Jump to content
OtakuBoards
Sign in to follow this  
Drix D'Zanth

Intelligent design

Recommended Posts

Guest kuroinuyoukai
[QUOTE=Decadence][color=dimgrey]Ok,I ignored PyroGirl's comment before, but the "Deal with it"part really bugged me. If you don't want to be harrassed about being Christian, don't go around announcing it. Simple as that. Also test's don't check what you know, they check to see if you've been listening in class. So you answer as the class dictates, not what you believe. If i beleaved that this world was just a creation of my mind, or that we are in the matirx (as an example) answering that would flunk me. (And get me deleted from the system) But if i answered as the class dictated, it would prove that I payed attention in class, not that I beleaved what they were teaching.

PS: The Matrix was used to lighten up this subject.
PPS: Also teaching ID makes a test on it moot, because the answer to every question is "A Higher being created it." thats the entire depth of the subject. Unless you want to infuse relegion into it, which lets think about this... yep pretty sure its illegal.
So you can deal with "Us Godless Heathens" having control the government. [/color][/QUOTE]
I get it already. I was just making a statement. It was just my opinion.Like I said I am not fighting anyone else about this. LET THEM TEACH WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT TO TEACH YOU!!
PS I DID NOT MENTION GODLESS HEATHENS-YOU DID.

TO BRASIL- I NOTICE YOU LIKE TO ARGUE. ARE IN THE DEBATE CLUB OR STRIVING TO BE A POLITICIAN? DUDE-I AM ONLY KIDDING. I GET YOUR POINT.CHILL OUT! :catgirl:
11/01/05
Please, please let this thread die!! :animecry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='kuroinuyoukai']TO BRASIL- I NOTICE YOU LIKE TO ARGUE. ARE IN THE DEBATE CLUB OR STRIVING TO BE A POLITICIAN? DUDE-I AM ONLY KIDDING. I GET YOUR POINT.CHILL OUT! :catgirl:[/quote]
Whether or not I like to argue is irrelevant. Fact of the matter was, you contradicted yourself, and I wanted to point out that out. And then you reply with All-Caps and tell me to "chill out"? What are you talking about? Where are you coming from there? lol. My previous post was neither heated nor inflammatory, so...I find myself scratching my head as to why you launched into whatever it was you just replied with.

And honestly...your entire argument (not yours personally, but the I.D. argument as a whole) is absolutely absurd. To even begin to argue that because there are so many complex biochemical processes in the world today, there must be some divine guiding light, one must entirely remove oneself from any rational state of mind, and outright ignore ancient mythologies. Why, you ask?

Because during the studies of ancient mythologies, one will meet the realization that what one is postulating is nothing more than a modernized, souped-up version of Zeus throwing lightning bolts around. Hands-down, case closed, that's what I.D. is. Fundamentally, it's the same exact principle, because if you were to study the ancient cultures that attributed weather to particular gods, you'll find the same exact reasoning:

That there's something in our world too complex for our current society and intellectuals to process, so therefore there must be some otherworldly presence directing and/or controlling it.

All you have to do is know your history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Decadence][color=dimgrey']PPS: Also teaching ID makes a test on it moot, because the answer to every question is "A Higher being created it." thats the entire depth of the subject. [/color][/quote]You're right about that in a sense.

However, there is some evidence that supports creation over a short period of time rather than evolution over a long period of time, but this kind of supports Christian/Judo/Islamic perspective.

When tracing back our cellular DNA, it seems like the "Eve" of mankind is millions of years old years old, like the evolution theory claims. But when tracing back our mitocondrial DNA, the "Eve" of mankind is only thousands of years old. This shows that humans have not been very long on earth and supports the creation theory.

Oh and about the apelike human bones we've found: There is an Islamic story (maybe it's stated in christian and jewish books too) that a certain tribe of wicked people were turned into apes and pigs. So that would explain the tranistion of apes to humans (or should I say humans to apes). Pigs are very similar to humans too, which is why we can accept organ transplants from them. Interesting eh?[/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[color=dimgrey] Chabichou the human to pig "Myth" is also used in the Odyssey. This does not invalidate your statement, just thought I should bring up the fact that the human to pig idea has been seen before.[/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f]This shows that humans have not been very long on earth and [u][b]supports the creation theory[/b][/u'].[/color][/quote]
Supports the creation theory? Is that so? Care to explain? (I've got to hear this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, always a pleasure to talk with a fellow educated mind, Alex.
[QUOTE=Brasil]Some time until my next class. Let's have some fun.

It's relevant, though, because we both agree there needs to be a separation of church and state as much as possible--or at least as much as is reasonable. (Atheists getting their panties in a twist over the "In God We Trust" on dollar bills is laughable, for example).

The very notion of teaching I.D. in schools is laughable--especially when said religious/spiritual concept is being proposed for science courses--because while it wouldn't necessarily be a government endorsement of religious thought, it still violates that principle, especially considering the inappropriate context of such a proposal. [/QUOTE]

You?re correct, religious indoctrination is a threat to the idea of teaching Intelligent Design. I don?t so much have a problem with the teaching of religion, but how it might be taught. I learned about the main world religions in my highschool education, it?s an important aspect of our education of worldly cultures. We?ll get to where religion has a place in Intelligent Design

[QUOTE=Brasil]
But it does require a divine presence in the universe, Jordan. It's the entire crux of the I.D. argument: that there's some type of divine presence behind every single process, because there are some processes yet unexplained by science. To say that it "does not necessarily" define a said creator is dodging the point, I think, because the fundamental reasoning behind I.D. is absolutely identifying a specific creator figure. [/QUOTE]

I think while a ?creator? or ?designer? is going to be inevitably identified by ID?s supporters, I suppose you are correct. The only difference is how we this aspect of the theorem should be handled in class. I?m referencing to an earlier post of mine on a possible in-class discussion (yes, sharing of ideas) on possible ?Designers?. Let people identify their designer, and continue with teaching the biological signatures that separate ID from macroevolutionary theory.

[QUOTE=Brasil]
What I'm citing is a trend I'm amazed nobody has ever noticed, considered, or conceived. I'm not a genius by any stretch, and my intellect isn't vastly superior. Teleological Evolution contradicts mainstream evolutionary theory, sure, but it is not right along the track of I.D. I won't argue that evolution is random. It fits together too well to be random. [i][b]But[/b][/i] a purposefulness of life's conception and composition (i.e., a detectable goal, if you will) in evolution neither establishes nor sets a precedent for making the leap to "Therefore there must be a creator."

You see, the problem with the I.D. argument is that it derives from people figuring a purposeful process must be the work of a conscious entity who operates independently of the given process' environment. This brings me back to what I said previously about people applying a divine meaning to something grounded exclusively in the physical reality of their world, and it's why I mentioned Mesopotamia and the floods. [/QUOTE]

Fair enough, Alex. In fact, except for mutation (the most basic element of evolution) evolution is [i]non[/i]random. What, then, drives mutation? if we are to entertain the idea of Teleological evlolution? What is this purpose? Or rather, where does the purpose come from?

[QUOTE=Brasil]
God or Yahweh isn't named, but let's be honest here, Jordan: anything that proposes a higher power is a religious doctrine. It's a spiritual proposal. It's a mythological proposal. The minute something suggests "Divine Presence" is the minute it adopts a religious viewpoint, whatever that religion may be. The very act of inserting divinity calls upon religious doctrine. [/QUOTE]

You?re right. But when we?re talking about macroevolution and intelligent design, we both site ?supernatural? events. Neither can be observed in nature. ID uses the excuse that the ?Designer? worked behind the scenes. Evolution uses the excuse that it takes thousands, if not millions, of years for true speciation to occur. Evolutionists say, ?Ah, but we have evidence for macroevolution. We have fossil history, genetics, a mechanism in microevolution, population genetics (totally different from mapping genomes, I?m talking allele frequencies. You know, Hardy-Weinburg stuff), etc. Intelligent Design (or at least the one that I choose to accept) claims, ?Hey. We buy most of that stuff, but there?s a few clues that all of this evolution stuff isn?t as random as we thought. If it?s not random, it must be purposeful. Purposefulness infers a consciousness.? Both ideas are ? *gasp* supernatural. Do they have a place in discussing evolution?

[QUOTE=Brasil]
Disproved how? Because someone can't accept that a gorgeous system works without the hand of some conscious, divine higher power? That perhaps that system works due to say...I don't know...Natural Selection? Merely the natural progression of things? Not even the abstract notion of "Mother Nature," either. I'm talking about a realistic "this is how nature works in an evolve-or-die" type of state.
[QUOTE=Brasil]
We see it already, even in something as mundane as the Avian Flu that's spreading. The thing is mutating, but not randomly, because it's adapting to new environments, to new antibiotics, to new treatments. There's a purpose behind its mutations, but that purpose is not due to any higher power or divine presence. It's like "That which does not kill me makes me stronger." Adapt or die is the name of the game; it's the ultimate conclusion. Not Intelligent Design. [/QUOTE]

You don?t quite understand the idea of mutation in terms of the commonly accepted notion of adaptive radiation. Drug-resistant bacteria, like TB, have arisen purposelessly according to the Modern Synthesis. The premise is; bacteria such as those that cause TB reproduce so very rapidly, and create so many generations per seconds, that after thousands of given generations some of the bacteria?s DNA is bound to mutate in ? say? a replication error or transposition. The antibiotic which previously eradicated the TB is suddenly ineffective on the few mutated copies, and they survive, their offspring sharing the same drug-resistant mutation as their forbears. There is not a possibility for a ?conscious decision?; no purpose at all. The only reason that some strains of TB are multi-drug resistant is because of a random mutation made just likely enough to occur given the prolific bacteria. Intelligent Design does not argue with microevolution.

[QUOTE=Brasil]
Jordan, I.D. goes from "Evolution sucks" to "There's a divine presence at work here" in under a paragraph. It's not pointing to anything objective and it's not pointing to anything quantitative. If anything, I.D. is entirely [b]sub[/b]jective and entirely [b]qual[/b]itative, which is exactly what the ancient belief structures of Mesopotamia were.

We can't exactly observe micro/macro-E because they take tens of thousands of years. How does that prove (or even set precedent) for the Pro-I.D. argument? Simply, it doesn't.

Like I said over AIM last week...pointing to a supposed gap--a timespan of twenty millennia that absolutely no human being could ever, ever witness first-hand--and then leaping into I.D. is jumping the gun to an absurd degree. [/QUOTE]

Intelligent Design, just as any Evolutionary Theory is never to be assumed ?provable? or ?true?. It is merely the most probable explanation- until disproved, that is. In fact, one of the first things you learn about the statistical analysis of biology is you can never be 100% sure on ANYTHING. The most stimulating event in a scientific community is when an existing theory is challenged. Take continental drift, it was considered outrageous and its evidence too inconclusive when it was first proposed. In fact, scientists set out to disprove the idea of continental drift and in doing so, learned more about the world than before. Science is and adversarial study and much of its ?power? proceeds through the falsifying of hypotheses.

There is data to suggest that our current hypothesis of macroevolution through natural selection based on random mutation does [i]not[/i] explain the way life is today. This change, as unpopular it may be amongst the scientific community today (recall that evolution wasn?t exactly popular when it was first proposed) it must at least encourage a rebuttal? or a change in the current theory.

[QUOTE=Brasil]
And these broken basic mechanics are? It seems to me that because we have thousands--possibly millions--of different species on the planet today, because over the course of 65 million years, we've seen so many different forms of life occur, looks like both microevolution and macroevolution actually do exist. [/QUOTE]

Okay, I wanted to address your argument here last because I think we should move away from the ?does intelligent design have a place in our schools?? to ?how exactly is evolution disproved??
Lets start with a single argument, open for anyone interested in this discussion: Given an early earth with very specific atmospheric and environmental conditions, how did the first single-celled organism originate?

Everyone feel free to answer this one however they please, my answer will follow.

[quote name='Decadence][color=dimgrey'] Also test's don't check what you know, they check to see if you've been listening in class. [/color][/quote]

Not quite. But I see where you?re getting at. Tests do test what you know, and if you know what has been taught; not what you believe. Does that sound right? That makes more sense considering what you mention below.

[quote name='Decadence][color=dimgrey'] So you answer as the class dictates, not what you believe. If i beleaved that this world was just a creation of my mind, or that we are in the matirx (as an example) answering that would flunk me. (And get me deleted from the system) But if i answered as the class dictated, it would prove that I payed attention in class, not that I beleaved what they were teaching. [/color][/quote]

YES! You are exactly right! I believe in Intelligent Design, but I have NEVER refused an opportunity to learn about Evolution. In fact, I could get my BA in Evolutionary Biology following this semester, but it?s not going to get me to med-school? so?

Anyway, Evolution is something that should remain in our classrooms! I agree that it is important, considering its current monopoly and relevance in the scientific community. I understand evolution, and it makes TONS of sense. Even though I may not agree with the stand-alone theory, it makes plenty of sense- let?s say 99.9%. However, the more I learn about evolution, the more of its current challenges become apparent. Once you learn about a science?s past, you must continue to pursue the future of a theory. In order to produce a refined theory is identifying and answering the current questions of said theory. I see some pressing questions with the theory of evolutions, some of which are so dramatically contradictory to the original theory that I have decided to consider the idea of a ?Designer?.

On a final note: Alex, Chabi, and kuroinuyoukai; your opinions are appreciated. But please, don?t derail this thread. I, for one, see plenty of life in it yet. It would be tragic to see it closed due to bickering alone. In fact Chabi, no offense intended, but we aren?t arguing theology here. In fact, this post will hopefully stir people into a more scientifically-relevant debate with the question mentioned earlier:

[u]How did the first single-celled organism originate?[/u]

So, Chabi, considering your previous history on this thread? I humbly request that you stop posting here. Please. Same goes to Warmaster, unless you are willing to provide a more reasonable argument that?s more than a single sentence per post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Drix D'Zanth']So, Chabi, considering your previous history on this thread? I humbly request that you stop posting here. Please. Same goes to Warmaster, unless you are willing to provide a more reasonable argument that?s more than a single sentence per post.[/quote]What, and leave you and Brasil to have all the fun? I don't see how my arguments are any less logical than yours.

You're right that I did bring theology into this, but if the creation theory is true, then that would mean intelligent design is true. What's the title of this thread? That's right, intelligent design! So, I'm not really going off topic am I? But for your sake I won't bring up that subject anymore.

[quote name='Brasil']Supports the creation theory? Is that so? Care to explain? (I've got to hear this)[/quote]It is difficult to explain, but I'll have a go at it. I admit I should have went into more depth to begin with.

Pretty much what I'm saying is that it shows we didin't evolve from an apelike ancestor. Our cellular DNA just happens to be the similar to that supposed ancestor's. If we did evolve from that apelike ancestor, than our mitocondrial DNA should be similar, but it's not. So if we didn't evolve, we must have been just created 12000 years ago.

But Brasil, if you still think it's invalid that's fine. I'm just gonna leave it from there. I don't want to hijack Drix's thread.


So I'll just answer Drix's question:

[U]How did the first single-celled organism originate?[/U]

Interesting question. Certain molecules of the cell could have formed spontaneously. Of course the chance of those molecules forming is very slim, but still by a very very very lucky chance, these molecules formed (like phospholipids). The phospholipids automatically form a bilayer when placed in water. So we have the cell's membrane at least.

But when it comes down to protiens and DNA that's where it gets tricky. What came first DNA, or proteins? Neither can exist without the other. Enzymes (protiens) are required to make DNA and DNA is required to make protiens.[/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]It is difficult to explain, but I'll have a go at it. I admit I should have went into more depth to begin with.

Pretty much what I'm saying is that it shows we didin't evolve from an apelike ancestor. Our cellular DNA just happens to be the similar to that supposed ancestor's. If we did evolve from that apelike ancestor, than our mitocondrial DNA should be similar, but it's not. So if we didn't evolve, we must have been just created 12000 years ago.

But Brasil, if you still think it's invalid that's fine. I'm just gonna leave it from there. I don't want to hijack Drix's thread.[/color][/QUOTE] It's invalid because there's an incredibly large and critical flaw in your assessment, a flaw rooted in the actual creation story of Judeo-Christian mythology:

In Genesis, everything happens at the same time. There are minor increments, but overall, everything happens at the same time. It's like God snaps his fingers and there's life. Literally, it's "boom boom boom boom."

Incidentally, I don't even consider the whole "days of the week" aspect in there worth anything, either, because it all seems incredibly convenient that God just happens to rest on the day that the Christians of the time were supposed to abstain from labor.

According to Genesis, regardless of how metaphorical it may or may not be, the individual time increments do not add up to the age of Earth, nor do they add up when considering the appearance of particular animals, humans included. The rate is far, far too fast in Genesis to adequately hold it to Evolution on any type of chronological scale and say there are similarities. That's why your assessment is so ridiculous:

The creation story in Genesis doesn't adhere to any type of time pattern, as it were. Hell, Adam's lineage is no longer than 25 generations. Figuring that each generation lived till they were 50 (which is pushing it even then), that's only a hair over 1,000 years.

The timeframe in the Garden of Eden was but a fraction of that.

Look at the context really carefully, and the amounts of time don't synch up, even considering your assessment, Chabi.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']First, always a pleasure to talk with a fellow educated mind, Alex.[/quote] Jordan, you are my...shining star.

[quote]You?re correct, religious indoctrination is a threat to the idea of teaching Intelligent Design. I don?t so much have a problem with the teaching of religion, but how it might be taught. I learned about the main world religions in my highschool education, it?s an important aspect of our education of worldly cultures. We?ll get to where religion has a place in Intelligent Design[/quote] It sounds like you got cut-off there, so I won't try to construct anything after the last sentence. But I will touch upon the main world religions thing.

I don't think an Intro to World Religions course is really relevant here in a discussion about the merits or demerits of teaching I.D. alongside Evolution in a science course for a few reasons.

One, it's almost an unwritten rule for Intro to World Religions courses that the instructor remain objective when presenting the material. The fundamental purpose behind Intro to World Religions is to expose students to a general overview that is fairly informative and at the same time, removed from the material enough so as not to focus on one religion more than another.

Of course, even when there's more Christianity than Islam in a Philosophy of Religion course, that doesn't mean the instructor (a Presbyterian minister) is trying to influence his students. That's actually a true story there, total real life example from a few semesters ago.

And because the purpose of the Intro courses is that general overview, rarely will you have special interest groups (who have a very clear agenda, mind) pushing for the creation of such a course.

Sometimes, like we saw a few years back right after 9/11, those same types of hardcore Fundamentalist Christian special interest groups that are now pushing for I.D. in science courses were the groups pushing (and threatening to take legal action) for Intro courses to be banned because they were (rightly) giving an overview of Islam in an general overview of world religion.

So, that's the first key point there. That the intent behind the development of such a curriculum and syllabus is purely objective and not at all possibly fueled by some type of religious agenda.

Two, the peculiar similarities between the pro-I.D. groups today and the anti-Islamic-overview groups of 2001 are exceedingly worrisome, and I do not believe for a second that the pro-I.D. organizations are pushing for I.D. in science courses in the same manner as a high school giving a general overview of world religions in an objective point of view.

This is why the entire pro-I.D. argument is such a sneaky one. They're saying they just want a fair educational process. But what's really happening (and what will happen if I.D. becomes part of a science course's syllabus) is those courses will not be taught objectively.

Quite frankly, I'd be tremendously surprised if those special interest groups didn't petition to have their own designated instructors teaching the portions covering I.D. if they win this entire case. Given what I've seen coming from the Fundamentalist camp? Given that there are entire groups of people who want to "take over" South Carolina to create a Christian state, so they can do away with public education?

Hell, in the 1800s, private schools were founded by Catholics because they didn't want their children learning in a Protestant classroom. I can't blame them, necessarily, because I think that's an example of why emphasizing religiosity in a classroom is just a bad idea. Those public classrooms incorporated Protestant theologies and prayers and look what happened to the society: complete division.

And it's also an example of what religion does to a school population, in general. Why are Christian parents pulling their kids out of public schools today? Why are Atheist parents pulling their kids out of public schools today? Why are the families of so many home-schooled children today deeply religious in one way or another?

Because historically, religious people with strong religious convictions don't want their kids being taught something they don't agree with. But the caveat there is if a parent requests their child be excused from a class...the reasoning has to be solid. And largely, excluding math courses and music courses...I have not yet seen any solid reasoning. It always comes down to religious reasons.

And I anticipate that's exactly what's going to happen down the road if I.D'ers get their way. This isn't about an instructor exposing students to various ideas about world religion (or biology); this is about making sure the 1800s don't happen again.

Thirdly, look what an Intro to World Religions course is. Look at the department it's listed under. You're going to find that it's listed under Religious Studies or Philosophy for a reason: because it deals with religious or philosophical concepts.

Science courses do not deal with religious or philosophical concepts, unless the class is poking fun at Descartes' declaration that the soul resides in the Pineal gland.

Again, this goes back to if a topic is going to depend heavily on religious or philosophical grounds...that topic needs to be explored in a religion or philosophy course.

[quote]I think while a ?creator? or ?designer? is going to be inevitably identified by ID?s supporters, I suppose you are correct. [u][b]The only difference is how we this aspect of the theorem should be handled in class[/b][/u]. I?m referencing to an earlier post of mine on a possible in-class discussion (yes, sharing of ideas) on possible ?Designers?. Let people identify their designer, and continue with teaching the biological signatures that separate ID from macroevolutionary theory.[/quote] It's simple: in Philosophy or Religion courses or nothing at all. And even your suggestion about the multiple possible "Designers" echoes philosophical backgrounds, rather than any relevance to scientific backgrounds. The actual name of the subject escapes me at the moment, but it has to do with singular versus plural entities. Very early philosophers concentrated on it. I want to say...Anaximander, Thales...yeah. Pretty sure.

[quote]Fair enough, Alex. In fact, except for mutation (the most basic element of evolution) evolution is [i]non[/i]random. What, then, drives mutation? if we are to entertain the idea of Teleological evlolution? [u][b]What is this purpose? Or rather, where does the purpose come from[/b][/u]?[/quote] See my response below, actually.

[quote]You?re right. But when we?re talking about macroevolution and intelligent design, we both cite ?supernatural? events. Neither can be observed in nature. ID uses the excuse that the ?Designer? worked behind the scenes. Evolution uses the excuse that it takes thousands, if not millions, of years for true speciation to occur. Evolutionists say, ?Ah, but we have evidence for macroevolution. We have fossil history, genetics, a mechanism in microevolution, population genetics (totally different from mapping genomes, I?m talking allele frequencies. You know, Hardy-Weinburg stuff), etc. Intelligent Design (or at least the one that I choose to accept) claims, ?Hey. We buy most of that stuff, but there?s a few clues that all of this evolution stuff isn?t as random as we thought. If it?s not random, it must be purposeful. Purposefulness infers a consciousness.? Both ideas are ? *gasp* supernatural. Do they have a place in discussing evolution?[/quote] Very clever, Jordan. Including "supernatural" in quotation marks like that, eh? Clever, clever. Here's where I tear that attempted parallel down. haha

Something is only supernatural when it transcends nature. Zeus is supernatural. Medusa is supernatural. The beast in the Cedar Forest is supernatural. God is supernatural.

We can't witness macroevolution because its process far exceeds our lifespans. But that doesn't make it supernatural. The fact that we can see the evidence of macroevolution prevents it from transcending the natural realm. It occurs in nature. If it were something supernatural, it wouldn't take tens of thousands of years. Zeus would just blink it.

And purposefulness does not necessarily infer a consciousness. Are you conscious of say...the nerve impulses that coordinate your arm and hand to jerk away when there's a sudden and radical stimulus introduced, like if someone tazers your finger? Your arm and hand's movement is totally purposeful, yet it's not conscious movement.

I think the same philosophy applies here. We operate on instinct. I don't think single-celled organisms (or bacteria, or chemicals) are any different. Their instincts may be different because they're operating in a context that by comparison, is primitive at best, but it's still an instinct, and not necessarily a conscious one.

It's not instinct like we're used to, but maybe it appears purposeful because that organism is operating under a purpose-driven instinct, and a purpose-driven instinct inherent in that organism, and not implanted or nudged along by something otherworldly.

And that's also why I see the whole I.D. thing as incredibly silly, because some people have seen a type of purpose and pattern, if you will, in a natural process and attributed it to divine power, completely forgetting/ignoring/disregarding the fact that the purpose they see is actually entirely natural.

[quote]You don?t quite understand the idea of mutation in terms of the commonly accepted notion of adaptive radiation. Drug-resistant bacteria, like TB, have arisen purposelessly according to the Modern Synthesis. The premise is; bacteria such as those that cause TB reproduce so very rapidly, and create so many generations per seconds, that after thousands of given generations some of the bacteria?s DNA is bound to mutate in ? say? a replication error or transposition. The antibiotic which previously eradicated the TB is suddenly ineffective on the few mutated copies, and they survive, their offspring sharing the same drug-resistant mutation as their forbears. There is not a possibility for a ?conscious decision?; no purpose at all. The only reason that some strains of TB are multi-drug resistant is because of a random mutation made just likely enough to occur given the prolific bacteria. Intelligent Design does not argue with microevolution.[/quote] Quick question, then: if you and I were to go back 5 million years ago, would our cause of death be considered the result of macroevolution or microevolution? And conversely, those we came in-contact with who died horrible, horrible deaths after we shook their hands...would their deaths be the results of macro-E or micro-E?

And to continue along that same train of thought...were the Native Americans' widespread deaths due to Smallpox carried by the Europeans caused by macro-E or micro-E? Just a question or two that just popped in there.

[quote]Intelligent Design, just as any Evolutionary Theory is never to be assumed ?provable? or ?true?. It is merely the most probable explanation- until disproved, that is. In fact, one of the first things you learn about the statistical analysis of biology is you can never be 100% sure on ANYTHING. The most stimulating event in a scientific community is when an existing theory is challenged. Take continental drift, it was considered outrageous and its evidence too inconclusive when it was first proposed. In fact, scientists set out to disprove the idea of continental drift and in doing so, learned more about the world than before. Science is and adversarial study and much of its ?power? proceeds through the falsifying of hypotheses.

There is data to suggest that our current hypothesis of macroevolution through natural selection based on random mutation does [i]not[/i] explain the way life is today. This change, as unpopular it may be amongst the scientific community today (recall that evolution wasn?t exactly popular when it was first proposed) it must at least encourage a rebuttal? or a change in the current theory.[/quote] Clever! Your above paragraphs basically say "I.D. is good for Evolutionary theory because it inspires scientists to re-double their efforts and they'll uncover more and more."

Yes, and I suppose scientists haven't already been working their geeky little ***** off to connect the missing pieces of the Evolutionary chain? ~_^

[quote]Okay, I wanted to address your argument here last because I think we should move away from the ?does intelligent design have a place in our schools?? to ?how exactly is evolution disproved??

Lets start with a single argument, open for anyone interested in this discussion: Given an early earth with very specific atmospheric and environmental conditions, how did the first single-celled organism originate?

Everyone feel free to answer this one however they please, my answer will follow.[/QUOTE] I'll play with Ockam's Razor here.

Isn't it obvious that the first single-celled organism originated in a space-age coffee can belonging to a race of little green men with bug eyes who just love frappacinos?

Or maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Or just straight-up Tralfamadorianism.

Or maybe just it was merely the waste by-product of a really nasty infinite regression, where there's no cause, no effect, only loopage.

Ockam's Razor has your answer, Jordan. ~_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Warmaster
If I may also add, the first single-celled organism hardly has anything to do with any sort of evolution per se, and really has to do with the origin of life.

Origin of Species doesn't mean Origin of Life

It is for another discussion, and one that has a lot more proposed answers than one may think. It also has a lot to do with assuming a certain "prebiotic" Earth, and these assumptions are challenged all the time by things such as NASA's and ESA's research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Brasil]
Incidentally, I don't even consider the whole "days of the week" aspect in there worth anything, either, because it all seems incredibly convenient that God just happens to rest on the day that the Christians of the time were supposed to abstain from labor.
[/QUOTE]

All I'm going to touch on, is this little paragraph, Brasil.

I'm not trying to cause an arguement, I just want to clear up this point a little bit. God did not rest on the time that Christians of the time were supposed to rest. The 'Sabbath' was actually Saturday, and it was when the Jewish people rested. For Christians, the Sabbath is on Sunday. (I won't go into why that is, right now.)

Anyways, that day being "convienient", is almost like saying that it's strange how Americans obtained their freedom on the Fourth of July. (It's a bad example, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.) I know what you're saying about this, though. You're viewing this the opposite direction than I am.

I'm butchering my point. I'm going to go get some sleep. @_@

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[color=#004a6f][QUOTE=Brasil]It's invalid because there's an incredibly large and critical flaw in your assessment, a flaw rooted in the actual creation story of Judeo-Christian mythology:

In Genesis, everything happens at the same time. There are minor increments, but overall, everything happens at the same time. It's like God snaps his fingers and there's life. Literally, it's "boom boom boom boom."

Incidentally, I don't even consider the whole "days of the week" aspect in there worth anything, either, because it all seems incredibly convenient that God just happens to rest on the day that the Christians of the time were supposed to abstain from labor.

According to Genesis, regardless of how metaphorical it may or may not be, the individual time increments do not add up to the age of Earth, nor do they add up when considering the appearance of particular animals, humans included. The rate is far, far too fast in Genesis to adequately hold it to Evolution on any type of chronological scale and say there are similarities. That's why your assessment is so ridiculous:

The creation story in Genesis doesn't adhere to any type of time pattern, as it were. Hell, Adam's lineage is no longer than 25 generations. Figuring that each generation lived till they were 50 (which is pushing it even then), that's only a hair over 1,000 years.

The timeframe in the Garden of Eden was but a fraction of that.

Look at the context really carefully, and the amounts of time don't synch up, even considering your assessment, Chabi.[/QUOTE]You'll have to forgive me, because I don't completely undestand the cristian/judeo point of view about how the world was created. All I know is that Islam Judaism and Cristianity all agree that we started out with Adam and Eve.

I would like to address some points from my religious prespective, not that I'm trying to prove anything.

It is stated in Islam that the world was created in 4 days. There is no statement that God needed to rest. But we don't know how long those four days were. They could have been thousands or millions or billionsof years. The 'day' of judgement is said to thousands of years as well. So even though we read the word 'day' it really means something much longer.

Second of all, we don't know when exactly humans were placed on earth. Prehistoric species such as dinosaurs could have (and probably) roamed the earth long before Adam and Eve were ever placed on earth.

Since I do believe in creationism, I would say that God created new species as time passed by and got rid of the old ones. Because we see no trace of transitions between species in the fossil record.

Humans according to my religion lived much much longer in the beginning of mankind. The prophet Noah for instance, lived for a thousand years and Adam lived for 999. There are also about five or six generations between Adam and Noah. The dying age of humans gradually got smaller.

I'm not saying this to prove creationism, all I'm saying that the idea of creationism doesn't really contradict anything. That's why I had no problem making such a 'ridiculous' statement.

Sorry for dragging theology into this again Drix, but I had to clear up any misconceptions.

Since we have not observed changes in species, only adaptations of specific species, I'd say the only form of evolution that is occurs is that contained within a species. Unless you're counting on a theoretically impossibile number convieniently positive mutations to occur.

Oh, and when I say theoretically impossible, I mean that if we're considering there isn't divine intervention (just so you don't take things out of context ;)[/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Warmaster
I'd say that just about everyone who tries to "disprove" evolutionary theory is either being disingenuous or, in the end, really doesn't understand it well enough. "Transitions between species" and such doesn't just concern truly arbitrary designations, but also ignores that the fossil record is constantly growing and that people don't know for certain whether some fossils are different species or just "subspecies" or whatever. Did you know that Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus were only later confirmed to be the same dinosaur?

But, I'm not going to get into this debate; I rather play Smash Bros. Melee or Freelancer or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[size=2]Oh dear Lord, I just wrote a very long post, and when I clicked reply, it says I wasn't logged in. I am very, very sad.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]To your benefit, I will have to shorten everything I said.[/size]
[size=2]1. School attendance is required of millions of impressionable children.[/size]
[size=2]2. Evolution is an atheistic, but also anti-Christian theory.[/size]
[size=2]3. ID was developed as a response to Evolution in defense of Christian theology.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Evolution is a state-sanctioned attack on Christianity administered to millions of children in the United States. The evidence for or against either theory is unimportant in the social context. All things are fallible, including evolution and ID, so arguments for or against either of them are important in a scientific/theological/philosophical context, but those arguments mean very little in a social context. The introduction of ID into schools as a counterexample to evolution gives the children a choice in what they can believe.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I am all about morality. You decide for yourselves whether or not it's right to exclude ID (or some other theory that allows for a theological explanation) from schools. Many of you who have posted are Christians, and many are not. I ask both groups, however, to make a moral choice.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Is it right to force children to learn a theory that contradicts Christianity without allowing any defence? We Americans pride ourselves on the choices our citizens have. One of them is the choice of religion. The freedom to choose a religion. Evolution taught as fact in schools denies children that freedom. The 'separation of church and state' is being subtly violated. Evolution is atheistic, and anti-Christian. The fallability of evolution must be presented to children in some way or another, else we are depriving them of their right to choose.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I don't have to argue for or against the technicalities of ID and evolution in order to make my point. The bottom line is that there is a question here, and in order to best answer it, we must understand the consequences of the decision. You may continue to argue the technicalities as you desire, but please keep in mind that your choices have effects, and if you truly want to show your intelligence and moral capacity, you will attempt to forsee as many of those effects as you are able.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2](copies the post just in case)[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Chabichou']But we don't know how long those four days were. They could have been thousands or millions or billionsof years. The 'day' of judgement is said to thousands of years as well. So even though we read the word 'day' it really means something much longer.[/quote]
I can argue both sides of this issue pretty well, but I'm always going to believe in one side.

Chabi, the fact of the matter is that the "days" written of in Genesis are actual days. There is nothing in the text that supports otherwise.

If each "day" represents possibly thousands or millions or billions of years, then each process on each day should be dated accordingly, and we should be able to read it appropriately in that chronological approximation. Also, I'd like to include that each day needs to remain consistent in the timeline, so we need to pick an increment of time and stick with it. For the sake of argument, let's start with 1k.

You said that Adam's lifespan was approximately 1,000 years, so this fits with the day cycle of God creating man.

But what happens when we apply that 1k to the other days?

You guessed it. It doesn't work. We've seen carbon dating for dinosaur skeletons that date back some 65 million years. We have all types of fossils that date the earliest humanity back much farther than only 1,000 years. Your following point already discusses what I'm talking about, but your following points are pretty weak, especially considering what is said in Genesis. I'll elaborate later on. Back to the issue at hand.

Pure and simple, if each day represents 1k, the story of creation isn't possible, because the days do not synch up with what we've found so far.

So let's take your next increment: 1 million years.

It's getting better, but again, we have to take into consideration the entire timeline, and even one million years is laughable, because one, Adam is not one million years old; two, fossil records and geology date the world as much older than only a few million years old; the processes described in the story of creation (4 days or 7)--what some could describe as evolutionary process--are not consistent with a span of one million years. The second, third, and fourth days of Genesis would take three times that, given the rate of growth in Genesis.

Next increment: one billion years.

Again, I point to Garden of Eden. Again, I point to the relative timescale established through each day representing one billion years. It doesn't work.

Even if you were to find some similarities by subdividing one day--24 hours--and figuring out how many degrees it would take to account for that ratio of 1 day:1 billion years, I guarantee that the description of 4 days, or 7 days, was out of human necessity...not anything greater than that. The humans who wrote the Judeo-Christian-Islam creation stories chose those limited numbers of days because they couldn't fathom anything else. It was convenient for the time.

[quote]Second of all, we don't know when exactly humans were placed on earth. Prehistoric species such as dinosaurs could have (and probably) roamed the earth long before Adam and Eve were ever placed on earth.

Since I do believe in creationism, I would say that God created new species as time passed by and got rid of the old ones. Because we see no trace of transitions between species in the fossil record.[/quote]
God created man. He did not place man. Placing man would be similar to some spaced-out version of SimCity. It wasn't like clicking a mouse and dropping a Town Hall. It's explicitly stated in the story of Genesis that God breathed life into dirt.

And I challenge you to find an undeniable and clear mention of dinosaurs in Genesis. Try to avoid bringing up the whole "giant lizards" bit, too. lol I highly, highly doubt "giant lizards" is referring to 2,000 ton Brachiosaurs.

[quote]Humans according to my religion lived much much longer in the beginning of mankind. The prophet Noah for instance, lived for a thousand years and Adam lived for 999. There are also about five or six generations between Adam and Noah. The dying age of humans gradually got smaller.[/quote]
You do know that Sarah lived to only 90, and that was viewed as pretty near death? In fact seen as a miracle that she conceived when she was 90? Yeah...90 was really old there, and the descendancy from Adam and Abraham isn't too far. It's only about 5 generations, I think.

[quote]I'm not saying this to prove creationism, all I'm saying that the idea of creationism doesn't really contradict anything. That's why I had no problem making such a 'ridiculous' statement.[/quote]
And my point is that when you examine it logically, it contradicts just about every single type of rationalization/explanation one can give.

[quote]Since we have not observed changes in species, only adaptations of specific species, I'd say the only form of evolution that is occurs is that contained within a species. Unless you're counting on a theoretically impossibile number convieniently positive mutations to occur.[/quote]
You should check dinosaur skeletons and skeletons of modern birds. If you want to talk about adaptations within a specific species, then I suppose the lighter, smaller dinos and modern Pelicans are the same species?

And again, I'm going to ask you the same thing I've been asking Jordan: so there's a gap right now in Evolutionary theory. So what? Why suddenly say "Hey, look, there's a gap! That must be where [insert higher divinity here] lives!"

Why not just give Evolutionary theory more of a chance? After all, science takes time. Exploration takes time. Paleontology takes time. Geology takes time.

Religion...doesn't take time. It's full of knee-jerk reactions.

[quote]Oh, and when I say theoretically impossible, I mean that if we're considering there isn't divine intervention (just so you don't take things out of context ;)[/QUOTE]
Take things out of context? I'm sure that I do. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[size=1][color=indigo][font=arial][QUOTE=Adahn][size=2]Oh dear Lord, I just wrote a very long post, and when I clicked reply, it says I wasn't logged in. I am very, very sad.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]To your benefit, I will have to shorten everything I said.[/size]
[size=2]1. School attendance is required of millions of impressionable children.[/size]
[size=2]2. Evolution is an atheistic, but also anti-Christian theory.[/size]
[size=2]3. ID was developed as a response to Evolution in defense of Christian theology.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Evolution is a state-sanctioned attack on Christianity administered to millions of children in the United States. The evidence for or against either theory is unimportant in the social context. All things are fallible, including evolution and ID, so arguments for or against either of them are important in a scientific/theological/philosophical context, but those arguments mean very little in a social context. The introduction of ID into schools as a counterexample to evolution gives the children a choice in what they can believe.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I am all about morality. You decide for yourselves whether or not it's right to exclude ID (or some other theory that allows for a theological explanation) from schools. Many of you who have posted are Christians, and many are not. I ask both groups, however, to make a moral choice.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Is it right to force children to learn a theory that contradicts Christianity without allowing any defence? We Americans pride ourselves on the choices our citizens have. One of them is the choice of religion. The freedom to choose a religion. Evolution taught as fact in schools denies children that freedom. The 'separation of church and state' is being subtly violated. Evolution is atheistic, and anti-Christian. The fallability of evolution must be presented to children in some way or another, else we are depriving them of their right to choose.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I don't have to argue for or against the technicalities of ID and evolution in order to make my point. The bottom line is that there is a question here, and in order to best answer it, we must understand the consequences of the decision. You may continue to argue the technicalities as you desire, but please keep in mind that your choices have effects, and if you truly want to show your intelligence and moral capacity, you will attempt to forsee as many of those effects as you are able.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2](copies the post just in case)[/size][/QUOTE]
Okay then, will you allow them to start teaching the flying spaghetti monster concept as well? Buddhism? Hinduism? ID, by definition, isn't an inherently Christian principle, and it's been established mutliple times in this thread. Yet, you're painting it as a Christian principle (this is despite claims by those who want it that it's not), and evolution as atheistic, which simply isn't true. By believing in ID to begin with, you're [b]embracing the concept of evolution[/b], just putting it all down to God instead of playing with more scientific principles of the creation of life, the universe, and everything. Your post is contradictory.

It's people like yourself, who put a large Christian slant on the concept and want a theological idea taught in a science class room - a place that requires more explanation by default than 'So, like, there was this big bearded dude in the sky and one day he made Earth and - get this - PUT IN PLACE EVOLUTION' - that is making so many people opposed to the idea. Many people arguing against the concept of ID in this thread have said it would be fine if it would be taught in the proper context - a religion class, as it deals with the concept of [b]religion[/b], not science. They aren't wholly against the idea, they're against it in the wrong context. And that's fine, really. I mean think about it...

Science requires empirical proof. We have proof for evolution, albeit limited, and it's that same proof that they're applying to ID. [b]However[/b], to believe in ID, you have to believe in the great unprovable - the existance of a higher power. There is no way, we will ever proove there is a God, or Allah, or whatever deity you choose to follow. It can't be proved, [i]ever[/i]. Evolution, over millions of years, has at least the [b]potential[/b] to be proved, to become fact. The existance of a God can never be proved through scientific means, or any other way beside. You have to have [b]faith[/b] that s/he's there. That's what makes it a religion. This is in contrast to scientists, who don't rely on faith to prove their findings, they rely on facts. That's all there is too it, and it's what makes it unappropriate as being taught as scientific principle - because it's not. Faith as the basis for science cannot work, because it can never be proven, and therefore shouldn't be taught in the context of a science classroom.[/font][/color][/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering how relatively modern the theory of evolution is, I really don't understand what people are expecting here. People who challenge evolution seem to want to see a monkey plop out a human being. It doesn't work that way by simple definition. We don't have the luxury of 15,000 years of modern human thought to back up these things, which is why it's a "theory". That doesn't mean someone just pulled it out their ***. People need to understand what that definition entails before they even begin to fight this.

When we have actual, physical proof of evolution in our general lifetimes right now, it's obvious it exists. In a very short amount of time certain groups of elephants have been evolving past the need for tusks to outsurvive poaching, bugs and viruses have adapted constantly to outer changes, birds have wound up with radically different beaks thanks to food source changes. Adaptation is the same as evolution in these cases, plain and simple. The scale being smaller does not disprove it. It's not something that just happens wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, a lizard laid a bird egg; if someone is expecting there to be some revelation to that degree, they're going to continue to be disappointed (or happy, as the case of naysayers may be).

Considering how radical some of the "small" changes are that have happened in our very lifetimes, I don't know what there is to deny. As I've said, the idea of evolution (Darwin's or otherwise) is insanely young. If we take this idea and the examples that have happened in just the past [I]five decades[/I] and apply it to the scientifically proven dates of worldwide existance, how in the world is this stuff unbelievable in any sense?

Some of these small trait changes are big enough to bring up scientific debates. For example, with the bird and beak thing, should they be considered a new species given this change or not? Some would say yes, some would say no. However, the change is obvious and it has led to a noticable change in the birds' behavior. If this continued over the course of [i]centuries[/i], with climate and food changes, migrations, etc... you're telling me there's no way, at all, that these creatures would eventually look so insanely different and act in such an insanely different way that they'd barely even be related anymore? I can't possibly agree with that.

It seems obvious to me that schools don't teach this whole concept as well as they should be. Considering how confused so many people I've come across (here and elsewhere) are about its basic foundations, I have to wonder what there is to fight against to begin with. Most people who ***** about it have no idea what they're talking about in the first place.

Groups want "intelligent design" pushed are largely religious for a reason: it is not science. Whose design? Whose purpose? It directly refers to some sort of greater being and thus is simply outside the realm of science. It's religion under another coat, slightly politically corrected in order to not refer to any specific denomination. People can believe what they want to believe, but science itself is always destined to be the antithesis of religion. They mix to some degree, but at some point they have to kill eachother off to survive. That, or compromise... but considering the obvious lack of proof for religious based decisions aside from old books and faith, the only one that ever has to compromise is religion.

The things religious people believe today have been shaped more by science than they want to admit. The arguments against evolution now are not the same arguments that existed 100 years ago. As soon as something disproves a Biblical story in the past, more progressive people have attempted to shape the stories around it in order to further its existance. People wouldn't even be considering the idea of adaptation within species being viable as is being brought up in here. It's either "I think evolution happens" or "I do not think evolution happens". Anything inbetween is a change of religious thought and thus a change of the doctrines. They're either right or they're not. To me it seems very odd to think that way at all and then turn around and simultaneously consider these old tomes and beliefs infallible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[color=Sienna]I would like to take up the Dinosaurs challenge, Alex. [/color]


[size=1][quote=Brasil]
And I challenge you to find an undeniable and clear mention of dinosaurs in Genesis. Try to avoid bringing up the whole "giant lizards" bit, too. lol I highly, highly doubt "giant lizards" is referring to 2,000 ton Brachiosaurs.[/quote][/size]

[color=Sienna]It all comes down to the language of the day, so there is no way we could ever say Dinosaurs were mentioned in the Bible because they were called somethign else.

For example, people of that day might have been awestruck by a giant flying bird, and written about a Dragon. Whereas we would see the same scaly buzzard, and call it a Pterodactyl.[/color]
[size=1]
[size=2] [quote=CARM]
[/size] [/size][size=1][font=Verdana][color=#000000]While the word "dinosaur" is a relatively new word, there seems to be evidence in many places around the world that men and these creatures have co-existed. In the Bible, when God is responding to Job, in [/color][/font][/size][font=Verdana][size=2][size=1][url="http://www.carm.org/kjv/Job/Job_40.htm#1%C2%A0"]Job 40[/url][/size][size=1][color=#000000] and [/color][/size][size=1][url="http://www.carm.org/kjv/Job/Job_41.htm#1%C2%A0"]41[/url][/size][size=1][color=#000000], we see two creatures described, the 'behemoth' and the 'leviathan.' Both are described as extremely large animals and seem reminiscent of descriptions of a dinosaur and a giant sea creature. Although Bible notes in many modern translations suggest these animals might be a hippo, a crocodile, an elephant, or other known animals, the Biblical descriptions defy those identifications.[/color][/size][size=1]
[/size] [size=1][color=#000000]http://www.rae.org/pteroets.html
[/color][/size][size=1]The Bible and Pterosaurs: Archaeological and Linguistic Studies of Jurassic Animals that Lived Recently
[/size] [size=1][color=#000000]The Chinese histories and legends abound with dinosaurs. But they are not called "dinosaurs." They are called "dragons." The dragon is one of the twelve animals of the Chinese zodiac. What is interesting is that all the other eleven are commonly known animals and there is no hint of 'mythology' involved with their identities. It seems as if the dragon was just a commonly known at one time. The pictures are often fantastical, but so are their stylized pictures of horses and other animals. [/color][/size] [size=1][color=#000000]I checked the web for accessible information on this. I was able to find a few things that were not having to do with video games, sculptures, movies, items for sale, and such. The following links may be of interest. There are more. If you have access to books, you might want to check the epic of Beowulf, in which he battles a monster. If you have access to a good book on the history of art, you may be able to see some dragons and sea monsters painted on ancient Roman pottery. The legends abound all over the world. They do not seem to be connected to each other, but each telling of its own place. We have the story of St. George and the Dragon; there is the reference regarding Alexander the Great of his army disturbing some giant monster in a cave on their way to India. The American Indian thunderbird may very well be one of the ancient flying reptiles. [/color][/size] [size=1][color=#000000]An excellent essay by Lourella Rouster is "The Footprints of Dragons," at [url="http://rae.org/dragons.html"]http://rae.org/dragons.html[/url][/color][/size][size=1]
A couple of pages which chronicle a bit the possible existence of monsters in Europe aredragon myths from Austria [url="http://www.strangescience.net/stdino2.htm"]http://www.strangescience.net/stdino2.htm[/url] page includes two paintings of dragons from the seventeenth century that are quite interesting!
Doug Sharp, whose webpage "Revolution Against Evolution" has Rouster's essay, also carries the following: [/size][size=1][color=#000000]http://rae.org/tuba.html[color=#0000ff]
[/color][/color][/size][size=1] The Rhamphorhynchoid Pterosaur -- Scaphognathus crassirostris: A "Living Fossil" Until the 17th Century All in all, then, there is reason to doubt the evolutionist timeline that says dinosaurs -- or the dragons -- died out before man ever arrived. There is simply too much evidence in stone, art, writing, and legend which contradicts that idea.[/size] [/quote][/size][/font][size=2]
[/size]

[color=Sienna]So there is quite a bit of evidence in the Bible and other sources like the Chinese legends to say that, in fact, people of thoise times had knowledge of the Dinosaurs. It essentially, comes down to wether or not you want to believe that when people were referring to Dragon, they were referring to Dinosaur.
[/color]
[size=1][QUOTE=Brasil]
God created man. He did not place man. Placing man would be similar to some spaced-out version of SimCity. It wasn't like clicking a mouse and dropping a Town Hall. It's explicitly stated in the story of Genesis that God breathed life into dirt. [/quote][/size]
[color=Sienna]
Wouldn't that be funny? If we were merely some peds in The Sims on a PS3000? lol.

Anythings possible..... :eek:[/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for this dinosaur crap: if these things lived in those days, they'd be at the top of the earth compared to where we've been finding dinosaurs. They'd be dated correctly at only like, what, a few thousand years old? So why has this never happened?

If someone needs more obvious proof of how ridiculous this argument is on a basic level, man, I don't know lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus, then hydras also existed, and unicorns, did, as well. We mustn't forget Poseidon (considering sea creatures were his domain), and why not include the Sirens, too?

Common mythologies weren't unheard of. It's why I keep talking about how similar the Epic of Gilgamesh is to the Bible. The flood, the eternal life...the god of the Cedar Forest. These are common elements of every single mythology throughout time. But there are radical differences even between those descriptions. So there still isn't any conclusive "______ giant lived there at that time." All it still comes down to is common traits of ancient mythologies.

Talking about behemoths...okay, then Humbaba was real, and lived in a great Cedar forest in Ancient Mesopotamia.

And...if dinosaurs were around when Adam and Eve were thrown out from the Garden of Eden...if they happened to come in contact with a T-Rex (or any carnivorous predator)...do you think there'd be humanity today?

The very notion of dinosaurs during the Creation story is laughable because of that, even. If there were dinosaurs in Biblical times, Adam and Eve would have been dino chow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Shinji]So there is quite a bit of evidence in the Bible and other sources like the Chinese legends to say that, in fact, people of thoise times had knowledge of the Dinosaurs. It essentially, comes down to wether or not you want to believe that when people were referring to Dragon, they were referring to Dinosaur.
[/QUOTE]

Kiddo, have you ever looked at early European illustrations of the dolphin? The damn thing looks like, oh...[i]a Chinese dragon[/i].

Early explorers first believed manatees were mermaids.

Don't get me started on the rhinos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[color=Sienna][quote=[/color][color=Sienna]Godelsensei][/color]
[size=1] Kiddo, have you ever looked at early European illustrations of the dolphin? The damn thing looks like, oh...[i]a Chinese dragon[/i].[/size]
[/quote] [color=Sienna]
Godelsensei, i think you've accentuated my point there. At least the point that, the Chinese Dragon is a part of a zodiac compiled of regular creatures. This is a possible link to having humans witness Dinosaurs first hand, and after that, making exaggerated pictures and statues of them as fire breathing behemoths.

[quote name='Brsil][/color'] Talking about behemoths...okay, then Humbaba was real, and lived in a great Cedar forest in Ancient Mesopotamia.[/quote]
[color=Sienna]After googling for Humbaba, I ask, why not? Maybe not as some kind of God, rather than, say, a Brachiosaur or Tyrannosaur. I don't see why Humbaba couldn't be real in some form.

I'm close to conceeding the Adan and Eve as Dino chow, apart from a random idea that Humans were given reign of the European/Middle eastern area and the Dinosaurs lived on the African plains, at least until Humanity had established itself. Either that or God protected them so they would survive.
[/color][color=Sienna]
God was still in cotnrol, despite the estrangement circa Eden.

On another note: There are some aspects of our faith that simply can't be explained by Science, and that is why, if I saw the day creationism came back into the classroom, I would like it to be in a social studies environment.
[/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=René][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]
Okay then, will you allow them to start teaching the flying spaghetti monster concept as well?[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[color=#000000]No.[/color]

[QUOTE=René]
Buddhism? Hinduism?[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[color=#000000]Some element of Buddhism and Hinduism was taught to me while I was in school. Is it so uncommon that you think it's ridiculous?[/color]

[QUOTE=René]
ID, by definition, isn't an inherently Christian principle, and it's been established mutliple times in this thread.[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[color=#000000][Quote=Adahn][/color]
[color=#000000]3. ID was developed as a response to Evolution in defense of Christian theology.[/Quote][/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[color=#000000]Your 'definition' isn't important in the social context. What is important is what I have stated above. Read it again, carefully, and argue against it if you will. The [i]origin[/i] and [i]purpose[/i] are more important than the definition. This has [i]not[/i] been explicitly established and explored, hence my post.[/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[quote name='René'] Yet, you're painting it as a Christian principle (this is despite claims by those who want it that it's not), and evolution as atheistic, which simply isn't true. [color=#000000][/quote][/color]

[color=#000000] It is Christian in origin and purpose. You are correct in saying that its application and understanding do not require complete compatibility with Christian doctrine. I did not 'paint' it as such. Evolution is a scientific theory. Perhaps I should have said non-theistic. Will you debate me on its non-theism?[/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[QUOTE=René]
By believing in ID to begin with, you're [b]embracing the concept of evolution[/b], just putting it all down to God instead of playing with more scientific principles of the creation of life, the universe, and everything. Your post is contradictory.[color=#000000][/Quote][/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[color=#000000]Ah, the Chewbacca defense. How I recoil at your words, and how little sense they make. My mind is all confused now. However, I will do my best to make sense of what you have just said. I didn't say I believed in ID. [b]Show[/b] me [b]how[/b] believing in ID embraces the concept of evolution, and then tell me why [b]it's bad[/b]. Also, show me how evolution explains the [b]creation of life, the universe, and everything.[/b] Lastly, quote my post and point out my contradictions, please. I do it so often that sometimes I cannot even see it.[/color]

[QUOTE=René]
It's people like yourself, who put a large Christian slant on the concept and want a theological idea taught in a science class room.[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[color=#000000]Where did I say I wanted a theological idea taught in a science classroom? Quote it for me, please.[/color]

[QUOTE=René]
- a place that requires more explanation by default than 'So, like, there was this big bearded dude in the sky and one day he made Earth and - get this - PUT IN PLACE EVOLUTION' - that is making so many people opposed to the idea.[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color]

[color=#000000]All that I require to be in the science classroom is that the children be made to understand that the theory of evolution is [b]fallible, incomplete, and unrelated to the origin of [i]life.[/i][/b] It is applicable and useful, but so long as it is taught to be the truth on all things related to the origins of life, it is a very convincing (and misleading) attack on all other ideas concerning the origin of life (most of them religious).[/color]

[QUOTE=René]
Many people arguing against the concept of ID in this thread have said it would be fine if it would be taught in the proper context - a religion class, as it deals with the concept of [b]religion[/b], not science. They aren't wholly against the idea, they're against it in the wrong context. And that's fine, really. I mean think about it....[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[color=#000000]If it is taught in an [i]elective[/i] course, children will not be exposed to the possibility that evolution is not the answer to all questions concerning their origin. ID is unnecessary if my above statement is incorporated into the teaching of evolution.[/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[QUOTE=René]
Science requires empirical proof. We have proof for evolution, albeit limited, and it's that same proof that they're applying to ID. [b]However[/b], to believe in ID, you have to believe in the great unprovable - the existance of a higher power. There is no way, we will ever prove there is a God, or Allah, or whatever deity you choose to follow. It can't be proven, [i]ever[/i]. Evolution, over millions of years, has at least the [b]potential[/b] to be proven, to become fact. The existence of a God can never be proven through scientific means, or any other way beside. You have to have [b]faith[/b] that s/he's there. That's what makes it a religion. This is in contrast to scientists, who don't rely on faith to prove their findings, they rely on facts. That's all there is to it, and it's what makes it inappropriate as being taught as scientific principle - because it's not. Faith as the basis for science cannot work, because it can never be proven, and therefore shouldn't be taught in the context of a science classroom.[/font][/color][/size][/QUOTE]
I hope you don't mind that I fixed numerous spelling errors, as it enhances the flow of your argument. Faith systems, by nature, cannot be proven scientifically. The teaching of evolution in classrooms as infallible fact disproves a number of religions. Evolution is atheistic (anti-religion) in certain cases where faith in a creation story is required.

THIS is the problem we face. This is the question we must answer. Is it right to force the teaching of an anti-religious theory to children without any indication of its fallibility? ID is a [b]possible[/b] solution to this [b]social[/b] problem.

You don't have to listen to me or believe me, but if you're going to argue with me, do it right, for heaven's sake. Argue against my ideas, but only if you [b]understand[/b] them. If you don't, then please, don't bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=Brasil]And again, I'm going to ask you the same thing I've been asking Jordan: so there's a gap right now in Evolutionary theory. So what? Why suddenly say "Hey, look, there's a gap! That must be where [insert higher divinity here] lives!"

Why not just give Evolutionary theory more of a chance? After all, science takes time. Exploration takes time. Paleontology takes time. Geology takes time.

Religion...doesn't take time. It's full of knee-jerk reactions.[/QUOTE]I do give evolution a chance. I'm a biology student after all.

Gaps in the theory do not untterly disprove it, they just prevent it from being completely proven on a largescale level.

Which means there are alternative answers that should be considered, such ID.

Both ideas have merit, and both have gaps/flaws. Therefore, both should be considered.

Brasil, your argument was really directed at the cristian point of view of creationism, so I'm not going to argue with you about it anymore.[/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]I do give evolution a chance. I'm a biology student after all.

Gaps in the theory do not untterly disprove it, they just prevent it from being completely proven on a largescale level.

Which means there are alternative answers that should be considered, such ID.

Both ideas have merit, and both have gaps/flaws. Therefore, both should be considered.

Brasil, your argument was really directed at the cristian point of view of creationism, so I'm not going to argue with you about it anymore.[/color][/QUOTE] Chabi, creationism is creationism, [b][u][i]regardless[/i][/u][/b] of what religion you look at. The fact that I focus on the Judeo-Christian creation story here is irrelevant. You said Islam says the world was created in 4 days. That doesn't avoid or deflect my criticisms, because my criticisms remain the same even for Islam's creation story.

And I.D. [i]doesn't[/i] have merit. That's what I'm trying to impress here. It's laughable as a science. It's laughable as a faith. It tries to cater to two conflicting viewpoints and comes off as horribly lame in the process, because it cannot reconcile those two contradictory viewpoints, no matter which creation myth you examine.

There are only gaps in Evolutionary theory because macro-E takes tens of thousands of years. [i]But the evidence for macro-E is there[/i]. [i]There is no evidence that there's a creator or God.[/i]

Again, if you want to explore I.D. in schools, [i]explore it in a philosophy or religion course[/i], because it does not belong in a science course, because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. There's only subjective and qualitative conjecture.

Come on. Your reply here ignores what I've shown in the creation texts themselves. You're only repeating "I.D. has merit." You have no case anymore. lol

[QUOTE=Adahn][/color]

[color=#000000]No.[/color]

[/color]

[color=#000000]Some element of Buddhism and Hinduism was taught to me while I was in school. Is it so uncommon that you think it's ridiculous?[/color]

[/color]



[color=#000000]Your 'definition' isn't important in the social context. What is important is what I have stated above. Read it again, carefully, and argue against it if you will. The [i]origin[/i] and [i]purpose[/i] are more important than the definition. This has [i]not[/i] been explicitly established and explored, hence my post.[/color]

[/color]

[color=#000000] It is Christian in origin and purpose. You are correct in saying that its application and understanding do not require complete compatibility with Christian doctrine. I did not 'paint' it as such. Evolution is a scientific theory. Perhaps I should have said non-theistic. Will you debate me on its non-theism?[/color]

[/color]

[color=#000000]Ah, the Chewbacca defense. How I recoil at your words, and how little sense they make. My mind is all confused now. However, I will do my best to make sense of what you have just said. I didn't say I believed in ID. [b]Show[/b] me [b]how[/b] believing in ID embraces the concept of evolution, and then tell me why [b]it's bad[/b]. Also, show me how evolution explains the [b]creation of life, the universe, and everything.[/b] Lastly, quote my post and point out my contradictions, please. I do it so often that sometimes I cannot even see it.[/color]

[/color]

[color=#000000]Where did I say I wanted a theological idea taught in a science classroom? Quote it for me, please.[/color]

[/color]

[color=#000000]All that I require to be in the science classroom is that the children be made to understand that the theory of evolution is [b]fallible, incomplete, and unrelated to the origin of [i]life.[/i][/b] It is applicable and useful, but so long as it is taught to be the truth on all things related to the origins of life, it is a very convincing (and misleading) attack on all other ideas concerning the origin of life (most of them religious).[/color]

[/color]

[color=#000000]If it is taught in an [i]elective[/i] course, children will not be exposed to the possibility that evolution is not the answer to all questions concerning their origin. ID is unnecessary if my above statement is incorporated into the teaching of evolution.

[/color] I hope you don't mind that I fixed numerous spelling errors, as it enhances the flow of your argument. Faith systems, by nature, cannot be proven scientifically. The teaching of evolution in classrooms as infallible fact disproves a number of religions. Evolution is atheistic (anti-religion) in certain cases where faith in a creation story is required.

THIS is the problem we face. This is the question we must answer. Is it right to force the teaching of an anti-religious theory to children without any indication of its fallibility? ID is a [b]possible[/b] solution to this [b]social[/b] problem.

You don't have to listen to me or believe me, but if you're going to argue with me, do it right, for heaven's sake. Argue against my ideas, but only if you [b]understand[/b] them. If you don't, then please, don't bother.[/QUOTE]
Two things:

One, I hope you don't mind that I didn't fix [i]your[/i] horrid formatting errors.

Two, Adahn, drop the tone.

Three, [color=#000000]"[/color][color=#000000]it is a very convincing (and misleading) attack on all other ideas concerning the origin of life (most of them religious)" is crying wolf.[/color] Oh noes, here comes big bad science to nearly completely debunk outdated religious dogma. Come on, dude. Science is only scary and threatening to the same types of people who wanted to execute Galileo.

Four, "social problem" my butt. This isn't a matter of choice. Do you know why? Because a "choice" was the exact reason why Protestants and Catholics were killing each other on the streets of Philadelphia circa 1844. It was a matter of "choice" why Catholic churches were burned down. "Choice" in education, as it specifically relates to religious doctrine, was the exact reason why entire blocks of South Philadelphia had to be re-built.

You want to talk about choice, and freedom? You should study history, specifically the long-established history of the twisted (and deadly) dichotomy of religion and public education. Philadelphia 1844 is proof of why religious or spiritual doctrine or ideologues in the classroom is a bad idea.

Like I've said time and time again, religious mentality has not changed since the conception of religion. It's still the same damn, repetitive argument, and I can point to any number of Catholic arguments from Philly circa 1844 and the similarities will be downright terrifying.
[color=#000000][/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Brasil]
Three, [color=#000000]"[/color][color=#000000]it is a very convincing (and misleading) attack on all other ideas concerning the origin of life (most of them religious)" is crying wolf.[/color] Oh noes, here comes big bad science to nearly completely debunk outdated religious dogma. Come on, dude. Science is only scary and threatening to the same types of people who wanted to execute Galileo. [/QUOTE] The key words used here are "nearly completely". I'm all for scientific discovery, but there is a problem in the teaching of evolution. It is taught as infallible. It is taught in a manner that denies the possibility of any creation theory. If Evolution is able to provide evidence that denies the possibility of Creation, then I'm all for throwing religion down the crap chute. However, since disproving religions is impossible (I think), it should not be presented in schools as the final word on the origin of life and humanity.

[QUOTE=Brasil]
Four, "social problem" my butt. This isn't a matter of choice. Do you know why? Because a "choice" was the exact reason why Protestants and Catholics were killing each other on the streets of Philadelphia circa 1844. It was a matter of "choice" why Catholic churches were burned down. "Choice" in education, as it specifically relates to religious doctrine, was the exact reason why entire blocks of South Philadelphia had to be re-built.[/QUOTE] Children are very impressionable. If you teach them Evolution in a manner that disproves religion, they will probably believe you. You remove their choice to think and decide for themselves. Until Evolotion disproves religion (again, impossible, I think), it should not be taught in a manner that removes the children's choice.

This is a social problem, Brasil. You must understand that while Christianity is a religion, it is also a very large and influential social group. The Christians as a social group saw their interests in danger. ID was their social response. If you can show me how Christians don't function as a social group, and also how ID isn't their social response to Evolution, then my argument will be invalid.

[QUOTE=Brasil]
You want to talk about choice, and freedom? You should study history, specifically the long-established history of the twisted (and deadly) dichotomy of religion and public education. Philadelphia 1844 is proof of why religious or spiritual doctrine or ideologues in the classroom is a bad idea. [/QUOTE] If you see the problem for what it truly is (a social one), then you will realize that "religious or spiritual doctrine or ideologues in the classroom" is unnecessary in order to solve the problem. If Evolution isn't taught in the manner I have described so many times, then the Christians' social interests will no longer be in danger. The problem will be resolved without requiring talk of religion.

[QUOTE=Brasil]
Like I've said time and time again, religious mentality has not changed since the conception of religion. It's still the same damn, repetitive argument, and I can point to any number of Catholic arguments from Philly circa 1844 and the similarities will be downright terrifying.
[/QUOTE] So long as the Christian social force is a dominant one in the United States, we must cater to their social desires. I, for one, am not personally concerned with the outcome of this 'debate'. I do not share the Christian social perspective. I do, however, find the confrontation between the "Scientist social group" and the "Christian social group" interesting. The scientists [i]want[/i] evolution to be presented to children as a way to disprove religion. The Christians want their ID theology to be required to be presented to children. What I propose disappoints both groups, and that's the beauty of it. If Evolution is presented as fallible, neither group gets what it desires, yet the problem is resolved.

Let's have the scientists and the Christians walk away from this with their heads down. Fix the problem without screwing only one group, because the way the argument between the groups is set up now, either one getting its way screws the other. In order to drive my argument home, I'll illustrate it for you. If my illustration is offensive, I apologize. I will (regretfully) make it as unoffending as possible.

Option A: Christians------>Scientists
Option B: Scientists------>Christians
Option C: ------>Scientists
------>Christians

Here I can ask a question of the rest of you viewing this thread. Which option (A,B, or C) would be most satisfying for you? If you say "option D", then you're a hippie. Nobody is coming out of this without getting screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...