The Theory of Evolution

[piddlefoot]

theres a DIRECT link in many species on earth proving EVOLUTION just look at dna and genes..........................................................................
.......................................

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The lack of transitional forms linking one species to another led Gould and Eldridge to propose the theory of punctuated equilibrium based on Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster theory.

You know, your idiocy wouldn't be so bad if you actually bothered to read a single thing posted. Instead you parrot the same things, OVER and OVER and OVER. I posted this exact thing one page ago, that would be like 2 days ago Rip. You didn't bother to read it, obviously. Here is Gould's statements, from 1981 mind you, on creationsts claim that he based punctuated equilibria on "hopefull monster".

We [Gould and Niles Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kind of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists?whether though design or stupidity, I do not know?as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled ?Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax? states: ?The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge?are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.?

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1949, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as ?hopeful monsters.? (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt?s theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium?) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the ?punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory? and tells his hopeful readers that ?it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor.? Duane Gish writes, ?According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced.? Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism?with God acting in the egg.
-Dr. Gould, May 1981 issue of Discover.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Natural History, May 1977

Yet again, you would think there hadn't been any evolutionary science developed since 1980 . :roll:

Stephen J. Gould made reference to the Hopeful Monster theory in proposing his alternative theory of punctuated equilibrium. In an article in Natural History, Gould noted: "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favorite account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." Natural History, May 1977 p.14. He penned another article for the June/July, 1977 issue of Natural History, titled The Return of Hopeful Monsters.

Wikipedia

i think any qouting of gould to somehow discredit evolution (and support your religious views) has already been shown to be misleading and dishonest since he clearly states that this is not what he was driving at. his work seems to simply be a variation on how evolution happens versus a discredit of it. evolution isn't the bible - it can be changed and altered numerous times and over time it will become better and better at describing what happened and is happening. i think you need to stop qouting gould - find a new source of qoutes taken out of context to support your religion.

 

[rahvin]

Rip likes to quote Gould a lot, nice selectively edited passages to try to prove a point. So lets have a few of Gould's quote unedited and in their raw contextual form.

?The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones. Only one bone, called the dentary, builds the mammalian jaw, while reptiles retain several small bones in the rear portion of the jaw. We can trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the transitional form that creationists often proclaim inconceivable in theory?for how can jawbones become ear bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear, while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly hinged jaw. Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.?

? "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," Dinosaur in a Haystack, New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1997, pp. 360-361.


?Scientific claims must be testable; we must, in principal, be able to envision a set of observations that would render them false. Miracles cannot be judged by this criterion, as Whitcomb and Morris have admitted. But is all creationists writing merely about untestable singularities? Are arguments never made in proper scientific form? Creationists do offer some testable statements, and these are amenable to scientific analysis. Why, then, do I continue to claim that creationism isn't science? Simply because these relatively few statements have been tested and conclusively refuted.?

? "Genesis vs. Geology" In Ashley Montagu, ed., Science and Creationism, New York: Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 130-131.

?Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade?a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth.?

? "Magnolias from Moscow," Dinosaur in a Haystack, New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1997, p. 409.

?Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.?

? "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton, 1994, p. 254.


?In their recently aborted struggle to inject Genesis literalism into science classrooms, fundamentalist groups followed their usual opportunistic strategy of arguing two contradictory sides of a question when a supposed rhetorical advantage could be extracted from each. Their main pseudoargument held that Genesis literalism is not religion at all, but really an alternative form of science not acknowledged by professional biologists too hidebound and dogmatic to appreciate the cutting edge of their own discipline. When we successfully pointed out that ?creation science??as an untestable set of dogmatic proposals?could not qualify as science by any standard definition, they turned around and shamelessly argued the other side. [?] (They actually pulled off the neater trick of holding both positions simultaneously.) Now they argued that, yes indeed, creation science is religion, but evolution is equally religious. Thus, they claimed, creation science and evolution science are symmetrical?that is, equally religious. Creation science isn't science because it rests upon the untestable fashioning of life ex nihilo by God. Evolution science isn't science because it tries, as its major aim, to resolve the unresolvable and ultimate origin of life. But we do no such thing. We understand Hutton's wisdom??he has nowhere treated of the first origin ?of any substance? but only of the transformations which bodies have undergone???

? "Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding," Bully for Brontosaurus, New York: W. W. Norton, 1991, pp. 455-456.

?It seems the height of antiquated hubris to claim that the universe carried on as it did for billions of years in order to form a comfortable abode for us. Chance and historical contingency give the world of life most of its glory and fascination. I sit here happy to be alive and sure that some reason must exist for ?why me?? Or the earth might have been totally covered with water, and an octopus might now be telling its children why the eight-legged God of all things had made such a perfect world for cephalopods. Sure we fit. We wouldn't be here if we didn't. But the world wasn't made for us and it will endure without us.?

? "Pleasant Dreams," An Urchin in the Storm, New York: W. W. Norton, 1987, p. 206.

 

[NJDevil]

Anyone know the proportion of scientists who are supports of ID/creationism compared to those who support Evolution?

I'm willing to bet that far more support evolution than ID/creationism, and it's not that they're atheists, it's that they are scientists.

If you want to go further Rip, why not ask only scientists that believe in some form of God (not just the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god). I bet that even with that biased sampling of scientists, they will overwhelmingly support evolution over ID/creationism.

Start teaching creationism/ID in schools instead of evolution, and look at what happens to those kids in terms of science programs. How many will get their PhD in biology, in engineering, in other technical disciplines?

My guess is far fewer than students who study actual science.

 

[piddlefoot]

even the ''god'' explanation can be taken apart by science, its very nature [ god ] is faith trust and thou shall not question.....be stuffed......humans asked the question after 500 ish years of church rule , holding science and man back, now look at the friuts of scientific knowledge,
Did science tell you you can cook without heat ?
Did science tell you pictures can be sent though the air ?
Did science give you and millions of others a first hand close up personal view of the mars dust on the surface of mars itself ?
Did science give us the solution to the black plague ?
Did science give us E=MC²
Did science give us the power of gigabites at our fingers ?
Did science give us the car , electron, and all assosiated inventions since ?
Did science show us blackholes ?
Has science ever recorded one credible tangible piece , shred of evidence that scientists can agree is genuine ? In regards to ghosts.
To date science has shown us that ghosts ARE NOT REAL, and considering we didnt know if the quantum world even exhisted, but be found a way to see it though scientific instuments and research, then discovered it was in fact VERY REAL, we have reaserched ghosts for more years than quantum world, yet nothing ? The eg. go on and on, you just cant beat the search for the truth......science........


or was it faith that answered all of those questions? ...................................

seems surreal to me to not trust science ,especially when your sitting at a pc......

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
Anyone know the proportion of scientists who are supports of ID/creationism compared to those who support Evolution?

I'm willing to bet that far more support evolution than ID/creationism, and it's not that they're atheists, it's that they are scientists.

If you want to go further Rip, why not ask only scientists that believe in some form of God (not just the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god). I bet that even with that biased sampling of scientists, they will overwhelmingly support evolution over ID/creationism.

Start teaching creationism/ID in schools instead of evolution, and look at what happens to those kids in terms of science programs. How many will get their PhD in biology, in engineering, in other technical disciplines?

My guess is far fewer than students who study actual science.

You're asking the wrong questions.

The right question is which model fits the data best, evolution or creation.

To rule out a potential cause, a priori, based on your personal world view is intellecually dishonest and poor science.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: NJDevil
Anyone know the proportion of scientists who are supports of ID/creationism compared to those who support Evolution?

I'm willing to bet that far more support evolution than ID/creationism, and it's not that they're atheists, it's that they are scientists.

If you want to go further Rip, why not ask only scientists that believe in some form of God (not just the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god). I bet that even with that biased sampling of scientists, they will overwhelmingly support evolution over ID/creationism.

Start teaching creationism/ID in schools instead of evolution, and look at what happens to those kids in terms of science programs. How many will get their PhD in biology, in engineering, in other technical disciplines?

My guess is far fewer than students who study actual science.

You're asking the wrong questions.

The right question is which model fits the data best, evolution or creation.

To rule out a potential cause, a priori, based on your personal world view is intellecually dishonest and poor science.

Creationism actually has zero scientific merit because the existance of a supreme being cannot be tested. Only faith supports creationism, while data supports evolution. Why else would so many scientists accept it?

How many scientists working on the AIDS vaccine/cure for cancer don't support evolution?

I bet that number is ridiculously low. Leave science to the scientists.

Btw, bringing up 10 or 100 or even 1000 scientists who disagree with evolution does nothing for your argument, as there are far more scientists who agree that the theory is the best thus far.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: NJDevil
Anyone know the proportion of scientists who are supports of ID/creationism compared to those who support Evolution?

I'm willing to bet that far more support evolution than ID/creationism, and it's not that they're atheists, it's that they are scientists.

If you want to go further Rip, why not ask only scientists that believe in some form of God (not just the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god). I bet that even with that biased sampling of scientists, they will overwhelmingly support evolution over ID/creationism.

Start teaching creationism/ID in schools instead of evolution, and look at what happens to those kids in terms of science programs. How many will get their PhD in biology, in engineering, in other technical disciplines?

My guess is far fewer than students who study actual science.

You're asking the wrong questions.

The right question is which model fits the data best, evolution or creation.

To rule out a potential cause, a priori, based on your personal world view is intellecually dishonest and poor science.

Creationism actually has zero scientific merit because the existance of a supreme being cannot be tested. Only faith supports creationism, while data supports evolution. Why else would so many scientists accept it?

How many scientists working on the AIDS vaccine/cure for cancer don't support evolution?

I bet that number is ridiculously low. Leave science to the scientists.

Btw, bringing up 10 or 100 or even 1000 scientists who disagree with evolution does nothing for your argument, as there are far more scientists who agree that the theory is the best thus far.

Is science done by polling now?

There are a lot of high-powered PhDs who believe the creation model provides the best fit to the data. Search the web if you want to find lists.

As I pointed out, many scientists are biased because their worldview doesn't allow for a designer.

Scientists need to put their biases aside, examine the data, and draw conclusions

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Scientists need to put their biases aside, examine the data, and draw conclusions

what data is there that supports ID? it seems that ID backers only use a lack of data to support it. "as in, this is far too complex, must be a higher power's doing."

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
There are a lot of high-powered PhDs who believe the creation model provides the best fit to the data. Search the web if you want to find lists.

Name one in the biological sciences. Certainly, "a lot" means one is no problem.

 

[Riprorin]

Here are some:

Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

Here is a list of Christian Scientists from the Center for Science & Culture who support ID:

Senior Fellows
Michael J Behe
David Berlinski
Paul Chien
William A Dembski
David DeWolf
Guillermo Gonzalez
Michael Newton Keas
Nancy Pearcey
Jay W Richards
Mark Ryland
Wesley J Smith
Jonathan Wells
Benjamin Wiker
Jonathan Witt


Fellows
Francis J Beckwith
Raymond Bohlin
Walter Bradley
J. Budziszewski
John Angus Campbell
Robert Lowry Clinton
Jack Collins
Robin Collins
William Lane Craig
Brian Frederick
Mark Hartwig
Kenneth Hermann
Robert Kaita
Dean Kenyon
Robert C Koons
Forrest M Mims
Scott Minnich
J.P. Moreland
Paul Nelson
Joseph Poulshock
Pattle Pak-Toe Pun
John Mark Reynolds
Marcus Ross
Henry Schaefer
Wolfgang Smith
Charles Thaxton
Richard Weikart

Link


1. Fifty-Two Ohio Scientists Endorse Objectivity. On March 20, 2002, representatives of Intelligent Design network, inc. and Science Excellence for All Ohioans issued a press
release announcing the following statement signed by 52 Ohio scientists (49 of whom hold
doctoral degrees):

?We Affirm: That biological evolution is an important scientific theory that should be taught in theclassroom; That a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science; That a science curriculum should help students understand why the subject of biological evolution generates controversy; That where alternative scientific theories exist in any area of inquiry (such as wave vs. particle theories of light, biological evolution vs. intelligent design, etc.), students should be permitted to learn the evidence for and against them; and, That a science curriculum should encourage critical thinking and informed participation in public discussions about biological origins.

We Oppose:
Religious or anti-religious indoctrination in a class specifically dedicated to teaching
within the discipline of science; and, The censorship of scientific views that may challenge current theories of origins.?

Robert E. Bailey, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, Prof. Emeritus Mechanical Engineering, The
Ohio State University
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., M.S., Ph.D., M.S.B.S., M.P.H., Department of Biology, Northwest State
College, Archbold, Ohio
Christopher Boshkos, M.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine, Northeastern Ohio University
College of Medicine
Rudolf Brits, Ph.D., Nuclear Chemistry
Henry R. Busby, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Melody L. Davis, Ph.D., Chemistry
Kenneth S. Cada, M.S., Inorganic Chemistry
Gerald P. Chubb, P.E., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and
Aviation, The Ohio State University
Alfred Ciraldo, M.D., Assistant Professor of Surgery, Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine
Arthur Dalton, M.D., Assistant Professor of Surgery, Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine
Robert DiSilvestro, Ph.D., Biochemistry, Professor, Human Nutrition, The Ohio State University
W. John Durfee, D.V.M., DACLAM, Director, Veterinary Research Resources, Case Western Reserve University Medical School
Leroy Eimers, Ph.D., Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville College
William V. Everson, Ph.D., Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Fellow, Cincinnati, Ohio
John A. Fink, M.D., F.A.C.S., Associate Professor of Surgery, Northeastern Ohio College of
Medicine
Mark D. Foster, Ph.D., Chemical Engineering, The University of Akron
Steven Gollmer, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Physics, Cedarville College
David H. Ives, Ph.D., Biochemistry, The Ohio State University
Jerry D. Johnson, Ph.D., Diplomat A.B.T., Toxicology
David A. Johnston, Ph.D., Research Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Wright State University
Kimberly Kinateder, Ph.D., Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Wright State University
Daniel Kuebler, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Biology, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Robert Lattimer, Ph.D., Chemistry
Kim Laurell, DDS, MSD, former Assistant Professor of Prosthetic Dentistry, The Ohio State
University
Paul Madtes, Jr., Ph.D., Chairman, Biology Department, Mount Vernon Nazarene College
Don Mahan, Ph.D., Professor, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University
George F. Martin, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Anatomy and Neuroscience, The Ohio State
University
Joseph R. McShannic, M.D., F.A.C.S., Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine
James Menart, Ph.D., Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Wright State
University
K. David Monson, Ph.D., Analytical Chemistry
Glen R. Needham, Ph.D., Entomology, The Ohio State University
Ron Neiswander, M.S., Chemistry, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center,
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University
Gregory Ness, DDS, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The Ohio State University
William Notz, Ph.D., Statistics, The Ohio State University
Donal P. O'Mathuna, Ph.D., Professor of Bioethics and Chemistry, Mount Carmel College of Nursing, Columbus
Drazen Petrinec, M.D., F.A.C.S., Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine
Georgia Purdom, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Biology, Mount Vernon Nazarene College
Dale W. Schaefer, Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, University of Cincinnati
Timothy W. Schenz, Ph.D., Physical Chemistry
William Shulaw, DVM, Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University
Richard Slemons, DVM, Ph.D., Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University
Walter L. Starkey, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State
University
Mark B. Swanson, Ph.D., Biochemistry
Sherwood G. Talbert, P.E., MSME, Mechanical Engineering
Pavi Thomas, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering
Stanley A. Watson, Ph.D., Cereal Chemistry, Ohio Agricultural Research & Development
Center, The Ohio State University, Retired
Karl A. Weber, Ph.D., Physical & Theoretical Organic Chemistry
Gerald S. Wegner, Ph.D., B.C.E., Entomology
Jeffrey Weiland, M.D., College of Medicine, The Ohio State University
Mitch Wolff, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wright State University
Patrick H. Young, Ph.D., Chemistry
David Zartman, Ph.D., Genetics & Animal Breeding, The Ohio State University

Link

 

[homercles337]

Do you really expect me to take your list seriously when BOTH your lists are copied/pasted from creationist websites? Some of these supposed "scientists" have degrees in Creationist Molecular Biologist. WTF is that? Give it up retard.

[edit] I did a bit of searching and here is my best impression of you (those names only appear on anti-evolution websites--as if i expected more from you). *Fingers in ears,* *eyes shut tight,* *mouth, blah, blah, blah.* My 6 year old niece can debate better than you. Your children must be very proud of poppa. :roll: [/edit]

 

[Spamela]

i don't have a problem with Evolution, but it's not really a central issue
with Catholics.

i get the impression that ID deals with purpose or meaning, e.g., Philosophy,
& just doesn't fit the definition of science. it also seems to be
neutered religion.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Spamela
i don't have a problem with Evolution, but it's not really a central issue
with Catholics.

i get the impression that ID deals with purpose or meaning, e.g., Philosophy,
& just doesn't fit the definition of science. it also seems to be
neutered religion.

There are two models relating to origins: evolution or creation. The question is, which model best fits the data.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

FSMism.

 

[piddlefoot]

quote...
'' There are two models relating to origins: evolution or creation. The question is, which model best fits the data''

well you answered yourself , science is the ONLY model with evidence nameingly EVOLUTION, and as for which fits the DATA , well creation is just a hypothises, where as evolution is a theory, so on the DATA we humans have you are basicly saying creation is a load of rubbish, and evolution must be real.........based on the DATA....or EVIDENCE.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Spamela
i don't have a problem with Evolution, but it's not really a central issue
with Catholics.

i get the impression that ID deals with purpose or meaning, e.g., Philosophy,
& just doesn't fit the definition of science. it also seems to be
neutered religion.

There are two models relating to origins: evolution or creation. The question is, which model best fits the data.

Creation can be manipulated to fit any data. Evolution fits the known evidence better than any other theory conceived so far.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
To rule out a potential cause, a priori, based on your personal world view is intellecually dishonest and poor science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Humans construct theories in order to explain, predict and master phenomena (e.g. inanimate things, events, or the behaviour of animals). In many instances, it is seen to be a model of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas.

A theory has to be something which is in some way testable; for example, one can theorize that an apple will fall when dropped, and then drop an apple, to see what happens. Many scientists argue that religious beliefs are not testable, and thus not theories, because they are matters of faith.

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

So Rip, what is your proposal for how to test God? Without it your theory isn't science. It cannot be examined becausee it cannot be proved. Because science cannot examine it does not mean it is disregarded, it is simply relegated to the field of philosophy where you can examine and debate it outside the rules of science without the requirements of science that it be tested and falsifiable.

Your anger is that your philisophical explanation is not given the same credence that a real scientific theory has, it is the reason you make unfounded and often rediculous attacks on it. The reason you disregard logic and present conflicting arguements to attempt to discredit. It's the reason you disregard all evidence and parrot the same arguement over and over and over. In my experience your theory has been given consideration by every single scientist ever born. I will not presume to speak for them but the polls indicate that most believe in a higher power, just not YOUR higher power. And their disregard of your fairy tale causes you to spend hours trolling this board.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
To rule out a potential cause, a priori, based on your personal world view is intellecually dishonest and poor science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Humans construct theories in order to explain, predict and master phenomena (e.g. inanimate things, events, or the behaviour of animals). In many instances, it is seen to be a model of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas.

A theory has to be something which is in some way testable; for example, one can theorize that an apple will fall when dropped, and then drop an apple, to see what happens. Many scientists argue that religious beliefs are not testable, and thus not theories, because they are matters of faith.

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

So Rip, what is your proposal for how to test God? Without it your theory isn't science. It cannot be examined becausee it cannot be proved. Because science cannot examine it does not mean it is disregarded, it is simply relegated to the field of philosophy where you can examine and debate it outside the rules of science without the requirements of science that it be tested and falsifiable.

Your anger is that your philisophical explanation is not given the same credence that a real scientific theory has, it is the reason you make unfounded and often rediculous attacks on it. The reason you disregard logic and present conflicting arguements to attempt to discredit. It's the reason you disregard all evidence and parrot the same arguement over and over and over. In my experience your theory has been given consideration by every single scientist ever born. I will not presume to speak for them but the polls indicate that most believe in a higher power, just not YOUR higher power. And their disregard of your fairy tale causes you to spend hours trolling this board.

I don't need to look at polls. I'm perfectly capable of looking at the evidence and deciding for myself if it fits the evolutionist model or the creationist model.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I don't need to look at polls. I'm perfectly capable of looking at the evidence and deciding for myself if it fits the evolutionist model or the creationist model.

And yet again something I didn't even mention. :thumbsup:

 

[cquark]

The interesting question is what species of creationist is he. There are four common species:

Young earth creationists?those who believe more or less that the earth was created recently, more or less literally as set out in Genesis. Each spieces on earth now, more or less specially created by God. Several varieties/subspecies/incipient species

Old earth creationists?those who believe the earth is geologically older, and God specially created various ?kinds? of animals that may have evolved to some greater or lesser extent into today?s animals. Several varieties/subspecies/incipient species

Progressive Creationists: Those who believe God created earth and species over time. Each species is/was specially created some recently as God continues His work. Several varieties/subspecies/incipient species.

ET creationists?These creationists believe that life on earth was brought or placed here by extraterrestrials or time travelers. Several varieties/subspecies/incipient species.

?Public Consumption Intelligent Design.? This is the version put out for public consumption by Behe and Dembski. Agnostic on age of earth, apparently natural selection is ?mostly? correct and accounts for the majority of earth?s species today. Nevertheless there are a few detectable instances of special creation where the designer, for example, stuck a flagella to the butt of some bacteria, organized one (but not every) blood clotting cascade and one (but not every) immune system. There might not be very many instances of special creation but they are there and can be identified by their irreducible complexity and the explanatory filter?s elimination of regularity and chance.Definitely, several varieties/subspecies/incipient species.

 

[dannybin1742]

now thats funny