Intelligent Design

[her209]

How can we trace something back for certain X billion years?

We can trace something back for 6000 years though. Its in a book.

 

[madeuce]

Do you think gravity is proven?

I don't think that everything is known about gravity. However, I can stand in my front yard and drop a ball. It will fall to the ground. Every time, no exceptions. My dogs also play in my front yard, and unsurprisingly neither has given birth to an animal that wasn't a dog...

...and the fossil record, and the genetic nested hierarchy.

Are you talking about the fossil record that has the big shortage on transitional fossils? The same fossil record that dates the fossils by the rocks they are found in and dates the rocks by the fossils that are found in them...?

The nested hierarchy is far from proof for evolution and could also be used by the creationist.[/QUOTE]

{snip}

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

If that collection of evidence is "little," it shouldn't take you long to read it. It seems you could use the education. After you're through, you're invited to come back and tell us why you don't think evolution is a convincing scientific theory.

It's great that you can put a link in a forum, now if you could only post the actual proof that is supposedly in the link that shows that life can come from non-living material. If you can pull that out of there please continue on and prove that one day my dogs can bring forth anything other than a dog.

If the "education" I need is blindly believe in evolution I don't need it.

 

[ModestGamer]

It's great that you can put a link in a forum, now if you could only post the actual proof that is supposedly in the link that shows that life can come from non-living material. .

Remove all h20 from your body.

 

[madeuce]

I doubt its mine considering considering my test scores. Feel free to continue to miss the point of the statement however.

LOL

Becuase the bible says so

Its the dumbest argument on the planet. anyone who supports it immediately abandons reason and logic.

Because my textbook said so

It's the dumbest argument on the planet. anyone who supports it immediately abandons reason and logic.

Ergo.

Religous people are fucking stupid or mentally ill. Take your pick.

We already know you can cuss and insult? Does it really make you feel that much better to do it here? Is it because you get beat on too much outside your interwebs?

 

[madeuce]

Remove all h20 from your body.

why don't you take some of that h20 and create a living creature out of it instead, maybe you would get to actually proving something that hasn't been.

Oh wait, that would be intelligent design, though in your case the intelligent part would be a little over the top.

I guess you'll have to take that h20 and leave it lying around unattended and wait for something to make itself. I hope you have some snacks. Let me know how it goes bud.

 

[ModestGamer]

why don't you take some of that h20 and create a living creature out of it instead, maybe you would get to actually proving something that hasn't been.

Oh wait, that would be intelligent design, though in your case the intelligent part would be a little over the top.

I guess you'll have to take that h20 and leave it lying around unattended and wait for something to make itself. I hope you have some snacks. Let me know how it goes bud.

you just made the statement that non living objects can;t create living object.

Let me know how that water thing works out for ya, after all we should be able to sweep up the last 12 lbs of other non alive chemicals off the floor when your done.

 

[ModestGamer]

LOL



Because my textbook said so

It's the dumbest argument on the planet. anyone who supports it immediately abandons reason and logic.



We already know you can cuss and insult? Does it really make you feel that much better to do it here? Is it because you get beat on too much outside your interwebs?

at any point did I say I agreed with everything in the thoery of evolution ?

 

[soulcougher73]

I wouldnt care if it was mentioned and the students can take it upon them selves to research it. But i dont think it should be taught since it is not a true science. That is what churches are for, is to teach that.

 

[ModestGamer]

I wouldnt care if it was mentioned and the students can take it upon them selves to research it. But i dont think it should be taught since it is not a true science. That is what churches are for, is to indoctronate that.

corrected for accuracy

 

[Paul98]

How can we trace something back for certain X billion years?

You see, that's the problem. We have measured the speed of light by waves of light, energy a small distance, at the most, to the edge of this solar system. And we calculate that the speed of this light or energy is Y...

How do we measure that the light we receieve from a supernova is 40 light years from the Earth? We recieve the light when we do... How do we know when something was originated for certain? What if there is unknown forces out there that manipulate this energy? Does Gravity affect the photons? Does other photons affect the protons? Does the lack of matter in the universe between solar systems accelerate the speed, but when these light protons hit our suns protons does it slow down the speed? Speed it up? We have only done our tests within our solar system. What happens if we go past the edge of our solar systems do the properties change any? What happens if this light goes across the universe... Do the same rules apply?

The concept I can think of is you have a star in the night, we recieve it's light. To us it got to our eyes now. Now we have someone in the field 300 meters away flashing a flashlight... To my eye, the star and flashlight are the same intensity, got to my eyeball at the same time, but one was originated much later than the other. So how we calculate that the star or supernova is a certain amount of distance away, even though we know the flashlight in the field is 300 meters away.

We don't have anybody on that star to give us a timestamp that wasn't altered by external forces. We apply what we know on Earth in our limited existance and apply that Universally, assuming what we learned on Earth is a constant that equally applies to the Universe. It may not...

Speed of light to me cannot be proven universally. We can't use the speed of light to determine that the galaxy is moving at this speed, or that the universe is 8 billion years old. Because we cannot prove what happens with light across a universe. So doesn't that invalidate the test and anything that uses the speed of light as part of the equation?

Maybe that isn't the best example, but you see where I'm trying to go with this...

We know how far these things are away due to things we know what there luminosity is. These are standard candles of the universe. Things such as a type 1a supernova, which are all the same size and luminosity.

 

[madeuce]

you just made the statement that non living objects can;t create living object.

Let me know how that water thing works out for ya, after all we should be able to sweep up the last 12 lbs of other non alive chemicals off the floor when your done.

keep grasping at your straws man. You claim to have such reading comprehension but then fail so badly.

I guess I can break it down a little easier for some of our slower audience (you)

Spontaneous generation was proven false.

Abiogenesis falls a long way short of proving that life can just begin on it's own.

 

[madeuce]

at any point did I say I agreed with everything in the thoery of evolution ?

oh, sorry, I didn't catch on that you were trolling.

 

[madeuce]

Originally Posted by soulcougher73
I wouldnt care if it was mentioned and the students can take it upon them selves to research it. But i dont think it should be taught since it is not a true science. That is what churches are for, is to indoctronate that.

corrected for accuracy

A good example of indoctrination would be the amount of evolution that was crammed down our students throats because we were losing the space race in the 50's and 60's.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't think that everything is known about gravity.

That doesn't answer the question that was asked. If it was above your comprehension, I can suggest another:

Do you think that relativity is proven?

However, I can stand in my front yard and drop a ball. It will fall to the ground. Every time, no exceptions. My dogs also play in my front yard, and unsurprisingly neither has given birth to an animal that wasn't a dog...

That's a good thing, too, because if you dog gave birth to an animal that wasn't a dog, it would invalidate the theory of evolution. You don't appear to know very much about evolution, I must say.

Are you talking about the fossil record that has the big shortage on transitional fossils?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Claim CC200:

There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record. Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
Response:

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.
   
   The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
   1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
   2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
   3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
   4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
   5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
   6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
   7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
   8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
   9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
   10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
   11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
   
   The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:
   
   
   1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
   2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.
   3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
   4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
   5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
   6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
   7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
   8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
   9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).
   
   The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:
   
   
   1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
   2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
   3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

The same fossil record that dates the fossils by the rocks they are found in and dates the rocks by the fossils that are found in them...?

I'm sorry, that fossil record only exists in the hobbled minds of creationists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html

Claim CC310:

Fossils are used to determine the order and dates of the strata in which they are found. But the fossil order itself is based on the order of strata and the assumption of evolution. Therefore, using fossil progression as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning. Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 95-96, 136.
Response:

1. Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.
   
   Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.
2. The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.

The nested hierarchy is far from proof for evolution and could also be used by the creationist.

Well you can either believe that evolution is true, or your god created a reality in which evolution appeared convincingly to be true, but either way you've conceded that evolution appears to be true. Moreover, if there were no nested hierarchy, evolution would be shown false. This would still fail to falsify creation, which is precisely why it isn't evidence of creation, and creationism is not scientific.

It's great that you can put a link in a forum, now if you could only post the actual proof that is supposedly in the link that shows that life can come from non-living material.

I'm sorry, we're talking about the theory of evolution. I know it's probably difficult for you, given your obvious mental handicap, but please try to pay attention.

If you can pull that out of there please continue on and prove that one day my dogs can bring forth anything other than a dog.

That isn't what the theory of evolution predicts, dumbass.

If the "education" I need is blindly believe in evolution I don't need it.

Your need for education extends well beyond your ignorance of evolution, it would appear.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How can we trace something back for certain X billion years?

You can't say anything for certain if you wish to push it hard enough. For example there is a non-zero probability that you didn't exist until just now and that our memories and "evidence" for your being here before then spontaneously occurred.

That said...

How do we measure that the light we receieve from a supernova is 40 light years from the Earth? We recieve the light when we do... How do we know when something was originated for certain? What if there is unknown forces out there that manipulate this energy? Does Gravity affect the photons? Does other photons affect the protons? Does the lack of matter in the universe between solar systems accelerate the speed, but when these light protons hit our suns protons does it slow down the speed? Speed it up? We have only done our tests within our solar system. What happens if we go past the edge of our solar systems do the properties change any? What happens if this light goes across the universe... Do the same rules apply?

The speed of light is determined by the medium through with it passes. Carefully designed experiments can "freeze" it, but that is through artful manipulation. Even then what cannot be done is to create two identical experiments and have the results vary. It is fixed according to the conditions which prevail. A reasonable question would be "how do you know that conditions are invariant?" They're probably not, because there is evidence that the fine structure constant varies by a tiny amount.

So let's assume that it isn't exactly the same as it appears on Earth. How else can it be verified? By comparing other observations which would show inconsistencies.

For example, your claim about direct measurements of distance are correct in that the speed of light hasn't been tested outside of the universe, however there are certain celestial events that behave according to their own rhythms. Let's say that orbital data of a pair of stars suggests a particular distance between them then that can be calculated by trigonometry. You have an angular distance now and can determine how far those stars are (within the limits of precision of course). If the stars are close enough, we can measure the angular shift by watching the star against the cosmic background as we move in our orbit around the Sun. So far every observation backs a consistent value for "c".

And while a complete explanation of Hubble's Law isn't practical here, I suggest you read the Wiki article on it and how the time of origin of the universe is predicted.

It's not one thing which points to the Big Bang (or a variation of it), but the multiplicity of data supports rather than contradicts it.

 

[alphatarget1]

Intelligent design and creationism is not science and thus should not be taught in a science class.

I guess super religious people see creationism and their religion as the absolute truth and have anything to contradict it is unacceptable. I think that's a very wrong and dangerous approach. Likewise, there are also a lot of atheists that think science is the absolute truth and mock religion. Neither promotes dialogue.

 

[her209]

A good example of indoctrination would be the amount of evolution that was crammed down our students throats because we were losing the space race in the 50's and 60's.

I don't know of any NASA engineers that use Evolution/Intelligent Design as their science foundation, but I'd be scared shitless if a NASA engineer did use the "scientific reasoning" behind Intelligent Design to make anything fly, let alone send men to outer space.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

lol, very true.

People actually think macro evolution is proven? Far from it. The only place where fish turn into frogs and monkeys turn into people is some textbooks.

I don't think ID has a place in a classroom and it's the wrong way to go about what they are trying to accomplish.

I think they would get more done if they can just get the lies out of the textbooks that support evolution and let the students decide for themselves once they see how little real evidence there is.

You apparently have no understanding at all what evolution is. Evolution doesn't claim that fish suddenly turn into frogs or that monkeys magically turn into people. Before you attempt to discredit evolution you should obtain a grasp of what it entails first because your distortion of it is ridiculous and it's exactly the kind of hyperbole that creationists engage in to attempt to discredit evolution. Doing that merely makes those employing that sort of argument look exceedingly ignorant.

 

[Paratus]

Originally Posted by soulcougher73
I wouldnt care if it was mentioned and the students can take it upon them selves to research it. But i dont think it should be taught since it is not a true science. That is what churches are for, is to indoctronate that.




A good example of indoctrination would be the amount of evolution that was crammed down our students throats because we were losing the space race in the 50's and 60's.

So just to break it down you don't believe that traits can be passed from one generation to the next right?

You also don't believe in natural selection, that the least adapted animals, plants, or even people are less likely to procreate. Correct?

 

[madeuce]

That doesn't answer the question that was asked. If it was above your comprehension, I can suggest another:

Do you think that relativity is proven?

LOL, above my comprehension...

Let's have a look at comprehension.

Your question: "Do you think gravity is proven?"
My answer: "I don't think that everything is known about gravity. However, I can stand in my front yard and drop a ball. It will fall to the ground. Every time, no exceptions."

Do you really need more than that in a discussion about ID and evolution? If you want to debate gravity try making a new thread. Or you can google search "ask a ninja gravity"

That's a good thing, too, because if you dog gave birth to an animal that wasn't a dog, it would invalidate the theory of evolution. You don't appear to know very much about evolution, I must say.

Sorry, I guess I have to break this down potato head style for you. I forgot the secret ingredient of macro evolution. Magic! Wait, I meant "time!".

My dogs grandparents as far back as they can be traced with 100% certainty were dogs. My dogs grandchildren will always be dogs. I guess we'll need a few million years to prove macro evolution. We don't have a few million years to prove it for certain.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

I'm sorry, that fossil record only exists in the hobbled minds of creationists.

Your link tells of the ear of a scallop shows slight changes over 13 million years. 13 million years is also the supposed time frame that homininae split into the chimpanzees and humans we have today... hmmm

Whatever you take out of it, there are gaps. Even the article says that direct lineages cannot be verified. The evolutionist can say "because X animal reminds me of a slightly different Y animal they must be related"
The creationist can say "because X animal reminds me of a slightly different Y animal, they must have had a common designer"

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html

"Many strata are not dated from fossils."
What percentage is "many?"

"Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating."
The problems with radiometric dating are big enough to have it's own thread. Another thread could be made on the intentional falsifying of some of the results to get the expected instead of the actual.

Well you can either believe that evolution is true, or your god created a reality in which evolution appeared convincingly to be true, but either way you've conceded that evolution appears to be true. Moreover, if there were no nested hierarchy, evolution would be shown false. This would still fail to falsify creation, which is precisely why it isn't evidence of creation, and creationism is not scientific.

Telling me what I can believe now, that's rich. I believe that life can't spontaneously spring forth from an earth with no life. I believe that the universe could not have had all of the matter in an infinitesimal space and suddenly be released to create our universe without some outside force applied.

I am not religious. I just don't believe things just because they are popular and the information is forced on us wether we like it or not.

I'm sorry, we're talking about the theory of evolution. I know it's probably difficult for you, given your obvious mental handicap, but please try to pay attention.

That isn't what the theory of evolution predicts, dumbass.

Your need for education extends well beyond your ignorance of evolution, it would appear.

Lol, once again the interwebs provide a place for even the timid and weak to talk crap without fear.

 

[Paratus]

I don't know of any NASA engineers that use Evolution/Intelligent Design as their science foundation, but I'd be scared shitless if a NASA engineer did use the "scientific reasoning" behind Intelligent Design to make anything fly, let alone send men to outer space.

Don't worry, we don't.

 

[sandorski]

So critical thinking and the ability to reason on one's own aren't part of a fundamental common knowledgebase?

Sounds like a leftist idea to me. You know, with the whole telling-people-what-they-should-think thing.

Leftist idea? Fail.

 

[madeuce]

So just to break it down you don't believe that traits can be passed from one generation to the next right?

How did you manage to come up with that out of my disbelief in macro evolution?

You also don't believe in natural selection, that the least adapted animals, plants, or even people are less likely to procreate. Correct?

Natural selection is not evolution

 

[madeuce]

You apparently have no understanding at all what evolution is. Evolution doesn't claim that fish suddenly turn into frogs or that monkeys magically turn into people. Before you attempt to discredit evolution you should obtain a grasp of what it entails first because your distortion of it is ridiculous and it's exactly the kind of hyperbole that creationists engage in to attempt to discredit evolution. Doing that merely makes those employing that sort of argument look exceedingly ignorant.

It's OK for a textbook to provide a graphic about evolution that shows a fish turning into a frog turning into a salamander turning into a XXX.

Somehow though, when I mention the same thing I have no understanding at all what evolution is. Get over yourself. If you have to take it literally just inject the words "millions of years" as you read it.

 

[Paratus]

LOL, above my comprehension...

Let's have a look at comprehension.

Your question: "Do you think gravity is proven?"
My answer: "I don't think that everything is known about gravity. However, I can stand in my front yard and drop a ball. It will fall to the ground. Every time, no exceptions."

Do you really need more than that in a discussion about ID and evolution? If you want to debate gravity try making a new thread. Or you can google search "ask a ninja gravity"




Sorry, I guess I have to break this down potato head style for you. I forgot the secret ingredient of macro evolution. Magic! Wait, I meant "time!".

My dogs grandparents as far back as they can be traced with 100% certainty were dogs. My dogs grandchildren will always be dogs. I guess we'll need a few million years to prove macro evolution. We don't have a few million years to prove it for certain.




Your link tells of the ear of a scallop shows slight changes over 13 million years. 13 million years is also the supposed time frame that homininae split into the chimpanzees and humans we have today... hmmm

Whatever you take out of it, there are gaps. Even the article says that direct lineages cannot be verified. The evolutionist can say "because X animal reminds me of a slightly different Y animal they must be related"
The creationist can say "because X animal reminds me of a slightly different Y animal, they must have had a common designer"



"Many strata are not dated from fossils."
What percentage is "many?"

"Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating."
The problems with radiometric dating are big enough to have it's own thread. Another thread could be made on the intentional falsifying of some of the results to get the expected instead of the actual.



Telling me what I can believe now, that's rich. I believe that life can't spontaneously spring forth from an earth with no life. I believe that the universe could not have had all of the matter in an infinitesimal space and suddenly be released to create our universe without some outside force applied.

I am not religious. I just don't believe things just because they are popular and the information is forced on us wether we like it or not.



Lol, once again the interwebs provide a place for even the timid and weak to talk crap without fear.

The reason I "believe" in the scientific process and have "a qualified faith" in it's answers is because the models, ideas. And memes it provides are useful and work.

The scientific process gave us the theory of gravity which let the vehicle I help operate circle the Earth 16 times a day. It gave us the theory of relatvity which allows me to know where it is via GPS. It gave us the theory behind the photoeletric effect which provides the power for the electrical power system that I run.

It also gave us the theory of evolution to describe the observed fact of evolution that Darwin saw.


Science is an excellent bullshit filter. ID is bullshit for all the reasons you've chosen to ignore in this thread.