Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[Mels_Smileys45]

Trailer http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2095120665/

http://melcartera.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/expelled-flyer-for-blog.jpg

This movie is a load of BS IMO. In the TV ad for the film Ben Stein closes with the line "How did life begin in the first place?" and Im sure Ben has that answer and is 100% sure about it, sure enough to make a movie about ID. HOw about another tuffy question, where did the IDer come from and who designed him/her/it since everything had to be designed by somebody. Where does this ID daisy chain end? It can't. There can not be one designer, there would have to be many to the point of infinity or can a being make himself out of nothing? Now thats brain power!

[RACKnRAIL]

It makes me want to post a *fart* in the fart thread.

[mountain_rage]

Theres already a thread about this and you even posted in it???

http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=48261&highlight=propaganda

[El Comandante]

Ben Stein is a clown.

[Mels_Smileys45]

Theres already a thread about this and you even posted in it???

http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=48261&highlight=propaganda

LOL< I knew I had seen this somewhere But I didnt think it was ZP. Damn my mind had a blow out.

[Mels_Smileys45]

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Welcome to Expelled Exposed, a detailed look at the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We'll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none.

[mountain_rage]

Common now, we all know god is a woman, and as such could never have created something as complex as men.

It's safe to say that here because only like 2 women find zeropaid entertaining.

[HelenaP]

I will bite my tongue.

[Mels_Smileys45]

I will bite my tongue.


I'll put my finger in the car door and slam it! What else ya got?

[johan511]

The only thing I have say is there is only one question to be answered about where we came from, what caused the big bang, where did all the Hydrogen come from. it's not even a matter of what humans descended from, although hopeful this movie will make people think. BTW from what I know about physics its a membrane that collided with some other function that caused the singularity to burst, but there is a case that even behind that is GOD. And with all the facts, I believe in GOD, but not any religion sense, it's relationship with the universe at any dimension, the difference between what is and what is not that causes things to exist. That is the GOD that brings life.

[poetic_absences]

To all you doubters out there you are truely decieving yourself if you believe in evolution. I know that in school we were all taught it as the gospel according to Darwin, but the problem is that if you really do the research you will quickly find that in order to truely believe in evolution you need to have faith in it because there is no proof and if you think there is then your either lieing or have been lied to by someone. Do the research if you do not believe me, and if you still continue to believe in evolution then that is your decision. Just do not try to sell it to someone as science.

[evilmegaman]

all I am going to say is that I was really sure of myself that ben stein was jewish. Til now.

[mountain_rage]

all I am going to say is that I was really sure of myself that ben stein was jewish. Til now.

Just goes to show you just how wrong stereotypes are, from all the Jewish people I have met, very few if any display the stereotypes.

To all you doubters out there you are truely decieving yourself if you believe in evolution. I know that in school we were all taught it as the gospel according to Darwin, but the problem is that if you really do the research you will quickly find that in order to truely believe in evolution you need to have faith in it because there is no proof and if you think there is then your either lieing or have been lied to by someone. Do the research if you do not believe me, and if you still continue to believe in evolution then that is your decision. Just do not try to sell it to someone as science.

The fact that you signed up just to post that is shocking. Anyway simply because you lack the proper scientific evidence of evolution doesn't mean others do. Maybe rather than clamoring that there is no evidence to support evolution you could properly inform yourself about the issue. Evolution is science at its core, its a model that can be used to predict the environment in which we live. Argue all you want, its the best model we have and no one has come up with any scientific alternatives to the theory. Evolution still occurs today, every time a virus mutates that is a form of evolution, wines cultivated for vineyards, evolution, geographic traits in cultures, evolution. Creationism on the other hand offers no model on our environment, no testable grounds and is pure speculation. If you want to believe in your religion then that is your right, but no one is forced to be taught your belief. Evolution is science whether you like it or not, and your acceptance of it will change nothing, it will exist without your belief in it.

[HelenaP]

It's safe to say that here because only like 2 women find zeropaid entertaining.

Not as safe as you thought. LOL!

Common now, we all know god is a woman, and as such could never have created something as complex a men.
...

I'll tell you what, if God were a woman, I would be highly irritated...no... pissed off. Really pissed off.

However, it simply cannot be.

Proof: She never would have allowed the doctrines of the three dominant faiths to maintain the patriarchal stance, that effectively bind many women in many nations.

I am very interested in seeing the movie.

[mountain_rage]

A better retort Helena would of been to focus on the use of complex, I picked that word because it can be negative or positive in the representation of men. It was my way of mocking both sexes, I guess my joke sucked.

If anything god would be sexless, if it were to have a sex that would imply a race rather than a single individual. Because why would you need a sex if you weren't using it to reproduce? The human image of god, is in my opinion, partially borrowed from other religions of the time. But when you think about it an omnipotent god could not be classified in a sex. If anything the bible meant men just look like god, that doesn't mean god is a man.

Anyway what separates man from woman is simply what hormones are present during birth, so there isn't that much difference in the sexes anyway. That is unless someone wants to take issue with that fact because it puts doubt in the bible.

[HelenaP]

A better retort Helena would of been to focus on the use of complex,

I did.

...I picked that word because it can be negative or positive in the representation of men. It was my way of mocking both sexes, I guess my joke sucked.
...

No it didn't! It's all good, now let me finish reading your post!

OK, done.

Good job on the rest!

[ssym3tryy]

My thought on this has always been that any theory devised by humans to explain the creation of the universe should be taken with a very large grain of salt, since humans are truly unqualified to postulate in such a way. Really, it is pure hubris to assume that we could explain how a system as complex as the universe came into existence when not even the brightest of scientists would ever claim to actually understand, with any amount of certainty, said system. Any theory formed on the creation of the universe, while though-provoking, would ultimately prove inherently unscientific as we lack the amount of empirical evidence necessary for such a postulation.

Evolution is a theory. Nothing more.

[notbob]

god is a theory. just like sasquatch and aliens. at least evolution can be seen. nobody can see god and live. boy, that's convenient

[Mels_Smileys45]

Strange this comes up now. For the past 2 days ive been thinking hard about Stephen Hawking's black hole theory and how information is being lost from our universe. This theory blows my mind and I cn't come to terms with it. To think that the universe is being changed right before our eyes but we will never be able to know whats being changed because in this universe its like it never happened or was never there to begin with. huh?

[HelenaP]

...Any theory formed on the creation of the universe, while though-provoking, would ultimately prove inherently unscientific as we lack the amount of empirical evidence necessary for such a postulation.

Evolution is a theory. Nothing more.

True.


Strange...To think that the universe is being changed right before our eyes but we will never be able to know whats being changed because in this universe its like it never happened or was never there to begin with. huh?


Anything that is observed (studied), will change simply by being observed.

[ssym3tryy]

Anything that is observed (studied), will change simply by being observed.

That always blows my mind, because it seems so illogical to think that the simple observation of something would have such an effect... but the heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the more you know about the momentum of a sub-atomic particle, the less it is possible to know about its position and vice versa... so that just goes to show that we (humans) really don't have enough of a grasp on the universe around us to take up the task of figuring out how it was made.


and to those who have been brainwashed into believing that darwinian evolution is a fact, ask yourself this: why do humans possess brains that are vastly overpowered? It is commonly stated that we only use 5-10% of the cognitive and data storage type resources contained in our skull. now, if darwin was right, then the evolutionary process would have only given us the resources necessary to survive. yet, humans have "evolved" past looking after just their physical needs... they have emotional needs, intellectual needs and the desire to attain self-actualization, they are even capable of existential though.... so, why has evolution been so kind to the homo sapiens?? why do all other living creatures exist on a purely physical plane?? why do humans see in color? why do we appreciate fine art and music? these things are not necessary to survival, so how did we develop them?

the theory of evolution cannot reconcile the gap between man and beast.

[Signa]

couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why?

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

My thought on this has always been that any theory devised by humans to explain the creation of the universe should be taken with a very large grain of salt, since humans are truly unqualified to postulate in such a way. Really, it is pure hubris to assume that we could explain how a system as complex as the universe came into existence when not even the brightest of scientists would ever claim to actually understand, with any amount of certainty, said system. Any theory formed on the creation of the universe, while though-provoking, would ultimately prove inherently unscientific as we lack the amount of empirical evidence necessary for such a postulation.

Evolution is a theory. Nothing more.

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to say about "the creation of the universe" Evolution is a theory which attempts to explain the unfolding of life on earth.

[aqlo]

Strange this comes up now. For the past 2 days ive been thinking hard about Stephen Hawking's black hole theory and how information is being lost from our universe. This theory blows my mind and I cn't come to terms with it. To think that the universe is being changed right before our eyes but we will never be able to know whats being changed because in this universe its like it never happened or was never there to begin with. huh?

Oh but guess what, that's not true anymore at all, as of like yesterday
Physicists have come up with a way to explain how information could escape from a black hole, an idea that's been debated since the 1970s.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2148/1498339413_0173d1238a.jpg
But the new proposal leaves the long-held concept of a space-time continuum in tatters.

Whether you've been following the arguments over the years or not, now might be a good time to reach for some aspirin, as space-time continuum textbooks may have to be revised.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080515/sc_space/newideacouldsolveblackholeinformationmystery
Don't blame Hawking either, he wisely gave this idea up already some time ago.
But by the late 1990s, Hawking's idea fell out of favor. It messed too much with quantum mechanics, a successful theory that says information can't be lost.

In 2004, Hawking renounced his idea.

And this is why creationism-by-any-other-name is still not just bad science, but bad theology. See, if you pick some unexplained phenomena like why our brains are so big or what theoretically can bugger spacetime and then somebody explains it, that's another nail in your god.

Any god that has to be legislated into a science class is a pretty sorry specimen, don't you think?

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

and to those who have been brainwashed into believing that darwinian evolution is a fact, askyourself this: why do humans possess brains that are vastly overpowered? It is commonly stated that we only use 5-10% of the cognitive and data storage type resources contained in our skull. now, if darwin was right, then the evolutionary process would have only given us the resources necessary to survive. yet, humans have "evolved" past looking after just their physical needs... they have emotional needs, intellectual needs and the desire to attain self-actualization, they are even capable of existential though.... so, why has evolution been so kind to the homo sapiens?? why do all other living creatures exist on a purely physical plane?? why do humans see in color? why do we appreciate fine art and music? these things are not necessary to survival, so how did we develop them?

the theory of evolution cannot reconcile the gap between man and beast.

These are important and interesting questions to an evolutionist, and you're by no means the first to think of them. Some of them have been addressed in detail, there are a ton of books and other literature which specifically address these issues.

There are many creatures which possess characters which superficially have no discernible evolutionary purpose. The tail feathers on a peacock are one example. The male peacock invests enormous energy into building it's huge tail. The tail is heavy making it hard to escape predators etc. Superficially it has no evolutionary purpose. But actually it does have one purpose - the colorful display of tail feathers is very attractive to a potential mate: the bigger and brighter the tail, the more likely the peacock is to get a piece of action. Human minds may have developed in a similar fashion, with our reasoning ability, musical ability etc consituting a "display" to attract a potential mate. This is one possible evolutionary explanation of our huge mental faculties, there are others.

Just because you aren't aware of such explanations doesn't mean they don't exist, and it certainly doesn't mean people who believe in a theory you don't happen to understand are "brainwashed".

[ssym3tryy]

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to say about "the creation of the universe" Evolution is a theory which attempts to explain the unfolding of life on earth.

i highly doubt that you lack the intellect to comprehend that my argument was against the level of dogmatism seen in so many self-proclaimed "scientifically-minded" anti-creationist viewpoints... including, but not limited to the theory of evolution. The creation of the universe is the logical forerunner to the consideration of human existence.

the fact that you had to resort to countering my statement on a purely semantic level speaks volumes to your lack of a valid point.

the bottom line is this: a lot of people think that anti-creationist views make them appear smart and open-minded when, in reality, they are just as ignorant as the rest of us. In fact, few could actually explain, in detail, the theories that they so strongly claim to espouse.

if you insist on living in a world of empirical absolutes, then you should probably consider death since it is the only finality that any of us will ever know.

[aqlo]

wait a second grasshopper, if begging-the-question proves there IS a god then how is death the only finality? You can't have your cake and eat it too :)

i highly doubt that you lack the intellect to comprehend that my argument was against the level of dogmatism seen in so many self-proclaimed "scientifically-minded" anti-creationist viewpoints... including, but not limited to

OMGWTFBBQ111LOL

Ok so are you for it or against it? Tell us what you really think. :icon_comp

[ssym3tryy]

I have not been trying to prove the existence of God.

My point is only this: Anti-creationists often criticize those with religious views for being dogmatic about their beliefs... yet, anti-creationism has become an aesthetic, a trendy viewpoint that is worn as a badge of honor. Anyone can quote Marx and say that religion is the opiate of the people... it has become, for many, a platform for feeling intellectually superior to others rather than a truly scientific viewpoint. open-mindedness has become closed-mindedness.

[ssym3tryy]

These are important and interesting questions to an evolutionist, and you're by no means the first to think of them. Some of them have been addressed in detail, there are a ton of books and other literature which specifically address these issues.

There are many creatures which possess characters which superficially have no discernible evolutionary purpose. The tail feathers on a peacock are one example. The male peacock invests enormous energy into building it's huge tail. The tail is heavy making it hard to escape predators etc. Superficially it has no evolutionary purpose. But actually it does have one purpose - the colorful display of tail feathers is very attractive to a potential mate: the bigger and brighter the tail, the more likely the peacock is to get a piece of action. Human minds may have developed in a similar fashion, with our reasoning ability, musical ability etc consituting a "display" to attract a potential mate. This is one possible evolutionary explanation of our huge mental faculties, there are others.

Just because you aren't aware of such explanations doesn't mean they don't exist, and it certainly doesn't mean people who believe in a theory you don't happen to understand are "brainwashed".

i would have to say that the human intellect is a little more than a superficial characteristic...

i need to ask, do you really think that "evolution" gave us the amazing human brain just so that we could get laid... when it could have apparently just given us some pretty feathers??

[Mels_Smileys45]

I have not been trying to prove the existence of God.

My point is only this: Anti-creationists often criticize those with religious views for being dogmatic about their beliefs... yet, anti-creationism has become an aesthetic, a trendy viewpoint that is worn as a badge of honor. Anyone can quote Marx and say that religion is the opiate of the people... it has become, for many, a platform for feeling intellectually superior to others rather than a truly scientific viewpoint. open-mindedness has become closed-mindedness.



WOW.This thread has become interesting. Thats NEVEr happens at ZP anymore.


I have to admit, I am close minded in some respects. I refuse to even consider that some magic dood shat this universe into existence.......but beyond that Im very open minded. I wonder who actually came up with that idea. I bet he wore a mullet. I think I saw him on a GEICO TV add the other day.

[w31n3r]

I have not been trying to prove the existence of God.

My point is only this: Anti-creationists often criticize those with religious views for being dogmatic about their beliefs... yet, anti-creationism has become an aesthetic, a trendy viewpoint that is worn as a badge of honor. Anyone can quote Marx and say that religion is the opiate of the people... it has become, for many, a platform for feeling intellectually superior to others rather than a truly scientific viewpoint. open-mindedness has become closed-mindedness.

i agree with your post (and all this time i thought you were some wannabe hacker). i like to keep an open mind, and do believe in the general principles of evolution and how the universe came into being, but the singularity bit bugs me. maybe it's my education, or lack of it, but i just cannot comprehend how an event can occur when there is no time.

i've read that quantum physics "explains" it by saying stuff "just happens" at an atomic level, but to me, thats about as plausible an explaination as there being a God. maybe s/he "just happens" too.

i'd love to be enlightened.

[carpefile]

i would have to say that the human intellect is a little more than a superficial characteristic...

i need to ask, do you really think that "evolution" gave us the amazing human brain just so that we could get laid... when it could have apparently just given us some pretty feathers??

No, I would rather think that man's brain evolved to overcome his shortcomings in physical attributes. Humans are, relatively speaking, frail compared to their animal counter parts.
We're not real strong in the tooth and claw areas, our senses are pretty pitiful compared to other animals as well. Our brains most likely evolved as a counter measure.
Brains give us the ability to solve problems that otherwise would've led to our extinction.
Tough to defend against a sabre tooth with your fists, so our brains helped us develop spears, slings, arrows, etc.
Winter is cold, we don't have fur to keep us warm. Brains helped us think up clothing.
When we took the evolutionary path of standing upright to better use our opposable thumbs, that cost us a lot in terms of exposing our soft under bellies to predators. Our brains evolved to help us deal with these shortcomings, by giving us the ability to adapt our environment to us, rather than adapting to our environment.

In reference to the rather small amount of our brains we currently use, have you considered the possibility that our brains have de-evolved?
That at some point in the past, our species had begun developing and using areas of the brain we no longer use?
Perhaps some people began developing abilities such as precognizance, telekinesis, teleportation, levitation, etc. due to expanding brain function and instead of embracing these evolutionary steps, we killed the people as "wizards and witches" out of fear of the unknown, thereby knocking our evolution down a few pegs. Religion would play a huge role in stunting our evolutionary growth.

You say Evolution is a theory and nothing more, as though to place it on equal footing with Intelligent Design. Thats hogwash.
There are mountains of empirical data that support evolution, from single celled bacteria all the way up to modern primates (us). ID is based upon one single source, without a SHRED of empirical data to back it up, only anecdotal hearsay.
Faith and belief are powerful, but they are not science. It has nothing to do with open or closed mindedness, its more along the lines of put up or shutup.

[RACKnRAIL]

Would you like the five minute argument or the half hour?

[ssym3tryy]

You say Evolution is a theory and nothing more, as though to place it on equal footing with Intelligent Design. Thats hogwash.
There are mountains of empirical data that support evolution, from single celled bacteria all the way up to modern primates (us). ID is based upon one single source, without a SHRED of empirical data to back it up, only anecdotal hearsay.
Faith and belief are powerful, but they are not science. It has nothing to do with open or closed mindedness, its more along the lines of put up or shutup.


The mountains of empirical evidence that you speak of do not support evolution but rather genetic adaptation.

i do not doubt that all forms of life are capable of adapting on a genetic level to their surrounding as a way of ensuring their survival... however, that level of observable genetic deviation does not infer that all life originated from primordial soup.

an evolutionary "step" has not taken place within the span of observable human history.

there is no empirical evidence to state that trans-species mutation has ever occured.

[ssym3tryy]

Would you like the five minute argument or the half hour?

let's start with the 5 minute argument...

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

i highly doubt that you lack the intellect to comprehend that my argument was against the level of dogmatism seen in so many self-proclaimed "scientifically-minded" anti-creationist viewpoints... including, but not limited to the theory of evolution. The creation of the universe is the logical forerunner to the consideration of human existence.

the fact that you had to resort to countering my statement on a purely semantic level speaks volumes to your lack of a valid point.

Oh bull. I countered you on a strictly scientific point: that nothing you said was a valid criticism of evolution.

The claim that you weren't talking about evolution seems a bit odd, since you specifically mentioned evolution, and this is a thread about evolution. Go off on a tangent and talk about other branches of science if you want to, but maybe a bit of clarity would help so we have some clue just what you're trying to say.

The branch of science which deals with the creation of the universe is called "cosmology" and it's dominant paradigm is called "the big bang theory". If you have a criticism of the big bang theory, great, lets hear it. Stating without justification that all cosmology is "inherently unscientific" doesn't constitute a valid criticism.


if you insist on living in a world of empirical absolutes, then you should probably consider death since it is the only finality that any of us will ever know.

This remark makes no sense to me.

[ssym3tryy]

Oh bull. I countered you on a strictly scientific point: that nothing you said was a valid criticism of evolution.

The claim that you weren't talking about evolution seems a bit odd, since you specifically mentioned evolution, and this is a thread about evolution. Go off on a tangent and talk about other branches of science if you want to, but maybe a bit of clarity would help so we have some clue just what you're trying to say.

The branch of science which deals with the creation of the universe is called "cosmology" and it's dominant paradigm is called "the big bang theory". If you have a criticism of the big bang theory, great, lets hear it. Stating without justification that all cosmology is "inherently unscientific" doesn't constitute a valid criticism.


i was using "one point leads to another" type logic, which i will admit, in this context was weak.

please do not get me wrong, i love science. (in fact, i won first place in a new york city-wide science competition a few years back for an experiment that showed the positive effects of ferous oxide on the growth of phytoplankton)

however, you must admit that, at present, both the big bang theory and the theory of evolution fall short of the requirements of the scientific method... that is not to say that they are therefore wrong but only to say that the existence of such theories should not preclude the existence of god and damn any who fail to believe in them into the pit of the ignorant masses.

there is a great deal of intelligence and stupidity on both sides of the fence.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

i would have to say that the human intellect is a little more than a superficial characteristic...

I didn't state this. I said that superficially some of the higher functions of the human mind appear to have no evolutionary basis, but on a deeper level they actually do.

i need to ask, do you really think that "evolution" gave us the amazing human brain just so that we could get laid... when it could have apparently just given us some pretty feathers??

I think it's a possibility.

Human beings are first and foremost biological organisms, and like all biological organisms our primary purpose is to allow our genes to replicate. The single most important factor in gene replication is finding a mate (at least for organisms which don't reproduce asexually) so it should come as no surpirse that genes put enormous effort into creating characters which improve the organisms ability to attract a mate.

The tail feathers on a peacock were one example of genes producing a character which has no survival value outside of it's attractiveness to a mate. The huge antlers on a moose are another example. The plumage and head ornamentation on a bird of paradise are yet another. A moose with enormous antlers is essentially saying to a potential mate "check out the size of these babies, if I can grow such a whopping pair of antlers AND survive long enough to breed then I must have one helluva set of genes"

It's perfectly possible that the human neo-cortex evolved in a similar fashion. Initially intelligence would have some survival value: our ancestors with greater reasoning powers, critical thinking etc would be more likely to catch prey, escape predators and so on, leading to an increased sexual preference for an intelligent mate. After a while the preference for an intelligent mate would outstrip the usefulness of intelligence for survival, just as the female peacocks preference for a long tail outstripped the survival value of such a tail. The net result is that evolution spins "out of control" leading to the development of characters which are far beyond mere "survival" needs.

[ssym3tryy]

Oh bull. I countered you on a strictly scientific point: that nothing you said was a valid criticism of evolution.


did you forget the point about the irreconcilable gap between the "evolutionary" development of humans and every other living thing on the planet??

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

The mountains of empirical evidence that you speak of do not support evolution but rather genetic adaptation.



Evolution by natural selection IS genetic adaptation over time.

an evolutionary "step" has not taken place within the span of observable human history.

there is no empirical evidence to state that trans-species mutation has ever occured.

Not true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[ssym3tryy]

It's perfectly possible that the human neo-cortex evolved in a similar fashion. Initially intelligence would have some survival value: our ancestors with greater reasoning powers, critical thinking etc would be more likely to catch prey, escape predators and so on, leading to an increased sexual preference for an intelligent mate. After a while the preference for an intelligent mate would outstrip the usefulness of intelligence for survival, just as the female peacocks preference for a long tail outstripped the survival value of such a tail. The net result is that evolution spins "out of control" leading to the development of characters which are far beyond mere "survival" needs.

you make a good point, however, how do you then reconcile the 30,000+ people who commit suicide every year?

suicide is unique to humans in that it stems from our ability for self-reflection, our higher brain functions.

it seems counter-intuitive to think that the evolutionary process would give us such abilities. our higher intelligence, while it may help us to attract mates, causes us to procreate for strictly emotional reasons...

did evolution make a mistake? wouldn't it have been much easier to fortify our physical bodies, than to have us develop unparalleled intellectual abilities? i was under the impression that evolution only gave a species what it absolutely needed to survive?

[ssym3tryy]

Evolution by natural selection IS genetic adaptation over time.

No.

Genetic adaptation constitutes micro-evolution, or interspecies genetic development, for which there is a lot of proof.

However, evolution as it is commonly viewed (macro-evolution or trans-species mutation) on the other hand, lacks empirical evidence because such a trans-species mutation has never been observed taking place naturally.

[El Comandante]

Perhaps some people began developing abilities such as precognizance, telekinesis, teleportation, levitation, etc. due to expanding brain function and instead of embracing these evolutionary steps, we killed the people as "wizards and witches" out of fear of the unknown, thereby knocking our evolution down a few pegs. Religion would play a huge role in stunting our evolutionary growth.

This is a thought provoking point although I tend to doubt the role is "huge"... how many people could have been killed for such things and in how many countries?

[ssym3tryy]

Not true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

A very interesting article. my issue with this, is that i do not believe that protein/amino acid variations which lead to specific mating affinity really qualifies as true speciation. the examples given all seem to relate to allopatric speciation which indicates geographic isolation. most examples involved human intervention.

however, i will humbly recant my previous statement that an example of trans-species mutation has never been observed.

i will replace my erroneous statement with this: the evidence that does exist for macro-evolution seems, to me at least, inconclusive.

[carpefile]

No.

Genetic adaptation constitutes micro-evolution, or interspecies genetic development, for which there is a lot of proof.

However, evolution as it is commonly viewed (macro-evolution or trans-species mutation) on the other hand, lacks empirical evidence because such a trans-species mutation has never been observed taking place naturally.
More foolishness.
Evolution itself is a fact. The theory part of it is in the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.
It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.
It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.
It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now.
It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different.
Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans.
No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

[ssym3tryy]

More foolishness.
Evolution itself is a fact. The theory part of it is in the mechanism by which evolution occurs.


HAHAHAH. Passionately stating that something is a FACT unfortunately does not make it so.

Your litany of so-called facts are all theories that are based on imperfect and constantly changing scientific methods.

[carpefile]

Saying a fact is not, does not it make it so. Following your logic, facts do not exist at all, everything is only a theory.

There is no controversy involving any of these facts, they are all solidly grounded in science. Which ones are you disputing?

[doctorcherokee]

I get sick of hearing this garbage that Darwinian evolution is somehow proven fact. It isn't. Most people who despise any sort of belief in a Creator certainly want to believe that and have *faith* that it is pure fact, however. Now, if the scientific community somehow creates fact, or truth, then Darwinian macroevolution is fact. But I don't believe everything I'm told and don't think that the scientific community always gets it right.

Pointing to Talkorigins to prove your point is like a Muslim directing you to a Sheikh to prove Islamic doctrine. A little biased? Oh, but, no, people who believe in macroevolution are complete objectivists, not tendentious, while the rest of us who dare question the theory that essentially states that randomness creates finely-tuned, almost sacred order are rubes.

Specifically, I'm still wondering how mutations create positive, information-gaining changes to the genome. I don't think there have been any scientific papers that have ever demonstrated that. And, of course, to create new species you need new information. Tell me, without pasting a Talkorigins link, where that has been demonstrated. Try not to smarmily condescend too much...it's probably not good for your health.

I'm kind of stupid, I guess...I just refuse to blindly accept the the inverted pyramid of specious logic and huge amounts of circular reasoning wherein evolution is proven true because it is. There are certainly many, many unanswered questions and I don't have the answers. But so far, Darwinian macroevolution falls flat.

Carpe, the burden is on you...you stated facts and nothing to back it up, only the weasel words "solidly grounded in science." Well, sure, God has been proven as well, and it is "solidly grounded in logic."

Fact: Carpe's facts have not been proven.

Q.E.D. :icon_thum

[Mels_Smileys45]

did you forget the point about the irreconcilable gap between the "evolutionary" development of humans and every other living thing on the planet??


Do you think every living thing on the planet uses 100% of every aspect of its body also? Please prove this. Why have six legs when two work just fine ect ect.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

Pointing to Talkorigins to prove your point is like a Muslim directing you to a Sheikh to prove Islamic doctrine.

Of course talk origins is biased. It's a pro-evolution, pro-science website. However the point of quoting the talkorigins site was because it cited scientific papers which proved the observation of speciation. Do you seriously doubt the existence of such papers? Do you think talkorigins are making up the existence of scientific studies? If not, then what exactly is your problem with the cited studies?

Specifically, I'm still wondering how mutations create positive, information-gaining changes to the genome. I don't think there have been any scientific papers that have ever demonstrated that. And, of course, to create new species you need new information. Tell me, without pasting a Talkorigins link, where that has been demonstrated.

This is an absurd line of reasoning. Arguing that evolution is not true because no-one has ever actually observed an information changing mutation of the genome first hand is like arguing black holes don't exist because no-one has ever stood on the edge of a neutron star while it changed into a black hole.

Even if we had never observed a single instance of speciation, or even if we had never discovered the gene, evidence for evolution from other sources would still be overwhelming. The fossil record, the observation of homologies between many different species and the geographic distribution of species add up to a huge amount of evidence only a loon or someone with a vested interest in ignoring the truth would question.


I just refuse to blindly accept the the inverted pyramid of specious logic and huge amounts of circular reasoning wherein evolution is proven true because it is.

Please give examples of this "specious logic" and "circular reasoning". Please also explain why you use the words "Darwinian evolution" to refer to the theory of evolution.

[notbob]

HAHAHAH. Passionately stating that something is a FACT unfortunately does not make it so.

Your litany of so-called facts are all theories that are based on imperfect and constantly changing scientific methods.

that's especially hilarious coming from you, the guy who waltzes in with a pile of unfounded opinions and a bloated sense of self importance telling us all what the "facts" are

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

you make a good point, however, how do you then reconcile the 30,000+ people who commit suicide every year?

There is actually an evolutionary basis for suicide in certain circumstances. For example an old person, past the age where they are capable of producing offspring might decide to kill themselves to prevent being a burden on their children; children who share their genes. In this case the extinction of the individual actually helps the survival of the genes. Old people who suffer from chronic, long term disorders have a high suicide rate. Men who suddenly become unable to provide for their families are another high rate demographic.

No doubt there are psychological or social reasons for suicide too, but there is more of an evolutionary basis than you might think

i was under the impression that evolution only gave a species what it absolutely needed to survive?

Not really. Evolution gives an organism what is most likely to succeed in replicating its genes. Survival is a part of that package, but it's only important from the point of view of our genes that the organism survives long enough to produce offspring. The genes of someone who lives to twenty and produces five offspring are ultimately more "fit" than the genes of someone who lives to 100 and produces one offspring.

[ssym3tryy]

that's especially hilarious coming from you, the guy who waltzes in with a pile of unfounded opinions and a bloated sense of self importance telling us all what the "facts" are

you have it all wrong... i am not stating what the facts are, i am stating what the facts are not.

it really pisses me off when people try to imply that belief in evolution is a prerequisite to intelligence.

you may have noticed that at no point in any of my posts did i mention religion or god... that is not my agenda, i do not care if you or anyone else believes in evolution or in intelligent design... my only reason for speaking up at all is that i am starting to see a trend of very dogmatic thinking amongst the anti-creationists and it strikes me as being very closed-minded.

the criticisms that i have made were not intended to disprove your beliefs (and i am sure that they did not) but rather to show that the scientific answer to the age old question of how did we get here has not proven itself to be the absolute and all-encompassing truth thereby precluding the very concept of a creator.

i will admit that i am no expert on the topic of evolution and i have had to recant some of the statements that i have made, but, i am also not stupid or ignorant and i am not in bad company for believing in god. Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Mendel, Faraday and Newton all believed in intelligent design, just to name a few.

[ssym3tryy]

There is actually an evolutionary basis for suicide in certain circumstances. For example an old person, past the age where they are capable of producing offspring might decide to kill themselves to prevent being a burden on their children; children who share their genes. In this case the extinction of the individual actually helps the survival of the genes. Old people who suffer from chronic, long term disorders have a high suicide rate. Men who suddenly become unable to provide for their families are another high rate demographic.


Not really. Evolution gives an organism what is most likely to succeed in replicating its genes. Survival is a part of that package, but it's only important from the point of view of our genes that the organism survives long enough to produce offspring. The genes of someone who lives to twenty and produces five offspring are ultimately more "fit" than the genes of someone who lives to 100 and produces one offspring.

those are both very interesting points.

let me ask you a question: do you feel that the human race is, on at least some level, unique to every other living thing on the planet?

[notbob]

i will admit that i am no expert on the topic of evolution and i have had to recant some of the statements that i have made, but, i am also not stupid or ignorant and i am not in bad company for believing in god. Albert Einstein...

wrong again
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hh-Ij8qaiUlcVItOKC94wrhA2R1w
AFP: Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter

[carpefile]

I get sick of hearing this garbage that Darwinian evolution is somehow proven fact. It isn't. Most people who despise any sort of belief in a Creator certainly want to believe that and have *faith* that it is pure fact, however. Now, if the scientific community somehow creates fact, or truth, then Darwinian macroevolution is fact. But I don't believe everything I'm told and don't think that the scientific community always gets it right.

Pointing to Talkorigins to prove your point is like a Muslim directing you to a Sheikh to prove Islamic doctrine. A little biased? Oh, but, no, people who believe in macroevolution are complete objectivists, not tendentious, while the rest of us who dare question the theory that essentially states that randomness creates finely-tuned, almost sacred order are rubes.

Specifically, I'm still wondering how mutations create positive, information-gaining changes to the genome. I don't think there have been any scientific papers that have ever demonstrated that. And, of course, to create new species you need new information. Tell me, without pasting a Talkorigins link, where that has been demonstrated. Try not to smarmily condescend too much...it's probably not good for your health.

I'm kind of stupid, I guess...I just refuse to blindly accept the the inverted pyramid of specious logic and huge amounts of circular reasoning wherein evolution is proven true because it is. There are certainly many, many unanswered questions and I don't have the answers. But so far, Darwinian macroevolution falls flat.

Carpe, the burden is on you...you stated facts and nothing to back it up, only the weasel words "solidly grounded in science." Well, sure, God has been proven as well, and it is "solidly grounded in logic."

Fact: Carpe's facts have not been proven.

Q.E.D. :icon_thum
Not sure why I have to "back it up" as you say, its been done for me already in thousands of studies.
Evolution is, in fact, the foundation of the entire science of modern biology and much of modern medicine. No, there is no absolute ''proof" of evolution, but that's not how science works. The evolutionary theory of origin of species is supported by abundant evidence from the fossil record and genetics research—indicating, for instance, that both humans and modern apes are related to primates who lived millions of years ago or that modern birds are related to dinosaurs. And how much scientific evidence is there disproving evolutionary theory? Zero. Yes, there are many unanswered questions about evolution. But the answer to these questions is more scientific research, not filling the gaps with ''God did it."

The facts, as I've listed them, are undisputed in the scientific community, if you can show any empirical evidence to refute them I will gladly recant.
Darwin was himself a Christian BTW, and I would be very happy to be enlightened by the logical proof of God as well.

Balls in your court.

[ssym3tryy]

wrong again
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hh-Ij8qaiUlcVItOKC94wrhA2R1w
AFP: Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter

Einstein did not believe in a personal god and was not religious... and i never stated that he was..

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." - Albert Einstein

Einstein was an agnostic but he never rejected the concept of intelligent design.

[notbob]

Einstein was an agnostic but he never rejected the concept of intelligent design.

intelligent design is less than 10 years old. it is designed to get creationism in the classroom by doing an end run around the "lemon test" by saying "intelligent", one could posit that the intelligence was aliens (BUT WE ALL KNOW IT WAS GOD, WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE) thereby dodging the question 2 "advancing religion" issue. what it is doing is posing social studies as science. proponents of ID could easily get it into public schools as a philosophy or social studies class, but they like the press they get in their phony little battles with school boards (and sham documentaries like the one that started this thread)

to say that einstein never rejected ID is ridiculous. he never rejected internet pornograpy either, because like ID, internet pornography didn't exist while he was alive. creationism existed, and judging from the letter, i doubt he was a fan (childish superstition)

[Signa]

Einstein was an agnostic but he never rejected the concept of intelligent design.

so by that logic, he then endorsed it. Great.

I shouldn't get involved with this conversation. people who believe what they are told without any questions, or any form of free thought piss me off. Thats how I view creationists. I believe in God. I consider myself a Christian. But I don't believe in ID or creationism or whatever you want to call it. It just doesn't make sense for a creator to throw together the whole universe in a few days and then 5000 years later not show his face because everyone is looking. God is too smart for that.

The way I see it, if God wanted us to believe that he really did make the world in 6 days, then why the FUCK would he place all this information for us to find that doesn't support that story? I suppose the Devil did it, right?

Really now, I think the Bible was God's worst mistake. It just comes across as a band-aid solution to get people out of the dark ages and start progressing society. Too bad it backfired and we stayed in the dark ages for like 800 years. No one seems to understand that ALL the stories in there are completely meaningless and the only good parts is the "love your neighbor" advice.

ok, so I'm ranting now, I'm sorry. But all I'm trying to say is that there is too much evidence supporting evolution (Don't ask what evidence. If you haven't seen it by now, you never will. If you actually care about making an informed opinion, it's not that hard to find out for yourself). The way I view God is that evolution is just his style. Quietly manipulate from behind the scenes so that the disbelievers don't have to be astonished every time he does something.

[ssym3tryy]

Not sure why I have to "back it up" as you say, its been done for me already in thousands of studies.
Evolution is, in fact, the foundation of the entire science of modern biology and much of modern medicine. No, there is no absolute ''proof" of evolution, but that's not how science works. The evolutionary theory of origin of species is supported by abundant evidence from the fossil record and genetics research—indicating, for instance, that both humans and modern apes are related to primates who lived millions of years ago or that modern birds are related to dinosaurs. And how much scientific evidence is there disproving evolutionary theory? Zero. Yes, there are many unanswered questions about evolution. But the answer to these questions is more scientific research, not filling the gaps with ''God did it."

The facts, as I've listed them, are undisputed in the scientific community, if you can show any empirical evidence to refute them I will gladly recant.
Darwin was himself a Christian BTW, and I would be very happy to be enlightened by the logical proof of God as well.

Balls in your court.


Here are a few quotations from members of the scientific community that you might want to consider:

"We are about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information .... " - D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50 (1), p. 24, 25

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

" . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky’s claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed."

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a “simple fact,” nevertheless agrees that it is an “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques”2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its “hard parts” on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate — that is, the first fish– with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

“It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .”

"Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their “proof” that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not “organizing” mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only “sieve out” the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present."

- Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

[ssym3tryy]

The way I see it, if God wanted us to believe that he really did make the world in 6 days, then why the FUCK would he place all this information for us to find that doesn't support that story? I suppose the Devil did it, right?

the hebrew term that is commonly rendered "day" refers to a period of time and not necessarily a 24 hour literal time period.

i am not contesting that the universe has been in existence for millions of years and neither is the bible. try not to be so literal.

the bible is not a scientific book, yet it is scientifically accurate.

the bible stated that the earth was sphere-shaped way before that was scientifically proven.

the bible stated that the earth was hung "simply upon nothing" when the prevailing theories were that a very large man was holding it up... or possibly a sea turtle.

the sanitary laws given to the ancient jew were way ahead of their time and indicated that the author had knowledge of the ways disease spread.

etc...

[ssym3tryy]

intelligent design is less than 10 years old. it is designed to get creationism in the classroom by doing an end run around the "lemon test" by saying "intelligent", one could posit that the intelligence was aliens (BUT WE ALL KNOW IT WAS GOD, WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE) thereby dodging the question 2 "advancing religion" issue. what it is doing is posing social studies as science. proponents of ID could easily get it into public schools as a philosophy or social studies class, but they like the press they get in their phony little battles with school boards (and sham documentaries like the one that started this thread)

to say that einstein never rejected ID is ridiculous. he never rejected internet pornograpy either, because like ID, internet pornography didn't exist while he was alive. creationism existed, and judging from the letter, i doubt he was a fan (childish superstition)

holy crap, are you serious??? do you really think that the words "intelligent design" had no meaning before the movement that you are referring to was started???

einstein did not reject the concept of an intelligent designer, he just didn't think that said designer has anything to do with the lives of humans.

i am not a proponent of ID. religion does not belong in the school system. (morality probably would help, but that is a different discussion)

besides, einstein was only one person on my list...

[carpefile]

Sorry, but Dr Morris was not a scientist, he was an engineer and the father of Creationism, and as such would undoubtedly attempt to debunk scientific method in favor of his own beliefs.
There is in fact (theres that word again) scientific evidence of macro evolution, observed in both uncontrolled nature and in labs.

This a long and indepth article discussing this debate, and expounding on evolution as fact AND theory, with citations of scientific papers and explanations of the methods used to arrive at the conclusions.
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm

I realize that it is a large amount to read, but it does address each of your disputes, indepth.

[notbob]

the hebrew term that is commonly rendered "day" refers to a period of time and not necessarily a 24 hour literal time period.

i am not contesting that the universe has been in existence for millions of years and neither is the bible. try not to be so literal.

the bible is not a scientific book, yet it is scientifically accurate.

the bible stated that the earth was sphere-shaped way before that was scientifically proven.

the bible stated that the earth was hung "simply upon nothing" when the prevailing theories were that a very large man was holding it up... or possibly a sea turtle.

the sanitary laws given to the ancient jew were way ahead of their time and indicated that the author had knowledge of the ways disease spread.

etc...


wow, your logic keeps getting weaker and weaker.

the bible is a book. a book in itself is not evidence. the examples you give are completely specious. the sanitary laws and disease theory can be tossed fairly easily. if the ancient hebrews had knowledge of how diseases were spread, they wouldn't have outlawed shaving, as long hair is a vector by which diseases are spread.

ancient people were not stupid. they had observations too. you don't need to be a scientist to see that eating undercooked shellfish or pork can kill you. the mistake is to say that shellfish and pork are "abominations". there is nothing wrong with shellfish and pork if they are properly prepared. superstition and poor conclusions based on limited or flawed research are the basis of the laws of deuteronomy


as for the creation story, it's a myth. people have an innate sense that drives them to find causes for things. in the absence of reason and logic, you get myth. "rain is an angel crying" "thunder is the gods bowling" "lightning is the wrath of an angry god" people didn't understand concepts like static electricity, condensation, or evaporation, and, being oral cultures, they explained things as stories. the bible is a collection of oral tradition written down. as the jews wandered, they picked up bits of other cultures, which were eventually written down. as a piece of literature, the bible is a great look into the ancient mind. as a book of science or history, it is sorely lacking

[carpefile]

.....show that the scientific answer to the age old question of how did we get here has not proven itself to be the absolute and all-encompassing truth thereby precluding the very concept of a creator.
I can readily agree with this. Evolution and a belief in God (or the higher power of your preference) are not mutually exclusive by any means. Many, many, many scientists have faith in a higher power and find that their understanding in the wonders of science enrich and enhance their faith.
Its called theistic evolution, the concept that evolution of the species happened on earth over billions of years, and that God used evolution as a tool to create the species that we see today.

Another point, my final in this thread, is that evolution is not and has never been mandated by law to be taught in schools. It is taught, simply because it is hard science.
Even most parochial schools teach evolution as part of their science curriculum.

[HelenaP]

...
Even most parochial schools teach evolution as part of their science curriculum.

Trip down memory lane here...

My school didn't. We were told on the first day of my 9th grade science class to tear the first chapter (Theory of Evolution) out of our books.

That was OK though. Being the rebel that I am, I chose evolution at the topic for my final term paper in my English class. Made an "A", too. :icon_salu

[Signa]

the hebrew term that is commonly rendered "day" refers to a period of time and not necessarily a 24 hour literal time period.

i am not contesting that the universe has been in existence for millions of years and neither is the bible. try not to be so literal.

the bible is not a scientific book, yet it is scientifically accurate.

the bible stated that the earth was sphere-shaped way before that was scientifically proven.

the bible stated that the earth was hung "simply upon nothing" when the prevailing theories were that a very large man was holding it up... or possibly a sea turtle.

the sanitary laws given to the ancient jew were way ahead of their time and indicated that the author had knowledge of the ways disease spread.

etc...

Seems I mislabeled you. Too many people that fervently defend ID and creationism don't listen to reason. There ARE people who believe that the universe was created exactly as the Bible states. I mistook you for one of those. I don't take things that literal. Really, the Bible isn't ALL bullshit. I did overstate that. But there is so much in there that contradicts itself and yet because it's in there, people will selectively pick and choose what they want to hear. I'm just seeing that over the last 100 years, society has advanced far enough to see that things are not at all as what we used to think. Some people still hang onto old beliefs though.

back to the argument on topic, the way I see it, ID is just creationism dressed up with a new name. I fully admit that I haven't done the research into the specifics of ID much as I feel that you only have heard what you want to hear on evolution. What differences there are to creationism to ID, I don't know. What I do believe is that God made the world via evolution, just as science has said. But in a classroom setting, a thing like God is insubstantial and unscientific. Its better to teach God's method in making the earth instead of directly giving him credit. That way, anyone who truly does believe in God, can put that into the equation on their own. Its like reading a recipe for something and being forced to hear about the cook. I JUST WANT THE DAMN RECIPE! I can enjoy the cook as a person separately because he makes good food.

[Excrement_Cranium]

prevailing theories were that a very large man was holding it up...

If it is Atlas you refer to, he held up the Heavens, not the earth. And the term was "Titan" not "large man."



Besides, anyone who ever played Goldenaxe on the Sega Genesis or in the arcade KNOWS the world rides up on the back of not one, but many turtles.


Noob.

[mountain_rage]

Sorry, but Dr Morris was not a scientist, he was an engineer and the father of Creationism, and as such would undoubtedly attempt to debunk scientific method in favor of his own beliefs.
There is in fact (theres that word again) scientific evidence of macro evolution, observed in both uncontrolled nature and in labs.

This a long and indepth article discussing this debate, and expounding on evolution as fact AND theory, with citations of scientific papers and explanations of the methods used to arrive at the conclusions.
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm

I realize that it is a large amount to read, but it does address each of your disputes, indepth.

Just felt I should point out, engineers have essentially the same qualifications as scientists. The scientific method taught to engineers, and engineers rely heavily on scientific discoveries. So to say the guy is unqualified to make a statement on science is foolish. He can, and in my opinion is an idiot for many other reasons, but not because he is an engineer.

[aqlo]

the bible is not a scientific book, yet it is scientifically accurate.

Sorry, no. The Bible is a lot of stuff, but scientifically accurate is right out of its scope. That's not the job it is doing, not at all.

The particular line of poetry in question depicts the earth as a single continent, a flat disk floating in water, with a transparent dome over it through which mysterious lights shine thru. To do the same job nowadays I would say "Atlantis". Can you see it now?
http://www.greatdarkhorde.org/cthulhu/ccc3btn3.jpg
But accurate? Ha! The Bible consistently sets pi equal to three. Makes a point of it sometimes, even when it's dealing with large enough numbers to where a carpenter wouldn't. Dares you to say something about it.

[Signa]

i am not a proponent of ID. religion does not belong in the school system. (morality probably would help, but that is a different discussion)

Wait a second. What are we arguing about then?:icon_scra

[carpefile]

Just felt I should point out, engineers have essentially the same qualifications as scientists. The scientific method taught to engineers, and engineers rely heavily on scientific discoveries. So to say the guy is unqualified to make a statement on science is foolish. He can, and in my opinion is an idiot for many other reasons, but not because he is an engineer.
Ok, I should have pointed out that he was a hydraulics engineer and not a biologist or paleontologist. My bad. And its was, not is. He died.
So in actuality he is currently unqualified to make a statement on any subject. ;)

[HelenaP]

This is a thought provoking point although I tend to doubt the role is "huge"... how many people could have been killed for such things and in how many countries?

Never thought I would say this to you El C, but
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/TPImages/untitled.jpg it...

[El Comandante]

Never thought I would say this to you El C, but
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/TPImages/untitled.jpg it...

I know more about witches now than I care to...Estimates range anywhere from 100,000 to 9 million executed in Europe during the early modern period. In other words, no one knows.... a lot of help Google was.... (we now return to our regularly scheduled program "Origin of Man: Created or Evolved")

[Excrement_Cranium]

But there is so much in there that contradicts itself and yet because it's in there, people will selectively pick and choose what they want to hear.

Old Testament vs New Testament for sure.


Though, I wouldn't say what pisses me of is contradictions in the bible itself. It's people touting the bible while acting in direct contradiction to the teachings of the bible itself.

In fact, if one were to read through the new testament, it would seem those that bible tout are those under "doctrines of devils" and not under the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus was a socialist hippy, he wanted people to sit back, shut up, love each other, and go with god. Arguing about evolution in schools, and/or any other worldly political process just wasn't his bag, baby.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

Here are a few quotations from members of the scientific community that you might want to consider:

"We are about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information .... " - D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50 (1), p. 24, 25

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

" . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky’s claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed."

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

“It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .”

"Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their “proof” that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not “organizing” mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present."


This post is a rogues gallery of cliched creationist arguments: gaps in the fossil record, supposed absence of transitional forms, lack of observation of speciation, violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All of these claims are specious and have been thoroughly debunked many times.

The refutations are out there and easy to find. I'd post them if I thought there was any point, but the fact that you are reduced to copying and pasting wholesale from creationist blogs seems to indicate that you're less interested in the truth than in spewing creationist propaganda.

[Signa]

Jesus was a socialist hippy, he wanted people to sit back, shut up, love each other, and go with god. Arguing about evolution in schools, and/or any other worldly political process just wasn't his bag, baby.

As lame as that sounds now, just think about the time and *place* for someone like that to come up. It makes sense that they killed him (besides the fact he was a hippy). Those people STILL are barbarians 2000 years later! It just goes to support my theory that Jesus was a time traveling magician or con artist.

[aqlo]

"When I invented chaotic inflation theory, I found that the only thing you needed to get a universe like ours started is a hundred-thousandth of a gram of matter," Linde told me in his Russian-accented English when I reached him by phone at Stanford. "That's enough to create a small chunk of vacuum that blows up into the billions and billions of galaxies we see around us. It looks like cheating, but that's how the inflation theory works—all the matter in the universe gets created from the negative energy of the gravitational field. So, what's to stop us from creating a universe in a lab? We would be like gods!"

Linde, it should be said, is famous for his mock-gloomy manner, and these words were laced with irony. But he insisted that this genesis-in-a-lab scenario was feasible, at least in principle. "What my theoretical argument shows—and Alan Guth and others who have looked at this matter have come to the same conclusion—is that we can't rule out the possibility that our own universe was created in a lab by someone in another universe who just felt like doing it."
http://www.slate.com/id/2100715/

But why bother making a universe if it's going to run away from you? Wouldn't you want to have some power over how your creation unfolded, some way of making sure the beings that evolved in it turned out well? Linde's picture was as unsatisfying as Voltaire's idea of a creator who established our universe but then took no further interest in it or its creatures.

"You've got a point," Linde said. "At first I imagined that the creator might be able to send information into the new universe—to teach its creatures how to behave, to help them discover what the laws of nature are, and so forth. Then I started thinking. The inflation theory says that a baby universe blows up very quickly, like a balloon, in the tiniest fraction of a second. Suppose the creator tried to write something on it surface, like 'Please remember I created you.' The inflationary expansion would make this message exponentially huge. The creatures in the new universe, living in a little corner of one letter, would never be able to read the whole thing."

But then Linde thought of another channel of communication between creator and creation—the only one possible, as far as he could tell. The creator, by manipulating the cosmic seed in the right way, has the power to ordain certain physical parameters of the universe he ushers into being. So says the theory. He can determine, for example, what the numerical ratio of the electron's mass to the proton's will be. Such ratios, called constants of nature, look like arbitrary numbers to us: There is no obvious reason they should take one value rather than another. (Why, for instance, is the strength of gravity in our universe determined by a number with the digits 6673?) But the creator, by fixing certain values for these dozens of constants, could write a subtle message into the very structure of the universe. And, as Linde hastened to point out, such a message would be legible only to physicists.

"You might take this all as a joke," he said, "but perhaps it is not entirely absurd. It may be the explanation for why the world we live in is so weird. On the evidence, our universe was created not by a divine being, but by a physicist hacker."

[HelenaP]

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb216/michepp/ththgod.gif

[Signa]

Holy shit that's freaky Aqlo. Reminds me of Men in Black: how our galaxy is just a playing marble for some aliens.

[aqlo]

for extinguising the dinasors
http://onlinebibletalk.com/files/ATT00064.jpg (http://onlinebibletalk.com/kids-letter-to-god-dear-god-thanks-for-extinguising-dinosaurs)

[HelenaP]

thats a great movie
__________________
http://yourfreemoviedownloads.com (http://yourfreemoviedownloads.com/)



And how long will you be here to spam our board?

[Signa]

for extinguising the dinasors
http://onlinebibletalk.com/files/ATT00064.jpg (http://onlinebibletalk.com/kids-letter-to-god-dear-god-thanks-for-extinguising-dinosaurs)

That has to be one of the funniest things I have seen in a while.

[notbob]

what happened to the god haxxor? he flared like a big bang, then fizzled like a fart in the wind