Intelligent Design

[Paratus]

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



Natural selection is not evolution

Because that is basically ALL evolution is. Variablity in heritable traits natural selection and TIME will allow novel species to develop.

Of course gen X and gen X+1 couls still breed but don't bet that gen X and gen X+10000 of your dogs could.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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 two questions in a row you've dodged. Why can't you just answer them? Do you think gravity or relativity are proven? Which scientific ideas do you think are proven? Feel free to insert whatever you're comfortable with.

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!".

What material difference do you think distinguishes "micro-evolution" from "macro-evolution?" If I can show that a person can walk 100 feet, why shouldn't we believe he can walk a mile if given enough time?

My dogs grandparents as far back as they can be traced with 100% certainty were dogs.

So you think ancestry can be proven with 100% certainty? How do you prove that those apparent ancestors actually existed at all? Can you prove that their existence is not a magical illusion?

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.

You don't understand how speciation works. Eurkaryotes will always be eukaryotes. Chordates will always be chordates. Mammals will always be mammals. This does nothing to prohibit chordates from evolving into amphibians and birds, nor does it prohibit mammals from evolving into whales and primates. Dogs are just another branch in the evolutionary tree, and nothing is stopping them from developing branches of their own, and yet they will still always be dogs. That's exactly what evolution predicts!

But, of course, you don't realize this because you are an ignoramus.

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"

You ignorantly omit the very relevant facts that we know that traits are heritable, and we can verify relatedness genetically. Get an education.

The creationist can say "because X animal reminds me of a slightly different Y animal, they must have had a common des aigner"

You have a very deep ignorance of the way science and evidence works. If, for example, biological organisms were perfect replicators instead of imperfect replicators, evolution would be false. There is no strict reason why a creator should need to create imperfect replicators, and if biological organisms were perfect replicators, creationists could still say "See? that's how God created them!" The fact that we do observe the fact that biological organisms are imperfect replicators is evidence that evolution is true.

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

Do your own homework. There's plenty of references already supplied for you.

"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.

By all means, start one. I fucking dare you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html

Claim CD010:

Radiometric dating gives unreliable results. Source:

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.
Response:

1. Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.
2. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:
   • The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).
   • Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).
   • Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).
   • Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).
3. The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).

Links:

Thompson, Tim, 2003. A radiometric dating resource list. http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

Wiens, Roger C., 1994, 2002. Radiometric dating: A Christian perspective. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html References:

1. Dalrymple, G. Brent, 2000. Radiometric dating does work! Some examples and a critique of a failed creationist strategy. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 20(3): 14-17. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rn..._radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp
2. Harland, W. B., R. L. Armstrong, A. V. Cox, L. E. Craig, A. G. Smith, and D. G. Smith, 1990. A Geologic Time Scale 1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Hilgen, F. J., W. Krijgsman, C. G. Langereis and L. J. Lourens, 1997. Breakthrough made in dating of the geological record. EOS 78(28): 285,288-289. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eos96336.html
4. Lindsay, Don, 1999. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with each other? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/crater_chain.html
5. Lindsay, Don, 2000. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with the deeper-is-older rule? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/confirm.html
6. Meert, Joe, 2000. Consistent radiometric dates. http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
7. Rubin, Ken, 2001. The formation of the Hawaiian Islands. http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html
8. Thompson, Tim, n.d. Luminescence and radiometric dating. http://www.tim-thompson.com/luminescence.html
9. Thorne, A. et al., 1999. Australia's oldest human remains: Age of the Lake Mungo 3 skeleton. Journal of Human Evolution 36(6): 591-612.

Telling me what I can believe now, that's rich.

Forgive me for making the obviously unreasonable assumption that you are a rational human being. I will try not to make that error again in the future.

I believe that life can't spontaneously spring forth from an earth with no life.

So? We're talking about evolution.

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.

So? We're talking about evolution.

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.

Gosh darn all those facts being "forced" on us! Reality should conform to my beliefs! Not the other way around!

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

Timid and weak? The evidence is clearly in my corner. That's hardly a weak position, fucknut, and I'm certainly not timid about it. All you have is limitless incredulity.

 

[Tom]

I've looked at the intelligent design argument, as it exists it's just quackery.

Which is actually a problem because science class SHOULD teach a certain degree of skepticism about even those things that seem very well understood.

 

[sandorski]

Trying to convince a Creationist about Evolution is like trying to convince a Jehovah's Witness about Christianity. They can't respond outside a certain framework within which they've been coached to respond. You'll just get evasions and nonsensical slogans from them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just a nit picky point, and that's the BB theory came after the discovery of the recession of the galaxies.

Also, a better observation than recession itself is the microwave background radiation, which indicates not only an initial event going back to a definite time, but had a hot origin.

Perversely perhaps, the idea of the expanding universe and an initial instant of creation was strongly opposed by the leading scientists of the day. Why? Because it opened the door to the possibility of something having a hand in it.

The favored theory was "Steady State" which said that matter was spontaneously generated as the universe grew. That being the case the universe was infinite but self regenerating. That failed because it didn't satisfactorily explain redshifting, and worse it failed to answer Obler's Paradox. Ultimately they had to give in to the "creationist" scientists.

Interesting eh?

I seem to recall reading that steady state is back in with some theory or another that explains all that stuff. Now where did I read that?

 

[wirelessenabled]

There's a thin line between ID and God. It will definitely be interpreted as God and loons will start crying foul. But IMO, sure, I am a big supporter of ID and strongly feel that its time all option should be laid down on the table and let the students decide that they believe in, its time to start the debate

Yeah and I think in calculus classes we should let the students decide if Newton's calculus makes any sense and if they believe in it. We shouldn't let 400 years of testing calculus by the best and the brightest convince us that it is correct. We should let the Freshmen in college decide what they believe in and whether Newton's Mechanics is correct. It's time to start the debate. All options should be laid down on the table, ie. the planets orbit the Sun on strings of silly putty, or maybe old rolled up donuts, or maybe there is a monster Atlas God who is swinging the planets about their head. We would we let the scientists tell us what might be the truth by testing their theories? We can just guess and come up with way better results.

 

[MJinZ]

Intelligent Design should be part of philosophy or Ethics or Logic... These classes are not offered in High School though.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I vote ID should be taught in the science classroom along with alchemy and astrology just for the ridicule factor. Kids gotta have something to laugh at.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

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.

I assume you're talking about the tree of life graphic?

That sort of graphic depicts hierarchical evolutionary relationships between groups of organisms. It doesn't imply that a fish suddenly turned into a frog, a salamander, or anything else. If you truly think it does you should do some reading on the subject instead of only bothering to look at the pictures and then jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I seem to recall reading that steady state is back in with some theory or another that explains all that stuff. Now where did I read that?

There is a hypothesis where there isn't a Big Bang per se, but the collision of two branes which cause universes to come about. It has certain conceptual advantages, however it's not easy to create experiments which could verify it. In some way it's "steady state" in that instead of matter being injected into our cosmos whole universes are perpetually coming into being within the entire meta-universe.

I don't know if that is what you might have seen.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is a hypothesis where there isn't a Big Bang per se, but the collision of two branes which cause universes to come about. It has certain conceptual advantages, however it's not easy to create experiments which could verify it. In some way it's "steady state" in that instead of matter being injected into our cosmos whole universes are perpetually coming into being within the entire meta-universe.

I don't know if that is what you might have seen.

I finded it:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25492/

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

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"

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t#p/c/AC3481305829426D/24/sxtbcOEtpoE

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t#p/c/AC3481305829426D/22/3X8aifay678

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.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t#p/c/AC3481305829426D/18/lmUGJ3Jh7fc

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"

Regarding Cambrian Explosion http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t#p/c/AC3481305829426D/14/Sui4CadfhDM

"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.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t#p/c/AC3481305829426D/15/loPHYsLHb5Q

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.

See quoted links

BTW, another interesting video regarding the lawsuit regarding the ID textbooks from a few years ago... link

Also, ID=creationism (with some minor changes) text

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I finded it:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25492/

That's cool, thanks! I'll have to read up on his ideas

 

[her209]

I vote ID should be taught in the science classroom along with alchemy and astrology just for the ridicule factor. Kids gotta have something to laugh at.

Flat Earth Theory should be taught in Geology and Geography class. Earth Centric Universe Theory should be taught in Astronomy.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Obama believes in intelligent design. How will the left spin that?

 

[MrColin]

No, intelligent design shouldn't be taught in science class, but it can be mentioned derisively

my choice and interpretation

 

[Timorous]

ID should not be taught in science class because it is not science. Evoltution is one of the strongest theories we have come up with because not only did it survive the creation of a new field of science (genetics) but that new field of science further supported the theory of evoltion.

An excellent example of evololution is the silver tailed fox experiment. The foxes were selected based on flight distance (how close a human could get before the fox ran away). Over a period of 60 years they have turned wild silver tailed foxes into tame domesticated foxes that act almost like dog. Not only have the foxes gone through a temprement change they have also gone through physiological changes. They have also done DNA tests on the tame vs wild foxes and found 2,700 different genes between these two branches of the silver tailed fox. If this selective breeding process was to continue for a long enough period of time then you could say it would result in a fox that was wildly different from the silver tailed fox of its ancestors.

If you want to argue ID from further back in relation to the creation of the universe then I guess you should also mention theories like the 2 second old theory or the giant simulated environment theory.

 

[Red Dawn]

Obama believes in intelligent design. How will the left spin that?

I'm not aware of that but if it's true then fine as long s he isn't pushing it to be taught in school.

 

[Darwin333]

"Close" and "being able to" are two very, very different things.

People in this thread and in the general public point to "evolution" and say "see, creationism has to be wrong". Well, no it doesn't. It doesn't have to be right, either. The existence of evolution does not disprove ID, which is a very common misconception. That is why I brought it up.

Until an alternate theory is PROVEN, both theories have to be considered plausible. Whether or not one is more plausible than the other is a subject for a science classroom to discuss. But to dismiss out-of-hand one of the theories is to not be objective in the pursuit of learning.

We wouldn't be able to barely cover the first chapter in an entire year if we do as you suggest.

I, like probably most here, was taught that the expansion of the universe was slowing down. It wasn't a PROVEN theory but it was the one that made the most sense. Teaching the alternative view that it is speeding up and allowing the class to "discuss it" or make up their own minds would have been a joke. We did not have the ability to reasonably debate the topic and frankly most of us still don't. However, we now have evidence that the expansion of the universe is in fact speeding up. The theory changed and we were taught wrong.

That is what science does. It tries to falsify itself and when it does it changes. You simply can not falsify ID, you can't test it, and you can't prove it. That means that by its very nature, ID is not a scientific theory. I am sorry but your "theory" (which in terms of science it is not) does not get an exemption from the scientific method.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Religion is a mental disorder.
Period.

I gladly paint religous people with a broad brush. Its all the same mental illness.Fanatical or not, submitting to any perscribing of religous doctrine is a mental illness.

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

"Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings -- that we're sinful and we're flawed and we make mistakes and that we achieve salvation through the grace of God. But what we can do, as flawed as we are, is still see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace. And so that's what I strive to do. That's what I pray to do every day. I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith." President Obama (9/28/10)

So…which is it…fucking stupid or mentally ill?

 

[Red Dawn]

"Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings -- that we're sinful and we're flawed and we make mistakes and that we achieve salvation through the grace of God. But what we can do, as flawed as we are, is still see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace. And so that's what I strive to do. That's what I pray to do every day. I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith." President Obama (9/28/10)

So…which is it…fucking stupid or mentally ill?

Lol, now you are believing Obama?

 

[Ancalagon44]

"Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings -- that we're sinful and we're flawed and we make mistakes and that we achieve salvation through the grace of God. But what we can do, as flawed as we are, is still see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace. And so that's what I strive to do. That's what I pray to do every day. I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith." President Obama (9/28/10)

So…which is it…fucking stupid or mentally ill?

In his case, quite possibly either. How many Americans would vote for him if he stood up and said he was Muslim or Atheist?

Americans can live with a black president, but it will be many, many years before the POTUS can stand up and declare himself an atheist.

 

[zsdersw]

Obama believes in intelligent design. How will the left spin that?

Better than how you spin for the Right, I'm sure... not that much is needed to do so.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Lol, now you are believing Obama?

So...you think he's lying?

 

[Red Dawn]

So...you think he's lying?

Only when he opens his mouth, after all he's a politician.