• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Judiciarchy

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Busta said:
I will give you the eye.
I have, on another thread and some time ago, said that the eye could not have possably evolved.

I have since seen an evolutionary model to the contrary, and concede that the eye does comply with the norms of evolution.

!!!

There is hope for you.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hmmm, we seem to have an obstacle with the term "I.D.", in that I type it with one meaning, and you read it with another.
I understand that the popularly known model, or notion, rather, of I.D. does not conform to the scientific methid, and as such is not science; thus it has no place in the science classroom.
However, I refer to a purely scientific theory of I.D.
Admittedly, much of what is popularly known as I.D. is not science, and that distracts from the real science supporting real scientific I.D. theories.

[Tangent]
The same thing happens with religion and faith.
The evils committed by the church and religious radicals (*cawf* Army-of-God *cawf*), repell people from God.
Roamens 2:23-24;
23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
[Tangent]

The references that I gave comply, completely, with P.O.H.E.C., and (within the material that I have examined so far) do not contain ANY, as steen so accurately puts it, "because-I-say-so postulation" or "it-couldn't-have-happened-any-other-way speculation".

steen said:
Pye is claiming some form of pan-spermia idea. It is utterly bogus and based on his subjective beliefs only.
Knight and Butler are talking about placing black holes to draw material out of the earth to create the moon, and that this was done through future humans time-traveling to the way distant past. Utter nonsense, incl. that we are missing those black holes today. There is absolutely no evidence and no scientifically formulated hypothesis. It is wild imagination.
Hoagland seems a conspiracy crackpot. For one, he is talking about designed items found on Mars, and secondly about all these secret multi-Government missions to the moon.
Friedman seems to be a master-level technician with a UFO fixation.

No science, no Scientific Method, pure subjective and wild speculation. And not "Intelligent design" either.
Their work shows that your initial observations are grossly inaccurate and incorrect.

You are not addressing the information.
You are only trying to change the subject by issuing more personal attacks.
And I'm accused of deception.
II. *One only becomes mad at others for what they, them selves, are guilty of.
III. *You can always tell what a Liberal is up too because they accuse you of doing it.


Observe, Blizzard Warrior, I have provided references to support my claim that I.D. is a valid scientific topic, and said references are summarily dismissed without review.

Steen, the very LEAST amount of effort that you could do is to review Richerd C. Hogland's Mars Tidal Model.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Dear Steen,

How do you like this definition of I.D…Intelligent Design is the academic assertion that the order in living things comes from an intelligent source and cannot be explained by chance and natural processes alone. It is as simple as that. It is not a religious position, although it is consistent with a Christian worldview. It does not attempt to identify the designer. It leaves that as an open question. It is a minimalist position.

Now, I was doing my research paper for Biology on evolution, and I had a few questions that I am wondering if you could answer. (These are related to my school textbooks)

1. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment and the origin of life remains a mystery?

2. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor?

3. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry?

4. ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds?

5. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

6. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended?

Thanks, Steen I appreciate the help, now also I would like to verify something with you, do you believe that Intelligent Design is a theory that is basically creationism with a few extra touches, to make it appear like science. Thanks.

Ok I found this funny video clip during my research (just some comic relief)

http://www.boardsmag.com/screeningroom/commercials/1959/

Anyway, Busta I like how you incorporate scripture and you sig. into your post, quite classy.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Blizzard Warrior said:
Dear Steen,

How do you like this definition of I.D…Intelligent Design is the academic assertion that the order in living things comes from an intelligent source and cannot be explained by chance and natural processes alone[/B]. It is as simple as that. It is not a religious position, although it is consistent with a Christian worldview. It does not attempt to identify the designer. It leaves that as an open question. It is a minimalist position.


Still not science, and still a religious position, but regardless, I think this would be more appropriate:

Intelligent Design is the religious assertion that the order in living things comes from an intelligent supernatural source or sources and cannot be explained by chance and natural processes alone yet.

This is no closer to science, but the wording makes more sense to me. Another thing, if ID is not a religious position, where are the non-religious people who support it?
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
Dear Steen,

How do you like this definition of I.D…Intelligent Design is the academic assertion that the order in living things comes from an intelligent source and cannot be explained by chance and natural processes alone. It is as simple as that. It is not a religious position, although it is consistent with a Christian worldview. It does not attempt to identify the designer. It leaves that as an open question. It is a minimalist position.

It doesn't matter, you see. The heart of the argument is an appeal to ignorance. Think about it like this: We now know the evolutionary model for the development of the eye, yes? Now, go back 30 years. Would saying that Evolutionary Theory has no explanation for the development of the eye mean that the eye is irreducibly complex? That is exactly what Creationists have been doing from the get-go, and every example they cite as evidence against evolution gets systematically refuted as time goes by.

The fact of the matter is that even if Evolution did not exist, that does not mean that I.D. is valid. Even if you show that Evolution is entirely and totally wrong (which it is most certainly not), that provides absolutely no positive proof for I.D., it just means we don't know what happened. That's the best you can do.


1. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment and the origin of life remains a mystery?

While the conditions of the Miller-Urey experiment do not exactly mimic the conditions of early Earth, they were believed to at the time - and there are only several minor criticisms of the experiment. Even if the conditions don't match, though, the point of the experiment was to confirm that organic molecules could come from inorganic compounds - something that has also been confirmed by the discovery of over 90 different amino acids on and in meteorites. Amino acids are formed in space all the time, which is what the experiment seeks to show, disproving the idea that organic molecules cannot come from inorganic substances.

2. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor?

That's a mischaracterization of what the Cambrian Explosion actually is, (simply a great amount of diversity occurring over a few million years), and any textbook worth its salt would be discussing it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

3. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry?

That's circular logic, and I highly doubt any reputable textbook would do such a thing. Source?

4. ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds?

Because it is.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

5. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

A source? From what I've read, the only problem with the original story of the peppered moth is that it considered the predation of local birds as the only source of selection, when it wasn't.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

6. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended?

That doesn't even make sense. Source?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
Hmmm, we seem to have an obstacle with the term "I.D.", in that I type it with one meaning, and you read it with another.
I understand that the popularly known model, or notion, rather, of I.D. does not conform to the scientific methid, and as such is not science; thus it has no place in the science classroom.
Which is what is understood as ID in the debate regarding teaching and science class rooms. So we agree on that. This is good.
However, I refer to a purely scientific theory of I.D.
"Scientific," as in developed through the application of the Scientific Method?

"theory" as in "Scientific Theory"?

If you are answering yes to any of those two questions, then your claim is false.
The references that I gave comply, completely, with P.O.H.E.C., and (within the material that I have examined so far) do not contain ANY, as steen so accurately puts it, "because-I-say-so postulation" or "it-couldn't-have-happened-any-other-way speculation".
Alper's book claims that there are hard-wired requirements for faith:
"If it's true that this principle applies to all of our cross-cultural behaviors, should we not also apply it to spirituality? Every known culture from the dawn of our species has maintained a belief in some form of a "spiritual" reality."COLOR]

Unfortunately, while his example of the honey bees always builds the hiev pattern in a certain way, human faith doesn't always get "built" the same way. So his premise fails up front. And it doesn't prove any kind of design or any kind of external placement of genes to induce spirituality. So he is utterly irrelevant to the issue of ID.

He, of course, also seems to feel this means that there is no actual God, only our instinctive belief that there is a god. But that is irrelevant, other than meaning that if there is no God to cause design to begin with, then there obviously can't be a design either.

I already addressed the "what the bleep..." where I found no science at all.

I found no scientifically generated evidence at Pye's site, only speculation.

Knight & Butler's siteregarding the civilizationone only holds claim, no evidence.

Hoagland talks about seeing "faces" in Mars geology and therefore claiming 'design." Nut-job. Still no evidence, still only "but it MUST be like this because I want it to be so" postulations. No Science there.

Friedman still talks about UFOs with no evidence. Why don't you throw Eric von Daniken in the mix to have the complete roundup of the conspiracy/Government is hiding this/spacemen have been here/influenced us, just because we say so - crowd? They are full of claim and have yet to rpoduce evidence. If you believe this, it is because you WANT to, that's all. There is no science in this.

AS I SAID BEFORE! :roll: So next time, perhaps you should drop your snide and pretentious attack, eh!
Their work shows that your initial observations are grossly inaccurate and incorrect.
No, their work shows "I believe this but have no evidence, so you just have to believe me because you want to" nonsense.

As I stated.
You are not addressing the information.
There is no information. Now, instead of sending me on a wild goose chace through nonsense, why don't you point to specific examples of actual scientific evidence for these claims?

In the meanwhile, here is a site you might want to look at. You seem to be into conspiracy theories and the evil Government suppressing all sorts of information at great expence. Thsi is the premiere conspiracy-site on the internet, and I have no doubt that your authors are on it.

Essentially, if anybody are credited on this site, they are quacks:
http://www.rense.com/
Observe, Blizzard Warrior, I have provided references to support my claim that I.D. is a valid scientific topic, and said references are summarily dismissed without review.
A false claim. Your references contained no supportive scientific evidence.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Lloyd Pye is in possesion of a compleat "highbrid" humanoid scull with highly abnormal attributes. He is currently conducting D.N.A. tests on this scull; He has a model of the fissile record which, he claims, clearly shows that "modern humans" did not evolve from a "pre-human" ancestor, rather that this pre-human ancestor exists today; He claims to know several places where these creatures exist, and is planning an expedition to retrieve "bodies". He claims to have genetic evidence showing that "modern-humans" suddenly appeared in the world, and did not naturally come from a common primate ancestor.

Knight and Butler present the perfect systom of the merriments and movements of the moon; NASA's findings of it's composition and it's structure (no molten or even more-dense-then-the-crust core), they show that the moon's gravity does not have one bodily center, rather it has many consolidations of mass and an uneven gravitational field. They compair our moon to all other known moons and show how our moon is radically different then those found "naturally". They debunk the "Big-Whack", "Big-Whack2" and "Consolidation" theories for the moon's origin.

Richerd C.Hoagland, in his Mars Tilde Model, uses NASA imagery to present the geography of Mars and the nature of it's structure. He illustraits, graphically, how Mars was once a moon of another, now absent plannet. He shows Mars's global crater pattern and magnetic observations of Mars when projecting Mars's distance from this now absent plannet when it met it's end; He can project said plannet's size and mass based on the Martian geography; He has evidence of ancient Martian oceans covering the plannet; He has evidence of a more geographicaly active Mars;.......

Stanton Friedman, and others, are in possesion of mechanical debree from the crash at Roswell. Tests have been run on this debree with controversial results; He discusses the Betty and Barny Hill experience and how Betty Hill could not have known of the star chart that she drew, since the astrological merriments needed to triangulate this map had not even been made at the time she drew it; He discusses Zeta-Reticuli, the nature and observed attributes of unidentified craft;........

Stanton Freedman is really the biggest critic of his field that ever could be. His videos are well structured and easy for the lay man to understand.
 
Last edited:

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
tryreading said:
This is no closer to science, but the wording makes more sense to me. Another thing, if ID is not a religious position, where are the non-religious people who support it?
Richerd C. Hoagland is one such person.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Busta said:
Richerd C. Hoagland is one such person.

Went to Pye's link you provided, conspiracy nut. He has a list of questions there, including these:

Why megalithic structures like the Pyramids cannot be duplicated today?
Why stones in those structures would buckle today’s largest moveable cranes?


Hoagland, whether an athiest or not, creates scenarios I have not heard of, and I looked, and the scientific community disputes him, from what I read. Also, his otherworldly intelligent entities would be ET's, not Gods.

Another you listed below has Roswell crash debris?

None of these people are credible.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
Dear Steen,

How do you like this definition of I.D…Intelligent Design is the academic assertion that the order in living things comes from an intelligent source and cannot be explained by chance and natural processes alone. It is as simple as that.
No, it isn't, and your definition sucks. For one, this is NOT an "academic" assertion. It is well-documented by now (You should look at the Dover trial, f.ex.) that the ID literature is simply the same creationist literature with merely the word "Intelligent design" substituted in for the word "creationism." So your claim is simply outright false.
It is not a religious position, although it is consistent with a Christian worldview. It does not attempt to identify the designer. It leaves that as an open question. It is a minimalist position.
And after the Agillard decision, when creationism was directly prohibited in science class, the ID crowd indeed had to make it so. If they mentioned the designer as God, it would be creationism and thus be banned. So this is simply deception.
Now, I was doing my research paper for Biology on evolution, and I had a few questions that I am wondering if you could answer. (These are related to my school textbooks)
Well, how dishonest of you. Would you mind telling me what textbooks you are using?

No, of course not, as what you provided here has nothing to do with any one textbook, but rather is taken from a creationist website of 10 questions that creationists are supposed to ask their teacher. Questions, by the way, directly gleaned from Jonathan Wells' book "Icons of Evolution." So you are bearing false witness here.

How did I know? Well, your list is a modification from a list published by the Wells about 4 years ago.
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/tools/questions.php3

So per your insult to my intelligence by thinking I would fall for that trick, when all you did was plagiarizing, I will instead provide you with the canned answer:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/ten-answers.html

Thanks, Steen I appreciate the help, now also I would like to verify something with you, do you believe that Intelligent Design is a theory that is basically creationism with a few extra touches, to make it appear like science. Thanks.
yes, that is what I believe, and which has been documented several times. Notably here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6am2.html#day6am889
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
tryreading said:
Went to Pye's link you provided, conspiracy nut. He has a list of questions there, including these:

Why megalithic structures like the Pyramids cannot be duplicated today?
Why stones in those structures would buckle today’s largest moveable cranes?

Hoagland, whether an athiest or not, creates scenarios I have not heard of, and I looked, and the scientific community disputes him, from what I read. Also, his otherworldly intelligent entities would be ET's, not Gods.

Another you listed below has Roswell crash debris?

None of these people are credible.
They are conspiracy cooks, they belong on Rense.com

And I am insulted that the "mother" of them all, Eric von Daniken wasn't even given tribute here. He has pushed the "spacemen uplifted us from animals" idea stronger and for longer than anybody else.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
steen said:
They are conspiracy cooks, they belong on Rense.com

And I am insulted that the "mother" of them all, Eric von Daniken wasn't even given tribute here. He has pushed the "spacemen uplifted us from animals" idea stronger and for longer than anybody else.

I remember Von Daniken well, his books were very popular when I was growing up. He maintained that certain large structures could not possibly have been built by man, so, therefore, ET's must have built them, or helped build them. Not a leap of faith, right? ID is based on the same reasoning.

I posted the two questions from Busta's post about the pyramids, claiming than current man can't build them, to show what a liar his first source is. I have seen an episode of an educational show, maybe NOVA, where a few scientists went to Egypt and, with some human manpower, moved monolithic limestone pieces the same size as the pyramid building blocks with a system of ropes, block and tackle, and other basic tools, and placed them where they wanted them.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
tryreading said:
Went to Pye's link you provided, conspiracy nut. He has a list of questions there, including these:

Why megalithic structures like the Pyramids cannot be duplicated today?
Why stones in those structures would buckle today’s largest moveable cranes?


Hoagland, whether an athiest or not, creates scenarios I have not heard of, and I looked, and the scientific community disputes him, from what I read. Also, his otherworldly intelligent entities would be ET's, not Gods.

Another you listed below has Roswell crash debris?

None of these people are credible.

steen said:
They are conspiracy cooks, they belong on Rense.com

And I am insulted that the "mother" of them all, Eric von Daniken wasn't even given tribute here. He has pushed the "spacemen uplifted us from animals" idea stronger and for longer than anybody else.
Just as one must pay for an education at a school, so must one pay for these respective books and/or videos and/or lectures.
The two of you are not addressing the content of the respective theories. Instead you are, still, trying to change the subject from science to character. In context, charactor has no place in the science classroom either.

Rather one believes in a conspiracy or not (and most of those who's work I am reviewing do not) is irrelivent because belief in a conspiracy has nothing to do with the structure and nature of the moon, mechanical debree from Roswell, the fossil record, NASA imagery of Mars, possession of a hybrid skull, knowing where "pre-humans" live today, etc, etc.

You should have just told me at the beginning that you were not interested in a logical discussion of science. That would have saved everyone allot of time.
 
Last edited:

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
tryreading said:
I remember Von Daniken well, his books were very popular when I was growing up. He maintained that certain large structures could not possibly have been built by man, so, therefore, ET's must have built them, or helped build them. Not a leap of faith, right? ID is based on the same reasoning.

I posted the two questions from Busta's post about the pyramids, claiming than current man can't build them, to show what a liar his first source is. I have seen an episode of an educational show, maybe NOVA, where a few scientists went to Egypt and, with some human manpower, moved monolithic limestone pieces the same size as the pyramid building blocks with a system of ropes, block and tackle, and other basic tools, and placed them where they wanted them.
You will find a great discussion about How To Build A Pyramid here. This is one of the few threads that is worth reading every page.

The primary problem with current "how to build a pyramid" theories is not the mechanics, but the materials used.
If you wish to build ramps, sleds, rollers, pulleys, or whatever, that's all well and good; but without the wood to do build such things out of, you have nothing.
Also, it is not enough to find evidence of just enough wood to test your theory about how to move a 2.5 ton block up 2.5 feet; you must present evidence that enough wood existed to make enough rollers, levers, etc, throughout the entire construction.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
The two of you are not addressing the content of the respective theories.
I have specifically done so. Please cease lying about me.
Instead you are, still, trying to change the subject from science to character.
No, I concluded their character FROM their claims, which are not showing evidence of sciece at all. AS I POINTED OUT. Drop your deceptive detraction, Busta.
Rather one believes in a conspiracy or not (and most of those who's work I am reviewing do not) is irrelivent because belief in a conspiracy has nothing to do with the structure and nature of the moon, mechanical debree from Roswell, the fossil record, NASA imagery of Mars, possession of a hybrid skull, knowing where "pre-humans" live today, etc, etc.
but note that each of these lack actual scientific evidence. Instead, these people are yammering about Government cover-ups because they have not been aboe to get scientific credibility through their "just because I say so" postuklations. They want their claims to have scientific credibility WITHOUT any scientific evidence. So instead they claim evidence and claim that their position is being suppressed.

There are LOTS of scientific journals that would publish their findings in a heartbeat, IF THEY HAD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
You should have just told me at the beginning that you were not interested in a logical discussion of science. That would have saved everyone allot of time.
Rather, Busta, YOU seem to not want to acknowledge the need for application of the Scientific Method for something to be science. YOU claiming their postulations to be science, or them claiming so, that really doesn't make it so.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
You will find a great discussion about How To Build A Pyramid here. This is one of the few threads that is worth reading every page.

The primary problem with current "how to build a pyramid" theories is not the mechanics, but the materials used.
If you wish to build ramps, sleds, rollers, pulleys, or whatever, that's all well and good; but without the wood to do build such things out of, you have nothing.
And back then, North Africa was a forrest. Lots of wood available to the west.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Originally Posted by Blizzard Warrior
Dear Steen,

How do you like this definition of I.D…Intelligent Design is the academic assertion that the order in living things comes from an intelligent source and cannot be explained by chance and natural processes alone. It is as simple as that. It is not a religious position, although it is consistent with a Christian worldview. It does not attempt to identify the designer. It leaves that as an open question. It is a minimalist position.
Still not science, and still a religious position, but regardless, I think this would be more appropriate:

Intelligent Design is the religious assertion that the order in living things comes from an intelligent supernatural source or sources and cannot be explained by chance and natural processes alone yet.

This is no closer to science, but the wording makes more sense to me. Another thing, if ID is not a religious position, where are the non-religious people who support it?

Well first off, I was asking Steen about the definition, but nonetheless why do you assert it is a religious position? What is religious about MY definition? The reason it is not really supported by non-religious people as much is that firstly if you look in America there is a general LACK of non-religious people in the populace. So already, the pool of people that are non religious is small. In addition, non-religious folk do not really have a need to support I.D. or evolution for that matter its just that (I suppose) evolution is universal and easily understood, and accepted. In addition, that for some reason people think that I.D. is a Christian idea of creation, and evolution is a Secular idea of creation, both claims are false though.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It doesn't matter, you see. The heart of the argument is an appeal to ignorance. Think about it like this: We now know the evolutionary model for the development of the eye, yes? Now, go back 30 years. Would saying that Evolutionary Theory has no explanation for the development of the eye mean that the eye is irreducibly complex? That is exactly what Creationists have been doing from the get-go, and every example they cite as evidence against evolution gets systematically refuted as time goes by.

The fact of the matter is that even if Evolution did not exist, that does not mean that I.D. is valid. Even if you show that Evolution is entirely and totally wrong (which it is most certainly not), that provides absolutely no positive proof for I.D., it just means we don't know what happened. That's the best you can do.


I am not going with the mainstream heart of the argument here; I am looking at an alternative approach. Now I am not a ‘young earth creationist’. I understand that lack of evidence is not positive proof for I.D. Now it is clear that both theories have problems with the theory. Also in remember in the words of Samuel Jackson: Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

While the conditions of the Miller-Urey experiment do not exactly mimic the conditions of early Earth, they were believed to at the time - and there are only several minor criticisms of the experiment. Even if the conditions don't match, though, the point of the experiment was to confirm that organic molecules could come from inorganic compounds - something that has also been confirmed by the discovery of over 90 different amino acids on and in meteorites. Amino acids are formed in space all the time, which is what the experiment seeks to show, disproving the idea that organic molecules cannot come from inorganic substances.

Do not exactly mimic? Isn’t that a very light way of putting it, for example they only used 13 of the 21 BASIC amino acids in their experimentation right? Moreover they ‘collect’ the molecules in a special chamber to protect it from lightning, severely lowering (I would presume) the realistic ness behind it.

That's a mischaracterization of what the Cambrian Explosion actually is, (simply a great amount of diversity occurring over a few million years), and any textbook worth its salt would be discussing it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_034_02.html

Firstly lets define what the Cambrian period is? And that site you gave me also had this: For many people of various faiths, support for the scientific theory of evolution has not supplanted their religious belief. And throughout the modern Judeo-Christian tradition, leaders have asserted that evolutionary science offers a valid perspective on the natural world. They say that evolution is consistent with religious doctrine and complements, rather than conflicts with, religion. So evolution doesn’t necessarily water down the truth of Christianity (at least I could loggicaly infer that from this site)


That's circular logic, and I highly doubt any reputable textbook would do such a thing. Source?

Ok, let me just verify this so your saying that similarities between species of a supposedly common ancestor, is NOT evidence of a common ancestor.

Because it is.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

Interesting, im guessing it refutes the statement: Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

A source? From what I've read, the only problem with the original story of the peppered moth is that it considered the predation of local birds as the only source of selection, when it wasn't.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

So it is NOT really evidence of natural selection?

6. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended?

That doesn't even make sense. Source?

Which part doesn’t make sense?
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
I am not going with the mainstream heart of the argument here; I am looking at an alternative approach. Now I am not a ‘young earth creationist’. I understand that lack of evidence is not positive proof for I.D. Now it is clear that both theories have problems with the theory. Also in remember in the words of Samuel Jackson: Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Let's look at the definition of a scientific theory, shall we?

"In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified."

Does I.D. meet any of those critera?

1. Does it describe the behavior of natural phenomenon?
-No. All it does is make a statement that "things are really complex, so something must have designed us.". It provides no explanation, just a useless statement.
2. Is it predictive?
-No. Unlike Evolutionary Theory, I.D. provides only a statement about the past, and no predictive ability at all. It cannot be interpolated or extrapolated to provide any predictions or consistent statements about what our world is like.
3. Is it testable?
-No, it is not. You have no way of verifying the claims of I.D. other than an appeal to ignorance that is Irreducible Complexity. The only test that could exist that would provide validity to the claims of intelligent design would be provable, valid documentation of an alien race/deity

4. Is it falsifiable?
-No. I.D. is inherently unprovable without a time machine.

Do not exactly mimic? Isn’t that a very light way of putting it, for example they only used 13 of the 21 BASIC amino acids in their experimentation right? Moreover they ‘collect’ the molecules in a special chamber to protect it from lightning, severely lowering (I would presume) the realistic ness behind it.

Like I said, that's not the point. The point was to show that organic molecules could come from inorganic processes, not to show the exact abiogenesis process that occurred on Earth.


Firstly lets define what the Cambrian period is? And that site you gave me also had this: For many people of various faiths, support for the scientific theory of evolution has not supplanted their religious belief. And throughout the modern Judeo-Christian tradition, leaders have asserted that evolutionary science offers a valid perspective on the natural world. They say that evolution is consistent with religious doctrine and complements, rather than conflicts with, religion. So evolution doesn’t necessarily water down the truth of Christianity (at least I could loggicaly infer that from this site)

That's rather irrelevant. I find Christianity to be nonsensical anyways, but there are many people are both Christians and Evolutionists.



Ok, let me just verify this so your saying that similarities between species of a supposedly common ancestor, is NOT evidence of a common ancestor.

Uh, no. I'm not saying that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

Interesting, im guessing it refutes the statement: Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

Yes, it does - and in some detail.



So it is NOT really evidence of natural selection?

...Yes, it's even better evidence of Natural Selection than previously thought. There were many factors acting as selective agents, not just the predation of birds, and they were not taken into account. How could you possibly not accept Natural Selection? The development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria is right in front of you, and is a very simple example of Natural Selection that presents a great problem for modern medicine.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Originally Posted by Blizzard Warrior
Dear Steen,

How do you like this definition of I.D…Intelligent Design is the academic assertion that the order in living things comes from an intelligent source and cannot be explained by chance and natural processes alone. It is as simple as that.

No, it isn't, and your definition sucks. For one, this is NOT an "academic" assertion. It is well-documented by now (You should look at the Dover trial, f.ex.) that the ID literature is simply the same creationist literature with merely the word "Intelligent design" substituted in for the word "creationism." So your claim is simply outright false.

Take is easy big guy. Sucks is a little offensive, again civility is necessary. Anyway I think you misinterpreted my meaning here, I am not saying that, that is the popular belief, I am saying that is what we should define our new theory, because clearly I do not fully believe in I.D. even though I agree with some assertions of it. I am in search of an appropriate theory to explain the origin of life. Btw what is you belief of the origin of life, AND is there a special term for it?

And after the Agillard decision, when creationism was directly prohibited in science class, the ID crowd indeed had to make it so. If they mentioned the designer as God, it would be creationism and thus be banned. So this is simply deception.

That case took place in 1987…and wasn’t the I.D. movement started in the early 80’s? Besides, by leaving the creator open, then doesn’t that change the concept, it isn’t deception, and what about those students who don’t believe in what they teach about the origin of life in science class? Are schools allowed to teach I.D. in philosophy or social studies then?
Well, how dishonest of you. Would you mind telling me what textbooks you are using?

No, of course not, as what you provided here has nothing to do with any one textbook, but rather is taken from a creationist website of 10 questions that creationists are supposed to ask their teacher. Questions, by the way, directly gleaned from Jonathan Wells' book "Icons of Evolution." So you are bearing false witness here.

How did I know? Well, your list is a modification from a list published by the Wells about 4 years ago.
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/tools/questions.php3

So per your insult to my intelligence by thinking I would fall for that trick, when all you did was plagiarizing, I will instead provide you with the canned answer:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/ten-answers.html

You are right I did get them from A website, but it wasn’t that particular one it was from another site, that had basically the exact same questions. Notice how I only had a few of the questions though, that relate to my textbook. And you did exactly what I thought you would do if I told u the site, you would flip out. Ok well I wasn’t trying to have you fall for “that” trick, I was simply trying to find answers to those question, and thanks for answering them. I wasn’t trying to be dishonest, those were honest questions that I had for my textbook, the other questions weren’t relevant to my textbook. I am NOT insulting you intelligence I am actauly doing just the opposite, if I didn’t think you were smart I wouldn’t have asked you those questions.

yes, that is what I believe, and which has been documented several times. Notably here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dove...html#day6am889

But do you believe in the “clockmaker” (or w/e its called) theory…as in like is it viable?
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Busta said:
The two of you are not addressing the content of the respective theories. Instead you are, still, trying to change the subject from science to character. In context, charactor has no place in the science classroom either.

Rather one believes in a conspiracy or not (and most of those who's work I am reviewing do not) is irrelivent because belief in a conspiracy has nothing to do with the structure and nature of the moon, mechanical debree from Roswell, the fossil record, NASA imagery of Mars, possession of a hybrid skull, knowing where "pre-humans" live today, etc, etc.

Character is very important. If I believe the 'evidence' you present was formulated by a nut, the 'evidence' of whatever it is you're trying to prove is not believable. Also, I question your arguments just because you refer to conspiracy theorists as credible sources.

Have these people been published in any reputable scientific publications? If so, please provide a link to that, and not a commercial site pushing a book.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Blizzard Warrior said:
Well first off, I was asking Steen about the definition, but nonetheless why do you assert it is a religious position? What is religious about MY definition? The reason it is not really supported by non-religious people as much is that firstly if you look in America there is a general LACK of non-religious people in the populace. So already, the pool of people that are non religious is small. In addition, non-religious folk do not really have a need to support I.D. or evolution for that matter its just that (I suppose) evolution is universal and easily understood, and accepted. In addition, that for some reason people think that I.D. is a Christian idea of creation, and evolution is a Secular idea of creation, both claims are false though.

Please be more careful with the way you combine quotes from different people, mine didn't have my name on it. No big deal.

It is a religious position. Please show me one person who is not religious who believes in ID.

I agree evolution is not secular, but many Christians say it is.

Evolution is not easier to understand than a God. It is science, and has to be learned. One can believe in a God and not know anything about Him.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Blizzard Warrior said:
Well first off, I was asking Steen about the definition, but nonetheless why do you assert it is a religious position? What is religious about MY definition? The reason it is not really supported by non-religious people as much is that firstly if you look in America there is a general LACK of non-religious people in the populace. So already, the pool of people that are non religious is small. In addition, non-religious folk do not really have a need to support I.D. or evolution for that matter its just that (I suppose) evolution is universal and easily understood, and accepted. In addition, that for some reason people think that I.D. is a Christian idea of creation, and evolution is a Secular idea of creation, both claims are false though.

Proponents of ID should think about the possibility of the following idea seriously. It is not unprovable either, and there are many, many historical and archaeological examples that make it as valid as a loving God designer. If ID is taught anywhere, I want this possibility included. I have thought about this before, but this guy expresses the evil designer possibility much better than I could:

The Designer who so Intelligently Designed our world, in theory, could be malevolent or capricious just as easily as he could be all good. He might have designed us intelligently, but for the purpose of watching us tear each others' throats out. He might have designed us intelligently, but on a whim, and then forgotten all about us. In theological terms, ID suggests forces operating upon the world from without, but it does not say whether that those forces are good or evil. You could hypothesize, for example, that a Satanist could step forward to support ID. Yes, the world shows evidence of an intelligent designer, but one with a sick sense of humor. Therefore, the Satanist might conclude, Intelligent Design is correct, and we should worship the Devil, since the world seems more like his handiwork than the Other Guy's.

http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timeless_002161.php

Now, I guess the Bible would have to be used to prove that the designer is loving, but that creates big problems for ID in schools.

Disclaimer: I am not a Satanist, and I do not hate Christians.



Interesting story about an opponent of ID:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/05/mirecki_hospitalized_after_beating/?breaking
 
Top Bottom