Federal judge rules "intelligent design"... UPDATE

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Fraggable

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Fraggable
Great. Now evolution is the only 'scientifically' acceptable explanation for where we came from. So much for teaching all beliefs and letting the students decide. I know that wasn't the legal policy at any point but its the logical one.

This isn't about beliefs, it's about science. ID is not science, and this ruling states that explicitly. If they want to talk about ID in comparitive religions, philosophy, current events, whatever, then have at it. But it's not science so it doesn't belong in the science curiculum.

No way any of my kids will ever ever EVER EVER go to a public school.

So you choose another flavor of brainwashing.

I was homeschooled all 12 years of school by my mom. I was taught how Evolution and Creationism explain the origin of life and made up my own mind about what happened. I observe THROUGH SCIENCE the EVIDENCE that is available about the age of the earth complexity of this universe etc and refuse to believe that anything other than ID can be possible. My family is also Baptist, so of course I was raised in an environment that favored ID. The fact that I was raised in that environment does not make me an idiot, nor would it make my kids an idiot. My GPA in college right now is above 3.5 and I'm not bragging, I'm proving that homeschooling works.

Call me an idiot, call me a i love you, call me an a$$ call me a brainwasher, I really don't care what you think. I've grown up and think for myself unlike most here apparently.

EDIT: Evolution and ID are both religions and they both use the same set of evidence to 'prove' their beliefs. Neither is scientific.

I can point out in one sentence how I can tell that you do not know what you are talking about.

I was taught how Evolution and Creationism explain the origin of life

Evolution does not explain the origin of life. Evolution picks up after life already started and tells us how it progressed from there.
If one of your base premises are wrong how can you expect to come to the correct conclusion?
If one of the facts you were taught is wrong how many others might be?
Can you trust your education at all?

This is the problem with home schooling, it gives you one very narrow view. You do not get a well rounded education, you get fed one specific persons version of everything, with all their prejudices and the all the holes in their education amplified as they are passed on to you.

Exactly. No one here is saying that you shouldnt trust your mom, or that she deliberately lied to you. But dont think for a second that your mom knows any subject better than a person specifically trained in the subject. She may have convinced you of the truth of ID, but that only explains how she doesnt understand the subject fully.

ID is intellectually bankrupt. Peer review is a very important aspect of science, and one might view the challenging of evolution on the grounds of its "mathematical impossibility" as a valid challenge to it and a reason to look harder at the "gaps" in the theory. And it would be, but it fails on those grounds as well, since what it proclaims to topple about evolution simply doesnt hold water when examined carefully. It has been given a fair treatment to that extent, but the IDers wont give up because they are campaiging on the fact that the common person, especially the religious person, does not understand why it is not taken seriously because of this. ID can not be considered an alternative until it puts forth a testable alternative theory based on empirical evidence, which it plain and simply does not. It just tries to dazzle the reader with all sorts of mathematics that most people will never come close to fully understanding, and because of this, appeals to people's faith and trust. Until you understand why ID is *not* science because of this, you will forever misunderstand the absolute most basic facet of what makes science different and special.

I didn't say that I accepted my mom's point of view on ID and creation without questioning it. I said pretty clearly that I was given the evidence and made up my mind about what I wanted to believe. Actually, I'd dare to say that from what I've seen about the curriculum public school uses, I was given a fairer chance at viewing the evidence because ID wasn't discounted - and neither was evolution - before I was taught it.

My mom graduated from high school and stopped there. She has no college degree. My GED test score was approximately a 98%. My SAT was slightly above 1300. I don't feel like I need to defend the quality of my education or the abilities of my mom as a teacher. I am also not saying that anyone can teach homeschool or that everyone who is homeschooled gets the same quality of education.

I believe in ID and more specifically, that the universe was created by God. I cannot prove it scientifically and don't claim to. I believe it because of non-scientific evidence that I observe in this world that convinces me that evolution is not possible, mathematically or physically. The Bible contains all my beliefs and I accept it through faith, not physical proof that it is true.

 

[Vette73]

evolution is not possible, mathematically or physically

ok mr wizard. Please prove "evolution is not possible".

This should be good.

 

[BD2003]

I didn't say that I accepted my mom's point of view on ID and creation without questioning it. I said pretty clearly that I was given the evidence and made up my mind about what I wanted to believe. Actually, I'd dare to say that from what I've seen about the curriculum public school uses, I was given a fairer chance at viewing the evidence because ID wasn't discounted - and neither was evolution - before I was taught it.

Your mom is not qualified to "give you the evidence", which is the point that everyone is trying to make. ID is rightfully discounted, because it is not science, and does not belong in a science curriculum. Social studies, religious studies, absolutely, but not science. There is no *evidence* for ID, it is a negative theory, that can at best try to knock holes in evolution and shove God *cough* I mean..the unnamed "designer".... in there. But thats already been said a million times.

My mom graduated from high school and stopped there. She has no college degree. My GED test score was approximately a 98%. My SAT was slightly above 1300. I don't feel like I need to defend the quality of my education or the abilities of my mom as a teacher. I am also not saying that anyone can teach homeschool or that everyone who is homeschooled gets the same quality of education.

You do feel like you need to defend of the quality of your education, which is why youre spouting off GED and SAT scores. I wouldnt doubt the fact that you may quite well have possibly received a better education by your mother, but Id say that only assuming your science education isnt even considered in that statement.

I believe in ID and more specifically, that the universe was created by God. I cannot prove it scientifically and don't claim to. I believe it because of non-scientific evidence that I observe in this world that convinces me that evolution is not possible, mathematically or physically. The Bible contains all my beliefs and I accept it through faith, not physical proof that it is true.

Let the religion come on out then. But lets be clear: there is no such thing as "scientific" evidence, or "non-scientific" evidence. This only shows how little you understand of science. There is evidence, and science interprets it and creates a framework around it. Non-scientific methods can interpret it however they wish, but then they are not science, obviously. If I too, lived hundreds of years ago when modern scientific instrumentation and hundreds of years of underlying data and theory, I would discount evolution instantaneously based on what I see. But that isnt the world we live in anymore.

Believe what you will, but as soon as you start masquerading ID as real science, and thinking it even belongs in the same science classroom, that is when I have a problem.

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: BD2003

I didn't say that I accepted my mom's point of view on ID and creation without questioning it. I said pretty clearly that I was given the evidence and made up my mind about what I wanted to believe. Actually, I'd dare to say that from what I've seen about the curriculum public school uses, I was given a fairer chance at viewing the evidence because ID wasn't discounted - and neither was evolution - before I was taught it.

Your mom is not qualified to "give you the evidence", which is the point that everyone is trying to make. ID is rightfully discounted, because it is not science, and does not belong in a science curriculum. Social studies, religious studies, absolutely, but not science. There is no *evidence* for ID, it is a negative theory, that can at best try to knock holes in evolution and shove God *cough* I mean..the unnamed "designer".... in there. But thats already been said a million times.

My mom graduated from high school and stopped there. She has no college degree. My GED test score was approximately a 98%. My SAT was slightly above 1300. I don't feel like I need to defend the quality of my education or the abilities of my mom as a teacher. I am also not saying that anyone can teach homeschool or that everyone who is homeschooled gets the same quality of education.

You do feel like you need to defend of the quality of your education, which is why youre spouting off GED and SAT scores. I wouldnt doubt the fact that you may quite well have possibly received a better education by your mother, but Id say that only assuming your science education isnt even considered in that statement.

I believe in ID and more specifically, that the universe was created by God. I cannot prove it scientifically and don't claim to. I believe it because of non-scientific evidence that I observe in this world that convinces me that evolution is not possible, mathematically or physically. The Bible contains all my beliefs and I accept it through faith, not physical proof that it is true.

Let the religion come on out then. But lets be clear: there is no such thing as "scientific" evidence, or "non-scientific" evidence. This only shows how little you understand of science. There is evidence, and science interprets it and creates a framework around it. Non-scientific methods can interpret it however they wish, but then they are not science, obviously. If I too, lived hundreds of years ago when modern scientific instrumentation and hundreds of years of underlying data and theory, I would discount evolution instantaneously based on what I see. But that isnt the world we live in anymore.

Believe what you will, but as soon as you start masquerading ID as real science, and thinking it even belongs in the same science classroom, that is when I have a problem.

How many time do I have to say ID IS NOT SCIENCE?? I did not 'start masquerading ID as real science'.

'But lets be clear: there is no such thing as "scientific" evidence, or "non-scientific" evidence.'

The evidence I say I see that is not scientific are things that happen, most commonly called miracles, that don't seem possible - like that woman that went parachuting a few weeks back, her parachute didn't open, and she hit a parking lot at about 50-70MPH but lived to survive it. Not to mention the baby she apparently had inside being fine. That's not really physically possible to my knowledge, so I accept it as a work of God.

And quit taking my words out of context, Marlin. What you quoted from what I said is not what I meant.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Fraggable

Originally posted by: BD2003

I didn't say that I accepted my mom's point of view on ID and creation without questioning it. I said pretty clearly that I was given the evidence and made up my mind about what I wanted to believe. Actually, I'd dare to say that from what I've seen about the curriculum public school uses, I was given a fairer chance at viewing the evidence because ID wasn't discounted - and neither was evolution - before I was taught it.

Your mom is not qualified to "give you the evidence", which is the point that everyone is trying to make. ID is rightfully discounted, because it is not science, and does not belong in a science curriculum. Social studies, religious studies, absolutely, but not science. There is no *evidence* for ID, it is a negative theory, that can at best try to knock holes in evolution and shove God *cough* I mean..the unnamed "designer".... in there. But thats already been said a million times.

My mom graduated from high school and stopped there. She has no college degree. My GED test score was approximately a 98%. My SAT was slightly above 1300. I don't feel like I need to defend the quality of my education or the abilities of my mom as a teacher. I am also not saying that anyone can teach homeschool or that everyone who is homeschooled gets the same quality of education.

You do feel like you need to defend of the quality of your education, which is why youre spouting off GED and SAT scores. I wouldnt doubt the fact that you may quite well have possibly received a better education by your mother, but Id say that only assuming your science education isnt even considered in that statement.

I believe in ID and more specifically, that the universe was created by God. I cannot prove it scientifically and don't claim to. I believe it because of non-scientific evidence that I observe in this world that convinces me that evolution is not possible, mathematically or physically. The Bible contains all my beliefs and I accept it through faith, not physical proof that it is true.

Let the religion come on out then. But lets be clear: there is no such thing as "scientific" evidence, or "non-scientific" evidence. This only shows how little you understand of science. There is evidence, and science interprets it and creates a framework around it. Non-scientific methods can interpret it however they wish, but then they are not science, obviously. If I too, lived hundreds of years ago when modern scientific instrumentation and hundreds of years of underlying data and theory, I would discount evolution instantaneously based on what I see. But that isnt the world we live in anymore.

Believe what you will, but as soon as you start masquerading ID as real science, and thinking it even belongs in the same science classroom, that is when I have a problem.

How many time do I have to say ID IS NOT SCIENCE?? I did not 'start masquerading ID as real science'.

'But lets be clear: there is no such thing as "scientific" evidence, or "non-scientific" evidence.'

The evidence I say I see that is not scientific are things that happen, most commonly called miracles, that don't seem possible - like that woman that went parachuting a few weeks back, her parachute didn't open, and she hit a parking lot at about 50-70MPH but lived to survive it. Not to mention the baby she apparently had inside being fine. That's not really physically possible to my knowledge, so I accept it as a work of God.

And quit taking my words out of context, Marlin. What you quoted from what I said is not what I meant.

If it wasn't possible she wouldn't survive..... plain and simple.
I am sure that if someone investigated the details of that accident there would be plenty of explanations why she survived. In absence of more details it simple for you to think 'OMG, a miracle. God saved her!', and you are happy with that.
Got a link to it? -- I have a feeling she didn't escape without injuries.

 

[CKent]

Sad that in this day and age people are still explaining what they don't understand with religion. Sadder still that this is becoming more common. As I've said before, forum-goers here often remind me of tribal villagers cowering in terror of a thunderstorm, wondering what they did to upset the gods and what they should do to avoid future thunderstorms 🙁

Regardless of your religious beliefs though, ID isn't science. Further, it has no place in schools at all; it attempts to explain nothing. It serves only take a potshot at science and give christianity a foothold in public schools. There's nothing to learn; beyond "Life's tough to understand, it must be God", what does it even state? 😕

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

If it wasn't possible she wouldn't survive..... plain and simple.
I am sure that if someone investigated the details of that accident there would be plenty of explanations why she survived. In absence of more details it simple for you to think 'OMG, a miracle. God saved her!', and you are happy with that.
Got a link to it? -- I have a feeling she didn't escape without injuries.

Found this
Accident

Lucky to be alive? Absolutely. Miracle? No way.
50mph is 22.3 meters/sec. Obviously her parachute was functioning to some degree. She hit the ground at the equivalent of a little over a 2 second free-fall and it seems like she suffered appropriate injuries.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

If it wasn't possible she wouldn't survive..... plain and simple.
I am sure that if someone investigated the details of that accident there would be plenty of explanations why she survived. In absence of more details it simple for you to think 'OMG, a miracle. God saved her!', and you are happy with that.
Got a link to it? -- I have a feeling she didn't escape without injuries.

Found this
Accident

Lucky to be alive? Absolutely. Miracle? No way.
50mph is 22.3 meters/sec. Obviously her parachute was functioning to some degree. She hit the ground at the equivalent of a little over a 2 second free-fall and it seems like she suffered appropriate injuries.

Shush with your blasphemous "science", being ignorant takes concentration and you might screw it up :|



:laugh:

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

If it wasn't possible she wouldn't survive..... plain and simple.
I am sure that if someone investigated the details of that accident there would be plenty of explanations why she survived. In absence of more details it simple for you to think 'OMG, a miracle. God saved her!', and you are happy with that.
Got a link to it? -- I have a feeling she didn't escape without injuries.

Found this
Accident

Lucky to be alive? Absolutely. Miracle? No way.
50mph is 22.3 meters/sec. Obviously her parachute was functioning to some degree. She hit the ground at the equivalent of a little over a 2 second free-fall and it seems like she suffered appropriate injuries.

Shush with your blasphemous "science", being ignorant takes concentration and you might screw it up :|



:laugh:

I am sorry to bring reality to a dicussion like this. 😱


:laugh:

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

If it wasn't possible she wouldn't survive..... plain and simple.
I am sure that if someone investigated the details of that accident there would be plenty of explanations why she survived. In absence of more details it simple for you to think 'OMG, a miracle. God saved her!', and you are happy with that.
Got a link to it? -- I have a feeling she didn't escape without injuries.

Found this
Accident

Lucky to be alive? Absolutely. Miracle? No way.
50mph is 22.3 meters/sec. Obviously her parachute was functioning to some degree. She hit the ground at the equivalent of a little over a 2 second free-fall and it seems like she suffered appropriate injuries.

Shush with your blasphemous "science", being ignorant takes concentration and you might screw it up :|



:laugh:

I am sorry to bring reality to a dicussion like this. 😱


:laugh:

Ummm, the way I read the article it says she pretty much free-fell 3,000 feet. You don't fall 1500 feet/second at 50MPH.

I look at the world and say 'this didn't just happen; someone created it'. You look at it and say 'I don't see evidence of the one that created it, therefore I don't believe in ID and there's got to be a better explanation'. One of us can believe something they can't see, the other can't. I cannot accept that it developed itself, and you can't accept that a creator exists.

I could use the old example of wind not being visible but you can see evidence of it, but no one here will ever get my point because you've already made up your minds.

 

[AMDZen]

Good. Its a retarded idea

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Fraggable
Great. Now evolution is the only 'scientifically' acceptable explanation for where we came from. So much for teaching all beliefs and letting the students decide. I know that wasn't the legal policy at any point but its the logical one.

This isn't about beliefs, it's about science. ID is not science, and this ruling states that explicitly. If they want to talk about ID in comparitive religions, philosophy, current events, whatever, then have at it. But it's not science so it doesn't belong in the science curiculum.

"To call some area of inquiry ?not science? or ?unscientific? or to label it ?religion? or ?myth? is within contemporary western culture a common maneuver for discrediting an idea."

"Despite intelligent design?s clear linkage, both methodologically and in content, with existing sciences that sift the effects of intelligence from undirected natural forces, critics of intelligent design often label it a form of creationism. Not only is this label misleading, but in academic and scientific circles it has become a term of abuse to censor ideas before they can be fairly discussed."

"Despite its constant repetition, the charge that intelligent design is a form of creationism is false. Robert Pennock (1999, 2001) and Barbara Forrest (2004), for instance, repeat this charge in virtually all of their writings that criticize intelligent design. Yet, as trained philosophers, they know that intelligent design is consistent with philosophical positions that hold to no doctrine of creation. Why, then, do they insist that intelligent design is creationism? The reason is that creationism has been discredited in the courts and among the scientific and academic elite. Thus, if the label can be made to stick, intelligent design will be defeated without the need to investigate its actual claims."


I understand why evolutionists feel the need to resort to misleanding labels to confuse the public in order to win a debate, but this tactic of deception will only lead to a distrust of the academic elite.

maybe if they actually taught other ideas of intelligent design besides god(creationism) there wouldn't be this problem. the whole deal is that they were usign creationism by god under the guise of intelligent design (aliens, supernatural mumbo jumbo, etc)

 

[Vette73]

The kinda person that uses the "wind" to prove ID should be taught in a science class or to get out of work.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/...21/cp.19a351e5e1cebe059aba5e3cefe01d69

 

[DrPizza]

Fraggable, for what it's worth...
In the next few years, some of the possible causes for the big bang are going to be tested.
Are you familiar with string theory?

Anyway, I'll keep it simple here, we can get more complicated in Highly Technical, if you wish.
Suppose a theory predicts that if the universe was created by 2 separate multidimensional things colliding, then some quantity, let's call it x, should have a value of 2.78128283509. Now, x has never ever been measurable. It wasn't even thought of until the past decade.
Now, let's say in 2007, the equipment for testing this value finally comes online. The experiments are run, and it measures a value of 2.7812828351. Are you going to call it an "uncanny coincidence," or, are you going to claim "Well, God figured out that scientists would figure out an experiment, so he set the value at that." Or, will you accept that as pretty good evidence that they're on the right track for figuring out what caused the big bang?


Of course, at that point, you can back up and say, "Well, in 2005, we didn't know what caused the Big Bang, so God must have caused it. Now, we have pretty good evidence for what caused the origin of the Big Bang. BUT, we don't know what caused those two things to collide together or what created those two things. So, since there isn't any evidence, God must have done it."

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Fraggable

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

If it wasn't possible she wouldn't survive..... plain and simple.
I am sure that if someone investigated the details of that accident there would be plenty of explanations why she survived. In absence of more details it simple for you to think 'OMG, a miracle. God saved her!', and you are happy with that.
Got a link to it? -- I have a feeling she didn't escape without injuries.

Found this
Accident

Lucky to be alive? Absolutely. Miracle? No way.
50mph is 22.3 meters/sec. Obviously her parachute was functioning to some degree. She hit the ground at the equivalent of a little over a 2 second free-fall and it seems like she suffered appropriate injuries.

Shush with your blasphemous "science", being ignorant takes concentration and you might screw it up :|



:laugh:

I am sorry to bring reality to a dicussion like this. 😱


:laugh:

Ummm, the way I read the article it says she pretty much free-fell 3,000 feet. You don't fall 1500 feet/second at 50MPH.

I look at the world and say 'this didn't just happen; someone created it'. You look at it and say 'I don't see evidence of the one that created it, therefore I don't believe in ID and there's got to be a better explanation'. One of us can believe something they can't see, the other can't. I cannot accept that it developed itself, and you can't accept that a creator exists.

I could use the old example of wind not being visible but you can see evidence of it, but no one here will ever get my point because you've already made up your minds.

Well, the way you read it is wrong. The parachute failed to open properly. This means it DID open but not completely so she didn't fall with a speed of 1500ft/s, more like the 50mph like the article said.
Using the basic formula v = a x t (acceleration x time), and solving for t, tells us that a free-fall from zero speed with a duration of 2.78s will result in a final velocity of ~50mph. This would be equal to jumping from a 150 ft wall.
Surviving this is very possible but you will be injured just like she was.

edit:
Fraggable - did you even care to look at the video? :roll:

 

[BD2003]

How many time do I have to say ID IS NOT SCIENCE?? I did not 'start masquerading ID as real science'.

You can say it or not say it as much as you want, but thats what ID is, an attempt to "scientifically" bring god into evolution. So you personally dont think its science, congratulations, youre at least that one tiny step closer. But that doesnt make it valid either.

'But lets be clear: there is no such thing as "scientific" evidence, or "non-scientific" evidence.'

The evidence I say I see that is not scientific are things that happen, most commonly called miracles, that don't seem possible - like that woman that went parachuting a few weeks back, her parachute didn't open, and she hit a parking lot at about 50-70MPH but lived to survive it. Not to mention the baby she apparently had inside being fine.

By evidence I am referring specifically to empirical evidence of course, circumstantial evidence is a bit different, but its fairly useless in the context of science.

PLENTY of things happen in science that don't seem possible. Thats probably the most important thing that could possibly happen. "Science" will say the woman has fallen, and from what we already know, this seems unlikely. Let us first investigate the situation as much as possible, and once we have gathered as much data as possible, we can form a hypothesis, test it, and hopefully, come up with a theory.

But you just said it right there:

That's not really physically possible to my knowledge, so I accept it as a work of God.

Something can be entirely unknown to every single person who has ever existed, and that does not make it a work of god. The laws of thermodynamics were just the same, out there for people to discover, long before they were actually discovered. Perhaps one day there will be an excellent explanation for that above 'miracle', maybe there already is, Im not familiar with it. But rather than just saying wow, thats amazing, how did that happen, you took it the extra step, and added in a big guy in the sky who decided to miraculously save her. That doesnt logically follow, but youve already said its not about logic, its about faith. Fair enough.

When you say you looked at all the 'evidence', and decided that there was no way evolution can be possible, all I will say is that you need to look at the evidence quite a bit harder, and dont take it from the people who are against it to begin with.

 

[DrPizza]

For what it's worth, I believe in a supreme intelligence. BUT, I will *NEVER* attempt to claim that I know what the Supreme Intelligence did, has done, or will do.

As it is, my wife had to yell at me to hold onto the steering wheel... I was going 70mph on snow covered roads when I heard that announcement on NPR. I started applauding while driving.

 

[Vette73]

Well I have been trying to find soemthing so stupid or funny to put in my sig. and I got both of them in a single quote from this topic. Thanks :laugh:

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Fraggable

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Fraggable
Great. Now evolution is the only 'scientifically' acceptable explanation for where we came from. So much for teaching all beliefs and letting the students decide. I know that wasn't the legal policy at any point but its the logical one.

This isn't about beliefs, it's about science. ID is not science, and this ruling states that explicitly. If they want to talk about ID in comparitive religions, philosophy, current events, whatever, then have at it. But it's not science so it doesn't belong in the science curiculum.

No way any of my kids will ever ever EVER EVER go to a public school.

So you choose another flavor of brainwashing.

I was homeschooled all 12 years of school by my mom. I was taught how Evolution and Creationism explain the origin of life and made up my own mind about what happened. I observe THROUGH SCIENCE the EVIDENCE that is available about the age of the earth complexity of this universe etc and refuse to believe that anything other than ID can be possible. My family is also Baptist, so of course I was raised in an environment that favored ID. The fact that I was raised in that environment does not make me an idiot, nor would it make my kids an idiot. My GPA in college right now is above 3.5 and I'm not bragging, I'm proving that homeschooling works.

Call me an idiot, call me a i love you, call me an a$$ call me a brainwasher, I really don't care what you think. I've grown up and think for myself unlike most here apparently.

EDIT: Evolution and ID are both religions and they both use the same set of evidence to 'prove' their beliefs. Neither is scientific.

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. You obviously don't even have a full grasp of evolution to even make an informed judgment.

I don't think I've seen one person that has a good understanding of evolution, how it works, and the evidence behind it that disbelieves it. There is a tremendous amount of evidence for it that it's hard to say it's impossible.

I posted some general info on another thread on the evidence for evolution:

How doesn't the fossil record not support evolution? If anything, it more than supports it.
Everything from fishes, turning to amphibians, to reptiles that don't need to lay eggs in water, to full land reptiles. It all links together in evolutionary steps. You don't find reptile fossils before amphibians, just like you don't find amphibian fossils before fish fossils.
The same is true with plants. It all started with mosses, or plants with no stem and shoot systems, nor seeds. They live in water. Then in the fossil record, it shows it evolving to plants with shoots systems, but with no seeds, or ferns. You don't see ferns before mosses.
These are just two examples of evolution in the fossil record. There is a tremendous amount of evidence found in the fossil record that supports evolution. Anyone who has studied it WILL see evolution as factual.

You are right about biologists not being able to figure out how DNA can self replicate. But scientists are able to create DNA abiotically, they just aren't able to get them to self replicate - YET. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. I personally think it's just a matter of time before they can create organisms abiotically. Yes the DNA was created by that "organic broth with lightning" as you call it in a lab experiment. They were also able to create self replicating polypeptides.

DNA isn't mutated by random lightning zaps. It's mutated by the UV rays of the sun. And you can see that many plants, that do not have a pair of chromosomes, be greatly affected by mutation of the UV rays. If you read about the studies they done with hox genes(google this, very interesting), they basically found a "genetic toolbox" with it. Just by modifying one single gene, they can create major adverse effects on an entire organism, such as adding a third leg. There was even a single gene that they found that basically flips an organisms internal organs around, meaning the backbone goes to the front side. This shows that just a tiny mutation can create a completely different organism.

Another thing that I found interesting is that there are actually fish that has huge lobed fins that can run out of water. One example is the lungfish, given it's name because it's a fish with lungs! Lungfishes actually dwell in almost dried up lakes, so they can run out when the lake that they're in dries up. It's a good example of Darwin's survival of the fittest.

Another interesting evolutionary link that can be seen are the evolution of mammals. Mammals are very different as they have placential breeding, or breeding inside the uterus, and not an external egg. But if you've been through basic biology, you'll know that there are mammals that lay eggs, such as the platypus and there are animals that breed their young in pouches, such as kangaroos. Both the platypus and kangaroos are both evolutionary links up to the placental breeders. They are all found in the fossil records. But those two kinds of breeding are much inferior than placental breeding, which is why they have gone extinct, except in Australia, which has been isolated from the rest of the world much earlier than any continent. It is also interesting to to note that in result of Australia being isolated, it also has the most unique animals that are only found in Australia. This is more evidence through biology and geology that proves evolution.

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Well I have been trying to find soemthing so stupid or funny to put in my sig. and I got both of them in a single quote from this topic. Thanks :laugh:

I'll post my last post in this thread now. I'm tired of this.

When Jesus was hung on the cross back in ~33AD, he said this to God:

'Forgive them, for they know not what they do'.

That's all I have to say. I don't care if you believe He existed or not.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Fraggable

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Well I have been trying to find soemthing so stupid or funny to put in my sig. and I got both of them in a single quote from this topic. Thanks :laugh:

I'll post my last post in this thread now. I'm tired of this.

When Jesus was hung on the cross back in ~33AD, he said this to God:

'Forgive them, for they know not what they do'.

That's all I have to say. I don't care if you believe He existed or not.

... and when the religious persons beliefs and arguments are challenged he retreats while reading quotes from the Bible, hoping his faith is still intact...

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Fraggable

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Well I have been trying to find soemthing so stupid or funny to put in my sig. and I got both of them in a single quote from this topic. Thanks :laugh:

I'll post my last post in this thread now. I'm tired of this.

When Jesus was hung on the cross back in ~33AD, he said this to God:

'Forgive them, for they know not what they do'.

That's all I have to say. I don't care if you believe He existed or not.

LOL, talk about going out with a bang.

Its alright though. You have to understand where you are: youre on a message board absolutely full of nerds, probably over 80% of which are computer science, engineering, science or even philosophy majors. Around here, most people think, they dont just blindly believe.

And BTW, god and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Even the vatican, which throughout history, has burned and tortured people for disagreeing with their beliefs, has already recognized this a long time ago. Only the closed minded sheep, who just because theyre told to, and because it feels so comfortable to have all of the answers, believe such a thing in 2005. There have been too many times in history where blind faith and ignorance without questioning has led millions of people astray and caused untold harm, including but not limited to: Nazis, 9/11, Slavery, the Iraq War, the Salem witch trials and yes, even the killing of Jesus. You would do well to learn that.

 

[0roo0roo]

i like how the judge cut through the bs, it really is just creationism in disguise.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BD2003
By evidence I am referring specifically to empirical evidence of course, circumstantial evidence is a bit different, but its fairly useless in the context of science.

subatomic particle physics is almost completely circumstantial. circumstantial evidence is anything that wasn't directly observed by the witness, that allows the witness to infer that something happened. with particle colliders you don't actually see the particle that was created, you see what it did. that action allows you to infer that either the particle was there or not, or to narrow down competing hypotheses.

 

[yhelothar]

Just thinking, even if it did pass, what bio teacher would be for teaching ID in their biology class? :laugh:
The bio teacher would more than likely say ID is a bunch of BS if they were required to teach it.