Darwin's evolution theory?

[dunkel]

No the bible doesnt say anything about those things which means we have to figure those things out by ourselves if the bible says anything against it then the bibles right if it doesny say anything about it then we have to look for oursleves

I'll forgive this horrible, horrible run on sentence and horrendous grammer due to your tender age. Your logic, however, is unforgivable. By your reasoning, we should reclassify bats as birds, eh?

 

[dunkel]

I'm only going to do this once, because if I'm forced to point such obvious fallacies again, I'm afraid I'm going to lose precious braincells. So here goes:

First of all, the Big Bang...ok, has nothing to do with evolution. Explaining the diversity of life on our planet and explaining how the universe began are, quite painfully obviously, two different, utterly, completely different topics. Yes, the two concepts are tightly intertwined in Creationism, but are two different theories in real science.

• Why then are they only 3.6% salt if millions of years old?

  
  

Because salt also leaves the ocean and freshwater comes into the ocean through rivers and rain.

Why is the oil still under so much pressure if it has been there for millions of years?

Because the surrounding rock is also under the same pressure...just like a submarine that goes down real deep.

• Why would this be the oldest living organism on earth if earth is millions of years old?

• 
  
  

So? What does that prove? The oldest living person in my family is about 50-something...does this mean my family is only 50-something years old?

If we go back millions of years, the magnetic field would have been too strong to support life.

Um...the magnetic field fluctuates over time...getting stronger, weaker, stronger, etc.

The earth spins at a speed of over 1,000 mph., but is slowing down, approximately one thousandth of a second per day, or 1 second per 10 months. Which means the earth used to spin faster.

Well, it is generally agreed that the Earth spun faster in the past than it does now. But where does this guy get the idea that it's slowing down 1 second per 10 months? Yes, a leap second is added every couple of years, but this just proves that our time measurement instruments, aren't entirely accurate. If it was really slowing down at 1 second every 10 months, we'd be having to add more and more leap seconds every year, but this obviously isn't happening.

BTW, something that someone pointed out in another thread...why would God create a system with such an obvious flaw? Is he incapable of creating a system that doesn't wind down at such an alarming rate?

Therefore the moon collects the "cosmic dust". NASA scientist calculated that the moon collect approximately 1 inch of dust per 10,000 years. As they believe the moon is billions of yrs.old, they figured the moon would be covered in a layer of dust 1 mile thick (which is why they designed the landing shuttle with large, wide pads). However, when they landed on the moon, they found only 1/2 to 3/4 inches of dust on the surface. Which is more suggestive of moon being only 6,000 to 7,000 years old (which, coincedently, is the estimated age of the earth biblically.)

Ya know, reputable Young Earthers stopped using this as an argument a long time ago. But I'll explain it one more time, just for fun.

This claim was based on wildly inaccurate measurements of how much "space dust" we were getting hit with. When more accurate methods were used, the estimates dropped way, way lower than previously thought. The new estimates are in line with the amount of dust we actually saw on the moon when we landed there.

Ok, I could go on, but I won't. My braincells are crying out in protest from having to explain these concepts.

 

[A. believer]

They have found signals that did not seem to be random. Their statements to these signals were always something along the lines of "We need to do some more research, it is premature to think that this might be intelligent life, we will let you know what we find out." IIRC, they have found quasars or some other kind of pulsating star. No, they didn't just automatically say "Ah, the search is over, we found intelligent life" like ID seems to want to do.

Intelligent design theorists also don't say the search is over. You seem thoroughly incapable of separating ID theory from Biblical creationism. Why is that? Could it be because the propaganda machine keeps suggesting that, if you give these guys a hearing, you're throwing away your mind?

A better SETI analogy might be if they said from the very beginning "Intelligent life is out there. We know this because an early pioneer in the field of extraterrestial research was abducted by them and wrote a book about it. We are setting out to prove his account of aliens is true." Then they would proceed to look at research done by other, objective, scientists and either say "faulty research procedures" if it didn't agree with the aims of SETI or say "no, this is really proof for our own theories" if they were able to twist it around to do so.

Although I'd take the discussion further back to basic issues of epistemology if you used that analogy in regard to Biblical creationists, I'd at least acknowledge that you're right about both relying on a priori presuppositions. But that's simply not the case in regard to Intelligent Design. It is, in fact, the case, though, in regard to the evolutionary paradigm when it's treated as the only allowable paradigm.

When you start with a conclusion that cannot be conclusivly proven or disproven, you cannot pretend to be objective. No matter what, you first premise has to be true, no matter what evidence you might find. Any evidence to the contrary is ignored, thrown out, or considered to be somehow faulty. This is not science. At least, it's not objective science. It's, as I've said, religious tenants wrapped in scientific trappings, nothing more.

Anyone who pretends to be objective is quite epistemologically ignorant to begin with. I wouldn't tout pretenses of objectivity as a goal to shoot for. But that's not the issue here, because ID theory merely requires epistemic equality, not epistemic objectivity. And epistemically aware scientists, whether evolutionists or ID theorists, recognize the fallacy of epistemic objectivity. Too bad you don't, despite your protests to the contrary. As long as you tout it as an ideal, even if an ideal that can't quite be reached, you're subject to this "Enlightenment" fallacy.

Now let me ask you something, since I answered your question. What is the "proof" of ID? That life is simply too complex to have formed randomly? I know what Creationists say, but I want to know what you have to say about proof of ID. And you never answered my question about Genesis being myth or fact. Obviously, as an ID proponent, I would suspect that you would say Genesis is myth...am I right?

The issue isn't over "proof" of ID or evolutionism. The issue is over the weight of the evidence in favor of and against each theory and whether evolutionary theory should rightly continue to be "the only game in town" in the scientific and educational establishments. Again, I'm only an ID proponent in the sense that I propose a level playing field in the public square. I do find arguments for design based on irreducible complexity in nature as well as discoveries in DNA as a carrier of information to be quite strong, but it really doesn't matter what I think. Anyone can just claim that I'm easy to fool because I'm not a scientist. But when people with Ph.Ds in the relevant fields--respected scientists teaching at respected universities and publishing in respected journals who find the evidence convincing are being dismissed because, by the very fact that they accept ID theory as plausible or likely true "they're obviously just dishonest Biblical fundamentalists trying to establish a theocracy", that's just intellectual bullying.

As for me though, as I already indicated in an earlier post, my own epistemology is unabashedly Christian Trinitarian presuppositionalism.

 

[dunkel]

Intelligent design theorists also don't say the search is over. You seem thoroughly incapable of separating ID theory from Biblical creationism. Why is that? Could it be because the propaganda machine keeps suggesting that, if you give these guys a hearing, you're throwing away your mind?

The search for the answer is basically over, yes. You've already reached your conclusion: life was designed by a higher power. All the work of ID is there only to support this conclusion. You mentioned that it uses deductive reasoning...going from general to specific. However, the truth is that you're using inductive...going from specific to general. That is the difference between real science and ID.

I am well aware of the differences between ID and Creationism, at least on the surface. You, however, seem to be unable or unwilling to accept that ID is just a modernized version of Creationism, all dressed up in an effort to gain acceptance in a world that no longer has to kowtow to the Church on all matters.

Although I'd take the discussion further back to basic issues of epistemology if you used that analogy in regard to Biblical creationists, I'd at least acknowledge that you're right about both relying on a priori presuppositions. But that's simply not the case in regard to Intelligent Design. It is, in fact, the case, though, in regard to the evolutionary paradigm when it's treated as the only allowable paradigm.

How many times do I have to say this? Real scientists cannot quantify, observe, or test the supernatural, therefore the supernatural is left out of the equation completely. This doesn't mean that it is the only POSSIBLE answer, just that it is the only SCIENTIFIC answer, which is all science is capable of providing.

Anyone who pretends to be objective is quite epistemologically ignorant to begin with. I wouldn't tout pretenses of objectivity as a goal to shoot for. But that's not the issue here, because ID theory merely requires epistemic equality, not epistemic objectivity. And epistemically aware scientists, whether evolutionists or ID theorists, recognize the fallacy of epistemic objectivity. Too bad you don't, despite your protests to the contrary. As long as you tout it as an ideal, even if an ideal that can't quite be reached, you're subject to this "Enlightenment" fallacy.

It is at least the goal of real science to be objective, even if it is not 100% attainable as long as it is men doing the science. But it is better to at least have it as a goal than to say, well, we can't achieve it, so screw it.

The issue isn't over "proof" of ID or evolutionism. The issue is over the weight of the evidence in favor of and against each theory and whether evolutionary theory should rightly continue to be "the only game in town" in the scientific and educational establishments. Again, I'm only an ID proponent in the sense that I propose a level playing field in the public square. I do find arguments for design based on irreducible complexity in nature as well as discoveries in DNA as a carrier of information to be quite strong, but it really doesn't matter what I think. Anyone can just claim that I'm easy to fool because I'm not a scientist. But when people with Ph.Ds in the relevant fields--respected scientists teaching at respected universities and publishing in respected journals who find the evidence convincing are being dismissed because, by the very fact that they accept ID theory as plausible or likely true "they're obviously just dishonest Biblical fundamentalists trying to establish a theocracy", that's just intellectual bullying.

If one single scientist could come forth with some way to test, quantify, or observe the "intelligence" behind Intelligent Design, I'm sure they'd be winning Nobel prizes left and right. But since there is currently no way to do this, all you're left with is, as you said, life is too complex to have developed naturally. Ok, test it. Then try telling me that it is real science. Until you can test it, ID will never be taken seriously as science, as well it should not be.

As for me though, as I already indicated in an earlier post, my own epistemology is unabashedly Christian Trinitarian presuppositionalism.

Why are you beating around the bush? Is Genesis fact or myth?

 

[coolstylinstud]

I'll forgive this horrible, horrible run on sentence and horrendous grammer due to your tender age. Your logic, however, is unforgivable. By your reasoning, we should reclassify bats as birds, eh

HUH I never said anything about bats

 

[dunkel]

HUH I never said anything about bats

Keep up, son. The Bible classifies bats as birds. You said that we should only listen to the science that does not contradict what the Bible says. Therefore, if the Bible says that bats are birds, we should ignore the science that says that they are, in fact, mammals.

 

[A. believer]

The search for the answer is basically over, yes. You've already reached your conclusion: life was designed by a higher power. All the work of ID is there only to support this conclusion.

I've reached my conclusion, and not because of scientific arguments of any kind, this is true. But for those who look to science to gain insight into the matter, there's no valid reason why ID theory should not be considered alongside of evolutionary theory.

You mentioned that it uses deductive reasoning...going from general to specific. However, the truth is that you're using inductive...going from specific to general. That is the difference between real science and ID.

Why do you keep using me as the example when I keep telling you that my conclusions are based on Biblical revelation, and not ID theory?

I am well aware of the differences between ID and Creationism, at least on the surface. You, however, seem to be unable or unwilling to accept that ID is just a modernized version of Creationism, all dressed up in an effort to gain acceptance in a world that no longer has to kowtow to the Church on all matters.

I've continually been demonstrating why this is not a valid charge, and you just keep on repeating it as if digging in your heels will make it so.

How many times do I have to say this? Real scientists cannot quantify, observe, or test the supernatural, therefore the supernatural is left out of the equation completely. This doesn't mean that it is the only POSSIBLE answer, just that it is the only SCIENTIFIC answer, which is all science is capable of providing.

I don't understand how this could be construed as a response to what I said--that ID design doesn't rely on presuppositions--but I'll address it anyway, as an isolated statement.

This is just a form of the argument that evolutionary theory doesn't make any metaphysical claims. This, of course, is simply not true. The explicit denial of design is just as much of a metaphysical claim as the affirmation of it, and evolutionary theory does explicitly deny design. And since the origin of the diversity of life is an unrepeatable event, it cannot be quantified, observed, or tested. Scientifically, it can only be inferred. ID theorists simply say that ID is the inference most consistent with the evidence.

It is at least the goal of real science to be objective, even if it is not 100% attainable as long as it is men doing the science. But it is better to at least have it as a goal than to say, well, we can't achieve it, so screw it.

Instead of allowing the discussion to be hopelessly sidetracked, I'll ignore the epistemological problem inherent in this notion for the sake of our discussion. In the sense that you think man should try to be "objective" to do science, ID theorists fit the bill.

If one single scientist could come forth with some way to test, quantify, or observe the "intelligence" behind Intelligent Design, I'm sure they'd be winning Nobel prizes left and right.

One needn't define the intelligence behind intelligent design in order to infer design. Obviously science can't do this, and no one is proposing this as a question for science.

But since there is currently no way to do this, all you're left with is, as you said, life is too complex to have developed naturally. Ok, test it. Then try telling me that it is real science. Until you can test it, ID will never be taken seriously as science, as well it should not be.

I didn't say that "life is too complex to have developed naturally." I spoke of irreducible complexity, not mere complexity. Have you even educated yourself on ID theory? Are you even familiar with the arguments? I truly hope that you'll be "objective" enough to read ID literature before making any more statements about it based on ignorance.

Why are you beating around the bush? Is Genesis fact or myth?

I'm not "beating around the bush." I'm simply refusing to get sidetracked on a tangent about my personal views which have no bearing on the discussion at hand. Especially because you're already having trouble keeping my views separate from ID theory in this thread, and I don't want to exacerbate the problem by encouraging you in that.

 

[coolstylinstud]

Keep up, son. The Bible classifies bats as birds. You said that we should only listen to the science that does not contradict what the Bible says. Therefore, if the Bible says that bats are birds, we should ignore the science that says that they are, in fact, mammals

Where does the bible say bats are birds?

 

[Bulldog]

The Bible classifies bats as birds. You said that we should only listen to the science that does not contradict what the Bible says. Therefore, if the Bible says that bats are birds, we should ignore the science that says that they are, in fact, mammals

People in Bliblcal times used simpler criteria for classification.

 

[GodlySoul]

It is in my view that the Theory of Natural Selection does not in principle contradict the Christian faith. God's creative action can never be denied - He is the Creator - but it is quite conceivable that God used mechanisms to create through. We are not, as some atheistic evolutionists would argue, the product of random impersonal forces - but each individual was created uniquely by God.

The Bible as I understand it speaks of two forms of creation: 1) God is depicted as the initiator of creation "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1); 2) God's divine creative action is described as perpetual and continual (Psalm 104) and St. Paul speaks of a "new creation" in Jesus, implying God's constant participation in creation in directing and guiding it. This "creatio continuans" opens up the possibility that God worked through evolution.

I also feel the Genesis accounts have been interpreted too literally, in a way that distorts its purpose. These are the reasons I feel the Genesis creation accounts should be interpreted more symbollically:

1) The no. seven, for the "seven days of creation", in Hebraic numerology symbolised perfection. If the number is symbolic, this suggests that the account itself must be interpreted in an allegorical sense.
2) Origen and St. Augustine observe that the creation days counld not possibly be 24 hour periods. God, they argued, created the sun and moon.. etc on the fourth day, so how could the first three days have been 24 hour periods?
3) The first Genesis account appears hymnal and poetic, with the refrains, "God saw that it was good... Evening came and morning came..."
4) The tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life (Genesis 2:9) do not sound like biological realities. In the book of Revelation, the tree of life is used in a symbolic not literal sense (cf. Revelation 22:2).

This more symbolic interpretation does not diminish but rather enhances its value. The Bible does not teach us scientific empirical facts - knowledge does not improve our propects of salvation, as the Gnostics believed - but rather it communicates religious, moral, and metaphysical values. The Bible teaches that God creates, and that is an essential religious truth, yet there was no necessity for God to confide in Scripture the methods and processes through which He created and continues to create. In fact, the Prologue indicates that it God creates through God's Logos (the eternal Word) - the "And God said, '...'" bits - who as we all know "became flesh and dwelt amongst us" (John 1:14). And the "divine spirit/wind...", the Holy Spirit - pneuma in Greek - described in Genesis 1:2 is according to the NT still actively at work in creation.

I could not have said it better.

 

[dunkel]

I've reached my conclusion, and not because of scientific arguments of any kind, this is true. But for those who look to science to gain insight into the matter, there's no valid reason why ID theory should not be considered alongside of evolutionary theory.

There is an incredibly valid reason...because it's not science.

Why do you keep using me as the example when I keep telling you that my conclusions are based on Biblical revelation, and not ID theory?

Hm, now I'm confused...so now you are not necessarily an ID proponent?

I've continually been demonstrating why this is not a valid charge, and you just keep on repeating it as if digging in your heels will make it so.

You may have been denying it, but that is not the same as demonstrating it.

I don't understand how this could be construed as a response to what I said--that ID design doesn't rely on presuppositions--but I'll address it anyway, as an isolated statement.

ID doesn't relly on presuppositions? If you say so.

This is just a form of the argument that evolutionary theory doesn't make any metaphysical claims. This, of course, is simply not true. The explicit denial of design is just as much of a metaphysical claim as the affirmation of it, and evolutionary theory does explicitly deny design. And since the origin of the diversity of life is an unrepeatable event, it cannot be quantified, observed, or tested. Scientifically, it can only be inferred. ID theorists simply say that ID is the inference most consistent with the evidence.

It doesn't make any metaphysical claims, no. Not at all. It addresses the matter not one bit. To you, that seems to be a denial of God or whatever, but that's only you reading something into it. Fine, if you want to read between the lines, I guess.

And while we cannot observe evolution happen in real time, obviously, there are other ways to apply science to it. Something more sohpisticated than "gee, lookie at all the different animals", which is the crux of ID theory. Studying DNA, carbon dating (which, despite claims to the contrary, is apparently at least reasonably accurate), observing micro-evolution, etc.

Instead of allowing the discussion to be hopelessly sidetracked, I'll ignore the epistemological problem inherent in this notion for the sake of our discussion. In the sense that you think man should try to be "objective" to do science, ID theorists fit the bill.

Ok

One needn't define the intelligence behind intelligent design in order to infer design. Obviously science can't do this, and no one is proposing this as a question for science.

That's been my point all along. At least more or less. I would agree that, if there is some supernatural intelligence out there, science would be quite unable to describe it. But you're suggesting that, even if that is true, science should at least somehow be able to determine that the intelligence is out there, is that right? Well, heck, I don't need science to do that. I can just go out in my back yard and yell "HEY, I KNOW YOU'RE OUT THERE, EVEN IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE!". There, I just proved ID.

I didn't say that "life is too complex to have developed naturally." I spoke of irreducible complexity, not mere complexity. Have you even educated yourself on ID theory? Are you even familiar with the arguments? I truly hope that you'll be "objective" enough to read ID literature before making any more statements about it based on ignorance.

Ah, ok, it's not just kinda complex...it's REALLY complex. Gotcha.

I'm not "beating around the bush." I'm simply refusing to get sidetracked on a tangent about my personal views which have no bearing on the discussion at hand. Especially because you're already having trouble keeping my views separate from ID theory in this thread, and I don't want to exacerbate the problem by encouraging you in that.

Fair enough, a discussion for a different thread. With your answers here, though, I'm not sure I want to open that can of worms.

 

[A. believer]

There are only a few things I want to respond to here.

Hm, now I'm confused...so now you are not necessarily an ID proponent?

I'm an ID proponent in the sense that I recognize ID as a valid scientific paradigm based on the epistemological presuppositions behind modern science. Ultimately, though, I would challenge those epistemological presuppositions.

ID doesn't relly on presuppositions? If you say so.

You're right, ID obviously relies on presuppositions, as does all reasoning. Please allow me to correct my sloppy wording. ID isn't borne of presupposing it's conclusions. Indeed, though, that's what its detractors would have us believe. All one need do is educate himself of the arguments, however, to know otherwise.

And while we cannot observe evolution happen in real time, obviously, there are other ways to apply science to it. Something more sohpisticated than "gee, lookie at all the different animals", which is the crux of ID theory. Studying DNA, carbon dating (which, despite claims to the contrary, is apparently at least reasonably accurate), observing micro-evolution, etc.

How does the date of a fossil imply whether the animal from which the fossil formed evolved through random mutations or whether it was designed? And there's no logical leap one can make from micro-evolution to macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is about variations within a species, and macro-evolution is about the emergence of new ones.

That's been my point all along. At least more or less. I would agree that, if there is some supernatural intelligence out there, science would be quite unable to describe it. But you're suggesting that, even if that is true, science should at least somehow be able to determine that the intelligence is out there, is that right? Well, heck, I don't need science to do that. I can just go out in my back yard and yell "HEY, I KNOW YOU'RE OUT THERE, EVEN IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE!". There, I just proved ID.

You really, really need to get with the program and read the ID literature for yourself to avoid further embarrassment.

Ah, ok, it's not just kinda complex...it's REALLY complex. Gotcha.

See what I mean? My goodness, not only are you clearly not familiar with the concept of irreducible complexity (one of the key arguments for ID), but apparently you're not even familiar with the word irreducible. Where in the world did you get the notion that irreducible is synonymous with extremely?

 

[dunkel]

There are only a few things I want to respond to here.



I'm an ID proponent in the sense that I recognize ID as a valid scientific paradigm based on the epistemological presuppositions behind modern science. Ultimately, though, I would challenge those epistemological presuppositions.

I see.

You're right, ID obviously relies on presuppositions, as does all reasoning. Please allow me to correct my sloppy wording. ID isn't borne of presupposing it's conclusions. Indeed, though, that's what its detractors would have us believe. All one need do is educate himself of the arguments, however, to know otherwise.

Ok, then what do would you have us believe is the overall conclusion of ID?

How does the date of a fossil imply whether the animal from which the fossil formed evolved through random mutations or whether it was designed? And there's no logical leap one can make from micro-evolution to macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is about variations within a species, and macro-evolution is about the emergence of new ones.

That's exactly what I have been trying to say this whole time. You've just hit the nail on the head. There is nothing out there, not tools or techniques, no formulas, no lab experiments that can tell us something was designed supernaturally. So when real scientists look at any bit of evidence, the only explanation they can come up with, and still be scientific, is that it happened naturally. There is no way to look at something in the natural world and somehow come to the conclusion that it happened supernaturally.

You're right, micro-evolution, by itself, doesn't prove anything. But when you look at the whole picture, it is a piece of the macro-evolution puzzle. Organisms are not static

You really, really need to get with the program and read the ID literature for yourself to avoid further embarrassment.

See what I mean? My goodness, not only are you clearly not familiar with the concept of irreducible complexity (one of the key arguments for ID), but apparently you're not even familiar with the word irreducible. Where in the world did you get the notion that irreducible is synonymous with extremely?

I've read it and remain unimpressed.

The term "irreducible complexity" is defined by Behe as:

"a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"

How does what I said not fit with this definition? Life is so complex that tyou can't remove any part of it without the rest of it falling apart. So what's the problem?

 

[A. believer]

I see.



Ok, then what do would you have us believe is the overall conclusion of ID?

ID is a conclusion based on the study of the evidence. Intelligent design theorists believe that the evidence leads to the conclusion that the diversity of life is the outcome of an intelligent designer as opposed to the evolutionist notion that "the diversity of life is the outcome of . . . an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process. . ."

That's exactly what I have been trying to say this whole time. You've just hit the nail on the head. There is nothing out there, not tools or techniques, no formulas, no lab experiments that can tell us something was designed supernaturally. So when real scientists look at any bit of evidence, the only explanation they can come up with, and still be scientific, is that it happened naturally. There is no way to look at something in the natural world and somehow come to the conclusion that it happened supernaturally.

I said that the age of fossils provides no clue as to whether the diversity of life was designed or random, I didn't say that there's nothing that can provide those clues. And you're skewing the discussion when you keep inserting the word supernatural in there, because that isn't the issue. In fact, one may suppose that the Intelligent Designer behind the diversity of life on Earth is, itself, a product of natural processes on another planet if one so chooses (although that supposition certainly raises scientific problems of its own.) The issue is over whether the diversity of life on Earth is the product of randomness or design. That's the issue in dispute between evolutionary theorists and ID theorists.

You're right, micro-evolution, by itself, doesn't prove anything. But when you look at the whole picture, it is a piece of the macro-evolution puzzle. Organisms are not static

That organisms are not static, though, isn't in dispute. Evolutionary theorists can invoke microevolution as support for their theory, but what they ought not do is make the misleading claim that because [micro] evolution has been observed, therefore [macro] evolution is logically inferred. Not only does it not logically follow, but the fossil evidence does not well support the notion that it's actually occurred.

I've read it and remain unimpressed.

It's not at all apparent that you've read it or that you've read and comprehended it, anyway. In fact, in light of the way you misrepresent it, quite the opposite appears true. But even if you were well-schooled in the arguments and you didn't personally find the evidence convincing enough doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't meet the definition of scientific evidence. To use the SETI example again, if signals were detected that seemed to some to show some kind of pattern, but the pattern wasn't completely clear and it was, therefore, disputed by other scientists, this wouldn't negate the soundness of the idea that a pattern does indicate intelligence. The scientific debate would be over whether or not the signals exhibited a pattern or not.

Now some remain completely unimpressed with the evidence for evolutionary theory while others are unimpressed with the evidence for ID. But both are scientific theories, and the attempt by the proponents of one to suppress the arguments of the other and to discredit them by mockery is dishonest and is an obvious sign of desperation.

How does what I said not fit with this definition? Life is so complex that tyou can't remove any part of it without the rest of it falling apart. So what's the problem?

As I said, it's not the level of complexity that's at issue (it's not, as you said, that life is "REALLY complex.") Rather, it's the kind of complexity. Michael Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap (which is certainly not "REALLY complex," but it is irreducibly complex) in which each component is inter-dependent upon other components in order it to function. The argument is that, if complex life forms developed gradually, this particular type of complexity could not have occurred.

 

[coolstylinstud]

No matter what you evolutionist say i will always know the truth because its in the bibel and you can call that arrogant or whatever but im right and your wrong

 

[Donkeytron]

No matter what you evolutionist say i will always know the truth because its in the bibel and you can call that arrogant or whatever but im right and your wrong

Now that's the way to win souls. You're wrong and I'm right beacuse I have an old book of unknown authorship about a magical carpenter. Take that.

 

[Shogun 144]

Well here is my view on evolution.....

As I understand it from my Biology Class in the 10th grade there is two types of Evolution. The first is Micro Evolution, or, Adaptation. Adaptation is simply the belief that an creature can change or adapt to its surroundings over time, BUT, it still remains the same creature. There is nothing wrong with Adaptation and it does not conflict with God's Word.

Then there is Macro Evolution, this is what most people think of when you say Evolution. Macro Evolution teaches, at its core , that all life started out as mirco organisms. And that over a long long long time those micro organisms transformed into basically every living thing on earth. The way it did this is by taking HUGE leaps in Adaptation to the point where those micro organisms became whole new creatures, whole new species. This conflicts with God's Word, in my view any way.

So the difference is the size of the change. Making changes but remaining the same thing basically is okay. But making changes and become an whole thing all together is just wrong.

But this is how I understand it.

 

[coolstylinstud]

Now that's the way to win souls. You're wrong and I'm right beacuse I have an old book of unknown authorship about a magical carpenter. Take that.

Oh im sorry is your soul not won over

im not trying to win your soul over god has already done that im just telling you what I know

 

[dunkel]

Oh im sorry is your soul not won over

im not trying to win your soul over god has already done that im just telling you what I know

Actually, as a Christian, you should be trying to win over souls. Then again, considering your grammatical skills, perhaps you should leave the heavy lifting to someone else.

 

[dunkel]

A. believer, it looks like we've just about come to the end of this. You've already said you're not necessarily an ID proponent, and while I haven't explicitly stated it anywhere, I'm not 100% convinced by evolution, either, so what are we arguing over? Truth be told, I'm not even against the idea of ID. It could very well be the answer. I just don't want to try to pass it off as real science, that's all.

The only thing that I really want to respond to is your assertation that I was wrong to use the term "supernatural". I will say two things about this. One, whether it's aliens, God, Mother Nature, or the Muffin Man who lives on Drury lane tinkering with DNA, guiding it, designing it, whatever, is not the natural way of things. For all intents and purposes, this type of influence is "supernatural". It is untestable, you can't observe it, and it is unquantifiable. It is outside the realm of our physical science. Which leads me to my second point...my main argument against ID as science is this reliance on supernatural explanations. Supernatural explanations are great for religion, but not so much for science.

Oh yeah, and good point about the mouse trap. I hadn't thought of that. *shrug* oh well.