proving evolution as just a "theory"

[DogmaHunter]

But that's the problem with this science. Since ID leads into the realm of of a designer therefore only evolution can be true. ID cannot be looked at because of where it leads.

False. Not because of "where it leads". Rather, because there is nothing to look at.
You might as well posit extra-dimensional undetectable unicorns. There is nothing there to look at... just baseless assertions.

If want science to look at your idea, you're going to have to provide it with something that is actually testable...

The evolutionist closes their mind because a designer cannot be falsified therefore it cannot be considered which leaves no option.

Yep. Unfalsifiable ideas do not deserve any airtime. Because there is nothing there to study, test, verify, ...

Unfalsifiable ideas are potentially infinite in number and only limited by your very own imagination.

To put it simplisticly: the undetectable and the non-existant, look very much alike...

 

[Almost there]

That's a cute bumper sticker slogan, but not truly reflective of 'both sides' currently.

I will admit there is a certain passion involved in defending science and science education. But when you start to unpack the true scope of the side of science (particularly relation to industry), the implication that it's all some sort of fervent agenda starts to fall apart.

I've argued this on the internet since 1998 and a long time before that. That is why I coined the phrase and believe it more now than ever.

I find that a lot of evolution apologists are as blind to their religious dogmatism on the subject as a fish is blind to being wet.

 

[bhsmte]

They have eyes but do not see...

See what you like, it has no bearing on well evidenced reality.

 

[Almost there]

False. Not because of "where it leads". Rather, because there is nothing to look at.
You might as well posit extra-dimensional undetectable unicorns. There is nothing there to look at... just baseless assertions.

It's not that there is nothing there to look at. Rather, it is that Science is the wrong tool to use to look at it. Science is fun, cool and rewarding (I like my computer, which would not be possible without scientific discovery), but it is an AM radio trying to pick up the FM radio of ID. It's the wrong tool.

 

[Almost there]

See what you like, it has no bearing on well evidenced reality.

Actually, it has served me very well, regarding reality.

And lets be frank, our "reality" has more in common with "the matrix" than many are willing to admit. In a very real way, perception IS reality, And our reality is virtually ALL empty space.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, it has served me very well, regarding reality.

And lets be frank, our "reality" has more in common with "the matrix" than many are willing to admit. In a very real way, perception IS reality, And our reality is virtually ALL empty space.

Some folks are motivated to create their own reality and personal psychological need can certainly lend a hand. Primitive defense mechanisms being utilized, is typically a good clue.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well that comment was so random and besides the point, I don't even know how to respond.

I think I'll just shrug my shoulders and move on...

Not random at all, merely pointed out that even tho you refuse to accept dogs on the basis of artificial selection, you have no problem with laboratory designed peas, laboratory altered fruit flies, etc.

Why not, you seem to shrug your shoulders over most of the empirical observational evidence.

 

[pitabread]

I've argued this on the internet since 1998 and a long time before that. That is why I coined the phrase and believe it more now than ever.

I find that a lot of evolution apologists are as blind to their religious dogmatism on the subject as a fish is blind to being wet.

Certainly there are "evolution apologists" which also pack in a personal ideological agenda. It probably doesn't help when you have people like Dawkins who simultaneously defend science, but also espouse a decidedly anti-religious agenda. I can certainly see how you'd view evolution science proponents in such a light.

This is why I point to industry as a counter. Evolutionary biology, including common descent relationships (i.e. shared ancestry) has real world application. And when you're dealing with fields of medicine, pharmacology, agriculture, etc, ideological agendas go out the window. It's about what works; the real agenda is economic. And this is where it behooves any individual nation to train their workforce accordingly so that they can remain competitive in these fields.

This is why I think that ultimately creationists and to a lesser extent the ID movement is completely hosed. As much as they argue against evolutionary biology and all the implications that come with it (i.e. shared ancestry with other species), they have absolutely nothing to replace it with. Consequently, any biotech firm or research lab applying evolutionary biology in their work has no incentive to change up what they are doing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then your talk of "life from non-life" is meaningless since you can't even define your own terms.

Not at all, a rock is not alive, a bird is. That you need a definition, while at the same time refusing to accept your own scientific definition of what species and subspecies are is well, hypocritical. You’d just ignore any definition you didn’t like in the first place, as is clear as regards finches....

 

[Almost there]

Some folks are motivated to create their own reality and personal psychological need can certainly lend a hand. Primitive defense mechanisms being utilized, is typically a good clue.

I agree.

I once had a guy try to use an analogy to show me how different people may see the world differently. It went like this:

"You are walking down the street and see a snake on the sidewalk. What do you do? Well, you may walk around it so you don't get bit, or call animal control.

"Now, suppose another man is walking down the street and sees the same thing. He sees a stick. What will he do? Maybe pick it up and put it in the trash so someone doesn't trip in it.

"Do you see how two people can see the same thing, yet each see different things?"

To which I replied, "Yes, but if the first guy was right, the second guy will get bitten."

Those that believe in ID have yet to be bitten. The Evolution group keeps trying to figure out why a stick is biting them.

 

[xianghua]

Do your own homework.

You're the one that's just asserting that it violates hierarchies. And to "prove it", you're linking to papers that say the exact opposite.

What do you want me to tell you?

where it said the opposite?

 

[Almost there]

Certainly there are "evolution apologists" which also pack in a personal ideological agenda. It probably doesn't help when you have people like Dawkins who simultaneously defend science, but also espouse a decidedly anti-religious agenda. I can certainly see how you'd view evolution science proponents in such a light.

This is why I point to industry as a counter. Evolutionary biology, including common descent relationships (i.e. shared ancestry) has real world application. And when you're dealing with fields of medicine, pharmacology, agriculture, etc, ideological agendas go out the window. It's about what works; the real agenda is economic. And this is where it behooves any individual nation to train their workforce accordingly so that they can remain competitive in these fields.

This is why I think that ultimately creationists and to a lesser extent the ID movement is completely hosed. As much as they argue against evolutionary biology and all the implications that come with it (i.e. shared ancestry with other species), they have absolutely nothing to replace it with. Consequently, any biotech firm or research lab applying evolutionary biology in their work has no incentive to change up what they are doing.

Every "ID" proponent I know that is more than just a guy that heard a sermon on it in church believes that some form of evolution exists, absolutely. In this way it is similar to the AGW (now climate change because, well, the warming thing didn't match the models) nonsense. Studying the climate is a very good thing. Coming up with hypotheses about the evidence of changes and getting some testable theories is also a very good thing. It's when it gets politicized when it is in its infancy that I start balking, especially if they want to pass actual laws based on very poorly understood "science".

I think that all "real" science is good, as long as it avoids things along the lines of eugenics, but it is when it is used to push a political agenda that I start bristling.

BTW, "Big Bang" is just another way of saying, "Let there be light".

 

[rjs330]

And I told you that people have already voted, and that I really want some creationist representation in it, considering I made the whole thing for creationists, and not one has participated.


See you in 10 years about that.



Since kind doesn't have a clear definition, even if they did transition on the level of genus, you could easily move the goal posts. I am never impressed when people use that term for this reason.


-_- why would, say, longer tails be "more favorable to my belief" than more color? I guess the ones that would be most favorable to me would be the ones in which the change could be the most drastic and obvious, but I have little to go on to determine which traits that would be.

Also, that's no fun, just having me pick.

How about I pick. I pick feathers. I want you to produce beetles with feathers.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree.

I once had a guy try to use an analogy to show me how different people may see the world differently. It went like this:

"You are walking down the street and see a snake on the sidewalk. What do you do? Well, you may walk around it so you don't get bit, or call animal control.

"Now, suppose another man is walking down the street and sees the same thing. He sees a stick. What will he do? Maybe pick it up and put it in the trash so someone doesn't trip in it.

"Do you see how two people can see the same thing, yet each see different things?"

To which I replied, "Yes, but if the first guy was right, the second guy will get bitten."

Those that believe in ID have yet to be bitten. The Evolution group keeps trying to figure out why a stick is biting them.

Tell us about this perceived stick you claim keeps biting those who agree with evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

I think that all "real" science is good, as long as it avoids things along the lines of eugenics, but it is when it is used to push a political agenda that I start bristling.

I feel the same way about creationism.

 

[Almost there]

Tell us about this perceived stick you claim keeps biting those who agree with evolution.

The theories keep changing to match the results in scientific tests and discovery. It's why Darwin's original theory is not followed by most who actually believe in evolution theory as it stands today.

i.e. test results bit them, so they changed their theory on what kind of stick it is.

 

[Almost there]

I feel the same way about creationism.

I agree to a point. I'm no fan of islamic theocracy. Christianity, though, is more of a "live and let live" type of belief system. One thing's for sure. They won't force you to bake the cake.

 

[rjs330]

Also, Gunea Pigs have a broken GULO gene and can't produce their own vitamin C, just like us Great Apes, yet everything else in the tree of life between us and them can... So, the Theory of Evolution would dictate that these two broken GULO genes would have to be broken in different ways (i.e. not in the same way or for the same reason) otherwise the Theory would be falsified....

What do we find when we were finally able to make the comparison?

They're Broken in a different way to how the Great Apes GULO Gene is broken! Theory of Evolution passes yet ANOTHER of a continuous array of tests vindicating the Theory! - A Tale of Three Creationists, Part 3 provides a great breakdown of this, complete with the actual gene for comparison.

Now, Just as the eye, flight, sonar, locomotion and any number of things has developed a number of times independently, I'll go out on a limb here and declare that the neural presence developed independently in the two lineages. I haven't even looked at the evidence yet, but from what I know of the Theory of Evolution, this is what you'll find.

What great evidence against evolution and for common design! We all have the gulo Gene. Evidence of common design. Apes and gunea pigs have broken ones. No one knows why. But they are broken differerently. Know one knows why or how. If we all came from a common ancestor the gene would have been broken the same. But the fact it was broken differerently shows a lack of common ancestry. But it does show common design. You assume it means common ancestry but it doesn't. It means common design with an unknown reason why the gene was broken.

 

[Skreeper]

the same to you. i already falsified the claim about non-hierarchy in nature. so why are you still use it as valid argument?

Maybe you did falsify something in your own little fantasy world but all you show on this site is your lack of understanding concerning evolution or logical fallacies.

 

[gaara4158]

and again: it doesnt relevant to the question of ic systems. if you agree that there is a stepwise way to design a car then why do you think that such a way exist in biological systems? and again: this question doesnt have any connection to self replication, since we are talking about designer that can change anything he want, like mutations.

Of course it’s relevant! It’s the answer to the question you just asked! The design of cars and the evolution of biological systems are completely different processes! Why would anything true about one process have to be true about the other? They're completely unrelated! I'm sorry the parallels confuse you so much, but I'm not sure what else can be done for you if you don't get it by now.

Again, I'm not arguing that a designer couldn't have created flagella to look like they could plausibly have evolved stepwise. You're arguing that a designer must've done so. I'm asking you to prove it.