START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
Science & Technology

Rave

Darwin On Trial

Posted 12 months ago|110 comments|1,251 views
Silent no longer, it's about evidence!
VIDEOS
Written by
"Intelligent Design Making Headway into Texas Public Schools: As early as this year, public schools in Texas may be able to teach students about intelligent design in their science classes, reigniting the much-heated debate over the teaching of evolutionary theory."
http://www.christianpost.com/news/intell...%29

"Retired Science Teacher Seeks to Bar Evolution from Classrooms: Tom Ritter, a former physics and chemistry teacher of over 10 years, filed a lawsuit earlier this month against evolution in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the same court that ruled that teaching of intelligent design in public schools is unconstitutional."
http://www.christianpost.com/news/retire...

HEADLINES like this are only getting more frequent... somebody has been thinking outside the box... and they are getting answers! IT is pretty hard to force everyone back into the realm of fantasy when the find out Darwin is not coming down the chimney at XMAS... harder yet to contain the outrage of people when they see how bad they have been duped! We may have Creation back in the schools before prayer, but that won't stop people from discovering God scientifically.

IT is merely the process of elimination when it comes to matters of discovery... IF one eliminates all other possibilities the remaining option must be given credence. AND this is where we see Creationism today... one might say we are soon to be living in an evolution-post-era ...where one will be able to believe what they are clearly seeing and not what they are told they are seeing.

WE have the capabilities of deduction and reason, but this is not what the popes of evolution would have us trust... they want us dependent on the priests of Darwin, so they can spoon feed the ignorant masses with their regurgitated theories absent of fact. IF students are told to scrutinize the "evidence" of theories, what is there to fear? IS the public system afraid that the masses will choose Creation over Evolution?

Check out the evidence for yourself...
For a PDF copy or to read DARWIN ON TRIAL, by Phillip E. Johnson...
http://talebooks.com/index.php?option=co...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsJmBevvR...

To listen to Phillip E. Johnson in video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6...

WHILE the gullible cry "mutiny!" ...those who have jumped the "ship of evolution" tossed in the ever changing waves of theories... find themselves happily on the solid ground of substantiated proof... never to return to the deception and manipulation of the state-funded religion... FREE to see... and FREE to believe it!
UPDATE - 12 months ago
FOR and Index of Creation Science on the World Wide Web and resources for research into the Creation vs Evolution debate check out the following...
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/links.htm
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm


UPDATE - 12 months ago
Evidence Against Darwin - Lee Strobel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTfSe194J...
UPDATE - 12 months ago
"Atheist-turned-Christian Lee Strobel, the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of more than twenty books and has been interviewed on numerous national TV programs, including ABC, Fox, PBS, and CNN."
http://www.leestrobel.com/Bio.php
UPDATE - 12 months ago
BREAKING
May 16, 2011

"An Insurmountable Problem for Darwinian Evolution
Ann Gauger is a senior research scientist at the Biologic Institute. Her work uses molecular genetics and genomic engineering to study the origin, organization and operation of metabolic pathways. She received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry."
http://www.idthefuture.com/2011/05/an_in...
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/p...
UPDATE - 10 months ago
Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped?
http://www.youtube.com/user/ppsimmons#p/...

UPDATE - 10 months ago
Missing Link... Or missing Science?
http://www.youtube.com/user/ppsimmons#p/...
UPDATE - 2 months ago
John Piper - "Don't waste your life"
http://dwynrhh6bluza.cloudfront.net/reso...
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
12 months ago: I don't think you should be so keen for religion to trump reason.

Intelligent design is a fine religion. Don't get it confused with science.
12 months ago: Stan,

Evolution is a poor religion... don't get it confused with true science.

"600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys."
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/e...
12 months ago: Stan,

Here is a couple of good reads on this subject...

Refuting Evolution 2
A sequel to Refuting Evolution that refutes the latest arguments to support evolution (as presented by PBS and Scientific American).
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. with Michael Matthews
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2...

Refuting Evolution 1
A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-i...

One can also find these in free PDF E-books to download in a Google search.
12 months ago: Stan,

Here is a list of some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are...
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: I say again, Pope John Paul II stated that Darwinian Evolution was not in conflict with Biblical teachings and should be acceptable to Christians everywhere. Why is it more compelling that some scientists who are religious believe in Creation, that the Pope, speaker of the one of the largest Christian religions says that Darwin is fine? Why? I don't get it?
12 months ago: CR,

The Pope also sees not conflict with...

Dogma of Papal Infallibility
Immaculate Conception
Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible
The doctrine of Purgatory
The Scapular
Dogma of Transubstantiation
The sale of Indulgences
The Inquisition
The Rosary
The celibacy of the priesthood
Canonization of dead saints
Worship of the cross, images and relics
The worship of Mary
Veneration of angels and dead saints

...if Pope John Paul II doesn't have a problem these, then it is no wonder that he doesn't see the conflict with anything and the Bible. It doesn't take a Bible scholar to figure out that churches have rested on their traditions more than the Word of God.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Creationism has no place in a science class because there is no scientific evidence to support it. Does that mean it didn't happen? No! An intelligent designer or a giant, super natural jelly bean from Rancho Cucamonga could have created everything in our universe yesterday. Until there is scientific evidence of creation, it's religious mythology that needs to stay separated from science. Got it?

Meanwhile, there is no scientific basis for intelligent design. It's not a theory or even an hypothesis. It's a mere logic construct based on a faulty premise called irreducible complexity. The idea in a nutshell is that humans and other sufficiently complex things could not have evolved because their parts and systems are irreducibly complex. This is to say the complexity is not reducible to earlier forms. One example is to say the sequence of stages in our blood clotting cannot be reduced to something simpler. Yet, there are thousands of examples of more primitive stages. What then? A lot of ID advocates use a motorcycle analogy. They say the motorcycle is irreducibly complex and couldn't have evolved from any simpler idea. But, hey, isn't a motorcycle just a bicycle with a motor? The idea of irreducible complexity has no scientific basis in reality. Just like there is no scientific proof God exists. Meanwhile, there is voluminous scientific evidence that evolution occurs every minute in every species on the planet.

12 months ago: Sorry CR,

You sound like the blind leading the dumb. I may indeed be moron, but there are countless men who have their heads on right, leading men in their fields of scientific research that hold to Intelligent Design. The proof is stacked on the side of Creation when it comes to prove that NOTHING organized comes from chaos! What you have is a theory... if one believes that aliens evolved enough to plant us here on earth... you need to find a belief that accomidates that... but don't call it science.

Evolution fails at the core, and you have nothing. ALL your TREK fantasies of the origins of species is much like the 2nd Law of thermodynamics... eroding like the sand that it is built on. MOST hold so tightly to evolution because it is escapism. Escapism from the reality that all we observe is coming to an end... and there is no Hale-Bop coming to rescue us from inevitability.

As to scientific evidence of God... do we know what light is? Is it matter or is it a wave of frequency? We don't know the way or path of light... yet we know it exists... and all things are held together by it's energy... what if LIGHT is a representation of God?

Jesus said...
"As long as I am in the world, I am the Light of the world."
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: TB,

I sound like the blind leading the dumb. So are you the dumb because I am trying to lead you, and I think you are trying to lead me too! Which, after all, is the the point of all this debate. We are trying to get at essential core beliefs, right.

So, again, sorry, let's start over with some basics that you don't yet see.
(a) A few leading men of science may believe that we are descendants of Martians who destroyed their world and hopped over a planet, abandoned all technology, and vowed to start over. If a few leading scientists believe something, should it be taken as truth and taught in school? Sure, maybe it should be because, in science, there is nothing wrong with debating ideas. Stephen Hawking announced today there is no heaven. He's one of the world's smartest men, if he says there's no heaven, does that mean there is no heaven? This is the part I don't think you get about science, and that's fine, as a non-scientist, I wouldn't expect you to get this. Few people do. Scientists work in a box of rules. They can say what ever they want in or outside the box, but the box still has rules and the rules govern scientific truth. In scientific terms, truth is very sacred because the greatest scientist know that new facts and date and experiments change truth. They know that it used to be truth that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. They know this isn't true now. So, what to do? Well, you establish complex rules for admitting thing into the realm of scientific thruth. You carefully use words like Law, Theory, Hypothesis, and the like. Unfortunately, people outside the box do not. Also, unfortunately, people think that because one scientist writes a book, that the rules in the box, or the truth in the box can change -- both of which are not true. Just because the imminent Stephen Hawking writes a book saying there is no God and no heaven doesn't mean he's right.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: So, you cannot have it both ways, you cannot try to build your arguments based on a few scientists whose work has not been established as truth in the scientific box as basis for your arguments and then discard others such as Stephen Hawking. You see what I mean? It kind of doesn't make sense. Scientists don't do this, why should you be able to. We don't lable things as truth without decades if not centuries of evidence. If you want to play in the science box, you have to play by our rules. In this case you cannot use a few scientists even a 100 or a 1000 as the definers of truth because, unlike a courtroom or a philosophical discussion, scientific truth is not based on the majority of opinions, votes at the ballot box or meeting, nor the writings of even the most pre-eminent of scientists, it's based on years and years, decades and decades, centuries and centuries of scientific research and scientific evidence. Does that mean scientists cannot debate ideas? No. Does that mean scientists cannot formulate opinions? No. They can do both. But, they know their ideas are just that...opinions.

So, my point here is you cannot hold up the opinions of some scientists as truth on the one hand because they support you and discard others because they don't. You cannot use the opinions of scientists to justify anything other than your opinions which then become justified opinions. They do not become scientific truth. Scientific truth is not justified opinions. Scientific truth is truth for which there is currently no counter evidence known in existence at this time and that which has survived the test of time. Time, being a really key element and one that people who debate evolutionary theory confuse. They think because evolution is called a theory and not a law, it's just supposition. In science, a theory is a unifying principle that has no counter evidence in existence and has survived the test of time. Look the word up in a science book not the Oxford..
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: ..English Dictionary, and you'll see the difference in meaning. Before scientists are willing to call something a law, it has to survived the test of many hundreds of years. Scientists know, and knew correctly, that there would need to be many modifications to Darwin's theory of evolution as our knowledge of genetics and then molecular genetics grew. Recall that when Darwin wrote, DNA was as yet undiscovered. Yet, credence was lent when it was discovered and the molecular basis for evolution was revealed. This kind of thing is equivalent to a scientific miracle (pardon the term) because for someone with no knowledge of genetics or DNA to have discovered evolutionary principles that were later verified and explained by the actual mechanisms in the DNA is really quite profound.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: (b) I really wish you could differentiate in your mind the evolutionary theory from origin theory. They are not the same thing. Evolution is the change in gene frequency in populations over time. So far, no one has found any evidence that gene frequencies in a population do not vary over time except in micro, inbreeding populations which can be accounted for by there being no genetic variation. Evolution is pretty much a fact, my friend.

However, origin of life on earth, in the universe, of human kind, that's a whole different story. Can evolutionary theory be used to explain it? Yes, yes it can. However, it is not a very satisfying exercise because there is so much we still don't know. I used to tell my students that we don't have much of any evidence for the origin of life on earth let alone the origin of human life. The lump sum of all the hominid fossils used to explain human origin would fit in a Volkswagon Bus. We just don't know. Any valid hypothesis for our origin is probably valid at this time. Lots of people think true humans evolved in Africa and others think Asia, but there's just not enough evidence to know. If you want to believe we were all created on earth by God, you can probably think so. Just like early people thought rain was created by God. You can use God to explain anything inexplicable if you want. In a science class, we cannot use God, because there is no scientific evidence that there is any such thing as God. Does that mean that God doesn't exist? Absolutely not. Just as we used to think the sun revolved around the earth, God could reveal him / her / itself tomorrow. So, sure, God could be out there and we just cannot see him / her / it. But, until there is scientific evidence that God exists, we don't have the luxury to explain things in our universe using God.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: (c) God as light. Sure, it's very possible God is light. We don't know. We do know what light is though. It is a wave particle. Could God be a wave particle, why not? We have no evidence that God is a wave particle, but we have no evidence He / She / It is not. When we get some evidence, that will surely be spectacular. It will surely answer some questions and put some critics to rest. Until then, we have our debates and our ideas. We have our hypotheses. We have our guesses. We can have our debates and discussions. But, without scientific evidence and the test of time, we have no additional truth.
12 months ago: "Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: You are correct. The difference is in the interpretation. Scientists must use the intereprestions within the science box. But, again, in the end, the conclusions drawn are not based on who won the debate, the argument, or the discussion. They must be based on the scientific evidence that has survived the test of time.

Why do some Christians explain the fossil record as being (a) hidden by God to test our faith, (b) planted by Satan to confuse us, or (c) relics?

Why do some Christians think the earth is only 4-10,000 years old, some think it's much older, and some rely on the idea that the Bible isn't to be taken literally (and why should or would it if 1/2 is forged? ;) ) Scientific evidence is that that components of the earth are millions upon billions of years old. Carbon dating is not a myth in the scientific world. Neither is uranium dating.

Does this mean that Satan isn't sitting on the needle of the radioactive dating device and making things seem old? Nope, that's possible. We don't know. In the science box, we couldn't choose to explain the needle movement nor the radiation as being a byproduct of Satan or God because we don't have that luxury.

You are not correct that scientists start with different presupposistions. Scientists are not permitted suppositions as the basis for explanation. This is again a key difference between the science box and the rest of the boxes for thought.
12 months ago: CR,

You stated "Creationism has no place in a science class" ...as a mere opposing school of thought Creationism has it's place, if not only for reference to debunk mythology... and there you have it, it is always referenced in "science class" as a myth, yet never given opportunity to defend it's evidence.

Soon enough Creation will find it's self back in the classroom:
"Intelligent Design Making Headway into Texas Public Schools..."
http://www.christianpost.com/news/intell...
12 months ago: CR,

The following link gives a good picture of Evolution in the classroom...
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.ht...
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: In the science box, creationism is not an opposing school of thought to evolution. Now, it might be to Origin hypotheses were it not for one small thing. Again, I've written this 1000 times, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. Therefore to offer creationism as an alternate Origin hypothesis in a science classroom makes no more sense that saying the universe was created by a giant jelly bean from Rancho Cucamonga. In the science box, you cannot utilize things that don't exist, haven't been proven, aren't there.

You don't have any scientific evidence that God exists or that God created everything in the universe. You have a book, written by many humans over centuries with conflicting and contradictory information translated back and forth from ancient languages to modern English and the like with the change of meaning through time being just one component of the issues in what the original writing was even supposed to mean. That's it. That's all you have. And that doesn't hold any water in the science book any more than it would if you dug up Shakespeare's "The Tempest" in the year 2150 and thought it must be the word of the creator. Come on.

Can you not see and get that no one is saying you cannot believe what you want? No one is saying that you cannot believe Creation? You can believe it all you want. It just not science. It's not scientific. It's theology. Theology has a place in our world to be sure. But it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

In a good science classroom, creation-related topics wouldn't be addressed as myth or otherwise. They wouldn't come up any more than discussions of the Teletubbies. They are irrelevant and of zero scientific merit. Go down the hall to the theology classroom and debate creation all you want, but don't lie and teach it as science.

Now, if evidence of God's existence and creation arises in our lifetimes, then fantastic, let's put that evidence in the classroom.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: And, TB, I do wonder where you draw the line. I am assuming, based on everything you've ever written, that you completel discard any of the world's religious teachings save those that align perfectly with your excellent Christian traditional view.

So, am I to correctly conclude that the views of origin and creation of the Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Voodoosists, are off limits? How about the Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, countless African tribal cultures, etc. are out?

You and your bretheren forget that 95% of this debate is fundamental to the separation of church and state guaranteed by our US Constitution. We should not have Chrisitan Creation being taught in public schools. If people want to teach this as science in a Christian school, fine. They are misleading their students and teaching them non-science, but that's their choice. So, keep in mind, when you start talking about public schools in Texas and the rise of creationism, you are forgetting the Constitution. It's just not right to force the religious dogma of one religion onto the rest of us. It's fine to teach it in a comparative religions class in public school, but not in a science classroom.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago:
"Creationism has no place in a science class because there is no scientific evidence to support it."
You would be surprised to learn that there is even LESS evidence to support macro evolution. Just about every bit of alleged "scientific evidence" supporting macro evolution has been disproven. Micro evolution is well established. Macro evolution is a religious belief. Science requires repeatable experiments - something macro evolution cannot by its nature provide. Macro evolution was first postulated at a time when little was known about basic biological processes. Cells were considered to be simple things. The structure of genes, chromosomes and DNA were completely unknown. The more we learn about the cell the less likely macro evolution becomes.
"[Intelligent Design is] a mere logic construct based on a faulty premise called irreducible complexity. The idea in a nutshell is that humans and other sufficiently complex things could not have evolved because their parts and systems are irreducibly complex. This is to say the complexity is not reducible to earlier forms."
Actually irreducible complexity means that complex things cannot have evolved because they do not work when less than complete. The blood clotting mechanism you mentioned is one such. disrupt the process at any point or fail to complete it and the result is deleterious if not fatal. Leave a couple of parts out of a motorcycle engine and see how well it runs. Certainly it STARTED with a bicycle - but it developed by dint of very hard work by INTELLIGENT people. It is your example that is inapt.

When I was in public school, we were were taught that life does not arise from non-life. Yet that at its core is the essence of evolution. Somehow, against all odds, life arose out of non-living chemicals. Talk about believing 7 impossible things before breakfast!
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: BC,
Thank you for repeating what I said. Thank you for actually researching what irreducible complexity means and reproducing it here for the group.

Perhaps now we can have an intelligent discussion as to why Irreducible Complexiity is a fallacy and of no scientific merit as a concept.

It's invalid for the reasons you begin to address but slough off.

The motorcycle analogy is a beginning step in deconstructing IC however, because there are many, many parts of a modern motorcycle that can be removed and yet it functions just fine. It turns out not to be a very good example in support of IC, in fact. When you turn to biological systems, however, one of the fundamental problems with the briliance of Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, is that we can actually map the genetic changes that show the evolution of the blood clotting sequence. In my lifetime, the entire evolution of the blood clotting genes in mammals will likely be revealed. So, to say it couldn't evolve is silly.

However, does that mean it evolved? Nope. Could it have been designed by an Intelligent Designer? Sure. We don't know.

So, again we get to the salient issue. What we cannot know, we cannot teach.

Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: If you are a true scholar, you owe it to yourself to become educated on the matters about which you expound.

Here is a link to one of the best and most expansive refutations of ID ever written. It's by Donald E. Simanek. He will explain why ID is of NO merit in strictly non-scientific terms for non-scientists. He does is with grace and with a comprehension that all scientists take toward their work.

Please read this before attempting any more discussions about the value of ID.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/c...
12 months ago: OK CR,

I read the Donald E. Simanek link, and a few others... just because Don says it isn't so, it doesn't mean a thing... many of those accredited in their fields have given their lives to scientific research and say it is. Your debate is not so much with me as it is with those who have surfaced a world of information that debunks evolution, and establishes Creation.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/e...
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: TB, really, you read all of Simanek's work that fast. Then you dismissed a PhD in Physics as not meaning a thing. Wow. I wish I could be that arrogant.

So, I'll be as dissmisive as your links. They are, as many as I click, linked to sites prepared by devout Christians who are hell bent on trying their hardest to prove that evolution isn't true. Of course, they do so without the faintest knowledge, as much as any of us who actually do know what evolution is, of what evolution is or means. If you did deeper into your link of your reply here, and you know anything about science or studied any science at all, you don't have to read down the page of scientists listed as being devout creationists before you start to laugh out loud.

Robert Boyle -- he's the father of the gas laws and was a tremendous scientist. Guess what, he couldn't possibly have ever been a "Darwinist". You know why? He died on 31 December 1691. Unless he travelled into the future, read Origin of Species and then travelled back, he could never have read Darwin's incredibly treatise. Without it, he was left in as much biological ignorance as the rest of the world was at the time. This was long before DNA was even an inkling.

Keep reading down to Francis Bacon, who died on 9 April 1626. How could he be a Darwinist?

So, your fantastic evidence of scientists who were creationists is the same sort of crazy evidence that all the people who sit back and say evolution isn't true bring up. They use faulty logic, straw-man rhetoric, and the like to disprove evolutionary theory. But, that's exactly what it is. Erroneous.

To give you an example, what written on this page to which you link is rather like me saying...I know the Bible isn't true because there's no mention of it in the writings of the Chinese in the year 4,000 BC. And since those people didn't know about the Bible, the Bible must be false. Huh?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Next, you site utilizes a book called "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism". Did you read this book? It's funny because, I did read this book. One of my students gave it to me. She was a devout fundamentalist Christian. She wanted me to read it because she thought it was funny. She was seeking proof that evolution was wrong, but five pages in, even she, a junior in high school, could see all the flaws in the arguments the author makes. She said, "If this is the best people can come up with, I don't know what to do. This is the worst example of twisted facts and erroneus crap I've ever read. I still don't believe in evolution because I want to believe God created everything, because that's what I want to believe, but really? We need something better than this." It was funny. I told her that we have no way of knowing that God didn't create everything, He may well have, and maybe she should set her life's mission to prove, beyond a shaddow of scientific doubt that God does exist. Unfortunately, she's now in her late 30s and she's still not come up with any proof. Sadly, no one has.

But, just to give you another idea of how the aforementioned book works in its logic, I'll give you this.

I know that Jesus never existed because there is no way a anyone ever circled the globe spreading God's word in the times before ships and airplanes. So, therefore, Jesus couldn't have spread the Gospel to all ends of the earth.

Now you would read this and say, "Wait, no one ever said that Jesus spread God's word to all parts of the world. So, that's not proof he didn't exist."

This is the fundamental strategy that Milton uses in his book to debunk evolutionary theory. He makes grandiose statements about evolutionary theory that either aren't true or aren't what was meant, and then shows how stupid they are.

I think we can all agree that this is not a way to debunk something. It's the same thing with Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Finally, I think it would be great if someone could provide some evidence in support of creationism or ID. When they do, I'll be the first to take a look. But, to date, no one has come up with any. They cannot find the designer, they cannot explain why an Intelligent Designer would design some pretty badly working stuff, they cannot show where or how he or she does his or her work.

I, on the other hand, can provide voluminous evidence / data to the fact that gene frequencies in populations change over time -- which is the very essence of evolution. I won't once have to rely on supernatural forces that no one can see or measure. I won't have to ask you to rely even once on faith. I won't have to provide opinions, I can provide scientific data as true and observable and factual as the fact that a ball pushed gently will roll across your dining room table and bounce on to the floor.

You can choose to ignore the data, but the data is real. You can choose to explain the universe using Christian mythology, and that's what you'll have a universe explained by Christian mythology. Just like the native north Americans explained the universe using their mythology which is in conflict with Christian mythology. And their mythology is no less valuable as mythology than yours. And none of us can prove in a philosophical discussion which one of us is right. In a philosophical debate we are all right or wrong or somewhere in between. In a scientific debate, however, your mythologies don't hold up because they don't have any scientific evidence to back them up. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between working in the science box. We don't have the luxury to rely on faith, conjecture, or belief. I might want to believe everything was created by God, I might want to believe I am God, but belief doesn't make it so.

I wonder what you would do if God came to you and told you you were wrong, evolution is correct, what would you do?
12 months ago: CR,

CR,

I like your continuous rant... ever responding to your own statements, which indeed has the look of intelligence, but it really is a "tell" of your intimidation... giving only rhetorical statements, hoping no rebuttal. It matters little.

Your statement...

"Robert Boyle -- he's the father of the gas laws and was a tremendous scientist. Guess what, he couldn't possibly have ever been a "Darwinist". You know why? He died on 31 December 1691. Unless he travelled into the future, read Origin of Species and then travelled back, he could never have read Darwin's incredibly treatise. Without it, he was left in as much biological ignorance as the rest of the world was at the time. This was long before DNA was even an inkling.
Keep reading down to Francis Bacon, who died on 9 April 1626. How could he be a Darwinist?"

...shows just how ignorant you really are. First Francis Bacon...

"Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount Saint Alban,[1] KC (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) was an English philosopher, statesman, scientist, lawyer, jurist, author and pioneer of the scientific method. He served both as Attorney General and Lord Chancellor of England. Although his political career ended in disgrace, he remained extremely influential through his works, especially as philosophical advocate and practitioner of the scientific method during the scientific revolution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bac...

Second Robert Boyle...

"Boyle's law (sometimes referred to as the Boyle-Mariotte law) is one of many gas laws and a special case of the ideal gas law. Boyle's law describes the inversely proportional relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas, if the temperature is kept constant within a closed system.[1][2] The law was named after chemist and physicist Robert Boyle, who published the original law in 1662.[3] The law itself can be stated as follows:
For a fixed amount of an ideal gas kept at a fixed temperature, P [pressure] and V [volume] are inversely proportional (while one doubles, the other halves)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_l...

I agree, these two (Robert Boyle and Francis Bacon) preceded Darwin, much like Sir Issac Newton...

"Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_...

...however we don't laugh and chuckle about the foundational work and discoveries that these have given to modern science... the "arrogance" is yours my friend... and your narrow mindedness attempt to discount the other contemporary scientists listed in my first link has you running. In your attempt at a narrative, about some naive student of yours... who obviously was stupefied by your brilliance; gave you the only hope of settling an argument you supposed would only be matched, by my open mouth, and failure to pick my jaw from the ground... NEWS FLASH you are not as well-read as you claim, and the readers too, will discover your hollow ineptness disguised in voluminous quasi-scientific verbiage. DO your own homework!

I neither claim the smarts required to present this argument, nor the credentials to substantiate it... I merely refer seekers of truth to a library of context and options that are rarel
12 months ago: CR,

IN your ref to the book by Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997), p. 12.... his statement merely showed that the "scientific" discovery teams are headed by prominent Darwinists....

"It is true that during the 20th century, many scientists accepted Evolutionism, in part or in whole. As secular science writer Richard Milton recently observed:

"An important factor in bringing about the universal dominance and acceptance of Darwinian evolution has been that virtually every eminent professional scientist appointed to posts in the life sciences in the last 40 or 50 years, in the English-speaking world, has been a convinced Darwinist. …These men, as well as occupying powerful and important academic teaching positions, were also prolific and important writers whose influence has been widespread in forming the consensus."

These names include such men as Gavin de Beer, Julian Huxley, J.B.S. Haldane, C.H. Waddington, Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Simpson."
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/e...

...the ref to the book merely points out the obvious preschooled thought that has gone into modern "research" ...biased and premeditated... one could say religious.

Who gives a rip if one book by a secular writer holds up? His statement was true. However more people now are simply not willing to be indoctrinated by Darwinists or Dawkinsians ...rather they are opening their eyes to what the evidence is revealing. In your panic to hold back the dam-break of discovery... you have committed intellectual suicide... fearing that your fight is really with the Almighty, Creator of all !:]
12 months ago: CR,

In reference to your "Finally..." statement, you have nothing! YOU have discovered nothing, you have not researched anything, and all your so-called facts evidence and data was gleaned from someone else's hard work! You are merely an educator. And in most cases a glorified baby-sitter. Most of your students meme'd the works that you did, and answered as you did, and walked in goose-step as you did... to gain the prize, a certificate or graduation in the school of thought you were indoctrinated with. You simply teach what you have been taught... you have discovered nothing.

SO go ahead and give each other awards and letters for your "name" ...while you bury truth and real first-hand discovery. And if you want to refer to Jesus Christ ...you might want to start on your knees, He is found by ALL who humbly seek Him... that may just be your first real discovery.

As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:11-13
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Sorry, I'm limited to 2000 characters, so I have to keep adding to my replies. Maybe you have special privileges to exceed that, but nice and baseless bash anyway.

As for me not being as well-read as I think, well, no one ever is, you certainly are not as well versed in my discipline as I am in yours. But, I like how you gave us Internet copied wikipedia information on the scientists above. Wow, I don't know exactly the point you were making. The point I was making and that which you cleverly avoided as you always do by the way, is that the evidence you are using to suggest that scientist have long been creationists is fundamentally flawed. It's pieced together in a mish-mash way (like inserting these famous long-dead scientists to make the list look longer in your original source work) full of erroneous and incorrect fallacies.

You have long objected to my charge that we must look at motivation as well as what is said. Why is a certain scientist motivated to say or write a certain thing especially if it differs from establishment? Some are motivated by fame, some by fortune, some by their belief they are divinely inspired to reach the truth. The problem boils down to the same problem we have any time we attempt to get at truth, humans are fallible. In science we know and admit that. Which is why we don't jump to conclusions. We wait, we plod, we take 10 - 50 years to build a body of evidence. We cannot use supposition, our own ideas, our own beliefs, it's what separates scientific research from any other discipline and why earning a PhD in science can take three to four times longer than virtually any other discipline.

Nonetheless, it behooves you to make a decision in your arguments and debates as to where you draw the line on scientific trust. You've painted yourself into a corner without escape. You write vehemently using scientists to support your arguments of your own picking and choosing and then turn around and say they don't know anything because the Bible tells you so.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: One of the ways it becomes apparent a person is losing a debate is when he begins to attack the essence of his opponent instead of his opponent's opinions or idea.

Think about it.
12 months ago: There are intelligent people on both sides of this issue. The bottom line is whose report are you going to believe?

Genetic mutations far from making creatures better are by and large detrimental to the organism. No matter how many billions of years you have that does not change the facts. Creatures do not morph into other creatures and genetic mutations do no foster life in a positive way. Take a trip to the Mayo Clinic and you can see for yourself.

That being said, a major mechanism required for evolution in the Darwinian sense is flawed.

To me it's a joke to assume that something that appears designed could not have been designed. If you want to start with that assumption or presupposition, there is no wonder why folks can end up with the fairy tale that has been created, is being promulgated, and that is attempting to infiltrate real science.

ID has a tremendous amount of merit. The only ones it has no merit with are those who have already made up their minds. The reason why many of them have made up their minds too often has absolutely nothing to do with scientific possibility.

Evolution as it is taught today is not the only plausible way things change over time, if a way at all.

Information does not come from a vacuum. Programs have programmers. Complex and meaningful codes don't show up by accident.

To say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any of that to come from an intelligent source yet have no solid and proven mechanism for those phenomena is ludicrous to say the least.
12 months ago: Huey,

I am hoping though, some people will "evolve" enough to expand their thoughts toward the possibility of examining the evidence...
and not just meme their prophets for profits...
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: We cannot expand toward the possibility without evidence. When someone brings us scientific evidence for ID then we can examine it and evaluate it. To date, no one has any evidence (scientific or otherwise) for ID / Creation Science / Creationism.

You see, that's the fundamental thing people are not getting about this non-controversy. Scientists have to operate within the defined rules of the science box. We are not allowed to simply admit things to our box that are mere ideas, philosophies, or the like. This is the main concept of Carl Sagan's A Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It would be nice of scientists could just use ID or Creation Science as the solution to all of the things we cannot figure out, but we are not able to do so. Why? Because there is no scientific evidence that ID or CS exists. To a scientist it's like saying x is because of Y due to the influence of ethereal magic dragons flying around in your garage (to borrow from Sagan).

It's not about expanding thoughts or opening the mind.

So, if TB or any other person has an scientific evidence of ID, by all means bring it forward. That will be quite impressive because, to date, no one has any evidence. They have ideas. They have speculation. They have philosophy. None of which is acceptable in the scientific box. Science requires data. Studies. Experiments with more data. Analysis.

The only thing the ID people can say is, well, this system is just so complex, it never could have evolved. Well, yes, but, actually, it could have. And, that's still not the point because we have incontrovertible evidence that things can and do evolve. So, where does that leave us? Hoping I guess.
12 months ago: "Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...
12 months ago: Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation!
http://www.halos.com/
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Fallacy #1: There are sides to this issue. Not in the self-respecting sense. No self-respecting scientist adheres to the notion of ID because, of course, there is no scientific evidence of a designer.

Fallacy #2 Mutations are the key to evolution. Actually genetic variation is inherent to DNA. Evolution isnthe change in gene frequency plain and simple.

Fallacy #3 A major mech, namely mutation, is flawed. It's absolutely not flawed, rather it's not correctly understood – see #2 above.

Fallacy #4 Nobody is saying that things that look designed couldn't have been designed. ID suggests that something sophisticated has to have been designed by an intelligent designer and could not have evolved from simpler lower forms. Which, as most peole can plainly see, is a presposterous supposition.

Fallacy #5 ID has merit. ID actually has no merit from a philosophical and from a scientific point of view. Read the articles I linked to above and you'll see what I mean. It's not so much there is no scientific possibility, it's that science does not actually deal in possibility, it deals in probability. The possibility that the universe and all of it's components were intelligently designed is actually less than the probability that the universe and all its components formed spontaneously over time. Not only do we have hard scientific evidence for stages of origin for both the universe and life on earth, we have reproduced them on earth. As for the evolution of species alive on earth right now, there is incontrovertible evidence of evolution. It is both WRONG and UNTRUE that evolution is some kind of myth. Evolution is no more mythical than gravity. Evolution is a scientific fact. Why not just call it the Law of Evolution? Laws are those theories that are thought to be universal. We can test gravity across the expanse of the universe. Right now, we don't know for sure live evolved on any other planet.
12 months ago: "Unless a natural mechanism constrained by Natural Law, by which the entire universe could come into existence and further develop through random process, is found, a Creator must be the theoretical default. It doesn't matter whether an individual scientist has difficulty accepting it or not. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so eloquently stated in his Sherlock Holmes series, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation...
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Before Einstein, we knew little as a species about the make-up of the universe. There is still so much to learn. How many people alive today can explain what light is and completely comprehend it? The fact that we don't know or understand a mechanism yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For many thousands of years, people all over the globe believed in gods that made thunder, lightning, rain, plagues of locusts, etc. Now we have other explanations for these things. Or all they still caused by the gods?
12 months ago: Do any qualified scientists support the creation theory?

Answer: Yes.

Quite a few scientists support creation theory. This places them out of step with the mainstream scientists who believe in autobiogenesis, or a spontaneous origin of life, coupled with evolution. As Richard Dawkins put it "It is a monumental disagreement. One side or the other has got to be wrong, and not just slightly wrong but catastrophically, ignominiously, disastrously wrong."

Not all of the scientists who support creation theory are willing to admit it for fear of critcism - or worse.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_any_qualifi...
12 months ago: CCR - this is the most humorous part of your entire response.

There is no substance. Mostly air and opinion.

Please delineate in your own words how genetic mutation is good? Please give several examples of how that has been true in the past (recent history) and the present.

I'll await your response.

If not, you need to step off rebutting things you have not thoroughly thought through.
12 months ago: DR,

In response to your list of "fallacies"

Fallacy Answer #1: What you are defending in Evolution is merely a theory (that is one side), for us to toss it aside without first addressing it's claims, we would not prove to be studious enough to first eliminate it's claims (which we have). What other (just as qualified) scientists have proposed is that the Universe shows evidence of perfect design and order, obvious also to the non scientific mind; to eliminate this theory would too with addressing it's claims would prove to be unscientific. And when another theory comes along, we will have another "side" to the issue.

Fallacy Answer #2: "DNA is very important because it finally provides us with a very precise definition of micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution can only be defined as an organism acquiring, through mutation, a completely new gene which was not present in any of that organisms ancestors. If a new phenotype (physical structure) is caused by a gene which was present but recessive in any of the parent organisms, then that must be micro evolution... For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about."
http://www.hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html

Fallacy Answer #3:–see #2 above.

Fallacy Answer #4: Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrd...

Fallacy Answer #5: Wow, your statement... "It is both WRONG and UNTRUE that evolution is some kind of myth" ...is also redundant and superfluous! To call the theory of Evolution a law would be like saying "wormholes" exist and one can travel through them in dimensions and time like Stargate; and then we can call that the Stargate Law.

Another of your statements... "The possibility that the universe and all of it's components were intelligently designed [is actually less than the probability] that the universe and all its components formed spontaneously over time." "IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN THE PROBABILITY" ...and you call that a "law"? Did you weigh it all out and find it lessor or greater than? OR is it that all the research monies to this point have been spent on the State funded religion of Darwinism, and less researching the evidence to see where it leads?

The theory of Evolution leaks like a sieve... it has so many holes one couldn't hardly tell that it contains anything worthwhile. It breaks all the real established Laws, like the second Law of thermodynamics... and those governing mutation...

"Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resi
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: TB:  Did any qualified scientists believe that Einstein was a nutcase, talking about converting photons into electron movement in a semi-conductive material.  Yet, his ideas turned out to win a Noble Prize.  So what can we learn from this...(a) scientists can and cannot be wrong.  What yields results is confirming evidence and discovery, research and experimentation, analysis and attempts at refutation; (b) time is a key feature as is the fact that science is not based on opinions or ancient books, it is based on current scientifically accepted fact – which can be wrong.  

You don't get that scientists are open to the possibility.  Could the universe have been created by an intelligent designer aka God.  Sure.  It sure could have been.  We don't know.  One thing we lack is an scientific evidence of this God being to which you refer.  He's never been found.  He's never actually spoken to us.  His presence has been felt, but then so have the presence of ghosts, spirits, and two-headed dragons.  None of which, either, has been given the license to be the creator of the universe because no scientific evidence of their existence has been found.  You see!  In the science box, we cannot use God nor a two-headed dragon, because there's no scientific evidence. Nor can we use the opinions of one or even one hundred scientists.  We have to use a vast expanse of evidence collected over decades.  
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Huey Newton – on mutations...
Mutations lead to genetic variations.  For example, there are two kinds of peppered moths (ones that are white with black spots and ones that are all black).  It is most likely that one of the two variations in the gene for color in the moths was caused by a mutation.  For thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of years, this variation was neither that helpful nor that hindering.  When the industrial revolution came along in England and coated all the white tree bark with soot, however, suddenly being white with black spots made you bird food, while being all black made you hidden.  At this point, a selective force caused a change in the gene frequency of the moths and their subsequent evolution!

So, the mutation was helpful.  It's impossible to know if a mutation will be helpful, harmful, or neither.  Most are neither.   You might enjoy reading the discovery of why geneticists believe both the genes for Tay-Sachs Disease and Sickle-cell anemia (both mutations) actually conferred a survival advantage on humans in their regions of the world.  It's kind of fascinating stuff.  
12 months ago: CR, you said... "One thing we lack is an scientific evidence of this God being to which you refer. He's never been found. He's never actually spoken to us."

Sorry, God has spoken to us, showed up for us to touch, spit on and kill... in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He is God and claimed to be, and proved to be God Almighty... you just don't like His appearing and advice.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: I didn't what to have to bring this up, but actually, there is about as much proof that Jesus exists as there is that humans evolved on this planet. And, there is quite a lot of evidence that Jesus never existed. I could post the links to all the websites, but I know you are as good at using Google as I am. So where does that leave us.

Also, I know you don't want to talk about this because we've tried it before, but if you believe in God speaking to us and sending us prophets, you must know there are over a billion people on earth that believe God sent the Archangel to correct the fallacies that arose since he sent Jesus and hundreds of other prophets the world over to spread his word. In that final set of messages which He said would be his last, He said that Jesus was NOT His son nor Him and the trinity is wrong. He, though you pick and choose apparently when you will and won't listen to Him, said His actual unadulterated and corrupted word would be delivered. So, where does that leave us?

Apparently, it leaves us as human beings free to believe what we want to beleive. You want to believe what you want to believe, and I will believe what I want to believe and that's where it will stand.

Where it will not stand anymore for me, is when people like you try to enforce your beliefs of religious assertions onto the masses. That, I'm sorry is wrong. Not only have I always thought it was wrong morally and spiritually, but the final word of God, if you believe in God, I would think you would follow His final word, was that it is forbiddnen to prosteletyze. So, when you start talking about teaching your religious beliefs in public schools, that's where I'm going to pipe up.

I'll accept that you want to go with the God-born world. That's fine. I have no proof to the contrary, but I will fight for separation of church and state.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: Huey, you are exactly correct as far as you went. But let me go farther.

In order to evolve from "simple" single-celled organisms to the millions of species of multicellular organisms in existence today, information must be created. No single-celled organism has even a tiny fraction of the information to make even a "simple" multicellular organism such as a planarian - let alone an elephant or a blue whale. But where does that additional information come from? Mutations are CORRUPTIONS of existing genetic information. They DESTROY information, they do not create it. And yet the information exists. Now if I were to tell you that I recorded several hours of the random noise one hears coming out of the speaker of an un-tuned radio, and found encoded in it a digitized, 5.1 channel Dolby stereo recording of the Philadelphia Symphonic Orchestra playing Beethoven's 5th, you'd want to know what I was smoking. AND RIGHTLY SO!!!

And you expect me to believe that in some utterly inexplicable fashion single-celled organisms somehow generated the genetic data to produce the first multi-cellular organisms - by means of a process that INVARIABLE destroys data.

From where I sit, ID seems less preposterous an explanation for living things than the alternative.

Oh, and panspermia (look it up) just pushes the problem of life arising somewhere else.
12 months ago: Thanks BC.

The point is to that if mutations were in fact helpful we would have thousands if not millions of examples. Most evolutionists cite only two or three. Talk about an argument from nothing.

Mutations are for the most part bad, but in their mind they can't handle that reality because it shatters the house of cards.

Like talking to a fence post.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Once again, in the debate of origin vs. evolution, I am assuming now we have moved on and realized that evolution is, indeed, occuring and not in need of debate.

The origin debate, however, is up for grabs. It's the problem people who start out with atacking Darwin since Darwin wasn't readily able to explain origin.

So, let's have a healthy debate on origin.

It seems there is one camp that is determined to believe that the origin of all life on earth was an Intelligent Designer, namely God, who created all the living creatures and put them in place in their current forms. It's so nice and easy. Such a happy and harmonious, happy little tale.

There seems to be another camp that is determined to believe that random mutations over billions of years allowed for species to evolve to their current forms. It's a tale of logic and experimental evidence. It explains vestigial organs and the commonality fo the DNA. The course of this origin can be mapped in comparative anatomy, physiology, and DNA. The evolutionary ancestors of the multicellular forms of life can be found in the unicellular thereby allowing the extrapolation to full-blown multicellularity. It's a tale that requires no unproven outside intervention to work.

So, then, that's what it all boils down to isn't it. Do you need an outside designer or don't you?

And I would say again, for the religious amoung us, an outside designer is just fine. For the non-religious, however, a different explantion is needed, one that can work without divine intervention.

Now all we need is some proof an outside designer exists, and we can put the whole thing to rest. Until that point, we're probably going to be at a stalemate.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Huey,

there are gazillions of examples of mutations that are not bad. Every variation that exists within a phenotype of an organism is likely the result of a harmless mutation. Just look at human blood type factors and the number of alleles there are. We tend only to think of IA, IB, and IO and then the Rh+ or Rh- factors, but there are at least 26 variations most of which never have any issue.

Whether a mutation is helpful or not totally depends on the outside selective forces that select for one allele over another and change, therefore, its frequency in a population. I don't know where you are getting the idea that people can only cite two or three. People tend to cite two or three and the same two or three over and over because they don't realize it takes a million examples for a person to see a pattern or accept a scientific concept.

To say that mutations, for the most part, are bad is a complete fallacy. Are many bad, yes, but only the ones that change a protein function so that it functions less well or not at all.

I would love for you to post your CV so we could all be revealed as to your credentials to discuss biology in the first place. I'll post mine.

I have a BA in Biology and Chemistry with special honors in senior thesis where I discovered a new inhibitor for monoamine oxidase from a highly rated, midwest liberal arts collge and an MA in Education from an Ivy League School. I taught biology and chemistry for nearly 20 years and was approved by the college board as a national AP Biology teacher and scored the national AP Biology examination for eight years.

Ok, how about you? Let's see your credentials and see who is talking to a fence post.
12 months ago: That's wonderful. There of those on both side of the fence that outcredential you. So what?

See my post at the bottom. Bigger fish to fry.
12 months ago: CR,

It is as I said before... you get high marks for regurgitating theories that haven't mutated into evidence. I don't call your credentials into question... only your motives. IF you were a pioneer of discovery like real scientists before you... you would have been out of a job... because you dared question the HOLY GRAIL of Evolution.

Like many of my contemporary "Preachers" you followed the money and fan-fare instead of truth... and I know that is true because the first idea that is stripped from you in University is the idea of absolute truth. Because truth by definition is absolute. This also means you can never admit the "arrogance" of possessing it. SO if you don't have truth, what do you have? Merely a theory... dressed in a proud veneer of human achievement... much like a decorated theologian.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Truthbrary knows better than the Pope!

Pope declares evolution to be a fact (source)
12 months ago: CR,

SO you agree with everything the Pope says?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Of course I don't. I'm just saying, it's interesting to me that the Pope, whom I mean no disrespect to you, but I've always been made to believe the Pope knows more about the Bible and Christianity than any other person alive, and he said Darwin was right and ok, but you still doubt, which is supposed to mean what to me?
12 months ago: Who cares? The Pope is not the ultimate source of truth.

The Pope could declare himself to be God. That does not make it right.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Oh, of course, I'm sure you (HN) and Truthbrary are now to be our ultimate source of factually accurate biblical information, information on God, and information on Christianity, the Pope, who cares?

"Who cares?" That's just a great way to score a point in a debate. Keep it up. The fence post is about to topple from the weight of your arguments!

So, rather than researching why the Pope, a strong proponent of a God-created worlld and strict biblical interpretation of origin would come out and say "Darwin was right," the way to score a point is to say, "Who cares?..The Pope could declare himself to be God, That doesn't make it right." So, I bring up one of the biggest religious experts on the planet saying that Darwin was right that that carries no weight. But you can bring up lunatic fringe websites and they are supposed to carry weight with me? How is that a two-way street?
12 months ago: As far as I can see I have posted no links to web sites so what are you talking about?

Also, the Pope believes in transubstantiation. I do not believe that is biblical. Do I now have to roll over on that one as well. No.

If He changes his opinion abortion am I supposed to change mine to? No.

CR - We can debate other issues at other times (we even agreed on a few outside of here). But on this one -- Fence Post City.
12 months ago: CR,

ANYONE including a "5th Grader" upon reading the Bible would see that the Bible contains no reference to many things the Pope agrees with... the main-line church has certain traditions that cannot be change this late in the game... so instead of admitting failure they defend it in their religious right... much like evolutionists. I can see this is indeed the commonality your lot shares with the Pope and other religious educators that stray from truth to follow tradition.
(BTW, like them, your credentials only make the hypocrisy worse)

Posted again from above...

"The Pope also sees no conflict with...
Dogma of Papal Infallibility
Immaculate Conception
Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible
The doctrine of Purgatory
The Scapular
Dogma of Transubstantiation
The sale of Indulgences
The Inquisition
The Rosary
The celibacy of the priesthood
Canonization of dead saints
Worship of the cross, images and relics
The worship of Mary
Veneration of angels and dead saints
...if Pope John Paul II doesn't have a problem these, then it is no wonder that he doesn't see the conflict with anything and the Bible. It doesn't take a Bible scholar to figure out that churches have rested on their traditions more than the Word of God."
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: source: http://biblelight.net/darwin.htm
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Here's something new...

There is a principle in science that helps establish proof of scientific principles, properties, theories, and laws. It works like this.

If you already know or believe something to be true, and you arrive at the same conclusion a different way or later by a different means, they you add credibility.

Darwin's theory of evolution pre-dates modern genetics and the discovery of DNA. Darwin had trouble explaining the mechanism of evolution because the gene hadn't been discovered in his day. When genes were discovered, they lent credibility to Darwin's theory. They provided, at last, the actual mechanism for evolutionary change. Later, their existence became a part of the definition of evolution – changes in gene frequency over time. Later, when actual DNA and molecular genetics were revealed, they supported evolution at the molecular level and the final piece of the puzzle was revealed.
12 months ago: CR,

You have these never ending claims but where are the references? It is established that DNA disproves evolution...

"For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about."
http://www.hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: TB, I'm sorry, I read this person's page, and it was too flawed with too much misunderstanding of basic evolutionary principles as to be unuseable. If you want a point by point analysis of why, I'm happy to do it but not right now. It would take me all day.
12 months ago: CR,

What is your response to the videos posted?
Like Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6...
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: pretty much the same response as above
12 months ago: CR - where is the compelling evidence that absolutely discounts even the possibility of this universe being intelligently designed?

Where is the irrefutable proof that all this is a cosmic accident? A situation where if anyone even considers the possibility of intelligent design they are being irrational and ignorant of the obvious and conclusive facts that are beyond question?

Please respond.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Huey N.  There is no scientific proof that there wasn't an intelligent designer.  Maybe the universe was designed by God.  Got it?  Scientists are not saying that the universe was created by God.  We just cannot say that it was because we have no proof of God's or any other intelligent designer's existence.  And neither do you.  Once you get it, bring it in and let us all have a look at it and we can put an end to the debate.  As I have repeatedly said, scientists cannot really debate this issue because it's as, sorry, but as sill as arguing the universe was created by a speckled jelly bean from Rancho Cucamonga.  Bring us the bean, we'll do some research, we'll investigate, and then we'll all be happy to know the universe was designed by the bean.  Find the bean, Huey, find it!  Find God.  Find proof of God's existence.  Otherwise, I might be compelled to believe in the bean.  The bean, you know, kind of makes more sense to me than God because the bean had a candy shell and speckles.  

There is no proof this was all a cosmic accident either.  It's all hypothesis at this point.  It's all educated guesses.  You will not find in any science text book the Theory of the Origin of Life on Earth.  Why not?  We don't have one.  No one has come up with more than conjecture and hypothesis.  

The Biblical explanation that we were all created by God is no more or less valid than the idea that we all formed spontaneously except for one detail in the science box, we are not given the luxury to simply explain things with something that has not been proven to exist. (cont)
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: No scientific evidence of an Intelligent Designer? I guess there is no scientific evidence of a black hole either? It can't be measured, observed, quantified in any way except theoretically. It CAN be observed only in relation to nearby objects.

The same can be said for wormholes and intergalactic spaceships. (no reference needed). It just makes sense to some people, because its existence comes closer to explaining their particular views on the origin of man on this planet. Forget about how improbable their existence is. Forget about how far-fetched such a thing is.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: You are correct.

Just keep in mind that until an intelligent designer is found sitting on a lonely ice planet in the Andromeda Galaxy, scientists cannot use an ID as an answer. Just as a black hole remains a theoretical construct, so does God. Until there is scientific proof. Now, I think people are starting to get somewhere!
12 months ago: Still waiting.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: I finally got a chance to answer you on mutations above.

Here's an additional point for you H.N.

It's kind of like this...we don't actually know how information is stored in the brain.  Nor do we know how the chemistry of concrete actually works.  We know, however, that information is stored in the brain and that concrete sets.  You might want to say, well it's because God puts the information into each cell of every brain on earth every nanosecond.  Likewise, you might want to say, forces of God's will causes the formation of co-ordinate bonds in the concrete upon evaporation of the water.  Which is fine.  You can say that.  Now, scientists would say, that's probably not the explanation.  And they would also say, you can believe that all you want, just like ancient people thought they needed to sacrifice livestock to prevent floods, but we cannot.  scientists cannot rely upon God as our explanation for why things are in the natural world because we don't have evidence that God exists.  

For TB:  Does that mean there aren't scientists that believe God exists?  No, of course there are.  But, they have to play by the same rules in the science box as everyone else!
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
12 months ago: The title here is incorrect; it should be religious fantasy is on trial because that's the underpinning of the intelligent design oxymoron. Truthbarry is merely citing more examples of the on-going efforts of the religious right to inject fundamentalist Christianity and their version of the Bible in public schools. It's simply another Trojan horse as was the prayer in school movement.

If we to correctly put the religious fantasies on trial as the religious fantastic have put Darwin on trial, they would be exposed as screeds of science ignorance, factual contractions, violence inducing sectarianism, and charlatanism (miracles and headings that of course can't be replicated except by modern day charlatans such as Benny Hinn). All that is wrapped up in an allegedly intelligent creator who's a blood lusting barbarian that orders it's minions to commit acts of mayhem and murder.

Truthbarry, the fact that you proffering this up is simply additional evidence that this 'intelligent design' is not about Science - it's about religion and you are religious proselytizer here on this board. Other than those stepped in religion, is there anybody else who's camping to teach so called creationism and railing against the teaching of Science? Name me any kind of Science organization that is demanding to teach so called creationism and I will show you an organization that is almost exclusively run and funded by members of fundamentalist sects related to Christianity or Islam.

You and the religious right will not tolerate the teaching of anything that contradicts your soothing religious fantasies. Speaking of Tom Ritter, here's an excellent analysis.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Then, as a non-religious person, may I suggest that, in all fairness, we teach nothing in public schools that cannot be proven as fact. As it stands right now the score is Creation-0, Evolution-0.

As we all know, the ones doing the teaching will not be able to teach every possibility without flavoring the lessons with their own biases. Even the so-called "Science Channel" delivers imaginary fantasies, telling of the emotional nature and personalities of dinosaurs they recreated from a single bone fragment.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: OotB,
But you are not correct, and the very fact that you and TB cannot differentiate in your minds the difference between evolution / evolutionary theory and origin of life shows the chasm in your understanding of what evolution is.

Here is what evolution is...

Evolution is the change in gene frequencies in a population over time as influenced by outside forces.

Here is what evolution is not...

Evolution does not explain the origin of life, the origin of human life, or the origin of the universe.

As for proof of evolution, there are many tens of thousands of studies that have been done to show that gene frequencies in populations have changed through time.

As far as science is concerned, you don't get to call something a Theory until it has been researched and studied and proven and withstood the test of time. You will also note that the current definiton of evolution differs from Darwin's because he did not know the genetic mechanism of evolution because genes had yet to be discovered.

When people argue the topic and demonstrate this fundamental lack of comprehension, they betray their own ignorance. Which is fine. Most of us do not know all that much about things. Unfortunately, the people who do have an obligation to help educate, don't they?

So, let's differentiate origin of humans, life, and the universe from the Theory of Evolution.

Given that, I would agree, let's not teach the origin of humans, life, and the universe in a science class, or if we do, let's ensure it's what we know from a scientific fact, which isn't much.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Actually, that's where you're wrong. I have always delineated between Evolution, at whose core lies a single common ancestor, and Natural Selection, the processes of which are undeniable and observable even in our limited lifespans. Evolution stops it's backward journey at the mythical first living cell that spontaneously self created in the primordial soup. Sure, you can split hairs and say that's not the origin of life, but what's left after that? Just the mechanics of how the random bunch of molecules programmed itself to replicate.

You seem to be confusing Evolution and Natural Selection. It would seem you might need to go back and read up on the subject.
And just so you know, Darwin wasn't the first to come up with the idea.

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Sorry if I sounded a bit snippy up there. I'm glad that you agree that evolution should not be taught as scientific fact. We're making headway.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: You are conflating micro evolution (Darwin's finches) with macro evolution (fish becoming amphibians becoming reptiles becoming mammals etc.) Micro evolution is a proven fact. Heck human beings have driven micro evolution - to the point that we do not even KNOW what ancestral corn looked like; to the point that it is VERY hard to see that a wolf and a shi-tzu are a single species (I was taught that the boundary of a species is when interbreeding produces fertile offspring - which happens with wolves and dogs but not horses and donkeys/zebras). We have fossil evidence of creatures adapting to their environment - mammoth teeth show amazing variation through time. Darwin's finches show adaption to differing ecological conditions - to the point of producing different species.

Macro evolution would - OF NECESSITY - involve transitional forms. There is a singular lack of provable transitional forms in the fossil record.

Gene frequencies can explain micro evolution. It CANNOT explain macro evolution.

So it is YOU, CR, who seems utterly unable to distinguish between micro evolution - which is established fact and even ID adherents do not dispute - and macro evolution. One is accomplishable by reshuffling data. The other requires generation of ENTIRELY NEW data - something which mutation CANNOT do.
12 months ago: BC,

I appreciate the explanation of the difference of Macro and Micro evolution... sometimes I forget that those who claim to know "evolution" don't know what we are referring too when we say there is no evidence for Macro evolution. Thanks.
12 months ago: If I can but in, ID has nothing really to do with Christianity or any other specific theistic viewpoint. The theory has do with whether or not the universe as we know it has an intelligent source. Who or what that source is can be debatable.

There are evidences for this which the skeptic writes off most often because they don't want to consider. Not because of lack of evidence, but because of the potential ramifications of that line of thought, reasoning, and exploration. If you nip it it won't grow.

"Objects appear designed but are not." That is an assumption not a scientific fact. Design is not a scientifically proven fact either. Both are theories. Both can be legitimate areas of exploration. Both positions have to be either accepted or rejected based upon analysis of the evidence.

Whose report will you believe? That's' it.

As far as soothing religious fantasies, being your own God has to take the cake.
12 months ago: Thanks Huey!

If you don't mind Mark, I think Huey nailed it !:]

Huey you rock... with the ROCK of AGES !:]
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: I hate to agree with TB on this one, but (TB might find if the took more time analyzing what's actually said and less time prostlyzing there is more common ground than he realizes) I have to agree on the point that ID doesn't have to be a Christian construct. It can belong to anyone. Since there is no scientific evidence for or against an Intelligent Designer, anyone can speculate as to the origin of the universe, life, and human life. Anyone. Of course, they could also speculate that the Intelligent Designer is a dressmaker in Hoboken. In the scientific sense, if we cannot locate this dressmaker and can find no evidence of her design, we really have to keep looking. We cannot just stop there and say, well, of course, it's the only logical explanation. Nope, we don't have that convenient luxury, we have to keep looking and attempt to explain things in the natural world using the laws, rules, and theories at our disposal.

Could everything have been Intelligently Designed? Sure...but....just curious...
(a) where is the designer?
(b) why did this intelligent designer design flawed things?
(c) why did the designer waste time on vestigial organs?
(d) why did the designer give humans the capacity to kill each other because, if you ask me, that doesn't seem very intelligent?
(f) where did the designer go after he/she/it was done?

Finally, I guess I'd say that if a scientist is any good, he or she, would look and be open to evidence. Unfortunately, no scientific evidence of design has been brought forth. All the supposition and thought experiments that have been brought forth have been debunked as nothing more that faulty logic constructs – the most infamous of which is irrecducible complexity (an idea often used to prove there must have been an Intelligent Designer). In the end, Huey, it becomes a Chrisian issue because it is the Christians on this planet who are so hell-bent on cramming their religious beliefs on everyone else, & this is but the latest way.
12 months ago: CR,

Care to elaborate on which organs are "vestigial organs"?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Sure, how about the eyes in fish that have been found dwelling in undiscovered caves for 100,000 years? Why would an Intelligent Designer give them eyes knowing they would be living in caves with no light for 100,000 years? And better yet, guess what, their eyes don't function. They are blind. But, yet, they still have eyes. They are vestigial. They are organs that grow and serve no purpose.

Here's another one that stumps me.

The octopus is a very intelligent mollusk – probably the most intelligent. It has arms and eyes and quite a sophisticated brain. It's eyes are quite advanced and as good as those of a mammal. Yet, the construction, parts, and functions of these parts use an entirely different method of vision collection information than that of the vertebrate land animals which all use the exact same kind. Why would an intelligent designer use a different kind of eye for octopuses? Why not just develop the very best kind of eye and use it universally? Moreover, if you can create the hawk eye, why not use it on all of your creatures instead of giving some that see only in black and white, some that don't work well at all (like that of most bats), ones that need corrective help like in humans, and so on? Why did insects get compound eyes, oops again a totally different eye strategy than either the octopus or the vertebrates? Why did an intelligent designer decide it was a good idea to put 8 eyes on the head of a spider, but nope all the vertebrate animals from whales to goats to people needed just two? Did he decide it should be one eye per leg? How come octopuses got only two eyes then instead of eight? Oh, it's all very intelligent. It all makes perfect sense to the intelligent designer. He had his reasons. Someday they will all be made clear to us.

He will explain his decision to put eyes in a cave-dwelling fish, I'm sure.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
12 months ago: I second the "vestigial organs" question. There have organs which have been considered "vestigial" previously but now are understood to have a definite function. For example: the appendix, once considered "vestigial" and "non-functional" is now known to be a repository of normal intestinal flora that can be lost due to certain illnesses.

Re: (b) above: to which "flawed things" are you referring? Some designs have degenerated over time - those darned mutations - and others are the way they are because EVEN GOD cannot make something which violates the laws of the universe.

(d) above sounds like an opinion. Perhaps the Designer wanted human beings to have free will.

(a) and (f) above are theological questions. They do not belong in a discussion of science.

No comment on the last paragraph except that from where I sit it would seem to be the followers of Islam who are so "hell-bent" upon forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else. They are even willing to kill to promulgate their beliefs - something condoned and even possibly COMMANDED by their holy book. I have never heard of a group of Baptists bombing a Methodist Church. I have heard of more than one instance where Sunnis blew up a Sheite mosque and vice versa.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: BC,
I like your questions and your analysis. I have written above now about some true vestigial organs. I also want, as a fence post, to note there are literally tens of thousands of similar questions one can pose about the logic of an intelligent designer on the same vein I selected for illustrative purposes, the eye – everything from heart design to hemoglobin function to CNS design and everything in between.

If the answer to everything is that it is the way it is because the designer wanted it that way, fine. Then that's the answer. Whether it demonstrates intelligence is open to debate, but fine. There's no way to argue with that just like there's no way to argue with the idea that none of this is real, we are all Huey Newton's nightmare, and he's really an amoeba in a petrie dish on Venus imagining all of this. We cannot disprove that notion.

Re your re (b): Why would an intelligent designer not build in mechanisms to prevent those darn mutations and degradation of all his hard work? Oh, wait, he did, they are called the DNA repair enzymes that work night and day to proven mutation and fix broken DNA. But, even they are not 100% accurate. Why aren't they? Wouldn't a designer as capable of designing all this be capable of creating things impervious to disease, cancer, mutation etc.? Or, did he experiment with some designs and then just leave them lying around to confuse us later? Yeah, that's probably it. He was a trickster. He was more like Lokey than Odin.

"(d)...sounds like opinion?" Just asking a question.

"(a) and (f) are religious and have no place in a science discussion?" Exactly. None of this has any place in a science discussion precisely because there is no scientific proof for a designer and a lot of scientific evidence there was no designer, let alone an intelligent one.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Do we really want to get into which religion has killed the most people? I don't think so.

Let's not introduce non-sequitors.

Rather, would we agree that it is the devout Christians in the USA that are pushing the agenda which was the germ of narrative for this post. It's not the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, etc. people that are pushing creation science and ID into public schools. So, yes, to me this does become a Christian issue. It does become a separation of church and state issue. There are already schools, faith-based parochial schools out there for people to push their religious doctrine. We don't need it nor want it in public schools.
12 months ago: If you want to know about science, fringe religious eccentrics are the best source of information.

The vast majority of biologists are insane and base thier studies on facts that flatly contradict the Bible. It is just baffling that they believe such nonsense when the plain truth of the Bible says intelligent design is given to us by God.

How are they so stupid? How can they spend their lives studying nothing and come up with such important results.

Admittedly, creationism doesn't provide any "results" or learning or insight and it is not consistent with what we know about biology, but it is morally correct.

A Christian with a Phd in materials science who believes in biblical creation is a wise scientist. A Christian with a Phd in materials science who recognizes evolution is a dupe and a fool.

Case closed the end.

Bible beats science.
12 months ago: Really there's nothing more to add.

Scientists are crazy and know nothing about science.

They are only carrying on like they do because they have dedicated their lives, not to learning and discovery, but to upsetting good Bible literalists.
Content Removed by Stan Five
12 months ago: Stan,

Nowhere in our arguments have we used the Bible to debunk anything. We simply sited accredited authorities in their fields of study, that have considered evidence and reason found "evolution" sadly lacking... and have found evidence of Intelligent Design instead. You fail to realize that many of the current holders to the ID group aren't even Christian or have been atheists and have since changed their position based on the evidence... not religious dogma.

Such is the example of Lee Strobel.

"Atheist-turned-Christian Lee Strobel, the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of more than twenty books and has been interviewed on numerous national TV programs, including ABC, Fox, PBS, and CNN."
http://www.leestrobel.com/Bio.php

Evidence Against Darwin - Lee Strobel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTfSe194J...

The Fossil Record Proves Creation - Lee Strobel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsJmBevvR...

DNA Proves Creation - Lee Strobel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFLk9JS9o...

...unlikely you will watch these video clips... but there is always hope.
12 months ago: Well if the Bible doesn't support your theories, I don't want to hear about them because they must be crazy and wrong.
12 months ago: Stan,

I guess all you really did have was sarcasm !:]
12 months ago: You probably think that scientists are just sarcastic, too, right?

Not like those non-sarcastic people who ridicule evolution, because evolution is just plain crazy?
12 months ago: "We cannot expand toward the possibility without evidence. When someone brings us scientific evidence for ID then we can examine it and evaluate it. To date, no one has any evidence (scientific or otherwise) for ID / Creation Science / Creationism."

"No self-respecting scientist adheres to the notion of ID because, of course, there is no scientific evidence of a designer."

"ID actually has no merit from a philosophical and from a scientific point of view."

"On a personal note, I don't believe humans evolved on this planet but came here via space ships or worm holes similar to the mythology of Stargate, if you want to know the truth."

"There is no scientific proof that there wasn't an intelligent designer. Maybe the universe was designed by God."

These are all quotes by Coloranter Raver.

The arguments are disingenuous; the statements are flat out inaccurate and many contradictory and making no sense. You can't have it both ways.
This is not even a debate any more. It's a diatribe by an individual that has trouble figuring out what the truth is. I would like to say you are on a search CRR, but I can't honestly say that because of all the substance less noise.

No evidence?

Every time you wake up and breath air, if you can't see that evidence of the possibility of you having been created by an intelligent being, then there is nothing else I can say to you that would be meaningful.

When one looks at the Mona Lisa or Mt. Rushmore, without knowing where they came from there is evidence of design. Just like there is evidence in the atom, the cell, a leaf, your hand, the creatures around you, and the very universe itself.

There is none so blind as those who will not see.

I don't have much patience with obstinate people. With kids yes. With adults who should know better..no.

Until you figure out what you believe and why you believe it. And then when you can share it without contradiction, duplicity and in straight objective honesty, we can continue the discussion. My time is too important to waste.
12 months ago: Here's another one...

"You will not find in any science text book the Theory of the Origin of Life on Earth."

This stuff can't be for real.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: Well, thank you for this tribute.

I just hope you are not missing the point.

The point is that ID has no scientific merit, but that doesn't mean it's not true. I don't see why this is such a complex thing to comprehend. The motivation of Romeo and Juliet has no scientific merit either. We can discuss it nonetheless. I hope I am sophisticated enough to acknowledge the validity of thought experiments and philosophical discussions that are of no scientific merit.

The reason ID is of no scientific merit is because it utilizes something unproven as the solution to problems. Period. I'm not being obstinate, that's a simple scientific requirement. There is no proof of any designer intelligent or otherwise. Without that, it's a moot scientific discussion.

Are there scientists who believe in ID and an Intelligent Designer, I'm sure there are. There are also scientists who believe in global warming. Wow, what does that prove? As I have written over and over again in this very same thread, the beliefs of scientists are as immaterial or immaterial to the discussion as those of any person from the standpoint of science. The opinion of one or a hundred or a thousand don't matter. Science is not about opinions. If 100 scientists posted that they all believe it is impossible for sentient Homo sapiens to have evolved on earth would that mean it was true. Could I quote them to prove my point? In a non-scientific argument I could, but not in a scientific one. You don't win scientific debates by having the most points or votes or quotations. You win by having the best data, reproducible results, data sets that fit with known laws and theories. Ergo, since there is nothing but opinion whether by scientists or any other person qualified to have an opinion as to ID or creation science, it isn't science.

My message is clear, my statements are consistent.

It you you, Huey Newton, that choose to ignore what I am saying.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: How is the fact that we get up every morning and breathe proof of the possibility of intelligent design? Just out of curiosity?

[note: Keeping in mind that I have never once said there wasn't the possibility of an intelligent designer--re-read the quotations you quoted of me where I said, in fact, there is no proof we/the world/the universe were not designed by an intelligent designer because there isn't -- but in our non-scientific thought experiment where our opinions are of any relevance, how is your statement any evidence of a designer or the possibility of one? I don't see that.

It's also a tautological construct to think you can argue a point of contention by saying, since you have no evidence I'm wrong, and I have no evidence I'm right, I must be right.

First of all what is the evidence there must have been an Intelligent Designer? What is it? I've read the ID websites, believe me, I've been reading them for 10 years, and there is never any real evidence. There are nothing more than thought experiments that to a rigorous discipline like science must be discarded – the chief example of which is Irreducible Complexity which has no scientific basis as a concept. It's a mental invention for philosophical purposes only that has been broken down and refuted countless times by philosophers and logicians far superior to myself. (Google search "intelligent design refuted" and you'll find as many pages to read as you want.)

My statements do not contradict. I've been trying to make this and only this point.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: How is the fact that we get up every morning and breathe proof of the possibility of intelligent design? Just out of curiosity?

[note: Keeping in mind that I have never once said there wasn't the possibility of an intelligent designer--re-read the quotations you quoted of me where I said, in fact, there is no proof we/the world/the universe were not designed by an intelligent designer because there isn't -- but in our non-scientific thought experiment where our opinions are of any relevance, how is your statement any evidence of a designer or the possibility of one? I don't see that.

It's also a tautological construct to think you can argue a point of contention by saying, since you have no evidence I'm wrong, and I have no evidence I'm right, I must be right.

First of all what is the evidence there must have been an Intelligent Designer? What is it? I've read the ID websites, believe me, I've been reading them for 10 years, and there is never any real evidence. There are nothing more than thought experiments that to a rigorous discipline like science must be discarded – the chief example of which is Irreducible Complexity which has no scientific basis as a concept. It's a mental invention for philosophical purposes only that has been broken down and refuted countless times by philosophers and logicians far superior to myself. (Google search "intelligent design refuted" and you'll find as many pages to read as you want.)

My statements do not contradict. I've been trying to make this and only this point.
12 months ago: This is dead. You still don't get it and obviously I'm not the one to explain it to you.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
12 months ago: How is the fact that we get up every morning and breathe proof of the possibility of intelligent design? Just out of curiosity?

[note: Keeping in mind that I have never once said there wasn't the possibility of an intelligent designer--re-read the quotations you quoted of me where I said, in fact, there is no proof we/the world/the universe were not designed by an intelligent designer because there isn't -- but in our non-scientific thought experiment where our opinions are of any relevance, how is your statement any evidence of a designer or the possibility of one? I don't see that.

It's also a tautological construct to think you can argue a point of contention by saying, since you have no evidence I'm wrong, and I have no evidence I'm right, I must be right.

First of all what is the evidence there must have been an Intelligent Designer? What is it? I've read the ID websites, believe me, I've been reading them for 10 years, and there is never any real evidence. There are nothing more than thought experiments that to a rigorous discipline like science must be discarded – the chief example of which is Irreducible Complexity which has no scientific basis as a concept. It's a mental invention for philosophical purposes only that has been broken down and refuted countless times by philosophers and logicians far superior to myself. (Google search "intelligent design refuted" and you'll find as many pages to read as you want.)

My statements do not contradict. I've been trying to make this and only this point.

From a scientific point of view in what I call, "the science box", ID and creationism as explanations for origin are of no merit because they lack scientific evidence. However, from a purley human to human debate, we can discuss these topics all you want. You say I cannot have it both ways, but that's what you are attempting to do yourself. You want to use scientists to prove things, but won't comprehend the point that scientists do not supply proof, data supplies proof. I have never contradicted myself once in this thread.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
12 months ago: In your brain you haven't but you're all over the map.

"You will not find in any science text book the Theory of the Origin of Life on Earth."

When you make asinine statements like that, how can you expect to be taken seriously?

Either your are ignorant or a liar or both to expect anyone to swallow that.

I leave you in the very capable hands of Truthbrary, Out of the Box, BC or whoever else knows hogwash when they see it and smell it.

Like I said. Over and out.
12 months ago: CR,

I can only imagine what your students had to put up with over the years !:]
12 months ago: CR,

Out of curiosity... What do you think of a man that has "the credentials" and worldly accomplishments, that came from your atheistic school of thought, only to now spend the rest of his energy exposing the hypocrisies and fallacies of Evolution?

Lee Strobel...

Lee was educated at the University of Missouri (Bachelor of Journalism degree, 1974) and Yale Law School (Master of Studies in Law degree, 1979). He was a professional journalist for 14 years at The Chicago Tribune and other newspapers, winning Illinois' top honors for INVESTIGATIVE reporting (which he shared with a team he led) and public service journalism from United Press International.
http://www.leestrobel.com/Bio.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTfSe194J...
12 months ago: "An Insurmountable Problem for Darwinian Evolution...
Ann Gauger is a senior research scientist at the Biologic Institute. Her work uses molecular genetics and genomic engineering to study the origin, organization and operation of metabolic pathways. She received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry."
http://www.idthefuture.com/2011/05/an_in...
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/p...
12 months ago: Finally. Proper scientists have proved God is real, once and for all. Lets see all the pseudo-scientists deal with that.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: This appears to be an insurmountable obstacle between the two sides. Neither one cares to admit that all their evidence rests upon assumptions.

Example: I believe that Yishua, the Intelligent Designer of everything in existence, created or caused to be created the entire universe and everything in it and beyond it, at least on this plane of existence. Yet no matter how hard I try, I can never prove it. It is therefore my faith, or put another way, my assumption that God is the creator.

Furthermore: Evolutionists, that is, those that believe all life sprang from a single spontaneously self-generating organism, have to assume that the data they have acquired over the past couple hundred years is not tainted by the previous hundreds of MILLIONS of years of geologic upheaval, and that atomic decay rates have been constant for hundreds of MILLIONS of years. That takes a lot of faith too.

Now, one of our members has already stated that he believes all life can be traced back to a single common ancestor. Now he wants to start with the semantics, arguing over definitions and back peddling. Like what "is" is.
12 months ago: You are definitely not the first to think that, since it is not possible to travel back in time, faith in an ancient myth has as much validity attempts to reason based on science and evidence.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Thank you. And I also might add that both assumptions are dependent on the same thing, either the absence or the presence of a Creator.
12 months ago: I beg to differ. One is based on the assumption of a creator. The other is based on what can actually be demonstrated through evidence and reason, whether that be a creator or not.
12 months ago: Stan,

Like CR, you fail to see that the same "evidence" is provided... it is only the interpretation of those said facts is where the road divides. Just because one uses scientific jargon to explain their point of view, it doesn't mean that it is scientific. There have been many theories over time that have been found to be fake... and frauds... yet they enjoyed the "scientific" community approval for years... and in the textbooks still do...

"In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic"
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud...
Content Removed by Truthbrary
12 months ago: Human Ancestor Fraud - Creationist Links

A Human Ancestor Fraud
Deceptive Fossil Interpretations of Evolutionists from the Muslim online book Evolution Deceit
Features of Piltdown Skull "Deliberate Fakes"
Human Evolution - Frauds and Mistakes
Lucy's Fraudulent Fame
Orce man hominid fraud
Piltdown man fraud
The Ape-men fallacy by Malcolm Bowden (Review of book - Ape-men: Fact or Fallacy?)
The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution The following is a transcript of The Apemen Frauds portion of the audio tape.
The Piltdown Man Fraud by Monty White
The Story of the Piltdown Man by the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia
The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal - A UC Berkely professor reports on the intentional alteration of hybridization data which was used to support the theory that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees.
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud...

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave