ID=Creationism is an assumption you are making.
If you want to talk about creationism, it seems it would be a different topic.  I have no problem discussing it either.

BTW, what if carbon dating is wrong?  What if it seems right for the short term, but in fact doesn't remain constant?   If so all of our figures for long term objects (which we can't really prove the age of anyway) would be wrong.  We assume that carbon dating works for ancient objects.  There's no way to know.  What if the fossils found on the walls of the Grand Canyon and other places are marine life and other life that were covered in dirt and preserved due to a world wide flood.  Many ancient texts besides the Bible mentioned it.  Many people besides Christians have it in their history.

Just to answer your previous comments about oil and tar pits, although perhaps a little off topic.  The Bible does mention them.  When it talks about Sodom and the surrounding kingdoms in the valley where the dead sea now is, it mentions tar pits. (around Genesis 14)  Maybe dinosaurs and other animals fell into them.  The Bible says people did fall into them.

So who has lived a million years to know if what we say is million years old really is, or if carbon dating is exponentially flawed as time goes backwards?  On the curve that would mean it works good for short term events, but gets exponentially off the further back it goes.  Is the speed of light constant? Has it always been? How does this effect carbon dating?

These are all valid scientific questions. Unfortunately I don't see how they could be proved or answered, yet they are accepted as facts.  

Fine, let's use your computer analogy.  

What is considered the world's first electronic computer?  
Most would say the ENIAC.

And how complex was the ENIAC?  
It had 80 bytes of memory...enough to hold about 20 words.  

What was ENIAC used for?  
The very basic task of calculating ballistics trajectories just after WWII.

Now, you've got a vast primordial soup filled with filled with proteins and the other basic building blocks of life that we know existed because we can recreated early-Earth conditions in a lab.  What are the odds, over thousands or millions of years that you'll have some of these building blocks congeal in a certain way that they can carry out one function...reproduce?  How many bytes of information does it take to tell a cell to divide?  Well, I'm no scientist either, but I'd guess that basic cell division is probably about as difficult as calculating ballistics trajectories.

I'd say that it's a very plausible (and likely) scenario, and once you have reproduction, you have the chance for variation, and once you have variation, the possibilities are endless.

So you don't need the complexity of the Declaration of Independence when a simple "We're free." will get the job done.  Again, complexity is certainly reducible.

BTW, what if carbon dating is wrong?
 
 Oy.  Why do I even bother?
 
 Carbon dating is not the only technique we use for determining the age of something, it just gives a more precise date.  We were dating things to within a few thousand years long before carbon dating.
Just to answer your previous comments about oil and tar pits... Maybe dinosaurs and other animals fell into them.

So you acknowledge that dinosaurs existed?  Well, that's some progress I suppose.  Now if I could just convinced you that Jesus didn't actually ride them like horses...


The Bible says people did fall into them.

Wait a minute...so gasoline is made out of people?!?!


Have you noticed that all your 'what if' scenarios magically support a biblical world?  Of course you've noticed.  One can only assume that if there's something in the real world that doesn't support the biblical world, then it must not be reality, correct?

 
>We do see the 'in-betweens', just not every in-between.  
   
First Wikipedia is not the greatest source.  As everyone knows, anybody can type whatever they want.  Second, where is the proof of these so called in betweens according to how Darwin explained the slow process of change?  You only see these big changes separating species.  
   
>>The other part is people who believe in ID don't NEED proof. > >I suppose I can't argue with that.  Case closed?  
   
Dont take my words out of context.  I never said that solved the issue, I was explaining reasons why there isnt much scientific proof.  Its a fact.  When people arent looking for proof, why would they fund the research for it.  Yes there are a few ID scientists out there actually researching it, but not near as many as there are for Evolution Theory.  
   
>Except for the other 500 different species of similar beetle.  Most creationists don't use the bombardier beetle example anymore, as it's been shown to have a very logical evolutionary existence.  
   
In the article itself says there are no other species that make it explode.  Very bad counter attack, sorry.  
   
The flagellum argument isn't applicable anymore either.  
   
Just because certain people say it isnt applicable doesnt mean it isnt.  You may be satisfied with the answer, but others are not.  Thats what this whole discussion is about.  Some people are satisfied others arent because the proof isnt irrefutable.  
   
As for the rest, I agree with Dan...Carl Baugh is a scammer with a clear religious agenda.  I mean come on...he made up his own university and gave himself a doctorate from it.  If you're going to accept those credentials, then I'm crowning myself Pope and taking over as ruler of the Vatican.  
   
All of my information did not come from him.  
   
   
So on one hand, we have a single devout creationist who found these 'fossils' and won't let anyone else examine them.  And on the other hand, we have every scientific discovery in the last few hundred years affirming evolutionary processes, and millions of accessible fossils that can be scrutinized by anyone who's interested. And these are on equal footing how exactly?  
   
No it is not just one devout creationist.  There are actually many scientists that have issues with the Evolution Theory.  There have been many excavations that are found, but always falsified by Evolutionists.  While I do agree there are hoaxes out there, I have a hard time believing all the things they are trying to say are false actually are.  
   
   
This is where science and creationism splits paths.  Science examines the facts and draws conclusions from them.  Creationism (ID) starts with conclusions (life was designed) and then searches for facts to support it.  Only with ID, there are no facts to support it. How is that science again?  
   
Woah, this argument can be used against you also.  The Evolution Theory started as a guess.  He did not have SCIENCE to back it up really.  He had the knowledge of his time to try to back it up, but it was definitely lacking.  So what happens now?  Evolutionists have an end goal in mind. To prove the Evolution Theory, then they center their research around it.  So its exactly the same thing.  The other thing you are missing is, ID does not NEED science to support it.  With ID you have a deity that CREATED science, thus this eity is responsible for how everything exists.    
   
Creationism vs ID  
   
I do have to agree  that they are different, not by much but they are.  As mentioned it could have been aliens (but then who made them), God, Zuess, etc.  ID also can start from the beginning of life with single cells and what not.  Creationism does not.  Creationism implies that nothing started from anything.  It was created the way it is.  ID implies sure things could have changed, but there was an intelligent being responsible for it.  
   
 Carbon dating is not the only technique we use for determining the age of something, it just gives a more precise date.  We were dating things to within a few thousand years long before carbon dating.  
   
I also stated Radiometric dating is flawed by heat.  How do you explain the 1800 and 1801 eruptions in Hawaii being dated 140 to 2.96 billion and 0 to 29 million years old?  What about the case in Canada that a power line fell on a tree and immediately fossilized the roots?  They took it to University of Regina and they said the results of a test would be meaningless; it would indicate an age of millions of years because heat was involved in the petrification process. Are you telling me there is no chance of heat affecting any of the rock layers in the earth?  Isnt one of the theories of the destruction of dinosaurs volcanoes?  This is a huge issues that has not even been considered by Evolutionists, because they are blinded by their GOAL of proving the Evolution Theory, so they only use the results they like.  
   
So you acknowledge that dinosaurs existed?  Well, that's some progress I suppose.  Now if I could just convinced you that Jesus didn't actually ride them like horses...  
   
ID does not say dinosaurs did not exist.  Neither does the bible.  In fact the Bible mentions mysterious and large creatures.  Thats another discussion though.  

 
...The thing about science is that it is an interconnected network of reinforcing theories and evidence.  If we talk about the age of the universe for example, we have evidence from physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, oceanography, biology, etc. that has to all work in the same theoretical context.  Because of the interconnectedness of the theories and data, there is overwhelming evidence that the universe is more than 6000 years old.  It is just not reasonable to believe otherwise.  The same can be said for evolution as a theory for how life developed on our planet.  
What about The Second Law of Thermodynamics?  Basically it says things break down and become unordered.  The Evolution Theory implies that things improve and become more ordered. Supposedly the big bang happened and everything got ordered into what it is today?  So which is correct?  
   
Einstein showed time and space are related.  If there is not space there is not time.  Something must be in existence forever.  Either the universe or a higher being.  If its the universe, then it couldnt have been created out of nothing, because it always existed.  If neither existed before, then there was no time, thus how could something start if there was no time to start in?  

For a critique of evolution, we need to hear *how* the evolution science is bad, what assumptions have been made that are incorrect and how the whole rational and interconnected network of theory and law can be refuted.  Not "proof" but evidence that gives reasonable grounds for doubt.

 what about dating and the problems I have already mentioned?

>What about The Second Law of Thermodynamics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Quote:
This is very different, however, from the claim made by many creationists that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evidence indicates that biological systems and evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net change in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution. Additionally, the process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived from the expression of the second law equation for non-equilibrium connected open systems, arguably making the Theory of Evolution itself an expression of the Second Law.

>what about dating and the problems I have already mentioned?

Dunno... I'll have a look later.

Quote:
This is very different, however, from the claim made by many creationists that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evidence indicates that biological systems and evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net change in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution. Additionally, the process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived from the expression of the second law equation for non-equilibrium connected open systems, arguably making the Theory of Evolution itself an expression of the Second Law.

While that is a valiant effort to an excuse by a random poster on wikipedia (especially after the quote right above it stating, "Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics"), you would have to use that excuse for everything.  I don't buy that when an organism violates the second law on Earth, the rest of the universe makes up for it.  This is the entire problem, and is an endless circle.  Everyones arguments are just speculative and cannot be proven.  ID is no more credible than the Evolution theory.  Until the scientists come up with good answers to all the situations in the Evolution Theory, there will be a lot of resistance to it.  

(sorry to go back so far, but there's been a lot of activity today :-)
SStory said:
>> the scaffolds and the "workers" who built the bridge, is actually a case for a builder and designer.
... missing the point completely.

>> I believe the theory of evolution came about not as a result of real science, but a desire for one thing. That is to disprove that there is someone to give an account to by coming up with some other explanation for existence, so that man can enjoy his sin...
That's a pretty skimpy basis to form a belief system. What about all of the God-fearing scientists?
No... The reason that the theory of Evolution was formulated was that people have always looked for scientific explanations of things seen in nature. Knowing why steel is stronger than iron leads you to make new alloys and create better buildings and bridges. Discovering similarities between rabbit and human anatomy paves the way to medical breakthroughs.
>>As for the rest, I agree with Dan...Carl Baugh is a scammer
I think it was PaulHews who said that (though I agree). He also said:
>>...the theory of evolution answers questions that design doesn't--namely why should designed lifeforms have characteristics that allow them to be classified hierarchically...
A relatively subtle argument, and the first time I've heard it (good one, Paul!). Of course it won't affect the beliefs of anyone who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old -- there is not a lot of room for subtlety in such minds.

>>The Evolution Theory implies that things improve and become more ordered.

It doesn't. Darwin wrote that the development had an order - things from lower to higher orders - and used a sort of Victorian classification to show this. Man being of course at the top of this development. Modern theories do not contain this. Modern theories are all along the lines "horses for courses" and avoid any comparision or anthropomorphic evaluations.

There has been several mentions of "over a long period of time (millions of years)" and "transitional fossils". Genetic change happens almost instantaneously, when envirommental considerations force it. There is no time for "transitional" fossils. Furthermore species development is the result of elimination of genetic mutants, since the mutations will complete in the same food seeking process. I suspect that most of the mechanisms in evironmental biology are well known. The remaining problem is whether random changes, say due to cosmic rays, natural radioactivity and such are responsible for the slower mutational deveopment, or whether there is in fact an in-built instability which will force such changes slowly over a period of time. The question relates not to the last six hundred odd million years, which has seem the development of specialization and complexity, but the first three billion where nothing much really happened.  

Now onto things I really understand. The second law of thermodynamics relates to closed systems. The biological system on this planet is not closed. The sun provides ample energy for it's continued development and the earths mineral resources have hardly been tapped. The second law is violated every instant quantum mechanically yet the universe still continues to cool. The law need not be applied locally, and that's the real point.

>>Einstein showed time and space are related

Not quite. He made time a metrical dimension and showed that gravity could be considered as a geometry instead of a force. It is more than likely the case that the metric is the result of energy dissipation, which implies that time is not something which "runs like a clock" outside the domain of energetic interactions. Thus all three are interrelated and it makes no sense to speculate about something happening outside time, nor about something existing without time.

Now let's get back to a point I made earlier. Let us accept that there was a creator. So the lesson goes "The world exists as it does today because of .........(many, many volumnes of evolutionary theory) or because "an intelligent designer" did it. Now where do we go from here? Anything further about this creator is purely in the realms of religion or the arts. For the only thing which one can go on about is the "beauty of the complexity" (arts and humanistics) or perhaps a bit of mathematics and optics concerning how the eye works.

>>...the theory of evolution answers questions that design doesn't--namely why should designed lifeforms have characteristics that allow them to be classified hierarchically...

It doesn't answer such questions, since the classification hierarchy is so full of exceptions it is only useful for cataloguing in museums. If the classification hierarchy was more perfect, it would be an argument for an intelligent designer.

>>Of course it won't affect the beliefs of anyone who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old

What are we discussing here? Idism or Creationism? IDism is not a religious position, according to SStory, who rejected my cultural basis point. You can still have IDism without the bible, flood, seven days and all that stuff.

BigRat,

You're a real treat.  I hope you never leave us on our own.

>I don't buy that when an organism violates the second law on Earth, the rest of the universe makes up for it.

Well your view implies that life itself is impossible according to the second law.  When a cell grows, it is ordering itself at the expense of the environment.  But you don't have a closed system unless you look at the cell *and* its overall environment, in which case there is a net entropy gain.  And this is independent of any concept of evolution.

As BigRat noted, the sun is the energy source for all (most?) life on earth... Without that massive increase in entropy in that nuclear furnace, there would be no local decreases in entropy within living cells.

>It doesn't answer such questions, since the classification hierarchy is so full of exceptions it is only useful for cataloguing in museums. If the classification hierarchy was more perfect, it would be an argument for an intelligent designer.<

The exceptions don't really matter, one expects fragmentation of genetic lines because of additions and extinctions.  The fact that there *is* a hierarchy at all; that some species are clearly related through genetics, is important to evolution.  But from a creationism/ID standpoint, there could just as easily, or perhaps even more easily, be no related species...  So the question that evolution answers that ID doesn't is: why are they there?

Graphixer, you never answered my question with DNA.

>I'd say that it's a very plausible (and likely) scenario, and once you have reproduction, you have the >chance for variation, and once you have variation, the possibilities are endless.
Yes the ENIAC was simple.  And it didn't evolve into the PC I am typing on--at least not without help from engineers and designers.  My PC, BTW is much more powerful.
As far as reproduction, if male and female didn't evolve simultaneously it wouldn't matter.  There are a lot of variables in that.

>So you don't need the complexity of the Declaration of Independence when a simple "We're free." will >get the job done.  Again, complexity is certainly reducible.
You are avoiding the question and the complexity of the long strand of DNA.  

I'm still waiting for a mathematician to give us the odds.  I say the number will have to be written in scientific notation because it will be phenomenally large.

>So you acknowledge that dinosaurs existed?  Well, that's some progress I suppose.  Now if I could just >convinced you that Jesus didn't actually ride them like horses.
I've never said they didn't exist.  I just propose to you that it wasn't millions of years ago, that dating is in error, and that they did live with men from the beginning.  Perhaps they died during the flood...I don't know the answer to that. The book of Job mentions the behemoth and the leviathan, both which seem to talk of something like a dinosaur...although some who are limited in imagination try to force it into something like a crocodile and hippopotamus.  Again, I don't know where you come up with putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned Jesus riding a dinosaur.  This is obviously off topic and I am just responding to what you said. You seem to be able to get away with it. I do now. So I will cease that discussion until there is a thread about it.

>If man is made in God's image, and has dominion over all the beasts, etc. then why do we share so much >genetic material with the "beasts?"
In His image means that we have a soul. We can reason, we can imagine. We don't just do what we're programmed to do...animals do pretty much follow their programming(instincts). We make choices. We laugh, cry, feel emotion. God being manifested as the Trinity....we having 3 parts (body, soul, spirit).
This is the image.  We are all possibly made from dust...so we have would have similar material. It isn't the material, but the things I mentioned above that make us...in His image.

About DNA, know wonder we are so confused in this world. DNA is obviously the programming, everything else is a result of executing the program, not the other way around.
DNA tells things how to assemble and produce the needed parts.  What or who made that DNA? Who is this evolution person? Nature person?  This process of natural selection is a concept, but it makes no sense.  How is it that NOTHING is making the decisions to make something.  I propose in ID that someone or something with intelligence made something out of nothing.  That  makes a lot more sense

>>There are 3 billion sequences in the human genome  So I ask you mathematicians, what are the odds, that given a million years of dropping 3 billion ACGT letters on the ground that you'd get the 3 billion to land in the right order, with all of the letter facing the same direction?

The first thing to note is the "in the right order". Thnis would need to be specified before one can do the mathematics. The ACGT letters are in fact in pairs, so that also reduces the number of combinations. But the number of combinations of three billion letters is the factorial, which one would need Stirling's formula to evaluate.

The point, which I presume you are trying to make, is that only a certain few number of the vast number of combinations would work. The counter argument is that 90% of the information (probably more) is junk, since there seems to be no mechanism for discarding bits of genetic material. In fact one could reasonably well argue from evolutionary grounds that such a discard would not be condusive for survival. There are known methods for splicing in genetic information - some which naturally occur - so I don't see the length of the genetic information playing a role. It seems more probably that the number of genes is the important factor. It is more that likely that the first creatures on the planet had an "open" genetic system, which could be modified quickly. This was probably closed at some point making such modification difficult, and the result is what we see today, the old system having been completely eradicated.The result is that even the simplest creatures today carry around vast quantities of genetic information. This would, IMO, point towards no creator, for why should he/she include rubbish in his perfect creatures?

Maybe it isn't rubbish. Maybe we just don't know what it does.  Many people think the gallbladder and appendix are useless. Try having yours removed and try life without it.  I assure you the gallbladder has a purpose and having had mine removed, yes I can live, but life is different.

CCSOFlag,

You make some really good points.  I have no problem admitting that I believe there is a God.  That may be something taken by faith based upon what I see around me and other factors.  I believe in ID because to me it is ridiculous to look at things and attribute them to some lifeless process (which acts based upon what know one seems to be able to say).  "Natural selection did this"  Well who is this "natural selection"?  How does this unintelligent process/force up and decide to select?  Selection by definition implies intelligence.

You are also right that evolutionists ignore the evidence such as dating problems and others because they want their theory to be right inspite of all the holes in it.  And the real reason for the desire to prove it was given by me in post # 24028493 above.

Thanks for your great points.

DanRollins,
>No... The reason that the theory of Evolution was formulated was that people have always looked for >scientific explanations of things seen in nature. Knowing why steel is stronger than iron leads you to >make new alloys and create better buildings and bridges. Discovering similarities between rabbit and >human anatomy paves the way to medical breakthroughs.

Discovering how everything in this universe works need not deny a designer. It is perfectly fine to see what was designed and take it apart.  Just because I want to study and disassemble my car engine doesn't mean I can't believe someone or something designed that engine. It shouldn't prohibit me from being curious and wanting to see how the pieces fit together.  In fact it causes me to admire the designer and enjoy learning how it was put together.  Investigating genes and the genome, anatomy and all of the sciences to learn how things were made is still perfectly fine and there is no reason we can't do that even if we believe that it points to having a designer a first cause of some sort.  So I think your point is illogical.

SStory,

"So I ask you mathematicians, what are the odds, that given a million years of dropping 3 billion ACGT letters on the ground that you'd get the 3 billion to land in the right order, with all of the letter facing the same direction?"

Who is to say there are not 3 billion or more different ways the Creator could have (or did indeed) create intelligent life in some other place that is so egocentric that it is asking the same question?  I don't think you want to go in the direction to say that the Creator you speak of cannot do that.  You don't know enough to say He could not or didn't. In other words, if we turned-out to look and be completely different and could ask the same question, then what's so special about our particular odds?

Bigrat,
>Now let's get back to a point I made earlier. Let us accept that there was a creator. So the lesson goes >"The world exists as it does today because of .........(many, many volumnes of evolutionary theory) or >because "an intelligent designer" did it. Now where do we go from here? Anything further about this >creator is purely in the realms of religion or the arts
Maybe.  Again this is about ID and not creationism. However if you want to mention a Creator, then things like a purpose for existence come into play.  Us not being an animal....being different from animals. Life being precious instead of just a random accident.  Since science comes from the word for knowledge, it seems that the knowledge of this would be good for people.  Believing the opposite, IMO, results in devaluing of life.  But as you said that is probably getting into another thread.

SStory,


"Well who is this "natural selection"?...Selection by definition implies intelligence."

Selection by definition does not imply an intelligence any more than when you drop a ball it selects the downward direction.

We're talking about "natural selection" but you changed the argument to only be about "selection" in the general sense.

Natural selection is a mechanism that does not require intelligence; it's the way things operate in the physical and biological world.  If you want to say there was an intelligence behind the way things developed, I will agree to that, but it is not the exact topic here.

What exactly are the claims against radiometric dating?

SStory,

"However if you want to mention a Creator,..."

Seems like we have to bring up the notion of a Creator, because talking about Intelligent Design suggests a Designer

"However if you want to mention a Creator, then things like a purpose for existence come into play.  Us not being an animal....being different from animals. Life being precious instead of just a random accident.  Since science comes from the word for knowledge, it seems that the knowledge of this would be good for people.  Believing the opposite, IMO, results in devaluing of life."
 
 Such notions break out of the realm of science and into philosophy.  That would make the discussion here about science (of evolution and natural selection) vs. philosophy (of the meaning of life and a Creator).

WaterStreet,
>Natural selection is a mechanism that does not require intelligence; it's the way things operate in the >physical and biological world.  If you want to say there was an intelligence behind the way things >developed, I will agree to that, but it is not the exact topic here.
My point is that it is a cop out to say that a selection (a choice takes place) by nothing and lacking a place to attribute it to, inventing an abstract term called "natural selection."

To me it is crazy to believer that something without intelligence makes intelligent choices.  How would it decide if something is beneficial to the organism to select or reject the additional change, without intelligence?  Here is the definition for intelligence: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence
Making a choice requires intelligence.  If there is no intelligence in "natural selection" then it could not make a choice. So the question to 'what is the "it" is a valid one.'

If a ball is dropped, it doesn't make a selection or choice. It is acted upon by forces that it has no control over that have been established--mainly gravity.  It doesn't matter if the ball believes in gravity or likes gravity. When it is dropped, it is affected by gravity.  

>Seems like we have to bring up the notion of a Creator, because talking about Intelligent Design suggests >a Designer

I believe in a Creator--with no doubt. ID by definition suggests a design.  The designer, according to that theory need not necessarily imply God (Creator with a big C). Again I believe firmly in the Creator God, but many who subscribe to ID, do not make that jump. They just say things are too ordered, complex and consistent to be totally random and without design.  Just because I believe in the Creator God whose name is Jesus Christ, doesn't mean that all who believe ID agree with me or have to do so.  It is just about recognizing that evolution has holes in it and from the look at the way things are, design becomes apparent to many.

>To me it is crazy to believer that something without intelligence makes intelligent choices.

Probably that is crazy, yes.  Because evolution is neither about intelligence or about choices--at least not on the scale you are talking about.  Neither is it random, even if it is without design.

It's closer to an economic theory like supply and demand.  There is no "intelligence" in the supply and demand relationship, yet supply and demand and price are interrelated in a causal manner.

There is no "choice" made in populations of bacteria when reproducing, yet when you introduce an anti-bacterial agent like penicillin into a culture, the surviving bacteria will pass on their trait of being more resistant to penicillin.  Thus traits that positively affect the survival/reproduction are likely to be passed on.  That's all that natural selection is.

Sorry I have been very busy at work today, so haven't had much time to get in on the discussion. :)

PaulHews Wrote:What exactly are the claims against radiometric dating?

This is copied from a post above.  A couple examples are included:

I also stated Radiometric dating is flawed by heat.  How do you explain the 1800 and 1801 eruptions in Hawaii being dated 140 to 2.96 billion and 0 to 29 million years old?  What about the case in Canada that a power line fell on a tree and immediately fossilized the roots?  They took it to University of Regina and they said the results of a test would be meaningless; it would indicate an age of millions of years because heat was involved in the petrification process. Are you telling me there is no chance of heat affecting any of the rock layers in the earth?  Isnt one of the theories of the destruction of dinosaurs volcanoes?  This is a huge issues that has not even been considered by Evolutionists, because they are blinded by their GOAL of proving the Evolution Theory, so they only use the results they like.  

>> Discovering how everything in this universe works need not deny a designer. .... So I think your point is illogical.
Once again, SStory, you have missed the point of the entire paragraph. You posited that the reason that the theory of evolution was developed was so that men could deny God and therefore enjoy sinning. I provided the actual reason. Your response was about something else.
>> How would it decide if something is beneficial to the organism to select or reject the additional change, without intelligence?
This is a common argument and it shows the core problem: Creationists (IDers, anyone who argues against evolution) see the end result and assume that was a target of some sort. Mixed in to that basic misconception is this (now clearly demonstrated) inability to understand that for every improvement in the genome, there would be perhaps a million or a billion changes that made it worse. When that happens, the organism dies and does not reproduce.
Why is something that is so obvious so hard for so many to see?

>I also stated Radiometric dating is flawed by heat.  How do you explain the 1800 and 1801 eruptions in Hawaii being dated 140 to 2.96 billion and 0 to 29 million years old?<

Google shows 8 results for "heat contamination" and "radiometric dating":
http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=%22heat+contamination%22+%22radiometric+dating%22&meta=lr%3D

If it's real, find some half credible sources for it that aren't a repetition of the one post that shows up in Google.  (Talk about the "random wikipedia poster".... *L*)

I'm sure that radiometric dating has its pitfalls, but it's hard to believe this kind of thing.  Here's a really nice article about the topic that attempts to explain why radiometric data should be considered pretty reliable.

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

CCSOFlag, I'm not able to find any references to your Hawaiian volcano dating, or your Canadian tree, nor am I able to find any articles that pertaining to the effects of heat on radiocarbon dating.  

I'm not saying such material doesn't exist, but I'd like to know more.  Can you provide references or links?

PaulHews,

Try googling "flaws in Radiometric dating" or "flaws in *insert type here* dating".  You'll come up with a lot more than 8 results.  Fissure testing is considered the most promising, but even that is affected by heat.  

A good book is Thousands not Billions by Dr Don Deyoung.  It's a very scientific approach and explanation of the issues with the dating techniques.  Warning though, do not read it unless you have a scientific background.  You will not understand it.  It's not an easy read as most scientific research isn't.  

CCSOFlag, do you have a scientific background?

Are there any peer-reviewed articles about the flaws in radiometric dating that you can point us to?  Most of the Google'd references are on blogs or creationist websites.

CCSOFlag, do you have a scientific background?

Not professionally.  I was an engineer in college, and had to take several high-level chemistry,  all physics, and pretty much all the math classes possible.  I've also always been obsessed with science and have read endless books and articles.  

By saying reading the book needed a scientific background I was not implying a research scientist, I was just implying that you need to have a very good grasp of science as a whole.  For example, the elements and their structure (neutrons, protons, electrons, etc.), how chemical reactions work, how decay works, radiation, isotopes, etc because they go in to detail for a lot of this stuff.    For example, my wife tried reading this book and she was completely lost.  Needless to say she didn't get far before she stopped reading, because she is not a math or science person in any way.  She probably couldn't name 5 elements.

Are there any peer-reviewed articles about the flaws in radiometric dating that you can point us to?  Most of the Google'd references are on blogs or creationist websites.

In my opinion, this is the most unfortunate problem with the battle between ID and the Evolution Theory.  Anything the ID researchers discover, the Evolutionists discredit.  Anything the Evolutionists come up with, the Creationists discredit.  It's an ugly cycle, and I honestly wish they would get together and do some good consistent research, because I'd love to hear the outcome of what they can achieve together.  Of course that's not going to happen, so we  have to take what we read and decide for ourselves whether it makes sense or not.  To answer your question, I have yet to find ANYTHING that is not from an organization without an agenda.  Scientists either want to prove or disprove evolution so research is centered around that.

I have read both sides of the argument and from my understanding of science, I DO see flaws in the dating methods.  There are too many factors they assume in the decay they use in all their dating methods.  In all your science classes even in grade school, you know that there are catalysts for just about every reaction out there.  Heat is a huge one; as is water.  Anyways..  I enjoyed the book I mentioned because while they are centered around disproving the radiometric dating, they did it with science rather than your typical useless arguments that a lot of IDers try to use. There are plenty of sources for the evolution arguments for several reasons mentioned throughout this discussion, but it's hard to find a decent book for the other side of the argument.

I can't remember off the top of my head the other books or articles I have read.  I never considered keeping track of them.  I remember Thousands Not Billions because I actually bought it.

>A good book is Thousands not Billions by Dr Don Deyoung.
>they did it with science

Science or something that looks like science, and smells like science, but isn't really?  The young earth crowd are pretty famous for bad science.  Which brings me back to "What is it reasonable to believe?"

Science or something that looks like science, and smells like science, but isn't really?  The young earth crowd are pretty famous for bad science.  Which brings me back to "What is it reasonable to believe?"

Don't discredit it until you read it please.  People say evolutionists use bad science also, so your unsubstantiated claims are worthless.  If someone doesn't agree with someone else, they claim they ahve bad logic or are just retarded.  If a discovery/proof/theory/etc doesn't agree with another scientists, they automatically say they use bad science.  Instead of say that, PROVE that it's bad science.  I've read many places that there's BAD science used by ID scientists, but have yet to see proof of it.  They are just empty claims.  IDers claim that eveolutionists use bad science dating, they have actually done research and their findings support their claim.  Until someone can "debunk" their findings legitamately you cannot discredit them.

CCSOFlag,

DeYoung's book is published by Master Books, a subdivision of New Leaf Publishing, which deals almost exclusively with creationist Christian publications.

This would be like recommending a book on building engineering published by a company that specializes in books about 9/11 conspiracy theories.  They're a little too close to one particular view to be an objective source.

This is why I asked for peer-reviewed articles, but there doesn't seem to be any.

And as I said, any scientist who provides substantive disproof ofevolution would gain global peer recognition, household-name fame, and likely fortune, sothere's a big incentive to do just that.  However, it's just not there.

>People say evolutionists use bad science also, so your unsubstantiated claims are worthless.

My unsubstantiated claims may be worthless.  But it's pretty much the opinion of every scientist who isn't a creationist.  I could understand if it was all the atheists, or all the evolutionary biologists, but not all mainstream scientists.  Could they all be in a conspiracy to make the creationists look bad?

Look at a list of statements by scientific councils and associations from around the world:
http://www.sciencecouncil.org/Creationism.php

Eg.  US National Academy of Sciences

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=47

Quote:
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief.

Which brings me back to "What is it reasonable to believe?"

>It's closer to an economic theory like supply and demand.  There is no "intelligence" in the supply and >demand relationship
Oh really. I beg to differ.  ChinaMart sells product X 5 for $10.  USAMart sells a similar product at the price of $15 for for one.  Are you saying that the person buying the product (the demand part of supply and demand) doesn't use intelligence to decide which to buy?  Demand comes by an intelligent person making a decision based upon what is important for him.  Supply is making enough of those available for those type people.  Maybe he wants the cheapest, so 5 for $10 is good. Maybe he wants something made well that lasts or to support US labor so 1 for $15 is good.  Either way the demand depended upon a person making an INTELLIGENT decision.

You are right that evolution isn't intelligent and I definitely applaud that statement.

>This would be like recommending a book on building engineering published by a company that specializes >in books about 9/11 conspiracy theories.  They're a little too close to one particular view to be an >objective source.
Most of the evolutionist books out there are written by people who are "a little too close to one particular view to be an objective source." That is why both theories should be entertained in schools.  Most arguments you are using against ID also fit perfectly with evolutionists.  

There are no 100% objective people on this planet.  We all have a world-view...a grid through which we filter and see things. We may think we are 100% objective, but we aren't.  We might be 90%, but...

>do you have a scientific background?
Does anyone here have one?

Does that make him or her some how and expert having the corner on all knowledge and wisdom?  There is a point to where we can become so educated that we become stupid.  I remember in Calculus the problems took pages to work.  After doing this so long, one assumed that if something took less than pages to work, it must be wrong.  See and working simple solutions was temporarily obscured as well.  It was easy to come from that manner of thinking and over complicate a lot of things.  This is just something for us to all keep in mind.

>But it's pretty much the opinion of every scientist who isn't a creationist.
OK. Does that make them right?  If 200 million people in the USA were of the opinion that the USA was impervious to attack (pre 9/11), and only 1000 government employees knew and believed otherwise, would it matter that the 200 million even if 100,000 were experts, believed otherwise?  Especially after 9/11, how much would the 200 million opinions have been worth..even with the 100,000 expert opinions?

The thing about these scientists is that the are all "drinking the same Kool-aid"  (For those who are not aware, this is a reference to "Jim Jones")  Evolutionists, teach all the courses and dominate science teaching only it.  So is it any wonder that many scientists arrive at the same conclusion about evolution. They are just spouting off what they've been taught.  Basically, IMO, it's just one bad idea that has been propagated millions of times.  This doesn't make it right. At one time the whole population believed the world was flat.  Eventually everyone but Ptolemy and some others still believed it was flat.  "everyone" except those people were wrong.

SStory,

As I've said...three times now I believe...there is a huge incentive for scientists to disprove evolution.  They're not drinking the Kool-Aid, they just have a proven theory that fits most everything they discover.

On the other hand, there is also a huge incentive for creationists to disprove evolution.  So far, none of them have.  Nobody has.  And you haven't presented anything scientific to back up your arguments.

So again, everyone is out to disprove evolution.  And as I stated as the original question: what have you got that is scientific?

The science of atheists is the exact same science of Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and every other human being on the planet.  It is based on testing hypotheses and providing conclusions that can then be tested and confirmed by other humans.  There is no agenda other than determining reality.  Testable reality.

Where's the test for ID?  At least CCSOFlag is being intellectually honest when saying that "ID has no scientific proof".  That is a statement I can accept and respect.  We all have beliefs that can't necessarily be proven outright.  

However, I see little honesty coming from you other than 'But, but, but...it must be the case', and 'Evolutionists are drones.'  I would again say this is the pot calling the kettle black, but no scientist is as dogmatic as you seem to be.  They always acknoledge the possibility, even if they reduce the probability.


Regarding your DNA/Computer question, it's yet another straw-man argument.  Machines are not life forms.  But if you're going to use machines as an argument, recognize that they can function with very little coding to perform very simple tasks.

You're a programmer.  Maybe a better analogy would be a computer program rather than the hardware itself?  How many lines of code would it take to produce a program that simply replicated itself and did nothing else?  If I remember right, it'd take maybe two or three very simple lines.  But I recognize that this is a bad analogy, because a computer program could replicate itself from now through eternity and always generate the same output.

However, if you have an outside agent acting on the program that modifies these lines of code every so often - mutating them, so to speak - now you have variation. As others have said here; if this subtle variation improves the code in some way, increasing the chance of survival in a hostile world by even a tiny bit, then that program is more likely to continue, while mutations that detract from functionality will decrease its chances of survival.

I know you get this concept, because you agree that micro-evolution occurs.  The only thing that keeps you from making the next logical conclusion--believing in macro-evolution--is the 'G' factor.  You believe God must have created the complex creatures, otherwise, why have a god at all?  I'm telling you, you can still believe in God and believe in evolution.  The believers here on EE have affirmed that.

At the very least, you should be able to acknowledge that evolutioncould be true, and could have been guided by a supreme being.  Even I acknowledge the latter as apossibility.  However, you not only don't acknowledge evolution as a possibility, you flat outdeny it despite the overwhelming mounds of information that support it.

In my estimation, beliefs like this are hurting America, and hurting the world.  And I'm not alone in thinking this.  

You may claim scientists and non-believers are closed minded, but it's been clearly demonistrated that we're more open-minded to possibilities than you seem to be.  I think you'll find you'll be able to have more productive conversaitons, and find people are more open to your beliefs, if you simply acknoledge the possibilities.

Everything that needs to be said on this subject seems to have been said.  Everyone, please post your closing arguments and I'll try to close this thread over the coming weekend.

Graphixer,

>.there is a huge incentive for scientists to disprove evolution
Really, is that why people are forced to learn it in schools, graduate and undergraduates and not allowed to go against it? Is that what tenure isn't given to people who don't hold to the theory?  Is that why NSF fires people who support other theories?  It sounds to me like they don't want another explanation.

> Machines are not life forms.
well you keep telling me that some dumb, lifeless, unintelligent thing "natural selection" and "evolution" make decisions and evolve things.  If it is dumb and lifeless and unintelligent then it compares very well to a dumb, unintelligent computer.  Either way DNA and programming languages have very much in common and it is perfectly reasonable to compare them--unless the evidence is damning to your case and you don't want it to be admissible.

> How many lines of code would it take to produce a program that simply replicated itself and did nothing >else?  If I remember right, it'd take maybe two or three very simple lines.
Maybe, but it would have required an intelligent designer, a programmer, to write the initial program.
I've NEVER in my working with computers for over 27 years seen a computer that decided to write its on program.  A computer is a stupid, ignorant piece of machinery that can do absolutely nothing other than what it is told to.  Barring bad circuits, it never puts out anything other than what the programmer told it to, so if there is a problem, a little research reveals that the programmer made an error and not the computer.  People however are different from computers and animals in that we can imagine, invent, reason, and make decisions.

>The only thing that keeps you from making the next logical conclusion--believing in macro-evolution--is the >'G' factor.
One thing keeping me from making that step is that there is no evidence.  But in a sense you are correct in that I know that God made the earth and every living thing. I don't have to waste my time trying to explain how creatures and we came about in an attempt to rid myself of a God.

>In my estimation, beliefs like this are hurting America, and hurting the world.  And I'm not alone in thinking >this.
In my estimation, evolution, the teaching that we are purposeless, insignificant, scum originated animals is what is hurting the world.  When our children learned that there was a God and they had a purpose and significance and weren't animals, they didn't act as much like animals, didn't go into schools killing everyone, we didn't murder most of our population through abortion. We honored our elderly instead of considering them a burden and moving toward knocking them off.  People knew it was wrong to steal, to kill to rape.  These things still happened but not like this day and time.  What we are seeing in America now is the result of the decline of believing in God.  The corruption (people in office embezzling--why not if there is no right and wrong and no one to answer to), the greed (people love themselves--why not if evolution is true), people mass murder others (why not if survival of the fittest is really the truth--who are we to stop them), suicide (why not if there is no purpose in life), genocide (why not if the best races should survive as Darwin taught and the "inferior" ones be eliminated).  This is whole other topic for sure and I have plenty to say about what the belief in evolution and atheism other things have done to our world.  Start the thread and I'll participate as I have time.

Graphixer, you keep saying there is no evidence or proof. I and others have given you plenty of good arguments and evidence, but you reject it.  I say that there will never be "real evidence" for you as long as you want to believe in evolution.

If we considered it to be a possibility where is the proof?  Mountains of claims don't equal a shred of proof to support it..at least not the macro evolution.

I'm not sure how to prove ID. I'm feel certain that even if I did, the proof would be rejected or called unscientific.  My point is that maybe neither can be proven satisfactorily to all or accepted by all, but in that case both should be taught.

I see enough in what I can see in this world to know that it screams out Intelligence and Design.  Proof would only be needed for those who don't see it.  The question is what kind of proof would you accept?

>Evolution does not "debase" life.
I disagree. Hitler and the Nazis were strong believers in evolution. They carried out what they thought it meant to the nth degree. They thought Jews were a scourge on humanity an inferior race so that set about to kill off the "inferior" race.  In fact they decided they were the only good race.  So they set out to destroy the others. Since they were strong (the strong survive and the weak do not--an evolutionary concept), they were able to do this to a large degree.  Do the research on Hitler, the Nazi party and evolution.  Do the same on communism and Russia.

Well, I thought we'd get down to the nitty-gritty. Which has nothing to do with science, but which has a lot to do with the cultural beilefs of a small set of people who believe that the world is in a greater mess than anytime in its history. As they say on the Net, discussions usually end up with Nazis and Stalin and communism, and it's always Americans who reguritate this stuff.

SStory, you're not interesting in proving ID right or evolution wrong, you're only interested in forcing your ideas down the throughts of others. Your America is the result of your society which you and nobody else choses. It is no worse today than when Tea-Pot dome was around. It is no more violent as when Prohibition was around (I cannot understand, as a Francophone, who one can BAN other people having a drink??? And that in a society which claims to support the rights of the free world???), nor any more violent when the "West was Won".

You need to wake up to the sort of society you live in and try to do something about it, instead of burying your head in the sand, like the Amish, pretending that if children were taught IDism all would be good. Just in what sort of world do you think you live in, where you can control the thoughts of others? Will you start banning the internet because the children will be able to see evoluationary theories coming from the Chinese?

SStory says:
"I've NEVER in my working with computers for over 27 years seen a computer that decided to write its [own] program."

Exactly my point.  Computers aren't susceptible to variation and mutation, but DNA is.  You acknowledge this with micro-evolution.  Why not go a step farther and simply acknowledge the possibility of macro-evolution?

You start with an argument that DNA is too complex to be anything but designed, yet we've shown over and over that this is not the case.  What kind of proof would YOU accept?  I get the feeling that Jesus himself could appear to you and say "yes, it's true, evolution happened", and you would still dismiss it.

I suppose if your unshakable base reference is a 6000 year-old Earth, then of course macro-evolution is outlandish, and I'm just spinning my wheels with you.  I only hope that any fence-sitters who come across this thread in the future will be a little more reasonable.


As a side note, we've had quite a few exchanges over these last few weeks, so I have to ask...what do you think of me personally?

I'm an atheist.  I don't believe in gods.  However, I care deeply for my family.  I pay my taxes.  I donate to charity.  I don't lie.  I don't cheat.  I can honestly say that I've never stolen anything in my life.  I've never intentionally hurt anyone.  I'm a good tipper.  I don't kill spiders...I take them outside.  I value life.  I value this Earth and the people on it.

Think what you will of my philosophies and my world-view.  Disagree with my viewpoints and point out the flaws in my reasoning.  But you don't know me, and you haven't earned the right to call me and other non-believers animalistic, genocidal, corrupt, thieving rapists with no purpose or morality.  That is what is hurting America.

I don't know what you were like before you found Jesus, but if you were anywhere near what you think the rest of us are like, then I'm sure glad you found him.  I'm glad he's the answer for you, but recognize that he's not the answer for me.  When you start respecting that, then maybe I'll cut you some slack.  Until then, I'm going to fight your misguided ideas until I breathe my last breath.

Well boviously we are getting no where.  the arguments posted and any other argument I was going to post doesn't matter, because it's from a "Creationist".  The same can be said from the toher side.  Your arguments against it are not objective.  You must take science from an objective standpoint.  If you don't understand science, then don't try to make a decision off of it.  Just because a scientist says something doesn't mean it's right.  Here are just a few examples of how WRONG scientists have been and how long it took for the idiots to admit their faults.

The Earth was the center of the universe (not to mention flat).

Scientists said DDT and Agent Orange were safe.

Stegosaurus had a brain in it's butt.

Thomas Edison was told light bulbs were impossible by scientists.

Aristotle said heavier objects fall faster.

Phlogiston was real.

The atom is the smallest particle.

Countless medications that have been deemed "safe", but keep getting pulled off the shelves.

Cholesterol once was bad.  Then it was there's good and bad cholesterol.  Now they've found that Cholesterol is NEEDED for the body to repair itself.

Fat used to be bad.  Now they realize fat is REQUIRED for the body to repair and dissolve certain vitamins and minerals.

The sun is bad for you, wear suncscreen.  Now countless researchers are discovering they were dead wrong and a cause of many illnesses and diseases are cause by lack of exposure and a lot of toxic substances found in sunscreen.  The body needs sunlight to produce Vitamin D which in turn prevents cancer and many other health problems.  They are linking lack of sunlight to the reason why people usually get sick during winter when they are all bundled up. (No this does not include people out in the sun too long and getting severe burns.)

the list goes on.  But people continually believe everything scientists say rather than doing the studying and reading themselves of the sicience they are using.  Believing anything a scientist has to say is called faith.  You have FAITH that those people know what they are talking about.  SStory has FAITH that God created the Earth.  Who are you to say he is wrong, and who is he to say you are wrong?  Everyone chooses to have faith in what they want.  I have a hard time having faith in scientists and doctors because of my knowledge of science and their track records.  They are wrong just as much as they are right.  It boils down to you guys have faith in certain people and I have faith in certain people.  They are not always going to agree.  I have kept my arguments direct and to the point.  

While I enjoyed sharing and hearing everyone's thoughts and opinions, I think it's has just gone too far with people not even giving the time of day to other's arguments for one reason or another.  Just because a scientist believes in Evolution, does not make them wrong.  Just because a scientist believes in Creationism does not make them wrong.  You have to look at the science they use.  No one looked at the science I mentioned about the flaws in radiometric dating.

I would say it's a good time to close the topic, becaus eit's going no where fast.  I enjoyed talking with everyone and hearing everyone's views.  Thanks for this.  Yes I'm being honest.  I enjoy discussions, just not when both sides gets stubborn and close minded.  

Graphixer,

Your last statements I think were too broad (as were SStory's).  Religion is not to blame for anything, nor is lack of religion.  People are to blame for the World.  I'm sorry but being a atheist or a Buddhist makes no difference in who you are as a person.  There are plenty of so called Christians who couldn't even tell you what Christianity meant.  there are plenty of Buddhists who couldn't tell you what they believe.  My point is, religion does not make a person have good morals.  It's a personal choice with or without religion.  Yes most religions promote better morals, but that doesn't mean those people are going to follow them.  I'm glad to hear you have some good morals.  Most people don't these days and it's a shame.  

I had a chuckle at your spider comment, because I don't kill them either.  LOL.  I always take them outside.  Although it's not because I love spiders or anything.  I just hate bugs more and spiders eat bugs.  I figure the more spiders around the house the less bugs I'm going to have. :)  Natural pesticide baby.

You are definitely entitled to your views and opinions as if everyone else.  Everyone needs to not forget that no matter what people believe, no one has a right to call anyone stupid, idiotic, retarded or anything else along those lines saying some people just don't get it.  Maybe they have faith in other things than you.  they have that right.  No one can say they are wrong or right.  Cuz we truely do not know.  While there is a line to draw with this (ie. the earth doesn't exit), I'm sure you get my point.  Evolution is not proven nor is the age of the earth.  Unfortuantely neither ever WILL be proven unless we can figure out how to travel back and forth in time, or if the Bible is right, when Jesus comes.

>SStory, you're not interesting in proving ID right or evolution wrong, you're only interested in forcing your >ideas down the throughts of others.
Well, this is philosophy and religion.  What we believe (our world view) effects many things.  You said evolution didn't debase life. I disagree, and I told you why.  You are welcome to your opinion and to disagree with me.

>where you can control the thoughts of others? Will you start banning the internet because the children >will be able to see evolutionary theories coming from the Chinese?
Actually it is the Chineese who are filtering the Internet thanks to Google and Microsoft.  I don't mind telling my kids that there are people who believe in evolution. I actually have already told my daughter.  My son is too young to understand or care.  So your accusations are false.  However I do not like her being taught only one side of it by a biased educational system bent on evolution and no other possibilities.  That is the reality that most of us live it.

>Instead of burying your head in the sand
My head isn't burried in the sand. I see what kind of world I live in and I attribute much of it to teaching evolution instead of what used to be taught here and America turning her back (largely) on the God who made her great.  Read the song "America the Beautiful" Read the words.  However I best stop discussing this side topic or I'll get a forum ticket...so if you want to carry it further, you'll have to start a thread on that topic.

>>forcing your >ideas down the throughts of others
One last thought. This is exactly what the homosexual movement in this country is trying to do to all of us...not the Christians. (I know this is another topic).

Graphixer,

>Why not go a step farther and simply acknowledge the possibility of macro-evolution?
Show me the proof or don't demand that I believe in it...or my kids.  I don't demand that you believe in God.  It's your choice.  I do try to tell you and others about Him. If you choose not to believe then that is your choice.  If I choose not to believe in macro-evolution because I don't see any of the so called "missing links", but just a lot of "grasping for straws" to prove a IMO crazy theory, is that OK with you?

Graphixer,

WaterStreet will probably reprimand me for responding to your questions, though you'll get of for asking them (seem sort of one-sided), but since you asked, I will respond.

>As a side note, we've had quite a few exchanges over these last few weeks, so I have to ask...what >do you think of me personally?
I think you are a sincere person who adamantly believes what he believes.  I think you are blind spiritually as the Bible says, and can't see the things I have talked about at this time.  I think you are viewing the world from a normal fallen human perspective and I certainly cannot blame you for that.  I have absolutely nothing against you. I don't think I am better than you. In fact I think we are both rotten to the core along with everyone else in this world (totally depraved).  You appear to be a pretty good person in many respects and when comparing one person to another.  The question is what if that isn't the standard?  If so the results are skewed.  I would submit to you that perfection is the standard and we all fall terribly short of it (Romans 3:23).  I can't meet the standard of perfection any more than you can.  I don't knock you at all for the person you are or what you believe. I do respect you as a person and see that you are just being real.  I'm not judging or condemning you. I'm not your judge.  I do feel the decent thing to do as another fallen human is to tell you that there is one (a judge), that we're all guilty and that the sentence is severe beyond belief.  And the gospel is simply that a substitute for you and I has been provided to take all of the sentence and meet the standard in our place--a free gift that we need only receive (Romans 10:9, 13; John 3:16)

>I'm an atheist.  I don't believe in gods.  However, I care deeply for my family.  I pay my taxes.  I donate >to charity.  I don't lie.  I don't cheat.  I can honestly say that I've never stolen anything in my life.  I've >never intentionally hurt anyone.  I'm a good tipper.  I don't kill spiders...I take them outside.  I value life.  I >value this Earth and the people on it.
I commend you for all of these things. My Daddy was all of those things about 8 years ago. He is now almost 60.  He lived most of his life being a pretty good guy in all of the ways you described. Many times he seemed better than many Christians.  But he still had two serious problems, 1) a criminal record in heaven 2) a corrupt heart on the earth.  The same as all of us.  He met Jesus and has been an even better man for 8 years now.  I would honestly love to tell you these things outside of this forum because here, who knows what will be censored and when I'll be reprimanded next.  I think you are worth my risking being banned forever from this forum.

>Think what you will of my philosophies and my world-view.  Disagree with my viewpoints and point >out the flaws in my reasoning.  But you don't know me, and you haven't earned the right to call me and >other non-believers animalistic, genocidal, corrupt, thieving rapists with no purpose or morality.  That is >what is hurting America.
I'm not saying that non-believers are these things. I am saying that the teaching of evolution leads to all of these conclusions.  People who thing they were raised in a barn start acting like it.  Look what animals do (watch Nat Geo with the lion killing everyone...that's just what animals do)  If I or you following "nature" and evolution did that, would it be OK?  No, because we aren't animals.  I never called you that, I stated that belief in evolution and carrying its concepts to the full, can lead to these things.

>I don't know what you were like before you found Jesus, but if you were anywhere near what you >think the rest of us are like, then I'm sure glad you found him.  I'm glad he's the answer for you, but >recognize that he's not the answer for me.  When you start respecting that, then maybe I'll cut you >some slack.  Until then, I'm going to fight your misguided ideas until I breathe my last breath.
Well, in most people's eyes, I was a good boy growing up.  Inside that wasn't true. My thoughts were filthy, as was my vocabulary.  There were things that I couldn't seem to quit doing even when I wanted to. I went to church, but I was not good.

I do realize that you think Jesus isn't the answer for you.  The truth is that He is either THE ANSWER or NO ANSWER.  This is a personal decision and choice.  I respect and recognize your right to choose.  You should recognize my right to speak to you from my world view...just like you speak from yours.
I have enjoyed our conversations. I have not one single bad feeling toward you.  I wish you the highest blessings.  I know where you are coming from in some ways (I've never been an atheist), because I've been there (in some ways--except for the atheism part). Again everyone has a free choice.  Before choosing everyone should have all of the information to make a good choice.

Be blessed today!

>> ...not even giving the time of day to other's arguments... Just because a scientist believes in Creationism does not make them wrong. ...
In fact, it makes them wrong in a very important way. Once a person allows himself the luxury of discarding hard evidence in favor of baseless faith, that person can no longer be considered a reliable researcher or teacher. Any conclusions he draws are suspect.
I can trust a scientist who says "We don't know for sure how life began several billion years ago, so I leave open the possibility that a Creator took part in that."  But one who discards the mountains of evidence of what has happened since that time... Is just not trustworthy.  He will make other mistakes of logic.  His ability to reason is damaged.  He scares me.  I don't want his faulty mode of thinking to infect students or to be given weight in political decisions.

CCSOFlag:

>The Earth was the center of the universe (not to mention flat).

We've come a long way since then, haven't we?  It's worth remembering that for all science's missteps, there have been spectacular successes.

It's worth remembering that religious arguments were employed regarding the geocentric universe.  Those first steps of science disproved the religious assumption of a geocentric universe.  I think of evolution as continuing that trend, and I realize that's a hard pill for those who have a fundamental religious belief in a universe whose purpose is centered around the existence of humanity.

>Just because a scientist believes in Creationism does not make them wrong.  You have to look at the science they use.  No one looked at the science I mentioned about the flaws in radiometric dating.<

When you get a letter from some doctor in Nigeria promising you two million dollars if you allow him to transfer money into your bank account, do you bother to look into it diligently, or do you delete it summarily?

When I looked up your bit on "heat contamination" I found absolutely nothing that could confirm anything valid about it.  If anything, heating rocks to a certain temperature can make them appear younger because it allows the diffusion of new isotopes.  The dating only tracks the radioactive decay that is evident after the rock cools below a certain level.  "Flaws in radiometric dating" pulls up a lot of old stuff, about the rate of radioactive decay changing (which is baloney) about rocks not being closed systems (they are really close considering the radioactive isotopes) etc.  

Most people aren't experts in radiometric dating and there's no way we can do our own experiments, so we have to defer to the judgment and consensus within the scientific community.  The consensus there is that radiometric dating is very accurate.  At the very worst, it is nowhere as bad as the young earth people make it out to be.  It's not reasonable to listen to the creationist fringe, especially when you read the criticism of their methods from the mainstream.

It comes back to what is reasonable to believe...

Most of us have had this discussion before, and we recognize our old friend, the Nigerian doctor, lurking in the details of the young earth arguments.   Does that make it right to brush off this argument?  I would say not, because maybe there's a remote chance that there's actually something to it... But for the most part, I've already learned that little of quality comes from books with titles like "Thousands not Billions" from creationist presses.  I will apologize for my prejudices and hope that you will understand that I've had a quick critical look and assigned this to the baloney pile.

If it's any consolation, I'm extremely skeptical of breakthroughs in cold fusion as well.  And carburetors that triple your gas mileage with conventional engines.  And astrology, ghosts, ghosts that hang around continental faultlines, feng shui, psychics, crystals, most health studies, all psychology studies and 97% of holistic medicine.  But water divination (or dowsing) is *totally* real.  ;-)

For that matter, points made by Graphixer, DanRollins, BigRat and I have essentially been ignored by you and SStory.  Where are the testable hypotheses that make it science?  What about the cultural issues?  Explanation of the second law of thermodynamics?  The hierarchical families of animals?  Simple forms evolving to more complex forms?  The environment issue?  Debunking of irreducible complexity (flagellum, beetles, etc.) And on.  And on.  If you don't want us to brush off your explanations, don't just brush off ours.

Science requires a tenuous acceptance of truth.  We've acknowledged that evolution may be superseded by other theories... You hear us use words like "likely" and "unlikely" and talk about what is reasonable.  But somehow you and especially SStory are 100% convinced of your rightness.  You can't imagine that it could be another way.  I accept that this is a philosophical choice some make, but I believe it is stifling to the intellect.  You think you are open to things, but there's no way that you could be, if you can't even entertain the possibility of a universe governed by natural forces.

Despite this, I made the point up above, that creationists and other evolution doubters, force rigorous checking of details in evolutionary theory, which can only improve our understanding--even if evolution is overturned in part with a new paradigm.  But that still doesn't make it scientific to believe in a 6000 year old earth because of something someone got from reading the Bible.

>In fact, it makes them wrong in a very important way. Once a person allows himself the luxury of >discarding hard evidence in favor of baseless faith, that person can no longer be considered a reliable >researcher or teacher. Any conclusions he draws are suspect.
I'd say the same of evolution. Macro evolution has no proof and it requires faith and its advocates are biased toward that position. This is why they don't want to allow any other theory.

> He scares me.  I don't want his faulty mode of thinking to infect students or to be given weight in political >decisions.
I'm sure he scares you because he is not like you.  Political decisions and education are not the sole property of atheists and liberals and such.  

PaulHews:
The Bible told us the earth was round, 1000's of years ago. It mentioned the trenches in the depth of the sea before anyone had seen them and scores of other things.  Look in Job around the chapter 42 or 43 I think....  How did it do that if it was just a man made book?  Anyhow, that is another topic also.

I am entertaining the thoughts of other theories by participating in this thread.

<I hit enter too soon>
I don't believe them, but I am entertaining the people who speak of them.

SStory says:
If I choose not to believe in macro-evolution because I don't see any of the so called "missing links", but just a lot of "grasping for straws" to prove a IMO crazy theory, is that OK with you?


No, that is not OK with me.

I present for your reading pleasure (more likely, complete avoidance?):
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (including 'missing links')

They've even provided a rebuttal, and a rebuttal to the rebuttal.

Want more?  Visit any science museum in the world.  Scratch that...any non-creationist science museum in the world.

Want more than that?  Open your own thread.

Great find Graphixer.  That paper includes a large section on PaulHews' hierarchical pattern argument.

Graphixer,
>No, that is not OK with me.
That's funny. You all want people to just take your belief of evolution and have it shoved down their throats.  You all seem to claim that we are no open-minded people.  I just told you that "I don't demand that you believe in God" and then  I don't believe in macro evolution.  I asked if you were OK with that. You are not.  The reason is evolutionists seem to be guilty of all of the things they accuse us of being guilty of.  Your reply proves it.  

If you are content to believe are a purposeless, meaningless slime evolved, animal whose great, great to the 100th power granddaddy was an ape, then that is your choice.  You shouldn't try to force other people to believe it.  However, you and the rest of the evolutionists should study the implications of what your saying in this theory.  Because if "might makes right" and the "survival of the fittest" with no concern for the weaker is true (this is what Darwin taught) and it is applied to humans, then murder, rape, stealing of kids or wives and what have you couldn't be condemned as being wrong.  So if some one murders your whole family, what right as a Darwinian evolutionist would you have to protest it as being wrong?  If you study what it really says, you'd have none.  That is something to seriously think about.  Morality and right and wrong definitely DO NOT come from evolution....it would make no sense.  I don't see the zebra's family hauling the lion's off to court to sue them for murder. The murder every day (sure its to eat). What if the person who murdered your family ate them too (a cannibal)? Would that be OK with you?  These may appear to be outlandish comments, but I don't see how evolution can teach these concepts and then try to ignore their implications when applied to human beings.

I am not trying to force you to believe there is a God.  I tell you there is, but the choice is yours and I am not going to be angry if you choose your own way.

Be blessed with a great day!

All your 29+ evidences are showing is that there are some bones that could indicate different species that are perhaps extinct, or that there has been some micro evolution in humans.  Maybe our chins were a little longer and our heads bigger or smaller.  Still human...no proof of monkeys to humans.  Just a funny looking bone and a biased assumption in the direction the finder wanted the proof to point.

Snakes did have legs (read Genesis 3).  Part of their curse was to loose their legs.
As for the developmental stages of an embrio, big deal.  This is how a human develops. It in no way says we were once another type of creature.

The bottom link is still really no missing links, but "grasping for straws" as always to prove a theory that can't be proven. I believe because it isn't true.  You are welcome to keep believing that it is.  Sadly, I am 100% sure that in the end you will know that I was right.

>>with no concern for the weaker is true (this is what Darwin taught)

Sorry, that is NOT what Charles Darwin taught. He did NOT teach that we should have no concern for the weaker. You are mixing up morality with science.

>>  I don't see the zebra's family hauling the lion's off to court to sue them for murder. The murder every day (sure its to eat). What if the person who murdered your family ate them too (a cannibal)? Would that be OK with you?

What about all the pigs, cows, sheep and other farmyard animals slaughtered every day?

>>These may appear to be outlandish comments

Nope, you're wrong there. They are outlandish comments.

>If you are content to believe are a purposeless, meaningless slime evolved, animal whose great, great to the 100th power granddaddy was an ape, then that is your choice.

But talking snakes don't give you *any* pause at all?  Have any creationist scientists attempted to recreate the physiology of the voice box of a talking snake?  Enquiring minds want to know.

>Snakes did have legs (read Genesis 3).  Part of their curse was to loose their legs.

Since the original question was "What is scientific about ID?", your answer is then "Nothing" or do you believe we should teach about talking snakes in science class? That should be an interesting class:

Jimmy: Are there any other talking animals?
Teacher:  Well there was that donkey the one time.  We've tried getting them to talk, but you know how stubborn they are.  And snakes only talked until they were cursed.
Jimmy:  Why did the snakes speak Hebrew instead of say, snake?
Teacher:  Because God wanted it like that.... Now stop asking questions and open your books to chapter 6 and start the section on survival tactics when swallowed by whales.

Please don't ignore BigRat's comments, I'm curious about your answer.  Where are the Christians for the welfare of animals groups all hiding?  Christians for the preservation of the environment? I'm also curious what you think about the social structure of elephants.  Is not "dumb instinct" responsible for the care they treat each other with?  Do religious people never ask themselves *why* God made things a particular way?  

DanRollins wrote:
In fact, it makes them wrong in a very important way. Once a person allows himself the luxury of discarding hard evidence in favor of baseless faith, that person can no longer be considered a reliable researcher or teacher. Any conclusions he draws are suspect.

You have an interesting definition of hard evidence. You cannot prove how old a rock is. Its speculative. You do not know what the atmospheric conditions where 1000 years ago, much less 1 billion years ago. You dont know what the world looked like. As I mentioned already, unless you can build a time machine and take pictures of what the world was like at certain times, you cannot prove anything. You are taking what they say on faith. Just like I take what some IDers say on faith. Their arguments for flaws in radiometric dating actually are valid from a scientific standpoint. If you can't see that, then that's because YOU are blinded by your FAITH in the evolutionists. This is why I am growing tired of this discussion. You guys are blaming us for having too much faith in non-evolutionary finds, but you guys are doing the same thing with evolution. It's not FACT, It never will be until we SEE first hand a monkey turn into a human or something along those lines. Then and only then will I agree that Macro-Evolution is real. If you disagree you need to look up what FACT means. Science has a lot of THEORIES. They are called THEORIES because they cannot be proven. Math has theories too. Why? because it can't be PROVEN!! Math also has Proofs, why? Because they CAN be proven. The existence of an atom is FACT. why? Because we can SEE IT and touch it and we KNOW it exists. Is Macro Evolution FACT? No, we have not seen it happen. There is no record of it. Is Radiometric dating FACT? NO, it cannot be proven. The only way to prove it is to test it on a rock of a KNOWN AGE. What hapened when they did? It ended up with INCORRECT results. I know you don't admit to that, but that's because you don't allow anyone who doesn't beleive in Evolution to admit any scientific data

sorry for that formatting crap at the end.  I had it in word, not sure what happened when I pasted it.

PaulHews said:
We've come a long way since then, haven't we?  It's worth remembering that for all science's missteps, there have been spectacular successes.
It's worth remembering that religious arguments were employed regarding the geocentric universe.  Those first steps of science disproved the religious assumption of a geocentric universe.  I think of evolution as continuing that trend, and I realize that's a hard pill for those who have a fundamental religious belief in a universe whose purpose is centered around the existence of humanity.

Yes we have and I stated already they have been right and wrong, thus not perfect.  I do agree that religions also believes earth was the center of the universe.  I do not believe the purpose of the universe was centered around the existence of humanity, so you need to stop assuming things about people and putting words in their mouth.  The same can be said about people who believe in Evolution Theory.  It would be a hard pill for Evolutionists to swallow if it were proven that ID is correct.  IT goes both ways.

PaulHews Wrote:
When you get a letter from some doctor in Nigeria promising you two million dollars if you allow him to transfer money into your bank account, do you bother to look into it diligently, or do you delete it summarily?

This has nothing to do with science and is not related.  Stop bringing up stupid examples.

PaulHewsWrote:When I looked up your bit on "heat contamination" I found absolutelynothing that could confirm anything valid about it.  If anything,heating rocks to a certain temperature can make them appear youngerbecause it allows the diffusion of new isotopes.  The dating onlytracks the radioactive decay that is evident after the rock cools belowa certain level.  "Flaws in radiometric dating" pulls up a lot of oldstuff, about the rate of radioactive decay changing (which is baloney)about rocks not being closed systems (they are really close consideringthe radioactive isotopes) etc.  When I looked up your bit on "heat contamination" I found absolutely nothing that could confirm anything valid about it.  If anything, heating rocks to a certain temperature can make them appear younger because it allows the diffusion of new isotopes.  The dating only tracks the radioactive decay that is evident after the rock cools below a certain level.  "Flaws in radiometric dating" pulls up a lot of old stuff, about the rate of radioactive decay changing (which is baloney) about rocks not being closed systems (they are really close considering the radioactive isotopes) etc.  
How do you know what is baloney?  has it been proven to you?  I'm sure you'll answer yes, but before you do read my post above about what PROOF really means.  Rocks are closed systems, huh?  I think you need to go back to geology and science class.  You don't think water has an affect on rocks or the ingredients in them?  Uranium is water soluble for your information, so is lead, postassium, argon, and the list goes on.  So you're telling me that is a rock is submerged in water the uranium or Lead in it WILL NOT seep out and dissolve into the water?  IF you DO believe that, you need to stop this discussion because you do not understand science.  I will entertain scientific information, not this crap of rocks are closed systems.  If you and other people can't see that, then you are oblivious to science truths and are blinded by your OWN opinions and desires to prove what you want.

PaulHews Wrote:I've already learned that little of quality comes from books with titles like "Thousands not Billions" from creationist presses.

I'm sure if it said "Billions not Thousands" you would consider it truth wouldn't you?  Why because you BELIEVE the earth is billions of years old.

PaulHews Wrote:
For that matter, points made by Graphixer, DanRollins, BigRat and I have essentially been ignored by you and SStory.

I have not brushed off any PROOF of anything.  the problem is neither side has PROOF, thus this discussion really is about faith and opinions.  You guys haven't given me any respectable SCIENCE to disprove anything I've even mentioned.  It's either, "You can't trust those guys cuz they're creationists", or "You guys are blind because Evolutionists say this", or "They have an agenda".  The topic was show science for ID.  I have given some options, no one has really researched anything.  The topic said nothing about having to debunk Evolution Theory.  You asked for support of ID, I have given some.  That's fine if you don't believe it.  Don't expect others to believe what you have to say.

PaulHews:
You hear us use words like "likely" and "unlikely" and talk about what is reasonable.  But somehow you and especially SStory are 100% convinced of your rightness.

Have I said ID is correct?  No I have not.  I have just given science that supports ID and does not agree with Evolution Theories.  Again putting words in my mouth.

PaulHews Wrote:
You think you are open to things, but there's no way that you could be, if you can't even entertain the possibility of a universe governed by natural forces.

Again putting words in my mouth.  I have yet to discuss what I believe in.  That's not what this discussion is about.  I have discussed my apprehensions about the Evolution theory and why ID  has more answers at this point.  Of everyone, I would say I have been the most subjective and have left personal beliefs and religion (or lack of) out of it.  I have entertained the possibility of a universe governed by natural forces.  IF you want my thoughts on that open another thread.

PaulHews Wrote:Despite this, I made the point up above, that creationists and other evolution doubters, force rigorous checking of details in evolutionary theory, which can only improve our understanding--even if evolution is overturned in part with a new paradigm.  But that still doesn't make it scientific to believe in a 6000 year old earth because of something someone got from reading the Bible.

I agree, have people with opposite points does make us more determined and help us to be more dedicated to our work.  But the opposite can happen to.  BOTH sides have done unethical things to try to prove their theories.  Whether you can admit it or not, it's true.

Actually no where in the Bible does it say the Earth is 6000 years old, so do your homework before you try to use a book for your excuses.

SStory says:
You all want people to just take your belief of evolution and have it shoved down their throats.


Not at all. I simply want to you acknowledge that environmentally guided macro-evolution is a possibility.  I've acknowledged time and again that there very well could be a creator god, I simply don't believe there is.  You're well within your rights to not believe in evolution, but to completely close your mind off to what volumes of evidence is telling you...that's dangerous.

Evolution shows how we developed, but it doesn't shape our morality in any sense.  The sooner you understand this, the less of a problem we'll have with you.  

And if you really want to talk about shaping morality, you certainly shouldn't be using a literal interpretation of the bible(s) as guideline.

So in conclusion..."Intelligent Design"...philosophy perhaps, but not science?

>I do not believe the purpose of the universe was centered around the existence of humanity, so you need to stop assuming things about people and putting words in their mouth.

Notice that comment I made is about my beliefs, not necessarily yours.  Not that I haven't put words into your mouth.  If I've misread you as a fundamentalist Christian, forgive me.

>This has nothing to do with science and is not related.  Stop bringing up stupid examples.

It has to do with my kneejerk reaction to the book you mentioned.  I also mentioned that it might *not* be baloney, but that it managed to set off my baloney detector.  It has to do with what is reasonable to believe.  

>How do you know what is baloney?  has it been proven to you?

By your reckoning of what proof is, based on your rant above to Dan, no.  But it *is* reasonable to believe things some things that have not been proven.  

I posted this before, I guess you didn't read it...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/11/what-i-believe-but-cannot-prove/

Do you prove that every Nigerian fraud email you get is in fact fraudulent, or do you summarily delete it?  (See the relevance now?)  

Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit is a good place to start...
http://www.kent-hovind.com/baloney.htm

Although with one proviso.  Sagan says to beware of the appeal to authority, but there are times when an appeal to the right authorities is the *only* way to go.  You and I don't do radiometric dating ourselves.  We can read about it, and try to understand it, but there are a lot of technical details you will only get from years of education and hands on work.  There is a ton of writing about the dependability of radiometric dating.  Hard to believe that all those scientists over decades of work forgot about water and heat.  And if you look into critiques of creationist claims, you'll see that they haven't.  

And what's wrong with it coming from a creationist press is that there is an obvious axe to grind--they admit they are trying to prove the reality of the Bible.  And before you say the opposite is true of mainstream scientists, consider carefully...  You are operating on an assumption that there are two sides, but mainstream science is done by all kinds of people and covers lots of different territory.  Why are the geologists conspiring with the evolutionists?  Why are the Christians going against the biblical version?

Further, for the "thousands not billions" claim to be true, *all* tests that show an age greater than in the thousands have to be incorrect.  For the baloney claim, only the few tests run by those few creationists have to be wrong.  

So based on that kind of analysis, I think it's highly unlikely that this book has any useful criticism of radiometric dating... Into the baloney pile with it!

PaulHews Wrote:
By your reckoning of what proof is, based on your rant above to Dan, no.  But it *is* reasonable to believe things some things that have not been proven.  

Ahhh, now we are getting somewhere.  That I will agree with.  I CAN see why people believe Evolution Theory is valid.  I do not believe that there is enough proof to claim that it is fact or truth.  I can ALSO see how IDism can be seen as valid, even more so than Evolution, because with IDism, EVERYTHING is answered.  Granted, Evolutionists see it as an easy way out or cheap way out to say it's "because a deity made it that way", BUT at least it has all the answers that some people seek.  Going back to who are we to say that they are wrong in wanting all the questions answered?  

I posted this before, I guess you didn't read it...

I did read it, and it only supports what I have said about the fact that you CANNOT call something unprovable FACT.  Yes you can test something as much as you want, but unless you can PROVE it, it's not fact.  They thought they had tested that the world was flat, but they didn't.  it was just so big it SEEMED flat.  We have PROVEN that the world is round (or roundish) because we have been been in space we have seen the shape, we can PROVE the general shape of the earth.  People are definitely allowed to BELIEVE in something that has been tested, but they cannot call it fact and demand others to admit it is true.  
Let's take gravity for example.  This takes me back to the play/movie Rosencrantzs and Guildenstern are Dead (great play if you have read and enjoyed Hamlet).  The guy drops a feather and a iron ball (iirc).  He is wondering why one drops slower than the other.  If you didn't know better you would say gravity doesn't act the same on different objects.  Which WAS an item of debate at one time.  What wasn't taken into account was friction of air, and even what the object consists of.  of course a feather is going to drop slower than a iron ball.  We know that now.  We can prove it with mathematical equations in a controlled environment.  having said that, what if we throw in some wind, or some fire, or even some water?  How is the feather going to react then?  How about the iron ball?  I would say it's practically IMPOSSIBLE to say what's going to happen to the feather, but the iron ball is still going to fall down to the ground almost unaffected by the outside forces (unless you have crazy winds or extremely high heat).  Can we PROVE what the effects are on the feather by those forces?  Nope, we can't.  There's no equations, there's not a picture, there's not anything that will tell us exactly what will happen if the feather is wet, exposed to hot air, and/or wind.  This is the same concept as the effects of stuff on radiometric decay.  Of course there's no proof on what can happen.  We don't know.  that's the point.  And anyone who says they KNOW high temperatures or water have no effect on decay reactions in rocks is fooling themselves.  Sure they have a right to believe there is no effect and people have a right to believe there IS an effect.  To me it's obvious there would be some sort of effect.  To what extent?  I don't know.  To others, they don't think it's applicable.  Same with what you believe about all you do believe in.  You may think it's obvious, but others may not agree.

CCSOFlag,

I'm not a trained scientist, but wouldn't it be extremely easy to test the fallibility of radiocarbon dating?  Simply carbon date a variety of items, then heat them to varying degrees, then date them again.  I would think that there would be a wide variety of reproducible tests one can do to totally debunk carbon dating quickly and effectively.

So why hasn't anyone done these?  And if they have, why hasn't radiocarbon dating been thoroughly debunked in peer-reviewed publications?

And I agree...most scientific principles aren't strictly 'fact'.  However, science tends look at the likelihood.  What are the odds that evolutionary principles are correct given the volume of knowledge that we've accumulated over the last 150+ years?  90%? 95%? 99%?

What are the odds that ID is correct?  We don't know.  There's no way to test ID.  That's the point.

I can also understand why people believe in ID.  But to paraphrase a favorite musician of mine; I'd much rather face the 'terrible truth' than put my trust in a 'beautiful lie'.

>> Morality and right and wrong definitely DO NOT come from evolution...
Wrong.  All throughout nature there are countless examples of cooperation between and among species.  Think of the moth that pollinates the Joshua tree.  It destroys a certain number of seed pods, but no more.  It is a symbiotic relationship -- it benefits by NOT going overboard.   Species reach what is called a "Nash Equilibrium" -- it's all part of the theory of evolution.
It's reasonable to assume that humans have evolved in such as way as to lean towards cooperating.  There is a big survival dividend to working with other humans rather than just killing and taking what you want.  Of course it's not just hard-coded in the genes --   the idea of morality having value in a society would certainly come up in any species that had a large, complex thinking capacity.
PaulHews,
>>we should teach about talking snakes in science class
LOL.  But you failed to mention the compelling argument (of a 7-yr-old) that that Mr. Ed can talk and he is a horse, of course.

I'm not a trained scientist, but wouldn't it be extremely easy to test the fallibility of radiocarbon dating?  Simply carbon date a variety of items, then heat them to varying degrees, then date them again.  I would think that there would be a wide variety of reproducible tests one can do to totally debunk carbon dating quickly and effectively.

So why hasn't anyone done these?  And if they have, why hasn't radiocarbon dating been thoroughly debunked in peer-reviewed publications?

Carbon dating I am not sure if it is affected by heat, because it's different than most radiometric dating.  Carbon dating looks at C14 which has a relatively short half life compared to others.  They main problem has been water.

As far as the other radiometric dating, you are talking about such high temperatures that most elements cannot handle it.  They'd just melt.  Think back to videos of what lava does to pretty much everything.  Cars burst in to flames and melt, buildings collapse and turn to lava, etc.  You would have to start looking at building your testing facilities out of Molybdenum, Tungsten, etc.  I would guess that this would be a ridiculously expensive project that no one could afford even if it were possible (which I'm not sure if it is or isn't.).  I would love to see the results of this though.  IF they did do a legitimate test involving these temperatures, I would definitely read it and accept the results.

And I agree...most scientific principles aren't strictly 'fact'.  However, science tends look at the likelihood.  What are the odds that evolutionary principles are correct given the volume of knowledge that we've accumulated over the last 150+ years?  90%? 95%? 99%?

What are the odds that ID is correct?  We don't know.  There's no way to test ID.  That's the point.

I can also understand why people believe in ID.  But to paraphrase a favorite musician of mine; I'd much rather face the 'terrible truth' than put my trust in a 'beautiful lie'.

I think people believe IDism over Evolution because it doesn't have any missing links or wrong answers per say.  But a lot of IDers see flaws in Evolution, thus they do not believe in it.  There are also people like you who feel as you do and there is definitely nothing wrong with that.

To sum it up, it's not so much the proof of IDism that makes people doubt Evolutionism.  It's the lack of proof for Evolutionism.  For people like me, I want 100% answers.  I'm a logical mind who doesn't assume things.  That's just how I am.  Yes I have a scientific mind, BUT I want FACTS, not assumptions.  Evolutionism has been built on both, thus I do not accept it.  Until all the doubts have been proven incorrect, I just can't accept Evolution Theory.

Forgive me CCSOFlag, I'm not sure I know the differences between ratiometric and radiocarbon dating.

However this begs the question...if we're talking about volcanic-level heat, or heat that can melt rock, then how does this apply to dating objects and fossils found in sediment?  These things aren't spit out by volcanoes, they're objects covered in layers of dirt or sediment over long stretches of time.   Even if there were volcanic events that killed some dinosaurs, the vast majority of fossils were not affected by heat events in any way.

So let's assume for a moment that extreme heat (of the type that is difficult to reproduce) can indeed affect radiometric dating.  My question is...so?  That still doesn't negate the dating that's done on the vast majority of objects studied by paleontologists, right?

"For people like me, I want 100% answers."

And so we have the crux of the problem.

Let's say we found legitimate (and multiple) fossils for 99% of the creatures that ever lived on Earth, they were dated with a technique that worked to your satisfaction, and we mapped out their evolutionary path in a family tree for all to see and examine.  You still wouldn't believe in evolution because of that missing 1%?

Graphixer,

Carbon Dating is considered radiometric dating, but is far different in what they are looking at.  Carbon dating is ONLY for organic objects.  Things that were alive.  It doesn't work on rocks for example.  Carbon dating supposedly can only go back to I think 60k years iirc.  After that all C14 is supposed to have dissipated.  Most the rest of radiometric dating using reactions with far longer half life.

I appreciate your question.  Most radiometric dating cannot be used for fossils or sedimentary rocks.  It can only be used for igneous rocks.  The age of most fossils are actually determined by relative dating based on the age of the rocks below/above the fossils.  Sedimentary rocks are comprised of erosion or particles from Igneous rocks among other things (such as organic material, minerals, etc.).  As you could imagine if they tried to "date" the sedimentary rocks, they would get the "date" of the igneous rocks it was eroded from rather than the date the sedimentary rock was formed.  There are a couple dating methods they use, but it relies on the minerals that were deposited with the matter they are testing.  There is no way to tell how much of this mineral was initially there, nor do they know how much of it could have been diluted away by water (since it is sedimentary rock).

As far as the high temperatures I mentioned:  to get any sort of results of temperature affects on reactions within a reasonable amount of time (whether the earth is 10,000, 1 milion, or 3 billion years old), you would HAVE to have those high temperatures to be noticable.  For example, let's say the earth WAS 1 million years old.  IF let's say the extreme heat cuts the half life in half, and we are talking about Uranium 235-Lead207 dating (the lowest half life for the popular dating methods at 704 million years).  Now the half life should show 352 million years.  You are not going to see any noticable change over let's say over a months time even.  Also, because decay is random, you can only get good results over a long period of time.  For example in a half a half life you may only lose 1/3 of what is normal, then the next half of the half could be the other 2/3.  So let's say the month that you did the test only showed a fraction of that third of the decay that was supposed to happen, it'll throw off your data. There's just no way to do that unless you have EXTREME heat to speed the process fast enough to get reliable reults.

Graphixer wrote:
Let's say we found legitimate (and multiple) fossils for 99% of the creatures that ever lived on Earth, they were dated with a technique that worked to your satisfaction, and we mapped out their evolutionary path in a family tree for all to see and examine.  You still wouldn't believe in evolution because of that missing 1%?

Ah, that's a very honest and detailed question.  Would I accept Evolution as a whole?  no.  I would accept the legitimate parts you mentioned, but not the parts that were not.  For example, if there was the proof you mentioned of all the links to all the different insects, but they couldn't find all of the mammal ones, then I would accept the insect side of the story but not the mammal side until I see the proof.  Of course this would require (like you said) proof of dating methods being accurate, proof of all the links for that tree, etc.

CCSOFlag,
>>There are plenty of so called Christians who couldn't even tell you what Christianity meant.
That means they are "Christians" in label only--basically impostors.  A true Christian or Buddhist or Muslim cannot be as you say.  It is their life.  So you'd really need find a real Christian before you judge the whole camp by the impostors that are running around. It is a shame that it is that way.  I can see where it would be confusing.  I could stand in my garage and say "I am a car", but that wouldn't be true.  Likewise not all who attend a church service are really Christians

As persecution increases against Christians, those "Christians" will be exposed and fall away because none of them will be willing to die for what they believe in. A true Christian will (take the girl at Columbine for example). There was a true Christian--someone who'd not deny Jesus even in the face of death.

Graphixer,

>>And if you really want to talk about shaping morality, you certainly shouldn't be using a literal >>interpretation of the bible(s) as guideline.

>So in conclusion..."Intelligent Design"...philosophy perhaps, but not science?

These are two different topics. ID, and the Bible.

Reading the Bible literally answers many of the questions that billions of dollars have been spent to try to reanswer.  

1.)  The Bible told us that the earth was round and not flat (Isaiah 40:22  He sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.) since this is Isaiah it is probably also in the Jewish version.
2.)  It tells us where we came from, why we're in this mess, what the solution is.  Where we are going. That we have significance.
3.)  It tells us how to live civic-wise, cleanliness wise. It talks of the proper disposal of sewage long before Europe implemented it (many died because they didn't)  It said to go outside the camp, dig a hole and cover it up. The idea is get it away from people and bury it.  It gives a moral law and of course gave rituals which I believe were fulfilled in Jesus and are no longer necessary(The rituals).  It also told the proper burial methods (Europe ignored this, dead people gooped down on the paul bearers and death caused more sickness there..the Bible already told them how to do it right)
4.)  It tells about the deep sea trenches 1000's of years before any could have possibly seen them.
5.)  It tells us not to kill, not to steal, not want and take another man's stuff or wife, and much more. ( a good moral code)
6.)  It provides the foundation for much of the current legal system.  Moses is shown all over the US Supreme court for a reason.  As were the 10 commandments everywhere until Bible haters who don't remember what the founders knew, started trying to remove what they valued.
I could go on and on and on, so your premise is not valid...but this isn't the correct thread to continue a discussion about the Bible being taken literally...If you want to open one, I'll participate as I have time.


>So in conclusion..."Intelligent Design"...philosophy perhaps, but not science?
AS for this.  This is your opinion because you are bent towards evolution.  ID is definitely science.  Proving or disproving it is definitely science and not philosophy.  What you do with the results of proving that ID is so, would probably get into religion unless you decided that we came from aliens...but then you have the same old problem of where did they come from? Were they God? Someone or something has to be the first cause.   ID is just saying that there is design in the universe and order.  So I do not agree with your final assessment.

Can we alter genetics to create an entirely new species?  I don't know?  I believe we were given incredible power by God from the beginning.  Given enough time it is possible that we can do almost anything because we were made in his image thus given part of His ability to imagine.  Time will tell. Can we modify genetics and get another species or a big mess--an abomination?  I don't know.

I agree; however, that this thread is going no where.  You are convinced of your position. That is fine.  I am convinced of mine. So I guess it is up to all who read as to which they will believe.  This is the crux of my point. All should be presented both to make their own choices rather than being mandated to believe one or the other.

Unless there is something that we haven't already discussed...that comes up before this is closed...I'm done.

Be blessed!

Can we get some 'Id' from this 'ID' ?

I believe I discussed this issue, a long long time ago,
in a place far far away, where atheist and creationist clash over evolution.

From my POV, Evolution is great in making us understand alot of things about us and nature however as many people point it out that there are some issues with it, like of 'How did it begin and why?' and many other questions in between.

The idea of an ID is not distanced from evolution infact people who claim to teach about an ID do not disregard evolution, infact what they try to do is patch up the some missing parts of evolution and some where there might be conflict.ing ideas.

IMO, the idea of an ID is not old one but rather a new one and purely invented to diffuse the lines between Evolution and Creationism. I believe alot of 'educated' people if told about Evolution would believe it, but then the issue of faith, religion and God is raised, not by Scientist but by Atheist. Strange enough this has rather made the idea of an ID more popular then ever.

As I once pointed out that 'Evolution' is now not about Science but rather a debate between some Atheist and Theism over God. Ultimately that is what it really comes down to and neither side really understands Evolution.

 
-Muj ;-)

The debate is really about:
Is it ever reasonable to insert "step n must have been done magically by God" into any discussion, any chain of reasoning, that purports to be about science?
And the simple answer is "NO."

>> Is it ever reasonable to insert "step n must have been done magically by God" into any discussion, any chain of reasoning, that purports to be about science.
And the simple answer is "NO." <<

I totally agree with that but then it should be true the other way round to, that Science does not go out of it way to go and disprove an existing of a God. Infact that is what Atheist try to do and you should consider that because that is where the problem lies.

-Muj ;-)

>>And anyone who says they KNOW high temperatures or water have no effect on decay reactions in rocks is fooling themselves

It was first Madame Curie who tried a great variety of things to see what would effect this new force (then not known as radioactivity), like chemicals, electiricity and so on. Finding nothing she declared the new phenemonen as radioactivity. These days the Wheeler-Salem theory of the weak force covers these decays and the electromagnetic force (which occurs in chemistry, electiricity and so on) has no effect on the rate of decay (different bosons). So here, nobody is fooling themselves.

What however is probably discussed is the degree of carbon-13 in organic material due to the cosmic radiation effect on nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. Although the sun seems to run in 11-year cycles the interstellar cosmic radiation is probably very constant - at least over periods of millions of years - since that is no time astrologically.

>>The existence of an atom is FACT. why? Because we can SEE IT and touch it and we KNOW it exists

Wrong I'm afraid. You cannot "see" atoms because the light necessary is beyound your seeing capabilities. What you see is in fact only a representation of the "atom" and that made into a point light object as well. In fact what you "see" is quantum mechanically determined and not some sort of absolute. Your comments on maths and it's "proofs" are also incorrect. They all depend on certain postulates which are by definition unprovable. The mathematical heirarchy, like all of science, is based on some axioms and holds together by the concept of probability and reasonableness. It seems to me that you pick and choose what you seem to be "reasonable" on cultural or religious grounds. It is NOT reasonable that particle interactoins are random - God does not play dice as Einstein said, and a great deal of other quantum effects are not reasonable, yet they are held to be so on account of the other things which they predict or confirm.

However the real issue here is something which I keep comming back to, yet most people side-step. THe philosophy of Science was laid down in the seventeenth centuary by people like Blaise Pascal and René Descartes and exercised by many a rich man in that and the subsequent centuary. This philosophy and it's results have transformed the world we live in and allows us everything from computers to cars, has put man on the moon and gives us MP3 players. It has also eradicated most diseases such that, providing we live healthily enough, has increased our life span enormously (both Pascal and Descartes died around the age of forty). It is this philosophy which is being challenged, for the objections to evolutionary science are not scientific.
   The objection to a general theory, like that of radiomeic dating, cannot be based on the assumption that water *may* have washed out some of the material, it must be based on the scientific principle of showing how, why and under what circumstances that can occur. And indeed if it can be shown to be so in certain specific cases, it is only reasonable to believe that this is so in all cases, thus invalidating the general theory, when the specific can be generalized.
   It is often, in science, unfortunate that certain theories gain ground and become established although they might be flawed. The best case in point is Dirac's Quantum Theory, which predicted the positron and is conformat with special relativity, which also introduced the principle of superposition, although the extended Stern-Gerlach experiment and Bell's inequality (and its confirming experiments) show the contrary. Since nobody can prove the contrary, and given Dirac's stature in the scientific community, it continues to be taught. Objections on religious (Einstein) or cultural (Bohm, de Broglie) grounds are not sufficient.And neither should they be.

   The question therefore arises what should be taught in schools. Luckily the differences between the Quantum antagonists are so techincal in nature that it makes little difference until the sophomore year. But in schools the problems in Biology cannot be avoided without course to the basics of Evolutionary Theory, even if wrapped up in modern genetics or biochemistry. One just can't get around avoiding scientific theories of how life started.

   There are only two possible approaches. IDism would need to make itself Science, which so far has not happened. Or the anti-evolutionists will have to prove enough of evolutionary theory to be invalid that the scientific community would reject it. So far this has not even started since the IDist claims are all based on "reasonableness" and not alternative hard evidence. Like I said, it is not sufficient to say that perhaps water washed something out. It is necessary to prove it.

BigRat Wrote:It was first Madame Curie who tried a great variety of things to see what would effect this new force (then not known as radioactivity), like chemicals, electiricity and so on. Finding nothing she declared the new phenemonen as radioactivity. These days the Wheeler-Salem theory of the weak force covers these decays and the electromagnetic force (which occurs in chemistry, electiricity and so on) has no effect on the rate of decay (different bosons). So here, nobody is fooling themselves.

Your point?  I didn't say chemicals or electricity sped up the process; I have no idea if they do.  I said HEAT is thought to possibly affect radioactive decay, and it hasn't been researched enough to find it DOESN'T.  Until they do, it is perfectly reasonable to say it DOES have an effect considering the QUOTE from a university (that doesn't support creationism btw) that I posted above saying heat DOES affect dating.  The bottom line is there is no PROOF that heat or water does not affect decay rates.  It's almost impossible to test it.  You are talking processes that take at least 700 million years.  No one can test long enough to get any results that would be reliable.  Let's say you have 100,000parts of Uranium235.  in 700 million years you will now have 50,000 of Uranium235 and 50,000 of Lead207.  Divide that into the amount of time it took to decay.  You have 1 part decaying per 10000 years.  Now if they wanted to test the reaction of let's say heat to this process.  How are you going to test for a difference of 1 part in 10000 years?  Even if they were able to speed up the process by 1000 times you would still only see 1  part decay in 10 years.  There is no way to tes tit.  If you can successfully explain to me how they could reliably test heat's affect on radioactive decay and show that they have done it, then I will trust radioctive dating methods.  Until then stop bring other thigns up that I didn't even talk about.  Thus if they ahve not proven that heat doesn't affect radioactive dating, then they are ASSUMING something about the decay process aren't they?  It's smiliar to the moon moving away from the Earth, or the tetonic plates moving.  Can you tell my watching them or doing any sort of shrot term test?  No, it's too small to notice.  You have to have tests done over a period of time.  Of course the period of time required for this is much shorter than the half lives.  Get the point?

Not intending to interrupt.

 "...talking processes that take at least 700 million years. "

Be that as it may be, for the purposes of this thread, it seems sufficient to simply show the age of the earth is far from being 6,000 years old.

As you were...

BigRat Wrote:What however is probably discussed is the degree of carbon-13 in organic material due to the cosmic radiation effect on nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. Although the sun seems to run in 11-year cycles the interstellar cosmic radiation is probably very constant - at least over periods of millions of years - since that is no time astrologically.

I'm assuming you meant C-14.  If you did your homework you would know that the radiation from the sun is not the only way for an organism to absorb C-14.  Let's take a cow.  They eat lots of grass.  They intake all the C-14 that is in that grass, plus all the C-14 they are absorbing from the radiation you speak of.  They are not accounting for what these animals eat.  Water contains particles of everything.  Dead animals, minerals from everything it comes in contact with, etc.  You don't think fish that live in it absorb any of this C-14 they are constantly passing through their body?

WaterStreet Wrote:
Be that as it may be, for the purposes of this thread, it seems sufficient to simply show the age of the earth is far from being 6,000 years old.

How?  Just because a reaction takes a certain amount of time doesn't make the substance it is in that old.  Let's say the Earth is only 6000 years old.  The half life of Uranium-235 can still be 700 million years.  That's just like saying because it's Monday 2*3=7.  

Can we please stop these unjustified and irrelevant posts please?  If you do not understand the subject discussed, stay out of the discussion.

BigRat Wrote:
Wrong I'm afraid. You cannot "see" atoms because the light necessary is beyound your seeing capabilities. What you see is in fact only a representation of the "atom" and that made into a point light object as well. In fact what you "see" is quantum mechanically determined and not some sort of absolute.

Um, yes you can.  We may have to use a device to help us see it, but you can see it.  Did you know they can even (and have) use photographic paper to view the results of the electron microscope?  It's particles is it not?  That's just like saying we can't "see" IR images and they don't exist.  Sure I do agree that our human eye cannot see these things without help, but with certain devices we can. I never said we know exactly what makes up an atom, I simply said we know they exist.  And they do.  Tell me how you can split something that isn't there?

BigRat Wrote:Your comments on maths and it's "proofs" are also incorrect. They all depend on certain postulates which are by definition unprovable. The mathematical heirarchy, like all of science, is based on some axioms and holds together by the concept of probability and reasonableness.

For example?

BigRat:
It seems to me that you pick and choose what you seem to be "reasonable" on cultural or religious grounds.

And you don't?  Everyone does

BigRat Wrote:The objection to a general theory, like that of radiomeic dating, cannot be based on the assumption that water *may* have washed out some of the material, it must be based on the scientific principle of showing how, why and under what circumstances that can occur. And indeed if it can be shown to be so in certain specific cases, it is only reasonable to believe that this is so in all cases, thus invalidating the general theory, when the specific can be generalized.

and saying radiometric dating is NOT affected by water is not assuming?  Again how do we test it on something that takes so long to happen?  I have already said that both Uranium, and Lead are soluble in water, thus it IS scientific to think that water WOULD have an affect on particles in the rock, thus affecting the dating.  You put lead/uranium/potassium/etc particles in water, the water will absorb some every time.

BigRate Wrote:
It is often, in science, unfortunate that certain theories gain ground and become established although they might be flawed.

I agree and it happens too often including with radiometric dating methods.  

BigRat Wrote:
Objections on religious (Einstein) or cultural (Bohm, de Broglie) grounds are not sufficient.

I agree.  When have I given a religious argument?  cultural?  I'd say heat affecting reactions is a legitimate scientific concern.  Let me try this to get my point across.  What does water typically do to fire?  It puts it out.  Now let's take extremely hot fire (forgive me I do not know the actual temperature of this).  What happens if you try to put water on it?  It FUELS the fire.  The extreme heat causes the water molecules to split into Hydrogen and Oxygen.  If you know anything about chemistry you know this is BAD.  What caused the difference in reactions between water and fire?  The amount of HEAT.  You think heat doesn't affect other things?

BigRat Wrote:
The question therefore arises what should be taught in schools. Luckily the differences between the Quantum antagonists are so techincal in nature that it makes little difference until the sophomore year. But in schools the problems in Biology cannot be avoided without course to the basics of Evolutionary Theory, even if wrapped up in modern genetics or biochemistry. One just can't get around avoiding scientific theories of how life started.

I don't have a problem with teaching stuff in school.  BUT, when it is not FACT or PROVEN, it shouldn't be taught as though it is.  I think it is good to learn about what they THINK the Evolution Theory is all about.  But that's as far as it should go.  They should not be teaching people that we all came from Apes as a truth, because it's not.  In math, they teach stuff as theories if they are not proven.  they don't say it's FACT.  The only FACT about it is that it's a theory.

BigRat Wrote:
Or the anti-evolutionists will have to prove enough of evolutionary theory to be invalid that the scientific community would reject it. So far this has not even started since the IDist claims are all based on "reasonableness" and not alternative hard evidence. Like I said, it is not sufficient to say that perhaps water washed something out. It is necessary to prove it.

Why does the burden of truth lie on the people who don't believe in the theory?  Shouldn't the burden of truth lie on the people who are selling the theory?  I think Evolutionists need to PROVE that water and heat does not affect dating methods if they are going to use decay as their dating methods.  That's the problem.  Everyone just wants to say this is how it is and not prove it's reliability.  Why not?  If you are trying to say something is true, then PROVE it.  Don't make others disprove you.  If you PROVE it then there is no room for others to DISPROVE you.  

CCSOFlag,


1.  "Can we please stop these unjustified and irrelevant posts please?"  

You're not the asker of this thread, and are not the decider of what is unjustified or irrelevant.  You can do this in your own threads with great latitude. You might consider opening one of your own.


2.  "If you do not understand the subject discussed, stay out of the discussion."

You also suggested to PaulHews:
"you need to stop this discussion because you do not understand science."

You're not in any position to dictate the participation of others here.


3. Since you have offered your opinion to me, I'll offer mine to you in the subject of this thread, following your critique of other participants' understanding.

You and SStory seem to think that evolution teaches that man descended from apes.  

For example:
    SStory said:
    "If you are content to believe are a purposeless, meaningless slime evolved, animal whose great, great to the 100th power granddaddy was an ape, then that is your choice."  

    You said:
    "They should not be teaching people that we all came from Apes as a truth, because it's not."

That's not the theory.  The theory is that today's humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Moreover, two participants (including PaulHews) referred to that common ancestry (as part of the evolution theory) prior to the misunderstood ideas in the ape postings of yours and SStory.

That is a very fundamental concept in the understanding of evolution theory.  The fact that you are without that understanding and are here critiquing the understanding of others, compounded by the fact that you both seem to not be listening, is very troubling in the pursuit of better understandings for this thread topic.


Therefore:


Graphixer,

In my opinion, if the proponents of ID exhibited the behavior and lack of understanding described above, I wouldn't want their program taught in the schools.

Instead, I favor teaching the whole scientific truth about evolution, as described in my postings at 03/28/09 11:19 PM and
03/29/09 01:33 AM

An insightful thread.

I thought WaterStreet's 6,000-year vs 700-million-year comment was directly on point.
Even if the accuracy of a dating technique can be shown to be wrong by a considerable amount, say an order of magnitude, then instead of 700,000,000 it's still 70,000,000 years. The idea that it is wrong by four orders of magnitude -- and that such an enormous discrepancy had not been noticed by the entire community of scientists who make a career out of studying and examining these things -- is simply ludicrous.
Other details, such as how many layers of sediment cover a fossil and reasonable estimates of how long it takes to put down a layer, and tests of magnetic polarity, and etc, all contribute to validate the dating techniques. As stated before, publishing solid disproof of these dating techniques are career makers. One has to assume a huge conspiracy in order to disbelieve the validity of these dating techniques.

DanRollins Wrote:I thought WaterStreet's 6,000-year vs 700-million-year comment was directly on point.  Even if the accuracy of dating technique can be shown to be wrong by a considerable amount, say an order of magnitude, then instead of 700,000,000 it's still 70,000,000 years.  The idea that it is wrong by four orders of magnitude -- and that such an enormous discrepancy had not been noticed by the entire community of scientists who make a career out of studying and examining these things --  is simply ludicrous.omg, no it's not.  you are missing the point too.  You guys are confusing half life with the age of the earth.  The half life of any radioactive material is completely independent of the age of the earth.  Let's pretend that the earth didn't even exist.  Was never created.  Does that mean the half life of Uranium235 doesn't exist in the same conditions?  No.  The half life is still the half life.  Let's say the earth is 50 billion years old and all other factors are the same.  Does that change the half life of U235?  No.  If the earth is 3 billion years old.  Does the half life change?  No.  If the earth is 100 million years old?  nope.  5 days old?  no, the half life is still the half life.  It's still 700 million as long as all the factors are same.  Now if you throw in different factors that can affect reactions it will change the half life time, not the age of the earth.  But since they use radiometric decay for their dating methods and they DON'T know what has happened to this material they are testing, then there really is no basis for which they come up with the dates.  They can't even say that 3 billion is the oldest the earth CAN be because you don't know if something slows down the proces either.

WaterStreet,

That will depend on who you ask.  There are plenty of studies out there (charts and pictures included) that claim we evolved from apes.  There are also studies out there that claim we came from different lines, and as you said share common ancestors.


As far as what people are talking about on the thread, I haven't seen Graphixer on trying to police this thread in any way and allows unrelated comments, so I was trying to keep people on track.  IF you don't keep people on track you're going to lose the people you are trying to discuss with.  Unless your goal was just to bring in the people who agree with you and bash IDism instead of what the original topic really was...

WaterStreet,

OK, I see my name in this again...
>>You and SStory seem to think that evolution teaches that man descended from apes.
There are plenty of evolutionists who have taught this.  Common ancestor or whatever, the premise is that we are little different from the apes.

This is probably off topic, and I don't mean to offend you, but having spoken with you before and in simple sincerity/curiosity, I must ask, why would a person who says he is a Jew who believes in the Hebrew scriptures and, "Hear oh Israel the Lord God is One...", believe in such an inferior theory or origin and existence and defend it so instead of believing the scriptures that he claims to believe?
Have the Jews accepted Evolution instead of Creation (I know probably another topic).... Fine, I'll start one.

OK WaterStreet, (hopefully to avoid going off topic too much), here's the thread:

Have the Jews accepted Darwinian Evolution and thus Rejected the Creation Story of their Scriptures?
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/24299708/Have-the-Jews-accepted-Darwinian-Evolution-and-thus-Rejected-the-Creation-Story-of-their-Scriptures.html

I look forward to hearing you and hopefully other Jews give answers to this question.  Other serious comments are also welcome.  However, it would seem only self proclaimed Jews could really answer the question properly.  Maybe there is a division.

CCSOFlag,
You also appear to misunderstand the concept of half-life. If the half-life is say 100 years, then that does not mean that someone needs to wait around 100 years to see if half of the atoms decayed! If you wait 50 years and 1/4 of them decayed then you know the half-life is 100 years. If you wait 10 years and 5% of them decayed then you know the half-life is 100 years. Modern instruments measure a sample so precisely that reasonable extrapolations can made even into the distant past.
About the 6000-year issue: Surely you've heard of that? The so-called " Young Earth Creationist" place that as the time of the creation of the earth. The point that WaterStreet (and I) make is that showing the earth to be older (much, much older) than 6000 years would be strong evidence against the "Young Earth" theory.

DanRollins,

No I understand it perfectly fine.  Thanks for your concern though.  If you read my issues in detail you would find that waiting for a half life is only part of the problem.  The other part is the amount of time required to test to see if there would be a difference.  Let's say there is a sample with a million parts of Uranium 235.  For ONE part to decay to Lead it would take on average over 1400 years for ONE particle to decay.  Do you understand this?????  1400 years for ONE particle.  Do I need to say it again?  You cannot sit and WATCH decay happen.  It is TOO SLOW.  So let's take a 500 year time period.  How do you measure the decay of NOTHING?  If that 500 year period did have a particle decay, there is nothing to see decaying.  I don't think you understand the time frames we are talking about here with decay.


Yes, if you have evidence and can prove the earth is older than 6000 then that would mean the earth is older than 6000 years old.  A decay half life is not proof of the age of the earth.  If the earth WAS only 6000 years old, then that would just mean nothing has successfully completed a half life's worth of decay.

OK, I did not address that because I thought it was obvious.  
You forget how many atoms are in a sample.  You can fit maybe five million million hydrogen atoms on the surface of a pinhead.  So on a pin head, one part in a million is still a huge number -- five million.  It's not one, it's five million.  It's a huge sample.

DanRollins Wrote:
OK, I did not address that because I thought it was obvious.  
You forget how many atoms are in a sample.  You can fit maybe five million million hydrogen atoms on the surface of a pinhead.  So on a pin head, one part in a million is still a huge number -- five million.  It's not one, it's five million.  It's a huge sample.

Uranium is very rare in the earth's crust, but for arguments' sake I will entertain your idea.  If it WERE measurable.  Let's look at Pb in the earth's crust.  It's around .0013% of the Earths crust.  Compared to Uranium's .0002% there is a lot more Lead in the earth's crust than Uranium.  Now if you assume that all the Lead came from Uranium decay, I could see why people think the earth is so old.  How do you know that all that Lead is from the decay of Uranium?  That is exactly what Scientists assume when testing for Dating using this method.  You're telling me, before Uranium decayed there was no Lead on the earth at all?  I have a hard time believing that.  Even if just 10% of the Lead was originally there it cuts your date by almost half.  Again maybe it goes back to what is reasonable to believe, and that is different for everyone.  I do not think it's reasonable to believe there was no lead on earth before Uranium.

Do you ever bother to look things up?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating
Uranium-lead dating is usually performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other minerals such as monazite, titanite, and baddeleyite. Zircon incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystalline structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore we can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic.

You can ASSUME that huh?  I see why it's so believable now.

and you're going to trust wikipedia?  come on get a real source?

Hmmm:
"Zircon         often contains traces of radioactive elements in its structure, which causes it to be metamict. This unstable form of Zircon, called Cyrtolite,         is characterized by rounded, almost domal crystals, which         are usually dull or pitchy in luster. When heated, these metamict Zircon         crystals become stable, and revert to their normal crystal structure. This also changes the color and         transparency of the stone. Most Zircon gems undergo this         process of heating to make them transparent and colorful.         Even Zircon that is not radioactive can be heated to         enhance its color and transparency. Radioactive Zircon         that has undergone the metamiction process is occasionally called         "Low Zircon", and stable Zircon with an intact crystal lattice "High Zircon"."

link: http://www.minerals.net/mineral/silicate/neso/zircon/zircon.htm

Not saying it proves or means anything.  Just pointing it out.

>What happens if you try to put water on it?  It FUELS the fire.  The extreme heat causes the water molecules to split into Hydrogen and Oxygen.  If you know anything about chemistry you know this is BAD.  What caused the difference in reactions between water and fire?  The amount of HEAT.  You think heat doesn't affect other things?<

It requires energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen.  Even if it was possible for a fire to be hot enough to do this, it could not fuel the fire, as it could only re-release the energy absorbed to separate the two elements.  Net energy gain from converting water to H2 and O2 and back to water is zero.  Given that this is high school level science, someone who has high level physics and chemistry courses would be expected to know it.
 
>BUT, when it is not FACT or PROVEN, it shouldn't be taught as though it is.
 
It's incongruous that you take atomic theory as a fact, but quibble over something like the age of the earth...  Atomic theory has a whole network of unprovable assumptions and models.  Unless you expect chemistry class to consist of nothing more than: "We suspect that everything is made of smaller particles called atoms.  We don't really know what they are or how they work."

On the other hand, the age of the earth is reasonably straight forward and measurable.  Again, it's only that it contradicts a particular holy book that this creates *any* kind of controversy, because the people who do the science have so many measurements, using different methodologies,  that agree around the few billion years neighborhood.  (Read the link posted at http:#a24044309 )

Did I say the atomic theory was a fact?  no.  I said we know atoms exist.  the existence of atoms is not theory.

I HAVE read the link posted.  There is actually more research out there saying that the 1:1 ratio they speak of for the initial amount of Sr is INCORRECT.  Read my article under math and science about isotopes.

tbh, I grow weary of this discussion because everyone keeps bringing up "reasonable".  No where is science defined as reasonableness.  Let's look at the first definition according to webster (I'd say webster is a reliable dictionary, or is it published by Creationists?):

 1. the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

Where in that definition does it say what's reasonable to believe, or what seems to make sense?????  NO WHERE.  science is suppose to be what we KNOW.  Oh now do I have to define know?  OK, here it is:  
1 a              (1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of              (2): to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself>              (3): to recognize the nature of : discern b              (1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known              (2): to be acquainted or familiar with              (3): to have experience of
2 a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>

have they directly percieved all the factors that could have taken place when the rock was formed and even after?  Did they previously know the initial content of that rock?  Did they experience the world 3 billion years ago?  No, they didn't, thus they don't KNOW.

Yes I know you think you know the scientists know the age of the earth, BUT THEY DON'T.  It's speculation.  It's based off of assumptions and what they feel makes sense.

I have given my arguments for why ID is still around and always will be since Evolutionists cannot answer the questions asked.  the holy book argument is not the ONLY reason why people don't accept evolution.  If you are too blind to see the unanswered questions, then that is not the fault of people who do not buy the Evolution Theory.  I feel I have brought legitimate scientific questions to the table and all have been disregarded because of "reasonable".  Take what you want and run with it.  I am done with this topic.

On an end not, I enjoyed the discussion as a whole.  There were a few people who brought up good points and stuck to straight forward discussions and I thank you for that.  It was fun.  I hope at least I have brought to you guys to an understanding of another point of view.  You have helped me to better understand the Evolutionist arguments.  Thanks again.

>I said we know atoms exist.  the existence of atoms is not theory.

Really?  How do you go about proving that?

omg, are you serious?  read the thread...  It's already been explained.

>>I am done with this topic.
OK, goodbye for now. It's been fun...
I was thinking of other dating technologies and I remembered the ice-core experiments that are used to chronicle historic climate change. There are cores from Antarctica that provide information from as far back as 740,000 years.
It's true that after a certain depth, the individual years cannot be identified, but it's reasonable to extrapolate from the data where the layers are easily seen. At the oldest layers the precision factor can be off by as much as 5,000 or 10,000 years. So the "740,000-year-old" portion of the core might actually only come from 730,000 years ago. Nearer the top, the layers can easily be counted, like rings of a tree. That would certainly be proof, woudn't it? Using only this count-the-layers technque (no extrapolation), the cores are a chronical of snowfalls for over 100,000 years -- far longer than the biblical age of the earth.

DanRollins,

Thanks for the info, I really know nothing about ice dating.  I'll have to look into it.  

I have no problems saying the earth is older than 6000 actually.  People use the phrase biblical age of the earth, but really it's not fact or truth in any way.  They only approximate this by the generations that are noted in the Bible.  This could be off but could not be.  The Bible does not expressly say any age ever in the texts.  I don't believe the earth is 3 billion years old either.  I really have no idea how old it is, and I won't ever say I do until I see some sort of proof.

Thanks for the discussion points throughout Dan.

>>I feel I have brought legitimate scientific questions to the table and all have been disregarded because of "reasonable".  

You might *feel* that but you have not done so. Your comment as to Dan Rollin's zircon posting :-

"You can ASSUME that huh?  I see why it's so believable now."

borders on rudeness. Either dispute the facts or leave. Sarcasm is totally unbecomming.

BigRat,

And you guys haven't been rude?  It doesn't feel very good when people are disrespectful toward your beliefs does it?  Maybe you should be a little more respectful of others beliefs next time.

dispute the fact?  You guys haven't been so why do I need to?  Not to mention what he posted about the "lead issue" is not a fact.  Wiki-pedia is far from fact.  I search all over for this supposed lead rejection problem, no source, period.  I will accept a lot of sources as valid, but wiki-pedia is not one of them.  That's just like reading a forum and calling it truth.  Also, how is assuming something any different than what IDists believe?  They assume there was a diety that has been involved.  Are there facts to back it up?  no, thus it's an assumption.  The Evolutionists are doing the same thing in their assumptions as IDist are, but yet the Evolutionists condemn the IDists for doing it.  It's a double standard.

>It doesn't feel very good when people are disrespectful toward your beliefs does it?  Maybe you should be a little more respectful of others beliefs next time.<

No disrespect to you, but you are advocating a model that fails even to be science.  Teach whatever you want in your religious education, but leave it out of the science class.  Complaining that you aren't being taken seriously doesn't carry much weight unless you demonstrate the merit of the idea you want me to take seriously.

Demanding proof for scientific theories is bogus.  You can't rigorously prove the existence of atoms.  You have to prove that no other phenomenon could account for the evidence on TEM scans for example... You have to prove that the science behind the TEM is what it claims to be, which would be circular, given that the electron microscope depends on the existence of subatomic particles.  Just stating "we can see it and touch it" means nothing at all.  Science has to be pragmatic about what we know, or think we know.

>I search all over for this supposed lead rejection problem, no source, period.  I will accept a lot of sources as valid, but wiki-pedia is not one of them<

Wikipedia happens to be right in this case.  Even creationists accept that zircon rejects lead at crystal formation.
From this creationist site:
http://www.icr.org/article/3131/

Quote:
To understand the two hourglasses, you need to know what goes on in tiny radioactive zircon crystals, common in granitic rock. As a zircon crystal begins to form in cooling magma (molten rock), it absorbs uranium atoms from the magma. It rejects atoms of lead.

Google "zircon rejects lead" or "zircon uranium lead" and you'll see other references than Wikipedia or this creationist site.  Go to a library and look up some geology books and you'll see it as well.  It's well established science.  (Not that there aren't other problems with this kind of dating, but there are methods to working with it, and ensuring accurate results.)

I know that your cognitive dissonance won't let any reasonable argument through... So I'm through here too.  It's been fun.

Actually wiki-pedia is NOT correct in this case.  If you look at the source your creationist website refers to, they took it out of context.  Only one of the reactions they used ended in little Pb in the crystal.  By adding P2O5 to the reaction it exponentially increased the Pb. This was also only for the heat melt process.  The other two processes yielded Pb.  Link is below:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5Y-3T7JJY6-H&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3c4ce1917e4644e34609df218a956baa

As far as demanding proof for scientific theories:  That's a bad thing?  How is demanding proof a bad thing?  Believing things blindly is much more dangerous than being skeptical and wanting proof of things.  The Electron Microscope proves that something exists.  Whether you can admit it or not that's your problem.  If we want to call whatever it is an atom, we are allowed to.  So we know something exists, we called it an atom.  That's just like saying a picture I took on film isn't real.  Electron microscopes can be taken using photo paper.  You are taking particle reactions and having them react with a chemical on a paper causing a photograph.  If we can't believe that atoms exist, then nothing in any photograph exists either.  If you believe that, then that's fine.  You're allowed to.  Personally I trust pictures (that are legit, since they can be doctored). I highly doubt pictures of atoms are doctored.

Also, ID doesn't FAIL.  It can't.  deity is a cover all answer.  a god running the controls cannot be disproved.  Even if the Evolution Theory turned out to be real, how can you prove that a deity didn't help it along?  The answer is you can't.  You also can't explain a deity with science.  typically people believe the deities CREATED science and how everything works.  You are comparing two things that cannot be compared.

What if I proposed that the image seen on the photograph was not caused by photons and chemical reactions, but rather that a deity intervened and make the picture?  How could you prove that I was wrong?  Wouldn't you simply think me a nutcase?  What if my only arguments were
   1) I believed it really really strongly or
   2) it was written in an old book.
Would you consider those to be solid arguments?

>>Actually wiki-pedia is NOT correct in this case.

Then why did you not just state that (together with the proof) instead of pooh-poohing Dan's reference?

In the link which you posted the word "exponentially" does not occur. What is suggested in the experiment is that the levels of lead found in the zircon should not be viewed as equilibrium values but only as qualitative values depending on SURROUNDING lead concentrations. As such this analysis suggests a fingerprinting method for such zircons, ie: a method of tracing from where they came. It does NOT include an analysis of lead isotopes found in zircons, nor of any other radioactive elements which are the result of the uranium decay.

Dan

I would not be able to disprove you.  If you believe a deity put the photograph on the paper, I cannot say no it didn't happen.  There's no way to disprove it.  Is it a possibility?  yes.  No I wouldn't think you were a nutcase, because I have no problem with people believing in a deity.  Simply because you can't disprove it.

Why you believe it is more important than how strongly you believe it.  I have no problem with people believing stuff as long as there is a reason.  An old book?  That's at least a reason and I can accept that.  Doesn't make it right, true, or fact.  Let's take the Bible vs Darwin's writings.  Both were books.  Neither can fully be proven or disproven.  There are parts in both books that HAVE been proven.  so my question is how is one any less credible than the other?  The Bible is mostly a historical text.  Much of the history has been proven and found to be true.  Where people have a problem is when it involves God or Jesus.  There's supporting evidence outside the Bible that Jesus did exist and that He went through all that was claimed.  Skeptics just don't believe he was the Son of God, or they don't even believe in God.  That's fine, their allowed their beliefs.  Darwin's book is the same.  Some things have been found to be true.  The skeptics stop at life coming from pure chance.  There's no proof of it, thus people don't believe it.  It's the same on both sides.  The lack of proof is what prevents people from believing.  Anyone who says Evolutionism has ben proven and is correct is doing the SAME thing as someone saying the Bible is all correct and true.  You are taking a leap of faith to believe in it.  This is how it will be until one of the theories is 100% proven.

BigRat wrote:Then why did you not just state that (together with the proof) instead of pooh-poohing Dan's reference?

Because at the time I didn't have a source.  The link that I quoted was from the source of the creationist web site that was quoted later.  I don't even bother with wiki-pedia, because it is full of flaws and sub-par information.  Some subjects it's fine, but not controversial ones.  people need to realize wiki-pedia is not truth.  In case people are new to it, anyone can post what they want on wiki.  Sometimes are things monitored?  yes, mostly it is not.  There is far too much content to inspect to be sure it is correct and referenced correctly with legitimate sources.  Anything from wiki should be taken with a grain of salt.

Yes, you're right, I shouldn't have used exponentially.  I was using it as a phrase rather than a techinical term.  I meant it as it greatly increases the amount by many times rather than an actual exponential equation.  IF people read it as it's an exponential equation, I apologize.

In fact anything should be taken with a grain of salt, but my experience of Wikipedia is that it is STRONGLY monitored by a set of obsessives called Wikipedians. I myself have contributed to several articles (Stevie Smith and Baroness Stocks for example) and you can't see my original work in these articles today, since they have been considerably expanded and rewritten. And I'd say error free.

You are more than welcome to accept Wiki-pedia as a reliable source.  A lot of others don't.  Me included. Just like you do not accept Creationist or IDist books on science as a reliable source.  We all have our sources that we trust.

CCSOFlag: One of the most important principles of human endeavor for knowledge is the principle of peer review. It is by this mechanism that wild claims are rejected and things get substantiated and confirmed. Although Wikipedia is an open system in which any idiot can contribute it is peer reviewed almost excessively, and anything which is in the slightest bit incorrect doesn't last ten minutes.

One problem with scientific publications is the lack of open public review, since only certain people (supposedly acknowledged experts in their field) who have the time and the patience to do such a review are invited to do so by the professional journals. Furthermore these are only available online by paying subscriptions which for the most of us are expensive. There is also a tendancy on the Web to flatten these journals so that one does not know which of them is prestigious or not, and that of course lends itself to the quality of the article and the quality of the contributed research.

These problems are also reflected in Creationist or ID books and journals and of course Web sites, since the number of people involved is far far less than in the scientific community. The question regarding the quality and reliability of the information is necessarily more open than that of the scientific community.

The main problem with Wikipedia lies in the degree of detail. It is after all an online encyclopedia and not a journal of advanced science, so the detail - which somethimes must be pedantic - is going to be lacking.

All in all it would appear that Wikipedia has a far better reputation for accuracy *to the degree of detail it allows itself* than any other online source. So I find your objections to be not well founded.

Returning to the case in point. First you pooh-poohed the idea of a Wikipedia quotation and then you posted a link to a piece of research which you claimed proved Wikipedia wrong. This has not turned out to be the case. The research has only added detail to zircon fingerprinting and has nothing to
do with radioactive decay rates in zircon.

 Furthermore in the Wiki article there are seven references one to Dickin's "Radiogenic Isotope Geology" by Cambridge University Press. You'd have to do a bit more to dispute the Wiki article, you'd need to dispute this book and the other references.

If I take your comment which started "Uranium is very rare in the earth's crust, but for arguments' sake I will entertain your idea" it is quite clear that you have NOT read that book, nor probably any other book on radiometric dating methods. The argument which you have used, states factually the concentrations of elements in the Earth's crust, makes an assumption (which in fact is not true), reverses the assumption (if A implies B then we can say B implies A), and concludes that the dating methods therefore must be wrong. This sort of logic just isn't an argument

>it [wiki] is peer reviewed almost excessively
and
>One problem with scientific publications is the lack of open public review

I said way up there ^ that the truth is what most people believe be it to be.

Here is an interesting film (Not Great) but it does show the conflict between Evolution and ID:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btOTkaYNmhg          (Part 1 of 11)

-Muj ;-)

Expelled was a great movie and does show that there is a bias at least here in the USA.

Muj,

"Here is an interesting film (Not Great) but it does show the conflict between Evolution and ID"

No it doesn't show the conflict between Evolution and ID.  It refers to a conflict over the departure of an academic.  It does not tell us the exact circumstances of the departure.  Certain documents were displayed in the film.  Did you notice that much of the content was blacked-out?  Anybody who has had experience resolving conflicts between companies knows that it usually takes a collection of documents to tell the whole story.  Were all of these presented to us?  What did the other side say?  We weren't given the answer to either.  Instead, we were given the biased account from one side of the controversy according to the spin provided by yet a third party.



SStory,

"Expelled was a great movie and does show that there is a bias at least here in the USA."

So what?  Christianity has a bias in favor of Jesus.   The Olympic judges have a bias toward quality performances.  So What?

As participants here, we can't go forward by supporting or refuting your opinion regarding some undisclosed idea of yours, but need to ask what you mean by that.

Instead, say something that the rest of us can support or refute, like exactly what you mean by that -- something that serves to carry the discussion here toward answering the primary thread question.  EE threads, except for the Lounges, are not chat-room style discussions.  Their postings are supposed to move us and the asker at least another increment toward answering the primary thread question.

@ WS

I totally agree with what you said and of course there is other sides POV which weren't display. The interesting thing for me was that the conflict between Evolution or ID went actually beyond Science and that was the thing I have pointed out a few times in the Past discussions. The other interesting thing was the Although they tried to portray the Scientist who were for ID as the victims they failed to mention anything about the ID from the Sciences POV. All they said was that is it a 'sign of a designer' which I believe sums up an ID.

-Muj ;-)

Only one of many possible planetary lifes, "Our" [Earth's] understanding of nature is only as small as the fraction in time in which our species has existed. Thus, to extrapolate facts from current knowledge, can only be a proportional equation; missing to many variables to truly "know" what "life" is.

Wisdom into the possibility that life has existed before us and that life will exist after us; on our planet or elsewhere; and/or that our universe has been recycled through a multitude of "big bangs" and "big collapses" (black hole compaction back to singularity); can only further assumption.

To assume... is to... you know the rest.

Best regards,

=NerdsOfTech

// Live life for the sake of life

Select allOpen in new window

*****

// be free to believe in what you want
$lifegoal = 'to FEEL good for as much TIME as POSSIBLE';
$lifegoal .= ' to LIVE';
// live life now. what are you waiting for?

Select allOpen in new window

>...missing to many variables ...
Like 'o's?
That's almost exactly what I was thinking, but probably in a different universe and certainly not in a thread with a question like this one has.
 

NerdsOfTech,

 It's hard for me to see how either of your only two postings here address the asker's question/request of making the case for intelligent design.
 
 Did I miss your point?

In any event, welcome to the Philosophy & Religion Zone (P&R).

WaterStreet
>>Christianity has a bias in favor of Jesus

Shouldn't Christianity have a bias in favor of Jesus?  Christianity by definition means those who are followers of Jesus Christ. Shouldn't followers of Jesus be inclined toward Him and His teachings?

>As participants here, we can't go forward by supporting or refuting your opinion regarding some >undisclosed idea of yours, but need to ask what you mean by that.
Not sure exactly what you are asking....but I'll take a stab.
People in academia, scientists and teachers who go against the THEORY of evolution lose their jobs, and are ostracized and even sometimes persecuted by these "logical" open-minded evolutionists.  The so called elite intellects who have no room for anything other than their pet THEORY.

>// be free to believe in what you want
>$lifegoal = 'to FEEL good for as much TIME as POSSIBLE';
>$lifegoal .= ' to LIVE';
>// live life now. what are you waiting for?

If this life is all there is...fine live it up.
If I am right and you are wrong...that will be a very costly choice

Since we are speaking in code...I guess yours in PHP... I will respond in C...I a little rusty at my C, but anyhow, I think you'll get the gist.

if (ReceiveJesus()) {
    while (2>1) {
            behappy();
            rejoice();
            experiencejoyandpeace();
            enjoyGod();
           //additional code not provided
     }
}
else
{
     while (2>1){
           experiencehell();
           //details to expeiencehell function--code not provided in this space
     }
}

>>People in academia, scientists and teachers who go against the THEORY of evolution lose their jobs, and are ostracized and even sometimes persecuted by these "logical" open-minded evolutionists.

You mean like those accused of being a member of the communist party in the 1950s? Well that's America for you! But you're going to have to show beyound doubt that that happens in Europe.

Holding different beliefs could be ok, but teaching them in place of the structured lesson should not.
You wouldn't employ a salesman who told the customers that the competitors' product was better.

SStory,

"People in academia, scientists and teachers who go against the THEORY of evolution lose their jobs, and are ostracized and even sometimes persecuted by these "logical" open-minded evolutionists."

Are you basing that comment just from what you heard in the movie or is there something else that authoritatively or convincingly shows that this is really prevalent?

We had a thread about this topic at:
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/23295104/Darwinist-Censorship.html?sfQueryTermInfo=1+10+expel

Here's a thought I have been trying to compile neatly, it won't quite come together, but please look at this piece by piece and tell me where it's wrong (if it is), rather than dismissing the entire thing.
I have read that with evolution through natural selection there is no characteristic or feature in a species that was not at least at one time beneficial or advantageous to the individual or to the species. Unfortunately I can't find where I read this and it is rather a key assumption for the next part. Perhaps someone can tell me if it is correct or not?
It is a characteristic of the human mind that causes us to actively seek answers to questions of our origin. Having selected an origin story that makes sense to us we feel comforted and more confident to try to convince others of what we see as the big answer. Once this answer is accepted by us we are less distracted from the everyday necessities of survival and better able to cope with getting on with things.
It is also a characteristic of the human mind that allows us to believe that there is a deity or a creator of all things or that we were grown from seeds from a meteor or that we evolved slowly from the clay of this planet.
Essentially what I am trying to say is that from an evolutionary point of view, the need and the ability to believe that a supernatural being created us is or was at one time necessary for our survival, maybe this could be discussed in a science class?
 
As I said at the beginning, if there are faults in the above then please point them out individually rather than disagreeing with the whole post in a single sentence.

> ...scientists and teachers who go against the THEORY of evolution...

An explanation about why all-caps was chosen for the word "THEORY" should demonstrate why there is so much confusion about what a scientific theory is.

It seems clear that the importance of a 'scientific' theory is totally missed.

Tom

"It seems clear that the importance of a 'scientific' theory is totally missed."

And, some think evolution means that humans descended from apes, rather than having a common ancestor.

Bigrat,
You are right...that is America for you... the America that has been taken over by elitist liberals.  They are ruining the country....anyhow that is another hot topic for another thread.

I don't know about Europe first hand...so I will let you comment on the openess of the schools.
I did hear that Russia has opened their schools for Bible teaching.  Amazing.

>Are you basing that comment just from what you heard in the movie or is there something else that >authoritatively or convincingly shows that this is really prevalent?
Well, for starters I have no reason to doubt the movie.  I also saw the bias towards evolution first hand while in college.  Ever public program has it.  It is taught as if fact instead of a theory.

You can choose to believe the movie or not. I don't have time to do the research on it.  Why don't one of you research the claims to see if those folks were fired...  I'm sure other excuses were made.

In my work for example..they try not to "fire" people.  They just tell them they have the opportunity to Retire (if they are eligible), or resign...but the idea is you can do this with dignity or we're going to fire you... so  people doing the firing are just covering their you know whats.

so no, I haven't visited all of these people to verify. Have any of you done so to verify that it is not true?

RobinD,
>It is also a characteristic of the human mind that allows us to believe that there is a deity or a creator of all >things or that we were grown from seeds from a meteor or that we evolved slowly from the clay of this >
planet.

The problem is where did you get the seeds or the meteor?  If you just don't care, that is one thing...otherwise..origins is a big issue.

Tom,

>An explanation about why all-caps was chosen for the word "THEORY" should demonstrate why there >is so much confusion about what a scientific theory is.

>It seems clear that the importance of a 'scientific' theory is totally missed.
Hmm. I've just noticed Rich Text. Maybe I could have done bold...I've not ever seen that option. I wanted to emphasize and without rich text, upper case works.
My point is that it is a theory, but is taught as an indisputable fact in most classes I've attended.

>>the need and the ability to believe that a supernatural being created us is or was at one time necessary for our survival
RobinD,
Yes, that would be a reasonable thing to teach in a science class -- I, for one, think it is certainly true.  However, look at the subtext -- it presupposes that man created God (the concept of God) rather than vice-versa.   That would be unacceptable to believers and, since it is about the untruth of religion, it would be a religious topic and thuis be disallowed by law.

SStory,
If we disregard the 'seeds from space' then I think we are left with either an intelligent designer who built all of the different species, or a slow evolution from basic elements.
Dan,
First a question 'disallowed by law '? This is a law I am not aware of, is it illegal in the US to teach doubt in religeous matters?
Second an attempt to wriggle out of your main point that you found between my lines and is quite damaging to my idea.  If God at one time or another has visited and gone around smiting the unbelievers, then it would indeed be beneficial to have this 'need to believe' gene.
Those without it would have been wiped out by the flood or been turned into pillars of salt.
or...
If God exists he is going to be there whether we believe in him or not, all I am intending to suggest here is that the ability or the need to believe has at one time been necessary for our survival.
 
 
I am quite happy to subscribe to SStory's 'If I am right and you are wrong...that will be a very costly choice' so disproving the existance of God is not at all my intention.

>> Have any of you done so to verify that it is not true?

SStory: There was once a claim that a certain lecturer at the University of Cologne was such a victim which turned out to be utterly untrue. Are you going to back up your claim with any real facts or is it just going to be another one of those things which runs into the sand?

Fact or Therory?

This turns up often in this thread. In reality everything is in fact theory, since the truth is always almost impossible to establish.  However this is not the real objection. The real objection is that it is taught at all. It has "dire" consequences, which SStory might enlighten us on. That is the real issue here, not technical objections to the science of palentology.

RobinD,
As to being illegal... absolutely, though this is perhaps a borderline example.
Start here:
It is illegal for a teacher to say (in U.S. public school), for instance, that Baptists have a more correct religion than Catholics or Jews. Right?
Extending that just a little:
Wouldn't it be just as illegal for her to say that Atheists are more correct than Theists?
The proposition (in simplest terms) is:
        Man evolved a "God Belief gene" for survival benefit.
I submit that it implies that Man does not believe in God because of the reality of God, but rather that God did not exist until Man thought him up. Even if your version of that theory was carefully worded to neither affirm nor deny God, I can tell you that there are lots of people who would call the theory "an atheist doctrine."
As to the theory itself, as I said, I really like it. I've proposed it and expanded upon it in several threads.  Example: A warrior who fights for a greater cause such as "God and Country" -- especially if he believes in an afterlife -- will fight harder and win more battles and thus live to pass on his character traits.  Another: Believing in the healing powers of a shaman will actually ease pain quite often via the placebo effect. Those who do not believe in the shaman's powers must suffer more and are less productive and less attractive as a mate.

>Are you going to back up your claim with any real facts or is it just going to be another one of those things which runs into the sand?

We're talking about an epistemological claim that goes back to "I read it in my holy book so it must be true."  For the people who believe these things, evidence just gets in the way of what they want to believe.  Thus any discussion from them ends up mired in "spin" rather than evidence based knowledge.

It's analogous to quack medicine.  There are chiropractors who believe that *all* disease is caused by misalignment  of vertebrae.  They will argue against immunization through vaccine because of this... However the argument they make is generally spun to a point where you can't recognize their original "theory" of vertebral misalignment.  (If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.)  This despite the vast amount of evidence showing the effectiveness of vaccines.  

I'm not aware of any movies about the discrimination against chiropractors by the mainstream education establishment.  If there was one, it would be similar in tone to the movie Expelled.

But if we're not going to teach quack ideas like subluxation in science class, neither should we be teaching intelligent design.

>As to being illegal... absolutely
I didn't know that. I don't think it's against the law in the UK. It is against the law for someone to 'incite a riot' whether they are rousing a mob with religious statements, anti-religious statements, political or any other, but as far as I am aware there is no law preventing anyone from speaking for or against any religion. It would be something that wouldn't be expected in a school. A teacher found pushing one religious or political bias whether intentionally or not would probably be removed from the school, but I don't think it would be law breaking. As far as I am aware all schools here hold a religious assembly every day by law (This could have changed since I was at school and I'm afraid it's too late at night to rouse the kids and ask them at the moment - I'll try and find out tomorrow), but I'm not sure whether the content of this is controlled as there are several different faith schools here now .
Having a law preventing any suggestion that there may not be a deity certainly sheds a lot of light on why the discussions in here get so heated, many people certainly have been brought up with a differing point of view and not really allowed the freedom to choose.

RobinD,
>If God exists he is going to be there whether we believe in him or not
Amen to that one.

PaulHews,
> For the people who believe these things, evidence just gets in the way of what they want to believe.
Sounds like you are talking about macro evolutionists to me.
In the end a person must interpret the evidence found all around us.  Macro evolution, just like believing in God, requires faith...and more than that knowing God requires revelation on His part

RobinD,

At one time in the USA, you had to be a Christian to hold many public offices. That was because people knew what an unregnerate man is capable of...let alone a Christian if he's not careful.

At one time the Bible was taught in US schools. People didn't need locks on their doors.  Crime wasn't near as bad.  People read their Bibles, went to church and though there was still sin... things were no where near as degraded as they have become. our laws were based on Judeo-Christian principles. Moses and the 10 commandments is all over the Supreme Court.  Our founders--though revisionist historians have tried to lie about it and change history--were largely Christians.

Then secular humanists, liberals, atheists, evolutionists, etc. started dismantling the country. They got prayer and the Bible thrown out of school.  The work to remove God from every public venue and change the law to throw him out, remove the 10 commandments from court houses, schools and public places.  Now we have Columbine, and Virginia Tech massacres, wide spread Biblical ignorance, terrible loss of morality and the country is going down the toilet. The country as a whole has turned its back on God and our economic woes, the rise of our enemies, the corruption of those in office, the lack of knowing right and wrong by our students--due to moral relativism and I think evolutionary teachings(hey kid you came from an ape or a common ancestor--you're an accident and nothing special..there is no God...the strongest prevail and the weakest don't make it.)-- is a direct result of this.
I say that if America doesn't return to her Biblical roots, she is doomed--but that is another topic.
Evolutionary teaching to me robs the person of his since of identity, significance, and extraordinary destiny.  It lowers humans to a much more base, animalistic level.

I don't know what things are like in the UK, but here almost anything other than Christianity is permitted in the schools.  You should probably start another topic before I can go on, on this topic.

My school as many are here was C of E, Church of England. I'm not sure if this differs much from Church of America, but it seems a lot more understanding of others and a lot less violent in its attitudes than what I am seeing in your post. A christian attitude as I understand it is one that cares for other people no mater who they are or what beliefs they hold. There is a sort of modern Christian about, they seem quite antagonistic about it and stare you in the face as they say 'I am a Christian' as if they expect you to argue with them and are ready for you. I don't agree with this type of behaviour, some I think are reformed drug addicts or people with other types of problem and Christianity in some form has helped them get off whatever it was they were involved with, but I don't like the implied violence and feel it is out of place in something that is supposed to be involved with a church.
 

RobinD,

"At one time in the USA,..."

That's one way to start a fairy-tale. The reality is far different.

First, there is no more need for locking your doors today than fifty or a hundred years ago. Billy the Kid no longer runs free. Bonnie and Clyde aren't openly assisted by average citizens any more. Lynchings and mob scenes are even becoming rare. If beaten by thugs and left in a ditch outside the edge of town, there's a chance the crime might even be investigated nowadays.

We've come a long way from the lawlessness that existed in the past.

If you want to skip fairy-tales, try some of the writings that can be found in some interesting web sites.

Try "Danger! A True History of a Great City's Wiles and Temptations. (THE VEIL LIFTED, AND LIGHT THROWN ON CRIME AND ITS CAUSES, AND CRIMINALS AND THEIR HAUNTS. FACTS AND DISCLOSURES)", from 1886. Full text available at:

http://www.archive.org/stream/AngerATrueHistoryOfAGreatCitysWilesAndTemptations/dangerusascii.txt

Or maybe "Secret band of brothers.: A full and true exposition of all the various crimes, villanies, and misdeeds of this powerful organization in the United States." From around 1858. Full text available at:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;idno=AHK6233

Anyone can search and find all the evidence to refute any fanciful view of the peaceful past. Yes, sheer numbers have risen. How could they not with a doubling of the population in the same land area in the last 60 years? The competition alone is twice what it was for the same resources. Crime is big, as it always has been.

And actually, printed court trial transcripts were common reading in the past. They seemed to serve a purpose similar to the various 'True Crime' periodicals of the latest century. Crimes were common, probably more common than today but much less reported and recorded. Who cared about crime over on "that side of town" anyway? There often were no authorities who would take the reports. And if it was outside town limits, well, you chose to live there; so deal with it.

But this subject area is all off-topic. It has no purpose other than to divert attention from the lack of substance given towards answering the question originally posed.

Tom

"But this subject area is all off-topic."

I love to see other members say that.  :-))

I would have appreciated it if you had left my name off the top of that quote, it makes it look as if I was responsible for it somehow, when all I did was ask Dan for clarification of his statement that teaching certain things would be illegal in the US.
 

RobinD,
We generally put a name with the quote since so many people are talking so everyone knows who we are responding to.

>A christian attitude as I understand it is one that cares for other people no mater who they are or what >beliefs they hold.
This is true and I do care for people no matter what they believe, but I am telling you how detrimental I believe these ideas have been to our country.
I don't think people were going around shooting people in churches and kids in school and such. Sure there were outlaws.  Where I am from, people didn't lock their doors until lately.  Now you'd be crazy not to. When I was young I went everywhere by myself and my dog. Mom never worried. I wouldn't dream of letting my children do the things I did in this day.  There is a lot more going on that what Tom would have you believe. Maybe you'd want to check some crime statistics for the USA with the FBI or something to get a real picture.  Or just read the news. Of course each is entitled to his own opinion.
People no longer seem to know right and wrong...see no problem with stealing and other unethical behavior. I wonder why?  We took away what was teaching them that there was a reason to do the right thing.

SStory:  If moral decay is in fact a problem of society, what evidence do you have that it is caused by a lack of religious education?  Answer: None.

And you say that the science behind evolution is weak?  

Expanding on Paul Hews's comment, we have far less of a problem with "moral decay" in Europe and that given the more widespread atheism, or lack of religios conviction, here.

Could that problem be perhaps that you may have both redefined what is right and wrong and so the decay isn't obvious to you?  I don't know...just an honest question.  If your morals and values decline along with society then it is hard to be able to decide if the morals have declined or not.  I am not saying that about either of you necessarily--I don't really know you--but is that a possibility?

PaulHews,

It would depend upon how you see morality as to whether or not anything I could supply as evidence would matter to you. Is it relative? What do you use for a moral compass?  If it just depends upon whatever one thinks or feels, then that would make him a ship tossed by the waves of public opinion and moral relativism.  If there is absolute truth and moral code, then you have something to measure with.
By what do you measure?

SStory,
"We generally put a name with the quote "
You are right, I should have headed my previous comment with 'tliotta' as that was where the confusion might arise and where my complaint was directed to. Your comment headed with my name was not a quote, it was a reply to me and quite understandable that you did that as I knew the comment was addresed to me.
My complaint was supposed to be directed at tliotta for leaving my name outside the qoute marks in his comment as if I was being replied to over a comment that I did not make (your's in fact).
As for the rest of your concern about the moral decay of things in general, personally I blame it on sensationalism in reporting the news. I used to read articles about burglaries or assaults where the description went something like 'a house was burgled' or 'a man was assaulted'. Now the same article will tell you exactly how the burglars watched the property and identified that it would be empty, how they got into the house without tripping the alarm, and all the goods they got away with, the value and the probable places that the stolen goods were fenced to. The assault case will have pictures of the victim's injuries, a description of how many times he was hit, what with and where, what was said, how many people were watching and some comments from them, and if you're really lucky there will be a picture of the weapon or one just like it and the names of some shops where you can buy them. Makes good reading, but perhaps too much information for some slightly unbalanced person who may not have thought of trying this as entertainment, but now feels it could be worth a go and has been furnished with all the information he needs to carry it out.
 

RobinD:

> My complaint was supposed to be directed at tliotta for leaving my name outside the qoute marks...

I truly apologize for not thinking ahead. I usually use an e-mail kind of 'indented text' when replying to a quote. I tend to use quote marks to distinguish a difference.

However, I can easily see how it could appear otherwise and thank you for pointing it out.

Tom

Tom, thanks, apology accepted. I posted that not really as a complaint against you, but to try to clarify  to anyone skimming through here that the comment you posted under my name was not my comment. :7)
 
 

>>Could that problem be perhaps that you may have both redefined what is right and wrong and so the decay isn't obvious to you?

Now that really is clutching at straws! The only thing I got when I left my car open for the night was dew on the steering wheel.

>The only thing I got when I left my car open for the night was dew on the steering wheel.
??
Moral decay in this culture is obvious to me. The only way it wouldn't be is if I'd just gone along with the flow.  It's like the frog boiling in water. If you heat it up too fast he jumps out...but I'm told if you gradually warm the water he'll sit there and boil--who knows if that is true--I haven't tested it--but it is a good illustration of the point I was making and question I was trying to ask.

Well, SStory, I can only suggest that you start a thread on that topic. But as far as us in Europe are concerned we think that America does have problems, but I'll not be rude and critizise them.

>Could that problem be perhaps that you may have both redefined what is right and wrong and so the decay isn't obvious to you?

Let's assume that we're talking about pretty universal values.  No killing, no stealing etc.  You mention that you'd be afraid to leave doors unlocked or let your kids behave the way you yourself behaved in the past.

Here's one problem with that.  There were most certainly neighbourhoods in some cities in the 1800s where it would be unsafe to leave your door unlocked or your kids to roam around.  There were also most certainly rural areas where it would have been pretty safe and doors were generally unlocked.  Now maybe the neighbourhood where you live has changed for the worse, but there are *still* rural areas that are pretty safe and doors are still left unlocked.  So how do you qualify the changes to society based on this anecdotal evidence?

Further, what about changes in societal values about slavery and women's rights?  Isn't a society in which blacks and women are not second class citizens a more moral society than that of the past?

>People no longer seem to know right and wrong...see no problem with stealing and other unethical behavior. I wonder why?  We took away what was teaching them that there was a reason to do the right thing.

Let's say we take it as a given that there is more crime in general, and a larger proportion of the population involved in this criminal activity.  Somehow you make the logical jump that it's all the school's fault?  So poverty plays no role?  The lack of good parenting?  Surely the parents and the church should be responsible for religious education, *not* the government.   Why should parents even *trust* the government to instill the proper values in their children, even if there were religious education?  The public school system can't teach your children to read properly, why do you think it would be any better at giving them a moral foundation?

And morality is ultimately an individual choice.  I've known of religious people who were amoral scumbags; I've known atheists who were highly moral.  I think making generalizations of a person's morality based on their religion, or lack of it, is a very undesirable prejudice.

> Let's say we take it as a given that there is more crime in general, and a larger proportion of the population involved in this criminal activity.

Hmmm... That kind of seems like a part of a case _against_ 'Intelligent Design'...

Tom

PaulHews,

You do make some good points.
Certainly we have improved in the freedom of slaves--which is immoral for sure.  And as to women's rights there is a degree to which things are better and a degree to which I think it was taken too far and to the detriment of women (another topic).

>Let's say we take it as a given that there is more crime in general, and a larger proportion of the >population involved in this criminal activity.  Somehow you make the logical jump that it's all the school's >fault?
No it is not ALL the schools fault.  I am just saying that removing the Bible and 10 commandments and the teaching of right and wrong (on the fundamental level in schools), instead of "hey man whatever's right for you is right... it might not be right for me but we can all be right..." type of hippie teaching that has being going on for the past 10-20 years, has definitely had an effect on kids who don't get taught anything decent anywhere else--especially at home.

>So poverty plays no role?
Being poor or rich should have no bearing on whether you are moral or immoral.   Money isn't the issue--the love of money can be the issue.

The lack of good parenting?  Surely the parents and the church should be responsible for religious education, *not* the government.
Parents and churches should play a large role in education for sure--parents in all areas of education. I'm saying that schools, churches and parents used to be on the same page--that is not the case anymore...and it has resulted in a big mess.  It is not all the schools fault by any means.  The Bible has a place in all of our society. Christianity belongs in every part...schools, government, churches, etc.  That is how our nation came to be what it is. It is the fabric.  The fabric is coming unraveled as we turn from it as a nation.

>Why should parents even *trust* the government to instill the proper values in their children, even if >there were religious education?
You know there is some truth to that..but the 10 commandments are hard to screw up...ya know.
don't kill. Don't steal.  Don't commit adultery...etc.  These all basically mean (love you neighbor...don't hurt him in any way). Those are good things.  I'm not advocating having church there, but the basics and even learning to read by learning to read from the Bible as many did long ago would go a long way.  There are big words that kids would learn and good lessons.

>The public school system can't teach your children to read properly, why do you think it would be any >better at giving them a moral foundation?
Of course it should be given at home.  It could be reinforced at school instead of being belittled and ridiculed and contradicted

I''m not for slavery...the Bible says:
(Prov 12:24 NIV)  "Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slave labor."
We should take heed of this warning.  Freedom comes through Christ. Our founders knew this.
Bondage and slavery come from laziness and other things.

Ben Franklin Said,
The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?
(source: http://thescroogereport.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/benjamin-franklin-credits-god-for-americas-independence/)

President George Washington, September 17th, 1796 "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"

His Prayer At Valley Forge "Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great Creator of heaven and earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven in pity and compassion upon me Thy servant, who humbly prostrates myself before Thee."

As to John Adams, check this out:
http://www.eadshome.com/JohnAdams.htm

Sounds a lot like they believed in a God--the Intelligent Designer/Creator

OK SStory, you win.  The United States is a Christian nation.  I'll pack my bags in the morning, as I'm obviously not welcome here.  Just please refrain from stoning me to death as I board the last plane out.

But tell me, which brand of Christianity was this nation founded under?  Are we a Catholic nation?  A Presbyterian nation?  A Quaker nation?  A Methodist nation?  Congregationalist?  Lutheran?  Anglican?  Huguenot?  Unitarian?  

All these brands of Christianity were represented by the founding fathers, but according to you, most of the people in these faiths aren't "true Christians".  So which is it?  Were they Christians or weren't they?  

And with all these Christians, you'd think the name "Jesus" would have been mentioned at least once in any of our founding documents.  Any of them.  Just once?  

Nope.  

You'd also think that they'd want a test for office holders, to make sure they were Christian.  But no; they added that "no religious test" clause to the Constitution.  Why would they do that?  Surely they wanted Christian values to be a priority?  Surely they wouldn't want a--god forbid--atheist to be elected to office?  Surely such a horrible thought would have sent them running to their fountain pens to draft an article that requires faith in god?  

And yet they didn't.  Why do you think that is?


The very first line of the very first amendment to the Constitution (so it must have been important) just happens to be:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This is actually good news for you.  It means you can practice whatever brand of Christianity you like.  The flip side is you have to put up with us non-believers as full, equal citizens.  Even worse, you have to put up with your other fellow Christians.

Trust me, you don't want to live under a theocratic "Christian nation", because it would undoubtedly mean living under one particular brand of Christianity that you despise.  The majority of the founding fathers were Episcopalian/Anglican, and today we have an openly gay Anglican bishop.  How does that sound to you?  What if we had hundreds of them?  What if the head of your church was openly gay?


And what are "Christian values" anyway?  

Don't kill?  I'm not a Christian, and I value that rule.  
Don't steal?  I'm not a Christian, and I value that rule.  
Don't bear false witness (lie)?  I'm not a Christian, and I value that rule.  
Don't commit adultery?  There's no law against adultery (something a true Christians would surely have placed into law?).  However, I'm not a Christian, and I value that rule.  
Don't covet?  I'm not a Christian, and I'm the least covetous person I know.  

Am I unraveling this country?  Am I one of the godless heathens you're crusading against?

Ah yes, the first four "commandments".  No idols, no other gods before 'he', no name of god in vain, keep the sabbath holy.  This is what you're really on our case about, isn't it?  Everyone being on the same 'holy' page?

Do you know what the biggest threat to any nation is?  It's not when the vast majority of people disagree and have different opinions and values, it's when the vast majority of them  have the exact same opinions and values.  That's when we get things like slavery, communism, suppressed voting rights, repression of thought, discrimination, and yes...a stifling of religious freedom.

So be careful what you wish for.  You just might get it.

Graphixer,
>OK SStory, you win.  The United States is a Christian nation.
The US was founded as a Christian nation.  I didn't say it was now.  It is becoming a non-Christian nation.
real Christians don't stone people, man. I can think of another non-Christian religion that would cut your head off and put you on TV though--and the internet.
I'm sure there were various denominations represented. That isn' t a bad thing.

Just because and if the founders were Anglican, doesn't mean they would have allowed gay priests. The demise of the Anglican church in this manner is no ill reflection upon them, but on the failure of the denomination (at least officially) in holding true to the word of God.

Interesting points. I'm glad that you support these commandments--by doing so you are just agreeing that when we were taught these basics or at least saw them on the schools, they were helpful in instilling some basic morals and values.

There is currently a move afoot to make everyone think the same way.  The hate crimes bills that has been proposed would eventually lead to silencing of the opposition and an overprotected class of people who are "better" than the rest of us. The move is "political correctness/liberalism/pro-h 0 m 0 movement" They scream out "be tolerant" but at the same time are tolerant of no one else's views.
I am glad for the 1st Amendment.  I am hearing where it is being violated all of the time.  The 2nd Amendment is also in danger.  If the Pres. and congress sign treaties our whole constitution could be jettisoned and in danger.

>but the basics and even learning to read by learning to read from the Bible as many did long ago would go a long way.

Actually that's what caused the bible riots.  But now we have strayed way off topic.

>>Just because and if the founders were Anglican, doesn't mean they would have allowed gay priests.

Very true. But the morals of yesteryear are not those of today. We don't publically hang horse thieves anymore.

>>The demise of the Anglican church in this manner is no ill reflection upon them, but on the failure of the denomination (at least officially) in holding true to the word of God.

You just can't resist taking a cheap shot against any other denomination, can you? This comment sheds no light on anything other than portraying your biases.
 

SStory says:
"The US was founded as a Christian nation."


Again, neither the words "Jesus" nor "Christ" appears anywhere in our founding documents.  There are no references to the ten commandments either.  And even if there were, it would be more appropriate to say that we were founded on Jewish principles, as you seem to reject the majority of your "old testament".

The Greek and Roman government structures were more influential on our founding than Christianity.  Every "Christian nation" at the time had a King or Queen as its ruler.

Can you point me to a single instance where Christianity or "Christian values" are sanctioned by the government?  It seems to me that values like "Don't kill." are universal, not the exclusive domain of Christians.

And hurry please.  I don't want to miss my plane.

And by the way, which denomination do you belong to?

> The US was founded as a Christian nation.  I didn't say it was now.  It is becoming a non-Christian nation.

No, the U.S.A. was founded as a secular nation that allowed Christians, and others, to worship as they choose -- as long as they don't try to mold government into an extension of their religion.

But so what? What is the deal anyway? What is the complaint?

Is the complaint that religious writings aren't commonly displayed on taxpayer properties? Is the message so weak that Christians will forget if they're not reminded constantly? Or is it that the message is so strong that non-Christians will be motivated to convert if they just get exposed often enough?

Expressed religious sentiment in governmentally related areas has increased in the past couple centuries, most definitely in the past 50 years. It was in 1962 that "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance -- not 1762. And the National Motto -- 'In God We Trust' -- was chosen in the same time. It's appearance on money has only increased during the past 150 years. The 'National Day of Prayer' dates only from 1952.

The general issue that has arisen in recent decades is that additional, new religious writings are finally being opposed. There are indeed many exceptions, where existing writings and icons have been removed; those are what tend to make the big news and cause a magnified sense of what's happened.

But the actual condition is that there are _finally_ sufficient people with courage to speak up and say "Enough!" That wasn't really practical in earlier times. Societal ostracism was a real threat.

> Ben Franklin Said, ...
> President George Washington, September 17th, 1796 ...
> His Prayer At Valley Forge ...
> As to John Adams, check this out: ...

The words of political activists tend to reflect the circumstances within which the words were spoken (or written).

President Washington is widely known for his avoidance of communion, especially _after_ the Revolution succeeded. Eventually, he apparently even left the church essentially entirely.

Ben Franklin (his autobiography) -- "...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." Things do change.

James Madison, the "father of the Constitution", (letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822) wrote "And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Thomas Jefferson wrote (Notes on Virginia, 1782) "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.  But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Keep them in their appropriate areas.

Picking and choosing quotes from "Founding Fathers" is a useless exercise. Almost anything can be found to point one way or another.

But the worst part is simply that they are long since dead. Like it or not, their 'opinions' no longer have any weight. They don't vote. They don't pay taxes. They aren't affected by any actions of government.

What they might or might not have intended is nothing but history. Using their words to make rules today is just "rule by ghosts".

Today's country is for those who are alive today.

Besides, the words of the "Founding Fathers" were primarily intended to influence other Founding Fathers. If they (the Founding Fathers) were all that were involved, the Revolution would have ended long before it began. They never would have left Independence Hall except in chains.

The force behind their small deeds came from the aroused populace. And that force was _not_ maintained by one of those men writing letters to another nor by speeches in meetings.

The populace was brought far more into the battle by men like Thomas Paine. He was one who spoke to the People. 'Common Sense' may be the best-selling U.S.A. book of all time, if counted in ratio to the population. And his 'The Age of Reason' can hardly be called a ringing endorsement of Christianity nor organized religion itself.

John Adams said of him, "Without the pen of Paine the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain."

"These are the times that try men's souls...", and the words that followed those, were written by him by campfire light while he suffered with the others during the retreat of the Colonial Army, which was falling back before the British advance - from Long Island to Manhattan, across Jersey, across the Delaware, across Pennsylvania.

I have little doubt that _some_ of the Founding Fathers might have wanted an eventual theocracy. I also doubt that, had the Framers actually created a Constitution that established a theocracy, they would have ridden out of town on rails, with the possible accompaniment of both tar and feathers.

We can all be grateful to them for exercising 'common sense'.

And once again, how does this make any case for ID? Does no case exist at all?

Tom