- 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.
Their work shows that your initial observations are grossly inaccurate and incorrect.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.
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.
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.
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?
Which is what is understood as ID in the debate regarding teaching and science class rooms. So we agree on that. This is good.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.
"Scientific," as in developed through the application of the Scientific Method?However, I refer to a purely scientific theory of I.D.
Alper's book claims that there are hard-wired requirements for faith: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".
No, their work shows "I believe this but have no evidence, so you just have to believe me because you want to" nonsense.Their work shows that your initial observations are grossly inaccurate and incorrect.
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?You are not addressing the information.
A false claim. Your references contained no supportive scientific evidence.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.
Richerd C. Hoagland is one such person.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?
Busta said:Richerd C. Hoagland is one such person.
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.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.
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.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.
Well, how dishonest of you. Would you mind telling me what textbooks you are using?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)
yes, that is what I believe, and which has been documented several times. Notably here: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.
They are conspiracy cooks, they belong on Rense.comtryreading 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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
I have specifically done so. Please cease lying about me.Busta said:The two of you are not addressing the content of the respective theories.
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.Instead you are, still, trying to change the subject from science to character.
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.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.
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.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.
And back then, North Africa was a forrest. Lots of wood available to the west.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.
Still not science, and still a religious position, but regardless, I think this would be more appropriate: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.
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?
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.
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.
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
That's circular logic, and I highly doubt any reputable textbook would do such a thing. Source?
Because it is.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
So it is NOT really evidence of natural selection?
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.
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.
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
yes, that is what I believe, and which has been documented several times. Notably here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dove...html#day6am889
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?