Thousands of scientists have tried to disprove evolution.... all have failed. You see that's how science works, it is challenged with evidence, testing, and facts. If it passes it stays valid, if it fails it becomes invalid.
Intelligent design is not science it is religion... and any undergrad could easily prove it to be false. Keep your fairytales out of science.
I promise I won't try to introduce science or thought into your church if you don't try to bring religion into my school.
WELL IN THE SAME WAY THE GREEK PHYLOSOPHERS SAID THE EARTH WAS FLAT, nowadays most of the people have sheep mentality and go with a religious theory called evolutionism.
Only an idiot would say something you just did. It's just so sad to see that so many people don't grasp the most basic of scientific theories. Geez, believing in ID is as intelligent as believing that Sun revolves around the Earth.
Scientific LAW states that life can only come from life. If this LAW is compatible with Darwin's THEORY then I guess we can all at least agree that there must be some ultimate begining of life or that life always was...I find it said that creation or "intelligent design" could also be considered a Theory. It's too bad well meaning people had to mess it up by lying about donated books...fortunately for evolutionists all their textbooks weren't thrown out for the lies about Piltdown man.
No scientific law states that life can only come from life. Evolution science has nothing to do with how life came to be, it JUST studies how it evolved after it already was here.
Intelligent design cannot be considered a theory any more than creationism since they are the same thing. Teahcing creationism in USA was already prohibited in the early 20th century. It's religion that has nothing to do with science.
Some people say that the beauty and complexity of Nature proves there must be a Creator. It is clear to me that nature is far too beautiful and subtle and complex for YHWH to have made it. He's so simple minded: This sin? Kill 'em! That sin? Kill 'em! Worship the wrong god? Kill 'em! Belong to the wrong tribe? Kill 'em! What a one-track mind. No creativity or complexity there.
Hitler exterminated the weker species as he saw them because he was entrenched in darwinism.The darwin hypocrites refuse to debate and resort to accusations and attacking the ancient reasoning and ancient wisdom,nor can their arguments stand against intelligent design so theyre only defense is to discredit intelligent design by saying it is a religion. However athiestism is a religion to,they believe there is no God so it is their faith,and death and blood shed is in fact the end of their course
and account for flu resistance, and documented adaptations.. unfortunatly it stops short of explaining observed speciation, ERVs, psuedogenes, "fundamentally bad designs" and it also forces them to incorperate SUPER evolution to have the few 'kinds' from the ark EVOLVE into todays different species.
I like to feel sexy....knowing someone is watching me ..wanting me...turns me on!BADLY! I like to flirt and pose..and sometimes i like to get WILD! how? ..he he..come in video and youll see:-)) maybe u can teach me something..or maybe i will ! come visit me at MeetYourFling (.COM) my user-id there is henriette-jslw chat soon on cam :-) tcowa
arrrrrrr me heart'ys there be only true creator, one true lord only one believable religion arrrrrrrrrrr that be the church of the flying spaghetti monster,,,,,,,peace and meatballs be to you all ,,,,,, shiver me timbers,
Believing in scientific evolution without intelligent design could be considered a religion of it's own. Why favor that religion over another? Why teach about Greek Mythology, or other cultures- modern, historical, or tribal, where the 'religion' is certainly not scientific?
"proof" is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. Science relies on evidence and Evolution has more evidence than you could possibly imagine. Just type in "evolution" into google scholar and see what you find.
To exclude any 'theory' is bias. Just as some people believe that scientific evolution is 'truth', others believe that we were created another way, such as intelligent design. True freedom of religion and separation of church and state requires the state to not involve itself in regulating any religion.
I.D. is not scientific. It cannot be disproven. It is not scientifically useful or empirically testable.
"Just as some people believe that scientific evolution is 'truth'...."
No scientist believes evolution is absolute 'truth'. They only accept ToE as the best NATURALISTIC and useful explanation for the diversity of species.
m.a.t.t.b. = "modernity's already told then biblically"
Daniel ch. 12 has a prophecy about knowledge (science) increasing "At the time of the end". This dovetails with Revelation passages that have hiroshima-like explosions adumbrated..... Read Revelation 8:8 for details.
Are you some sort of obsessive-compulsive acronym finder? Why don't you look up all the prophecies that didn't come true and give them validity. Oh yeah, cause it would contradict your point. Silly me!
and you're a monster if you think gandhi deserves to burn in a horrific lake of fire just because he didn't accept jesus. open your eyes. you're an intolerant bigot filled with delusions of holding the supreme ultimate moral highground.
I can give you a plethora of verses to back up my post about Hinduism. I was exposed to all religions at an early age from a parent who was a Unitarian Universalist that believes all paths must be respected. I found out, though, that the God of the holy Bible is the one true God. I experienced a spate of supernatural miracles that falsified my prior atheism/nescience, in a redoubtable, heuristic fashion.
D.a.m.i.a.n.p.o.i.r.i.e.r. = "Damian attacks me in acronym now, playing on incondite reasoning in english-mangled reply"
You're not the same "Damien" in "The Omen" are you? Well, judging by the spelling of your name, you just might not be.... But your hostility toward me is telling...
Well being that you used to be an atheist I should listen to what you say and just start believing in things that have no evidence at all to support them.
Wow, my eyes are opened! God is great! I can feel his power flowing through me!... no wait, it's just gas.
OMG!!! Evolution is part of the design!!! Both sides are right! If God did not exist, we would surely have found him by now! The only clue to God's existance that I need is that there are no clues!
Christians we need to Fight for what we believe. Go vote on intelligent design right now on every site you can find polls. The evolutionisys are tearing up the net, they are voting like mad dogs to try and keep God out of schools. Please do something. Lets win this one. We are the majority but they are fighting harder by a thousand to one than us christians.
Evolution isnt dogma, in that, an excellent paper refuting evolution, or even just dealing a significant blow, would be accepted in a peer reviewed journal.
No one is holding there breath for that to happen.
Theistic evolution (a rational compromise accepting both science and God) is not the same as Intelligent Design. The concept of ID was made up as a cover for young-earth creationism. It attempted to discredit the Theory of Evolution (using unscientific arguments and deceit) while claiming that life came into existence fully formed.
There are many scientists that agree with evolution AND believe in God, but that is NOT the same as believing in the idea of Intelligent Design.
Spending a couple of hours hitting the thumbs down button 1000 times (or writing a robot to do it for you) is a slightly better use of creationists' time than spending it trying to get a science paper through peer review!
Schools are trying to shove science down students' throats. My school tried to brainwash me with some crap about the THEORY of Gravitation. As if I'm gullible enough to believe that every body of mass in the universe exerts a force on every other body of mass inversely proportional to the distance between them. They can't see every particle of mass in existence, so how could they know that!?
Yeah. I know. I want to be a doctor. The idiots at the hospital keep referring to my friend's demonic possession as 'epilepsy'. Prove it! Until they do, I'm taking him to a preacher for an exorcism.
That by itself defeats the whole purpose of science for it forces a scientist to gleefully abnegate his research whenever he encounters a problem he cannot explain -- a death sentence to exploration of unknown.
According to some proponents of ID, at some points in evolution, certain number of "insertions" have been deliberately "injected" into the process by the intelligent designer/agent which we can discern as specified complexity. The problem with this theory is that the science of evolution becomes a game of cat and mouse where scientists are challenged to determine at which points such complex transitions have occurred.
Wow,just watched the entire episode on the Nova website. I knew ID had weak evidence but this really exposed them. Is'nt it funny how the Creationists threaten murder and the Evolutionists just go on about their business.This episode really showed how slimy these people are,murder threats,lieing in court. SHAMEFUL.
It's real easy to make general statements and lump people into a group you can easily dismiss. There are very real scientist that believe in ID. Science is in constant state of change. How many times in the past has science proved that what science once believed was fact was indeed wrong. As our knowledge grows so does the possibilities..
"It's real easy to make general statements and lump people into a group you can easily dismiss. There are very real scientist that believe in ID."
True, depending on your definition of ID. The phrase has been hijacked of late by a small group of propagandists concerned with bringing down the Theory of Evolution and affecting a cultural change toward fundamentalist Christianity. If your definition of ID is different from the Discovery Institute's, I may not have as much of a problem with it.
2) There are very few biologists that believe in ID. Of those, like Michael Behe, they usually acknowledge common human/ape ancestry. Even then, Behe's argument was shown to be religion, and not science.
And if you look into Behe's personal history, his upbringing, his religious background and his key mentors, you will find that he set out to obtain advanced degrees in particular areas that would give him credibility in attacking evolutionary theory. Not a very science-like thing to do. It's a little bit like first drawing a conclusion and then seeking out observations and facts to support it.
If were so "intelligently" designed, howcum we only get two pairs of teeth? I know that Everytime I get a toothache, I, for one, envy the humble alligator!
Apparently at least 1 out of 3 Americans ( including our Retarded President) reject the idea of evolution. This in part explains the results of the '04 election!
The issue is hardly whether or not something is 'anti-Christian' or Jesus-related at all. The real issue here is the danger of pseudo science and misrepresentation. How exactly is society at large supposed to deal with willful ignorance? There really isn't much we can do, but that's not good enough because those such as Creationists/ID proponents aren't just ignorant, they do seek to undermine science and go to any lengths at which to do it -- misrepresentation, misquoting, slander...
I would second that statement, with only a possible correction to suggest. I don't think it's entirely fair to say that Creationists or proponents of ID are trying to undermine science itself. They are, I believe, trying to redefine it, so as to make possible the consideration of non naturalistic {ie supernaturalistic} explanations.
Yes, I suppose I agree. However, what I mean to say is that, from their perspective, they aren't so much belittling science, as they are "combining it" with faith. All while they are going about it ridiculously wrong, what I meant to say is that, because of their paradigm, they don't see themselves as the ones undermining Truth. That is to say, they are idiots, perhaps, but they are not malicious.
So, erosion can produce little gullies in a field (micro-erosion) but it can't produce river valleys (macro-erosion)? Get a grip. The mechanics of how major changes in body systems can occur have recently been worked out to a large extent. Check out the beautiful series of fossils that show the various fully functional animals living successfully in their own ecosystems, with no thought that their distant descendants would be whales.
ALL organisms are transitional, that's what these tools don't understand. There is no end-goal of evolution; humans are not the prize of evolution and are not the end. All species will continue to evolve. It is nothing more than ego that would make someone believe their species is ideal.
Well, yes, you're right. It is a continuity without a real goal, making everything transitional, except for the absolute last member of a species.
However, I was referring specifically to transitional predictions like 'we should find a half-fish half-amphibian looking thing that is this old'. We actually have found such fossils at approximately the correct geological stratum. That's huge evidence in favor of the theory that predicts it.
And you would be dead correct sir :) We have found these fellows, and they are creepy as can be. Do you ever visit Pharyngula? Great website and he sometimes posts pictures and diagrams of these things, including the lineage. Very cool stuff!
Ok, I didn't see my reply to you? Anyway, just in case it doesn't show, you're dead right. There are tons of cool fossils that show these predicted organisms. I love biology and paleontology esp.
As I stated previously, there is no "transitional" fossil which can be proven to be half-way between two species.
Where are the vast majority of transitional fossils that Darwin predicted? Where is even one that is exactly mid-way between to species, and doesn't look like one more than the other? The number of "transitional" fossils only decreased as science advances, despite evolutionists' intense desire to conjure up more.
"The number of "transitional" fossils only decreased as science advances"
Sigh. How anyone can misunderstand something as simple as evolution so much is beyond me. Oh yeah, you can read creationist books.
Stop thinking in terms of Macro evolution. it doesn't go fish > mamal. There are likely 10s of thousands of steps inbetween. Macro evolution doesn't exist. Only micro evolution over long periods of time.
"Where is even one that is exactly mid-way between to species, and doesn't look like one more than the other?"
You're setting up conditions for which you'll never be satisfied and are making up your own definition of transitional as exactly half way. Evolution roughly defines transitional fossils as being morphologically in between two already known species as well as occupying the particular era in time after the first species was already known to exist, and before the second species shows up.
More and more transitional fossils are coming in every year. Natural history museums around the world are filled with them. And even today in our own world, new species are evolving and being documented. Paleontologists do not have a lack of transitional fossils to prove evolution correct, you simply have a lack of desire to learn about them.
'The number of "transitional" fossils only decreased as science advances, despite evolutionists' intense desire to conjure up more.'
I don't know what to say here other than that you are flat wrong. We have found transitional equines, cetaceans, hominids and australopithecines. We have found transitional fossils between fish and amphibians, amphibians and early reptiles, diapsid reptiles and birds... the list goes on. Without Darwin's theory, these verified predictions MAKE NO SENSE.
The judges summation was excellent in describing how religion should not interfere with progress in todays world of medical and scientific advances and pursuit of knowledge.
It is time for the 30-50% of Americans to recognize the truth science offers and abandon the ego/species-centric notion of a human-like, all-powerful omniscient being.
Ok new rule: if the extent of your knowledge about evolution comes from anywhere other than actual science books (like creation seminars, or church sermons), then dont bother wasting peoples time with your ignorance. Just go read a book. Try "Finding Darwin's God" for starters.
Who makes the rules here? You?? If I were to make the ridiculous demand that you can't use anything but Creationist books ("real science books") to prove your point, you would rightly call me crazy and ridiculous. However, it is you who are requiring me to do just that (prove my point with your books.)
No, if you are going to debate science you need to use scientific resources. The books/sites/etc you use are largely NOT written by scientists and don't use the scientific method. Kent Hovind is not a scientist. I know that might shock you but it is true. He grossly misunderstands every single debating point he brings up.
Luke, you are clearly just copying and pasting talking points off of a website like AIG. You're not even debating with us. You just post a random claim, we debunk it, and then you go on and post the next claim.
It's clear from this process that you don't know the first thing about the science yourself, but are just repeating what you can copy off of some tract or website.
I have never heard of Kent Hovind and I'm only using my knowledge on the subject.
I have yet to see you debunk any of my statements with actual facts. All you guys are doing is stating what you've be told by other evolutionist and their websites. Have you seriously and equally examined both points of view?
Peer review is mostly run by evolutionists, so Creationists don't usually waste their time trying to get their opponents to review it. (What would you do if you were in their situation?)
"Peer review is mostly run by evolutionists, so Creationists don't usually waste their time trying to get their opponents to review it. (What would you do if you were in their situation?)"
We were in their situation when Darwin first proposed Evolution. Know what we did? Kept doing research, got stuff through peer review anyway and convinced the entire scientific community through honest evidential research.
Every scientific theory, including evolution, has had to fight its way up through the peer-review process in order to gain acceptancy in science. Creationists attempt to bypass that process altogether and go straight to the classrooms before their ideas have any support in the scientific community. That's cheating, and it goes against the entire scientific process.
It I was a creationist, I would do some actual research. And guess what, all of the peer reviewed astronomy journalists are run by moon landing believers. What are the hoax-theorists to do!!?? The answer is do some research and get some evidence.
For example, if a creationist found a rabbit fossil with trilobite fossils, that would be a start.
First of all, just because we can observe that small changes can build up in creatures doesn't mean they can continue on indefinitely (this was what Darwin believed, before genetics were understood). Now, however, we know that there is only a certain amount of change is possible in one's DNA and genes.
Second, there scientific LAWS, which are much more likely to be accurate than a theory. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are examples of well-known scientific laws.
"just because we can observe that small changes can build up in creatures doesn't mean they can continue on indefinitely"
Yes, but there isn't much evidence that they can't continue on. On the other hand, there is fossil evidence and geographic distributive evidence that they do continue.
"we know that there is only a certain amount of change is possible in one's DNA and genes."
That's true within a single person, but evolution is about what happens to genes across generations of individuals.
Evolution is made up up two separate "theories:" macro-evolution which is at best an unconfirmed hypothesis, and micro-evolution, which is indeed a well-documented scientific theory.
DNA can only hold a certain amount of information, a certain amount of change. The only way we have discovered to increase the amount of data that DNA can hold is mutations. However, no one has ever documented the existence of a beneficial mutation, yet macro-evolution requires it.
"However, no one has ever documented the existence of a beneficial mutation, yet macro-evolution requires it."
False statement. Thousands of beneficial mutations have been cataloged and filed, and more are coming in every single week through the journals. The only way you can believe that there has never been a documented beneficial mutation is if you've never bothered to read about them from a scientific source - which, sadly, is true for too many people.
From your admission of "microevolution", I surmise you know very well that bacteria and viruses are constantly mutating in response to our drugs. Those are beneficial mutations. They enhance the organisms' survival. If you really need specific citations from journals, I can give you some, but I have a feeling that if you think about it, you already know beneficial mutations occur -all the time-.
"Evolution is made up up two separate "theories:" macro-evolution which is at best an unconfirmed hypothesis, and micro-evolution..."
Another false statement. There is only one scientific definition of evolution - the change in heritable characteristics within any population of animals over successive generations. There is no force which stops it from occurring at the arbitrary point you imagine between "micro" and "macro". Evolution continues indefinitely as long as the population exists.
There is a huge difference between micro-evolution, which only requires the switching on or off of certain alleles in genes (which I am not disputing at all, because it has been tested), not the adding of additional information to DNA, which has only been seen to happen in mutations (which are "random" mutations of DNA, and have Never been found to be beneficial; sickle-cell Anemia is the mutation that is closest to being beneficial, and people with the disease usually die prematurely).
That's a total misunderstanding of what microevolution and macroevolution mean. They are the exact same process. The only difference is in elapsed time.
Again, the genetic journals are filled with descriptions of new beneficial mutations month after month, year after year. All you have to do is spend ten seconds Googling "examples of beneficial mutations" and you'll have more peer-reviewed citations than you can deal with.
The claim that mutations have never been observed to "increase information" is equally absurd and can only be believed by people who lack an understanding of how the process of DNA replication works. Every time a DNA molecule replicates, copy errors are made which we call mutations. They can result in an increase in "information", a decrease in "information", or a rearrangement of "information" with equal ease. This AIG stuff really has been debunked into the ground.
"DNA can only hold a certain amount of information, a certain amount of change."
That's just not even remotely true. Are you suggesting that when a DNA molecule grows to a certain length, it breaks down? Because otherwise there is no limit to the amount of "information" a DNA molecule can contain, in the form of amino acid bonds.
I would seriously advise you to reconsider this viewpoint of yours. The points you are making really are demonstrably incorrect.
I did not mean that DNA cannot be lengthened, but the DNA in your cells in a certain length, and apart for mutations, they will not be lengthened (however, the added DNA would most likely be harmful to you in some way).
Nevertheless, I do not believe that DNA is expandable infinitely as you said. What evidence do you have that DNA has no limit to its length? How can DNA be infinitely long if the mass of the cell it is contained in can only be finite?
"...the DNA in your cells in a certain length, and apart for mutations, they will not be lengthened..."
Yes, apart from mutations. In other words, mutations do increase the information in a genome, don't they?
And yes, most mutations are either harmful or produce no effect. Only a few impart a survival advantage. That's where survival of the fittest comes in. Only those imparting a survival advantage persist, because those members of the species reproduce more successfully.
I was not suggesting that a DNA molecule could actually be mathematically infinite in length. But certainly your statement, that DNA could hold only a certain amount of information, was patently false for the purposes of our discussion. Humans have only 44 chromosomes and there's room in a cell for quite a bit more than that.
"Evolution is made up up two separate "theories:" macro-evolution which is at best an unconfirmed hypothesis, and micro-evolution, which is indeed a well-documented scientific theory."
"macro evolution" as creationists call it, is only the compiling of lots of micro evolution over extended periods of time. The idea that fish became mamals is a fallacy of the creationist mind. Evolution does not actually propose any such thing once you grasp it.
"Second, there scientific LAWS, which are much more likely to be accurate than a theory."
In science, a law isn't necessarily 'higher than' or 'more valid than' a theory. You're likely thinking of the lay person's definition of theory, which is different from the scientific definition. It would be an error to think that scientists aren't as sure of evolution as thermodynamic laws because of the lay person's definitions of 'law' and 'theory'.
Scientific laws are higher than theories because they try to describe how something like gravity acts (and includes times when the law does not apply), while theories only try to explain the existence of gravity, for instance.
Lastly, the fossil record does not support macro-evolution because there is not a single fossil for which one could make a water-tight argument.
"Scientific laws are higher than theories because they try to describe how something like gravity acts (and includes times when the law does not apply), while theories only try to explain the existence of gravity, for instance."
If anything, what you said just makes them different. It's like you said that A is higher than 3...
Laws are not higher than theories, they are not the same thing. A law is a description of an observation (fact); one good one is the calculation for the speed of light. A theory is an explanation of a model; laws don't describe why something happens, theories do. A law never becomes theory, and a fact never becomes a law.
"...the fossil record does not support macro-evolution because there is not a single fossil for which one could make a water-tight argument."
Show a creationist a theropod dinosaur with feathers, and he'll say it's clearly a reptile. Show him one with feathers and wings, and he'll say it's clearly a bird. If you would be honest with yourself about what a transitional species would actually look like, you would find that the fossil record is brimming over with them.
Truly transitional species would be a mostly even mix of two separate species, in DNA, skeletal structure, internal organs and their functions, and means of reproduction.
Furthermore, a realistic theory/hypothesis as to how this could have occurred eludes scientists, who have only found mutations to be able to add DNA material of any type. However, mutations are never beneficial, so this is a dead end.
"However, mutations are never beneficial, so this is a dead end."
That argument is a dead end. Again, I have given you examples of beneficial mutations, and you know damned well that beneficial mutations occur all the time. Repeating the same old nonsense is not going to help you win an argument, nor is it going to get you any converts. You know what you're saying is patently false.
"Truly transitional species would be a mostly even mix of two separate species, in DNA, skeletal structure, internal organs and their functions, and means of reproduction."
Well they certainly wouldn't be very close to one of the two species, otherwise, why couldn't they just be a form with unusual genes? However, this is what is true of all so called "transitional forms" (as far as I know, except some may be species that were previously unknown)
"except some may be species that were previously unknown"
Yes, that is always potentially the case, but that's not the point. The point is that those fossils were predicted BEFORE we actually found them. When a theory predicts something, THEN finds it, the theory has something going for it.
"mutations are never beneficial, so this is a dead end."
Incorrect. A frame shift mutation allowed a bacterium to develop enzymes that could digest nylon. It now has a new source of food. That's pretty damn beneficial. There are other examples, but why don't you try to do your own research (off the AiG propaganda website) for a few minutes.
"Lastly, the fossil record does not support macro-evolution because there is not a single fossil for which one could make a water-tight argument. "
So what is your water tight argument for creation or ID? If you expect science to have a water tight argument, then you must also expect creation/ID to have a water tight argument.
And the fossil record is huge. I blows me away how many fossils we have found.
I am only talking about the fossil record, not the theory of evolution.
Yes, the number of fossils we have found is amazing, but what type of creature is the most prominent in the fossil record? (The answer might surprise you) Clams make up over 90% of all found fossils, and are found in literally every strata layer, yet they are not shown in the geological column (evolutionists' visual representation of the fossil record). How can evolution explain this? By ignoring the clams.
Don't shift the goal posts. You expect water tight arguments, so I do as well. What is your water tight argument? You don't have one. The only thing people like you can do is attack evolution. Its called a negative argument, and it is proof of nothing.
So you are claiming some type of scientific conspiracy or cover up of the truth? Get a grip man. Get off the AiG website.
The fossil record by it's very nature will always be incomplete,but if your gonna try to argue that fossils show evolution is not correct then find me one Hominid in the early geological record.A Hominid fossil along side a trilobite,or even a Dinosaur,would be very damning. Also,the fossil record is nothing compared to the genetic record,something you don't see creationist bring up,ever.
"Clams... are found in literally every strata layer, yet they are not shown in the geological column."
Utterly false claim.
There is no such thing as a fossil which is not part of the geological column. You would understand that if you had any idea what the term "geological column" means. Anything found in the earth is part of the geological column, including all clam fossils. Whatever website you got that claim from was full of shit, and frankly, so are you.
The geological column is a representation of the fossil record, with the fossils categorized by the strata layer they are commonly found in (though no place in earth's crust looks like that, it is a combination of many different places on earth). The two are not the same. The geological column does not contain all fossils, while the fossil record does.
I didn't get this information from any one source, or even a website at all. This is the combination of years of research.
"Clams make up over 90% of all found fossils, and are found in literally every strata layer, yet they are not shown in the geological column (evolutionists' visual representation of the fossil record)."
That's funny, because I'm sure I've seen mollusks in evolutionary diagrams before. How can one explain this? By ignoring the diagrams.
My main point is that clams are in "literally every strata layer" and this is not shown in the geological column, not that some geological column representations have clams and/or mollusks. Please don't ignore my main points, give me a fair hearing.
But Luke, the strata layers ARE the geological column. The geological column is simply the layers of geological strata stacked on top of each other, so saying fossilized clams exist in the strata, but not in the column, is pure gibberish.
Websites like AIG can only make claims like that because they know their readers will not understand the science well enough to realize how false they are.
Really, you keep telling us to look at both sides, give yours a fair hearing, etc., but from the mere claims you're making, it's clear that you haven't done the same.
Oh yea. I just remembered that I heard a debate between Hovind and someone, and both the interviewer and Hovind's opponent spent literally half of the debate trying to explain to Hovind how columns are a cross-section of multiple strata and why that is significant and he just wasn't getting it.
Actually, in science, laws are lower than theories. A scientific law is just a statement about how things generally are. Nature often breaks scientific laws; for example, Newton's law of gravity fails to apply in certain cases. Theories, on the other hand, are never broken.
But that wouldn't matter anyway since evolution contains numerous laws, such as the laws of heredity and the law of natural selection. ;)
I'm sorry, but it is incorrect to say that theories are never broken. Any law, theory, or hypothesis that science makes can be broken, possibly with only one experiment. Science cannot prove anything, it can only make guesses
When I say that a scientific theory cannot be broken, I mean that if a scientific theory can be shown to have been broken, it ceases to be a valid theory. That's as opposed to a scientific law, which can be broken and remains a valid law, because all that scientific laws are supposed to be are generalized observations about the natural world. Hence Newton's Laws continue to be valid laws, even though the Einsteinian THEORY of Relativity shows them to be sometimes incorrect.
Right, but that seems to me that that makes laws better than theories, because they can repaired without scrapping the whole law, while theories cannot (or can they... what about Neo-Darwinism and the constantly "evolving" theory of Evolution?)
You're missing the point. Newton's Laws are wrong in certain cases. They haven't been "repaired" to make them universally correct. They are simply wrong often enough, but that's okay, because a law in science is only expected to be GENERALLY true, not always true, whereas a theory has to be ALWAYS true.
When a theory has a flaw, it is revised to be once more in accordance with reality. Instead of sneering at that process, you should applaud it.
The original 19th-century theory of evolution turned out to be wrong on some of the details. When scientists became aware of that, they revised the theory to bring it once more in line with the facts. I don't understand how you could consider that to be a weakness. If anything it shows how scientific theory is more reliable than religious dogma, which never changes no matter how much evidence is presented.
this is like a soap opera :P I know people who said it wasnt this big
besides this whole thing is one sided
DeJay14 1 year ago
Thousands of scientists have tried to disprove evolution.... all have failed. You see that's how science works, it is challenged with evidence, testing, and facts. If it passes it stays valid, if it fails it becomes invalid.
Intelligent design is not science it is religion... and any undergrad could easily prove it to be false. Keep your fairytales out of science.
I promise I won't try to introduce science or thought into your church if you don't try to bring religion into my school.
fantasticHorus 2 years ago
WELL IN THE SAME WAY THE GREEK PHYLOSOPHERS SAID THE EARTH WAS FLAT, nowadays most of the people have sheep mentality and go with a religious theory called evolutionism.
theredrooter 2 years ago
It says a lot about the extent of something's intelligence they type A LOT OF CAPS and can't even spell philosophers correctly.
I thought it was fcking sick how death threats could be made to the judge who ruled that creationism is religion.
It shows how many crazies there are in the creationist community.
aLotS 2 years ago
is the evolution theory based on experimental science or rather on faith leaps?
Is Intelligent Design based on science?
Evolutionists repeatedly call evolution what ID calls mutations.
Do young mindless teenagers get indoctrinated with evolution by media and schools? YES
Do most of the people believe in evolution? YES
theredrooter 2 years ago
Only an idiot would say something you just did. It's just so sad to see that so many people don't grasp the most basic of scientific theories. Geez, believing in ID is as intelligent as believing that Sun revolves around the Earth.
AinEstonia 2 years ago
I want Matrix Bullet Dodging given equal time in PE classrooms.
777Skeptic 2 years ago
I believe in science i dont think god had anyhing to do with this...I think earth is testing the human rase...
gam3pur3 2 years ago
Scientific LAW states that life can only come from life. If this LAW is compatible with Darwin's THEORY then I guess we can all at least agree that there must be some ultimate begining of life or that life always was...I find it said that creation or "intelligent design" could also be considered a Theory. It's too bad well meaning people had to mess it up by lying about donated books...fortunately for evolutionists all their textbooks weren't thrown out for the lies about Piltdown man.
jlab 2 years ago
"Scientific LAW states that life can only come from life."
Really which one?
" creation or "intelligent design" could also be considered a Theory"
no they are ideas, they are not facts with the teh Theory of evidence to prove it!
"Piltdown man."
Proven wrong by scientists.
Care to talk about DNA which proves humans and chimps are related?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
"Piltdown man."
Proven wrong by scientists...
My point exactly yet
sold to indoctrinate to kids/students the "science" of evolution
but sold as science in brainwashing evolutionary textbooks as truth...snake oil salesmen thats the evolution proponents for you
jlab 2 years ago
"sold to indoctrinate to kids/students the "science" of evolution"
Evolution is science, its been proven
No scientists said it was human.
Let me guess you liek to pretend the bible is true?
Ark? LOL
Tower of babale? LOL
Creation? LOL offcourse
6000 year old world? LOL
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
No scientific law states that life can only come from life. Evolution science has nothing to do with how life came to be, it JUST studies how it evolved after it already was here.
Intelligent design cannot be considered a theory any more than creationism since they are the same thing. Teahcing creationism in USA was already prohibited in the early 20th century. It's religion that has nothing to do with science.
SternMann93 2 years ago
"creation or "intelligent design" could also be considered a Theory"
Not a scientific theory as in whats taught in educational institutions.
That why its not taught anywhere, just like talking donkey theory and unicorn theory you will only find in churches, the place of basless beliefs.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
bothsidesofthecoin1 I don't even know where to start as it pertains to your comments. You may lack the ability to reason.
hitoallandme 3 years ago
Hitler exterminated the weker species as he saw them because he was entrenched in darwinism.The darwin hypocrites refuse to debate and resort to accusations and attacking the ancient reasoning and ancient wisdom,nor can their arguments stand against intelligent design so theyre only defense is to discredit intelligent design by saying it is a religion. However athiestism is a religion to,they believe there is no God so it is their faith,and death and blood shed is in fact the end of their course
bothsidesofthecoin1 3 years ago
Athiestism? Wow, your stupid is funny.
kyledavidbyron 2 years ago
Comment removed
meloveanna 2 years ago
Evolution is not dead.
Describe your perception of evolution, maybe I can correct some misconceptions.
RaustBD 3 years ago
cosmic Evolution (big bang theory) , chemical Evolution , stellar and planetary Evolution ,
organic Evolution ( origin of life ) , macro Evolution ..
i sepuse he was talking about those not micro coz micro is the only 1 we can actualy see teset and demonstrate
twity100 3 years ago
do you even know why creationists accept micro-evolution?
it's so they can attempt to rationalize the flood story by reducing the number of "kinds" that would be on the ark.
RaustBD 3 years ago
and account for flu resistance, and documented adaptations.. unfortunatly it stops short of explaining observed speciation, ERVs, psuedogenes, "fundamentally bad designs" and it also forces them to incorperate SUPER evolution to have the few 'kinds' from the ark EVOLVE into todays different species.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Out of all those, only macro evolution is evolution. And I've heard that line before. Stop being duped by Gish.
internetaccount122 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like to feel sexy....knowing someone is watching me ..wanting me...turns me on!BADLY! I like to flirt and pose..and sometimes i like to get WILD! how? ..he he..come in video and youll see:-)) maybe u can teach me something..or maybe i will ! come visit me at MeetYourFling (.COM) my user-id there is henriette-jslw chat soon on cam :-) tcowa
gothchilddomain 3 years ago
i like that evolution won the court case :)
DinoBot69 3 years ago
"Is Intelligent Design a scientific alternative to Evolution?"
Coming up:
"Is Hoodoo a biological alternative to Medicine?"
miseriaykretek 3 years ago
voodoo?
DinoBot69 3 years ago
Voodoo is a religion, Hoodoo is a pratice.
miseriaykretek 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
arrrrrrr me heart'ys there be only true creator, one true lord only one believable religion arrrrrrrrrrr that be the church of the flying spaghetti monster,,,,,,,peace and meatballs be to you all ,,,,,, shiver me timbers,
jubbster 4 years ago
judjment day will come but when you wont expet it tho
hendixian 4 years ago
Believing in scientific evolution without intelligent design could be considered a religion of it's own. Why favor that religion over another? Why teach about Greek Mythology, or other cultures- modern, historical, or tribal, where the 'religion' is certainly not scientific?
nzalud2 4 years ago
"Believing in scientific evolution"
Again, no scientist believes in evolution anymore than they believe that the Earth goes around the sun or that gravity keeps us from floating off.
Evolution goes under the same processes as every other science: observation, experimentation, peer review and publication.
antidense 4 years ago
So, why then should any other unproven idea or concept be excluded?
nzalud2 4 years ago
"proof" is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. Science relies on evidence and Evolution has more evidence than you could possibly imagine. Just type in "evolution" into google scholar and see what you find.
antidense 4 years ago
Both should be included.
To exclude any 'theory' is bias. Just as some people believe that scientific evolution is 'truth', others believe that we were created another way, such as intelligent design. True freedom of religion and separation of church and state requires the state to not involve itself in regulating any religion.
nzalud2 4 years ago
"To exclude any 'theory' is bias. "
I.D. is not scientific. It cannot be disproven. It is not scientifically useful or empirically testable.
"Just as some people believe that scientific evolution is 'truth'...."
No scientist believes evolution is absolute 'truth'. They only accept ToE as the best NATURALISTIC and useful explanation for the diversity of species.
antidense 4 years ago
I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.T.
D.E.S.I.G.N. = "I'm Now Typing Each Letter Like Invisible God Encoded Natural Things. DNA's Encoded Sequencing Is God-engineered Now"
As a former atheist, I know for a fact that all skeptics are in for the shock of their lives someday.....
Acronym77 4 years ago
For a fact eh?
mattb521 4 years ago
Yes. With apodictic certainty.....
Acronym77 4 years ago
m.a.t.t.b. = "modernity's already told then biblically"
Daniel ch. 12 has a prophecy about knowledge (science) increasing "At the time of the end". This dovetails with Revelation passages that have hiroshima-like explosions adumbrated..... Read Revelation 8:8 for details.
Acronym77 4 years ago
Are you some sort of obsessive-compulsive acronym finder? Why don't you look up all the prophecies that didn't come true and give them validity. Oh yeah, cause it would contradict your point. Silly me!
mattb521 4 years ago
O.B.S.E.S.S.I.V.E. C.O.M.P.U.L.S.I.V.E. = "Once Biblical Scientists Eventually Silence Scientists Ignorantly Valuing Evolution, Comeuppance Only Means People Ultimately Learned Superstition Invented Vacuous Evolution"
Acronym77 4 years ago
R.E.T.A.R.D.E.D = Religious Endeavors to Thrust Apologetics for a Religious Doctrine Evidentially Devoid.
RaustBD 3 years ago
R.a.u.s.t.B.D. = "Ridiculous acronym underestimates soteriological truths By Diety"
Acronym77 3 years ago
okay this is going nowhere.
tell me, is gandhi in hell?
what about the victims of the holocaust?
RaustBD 3 years ago
R.a.u.s.t.B.D. = "Rebelling Against Universal Savior Truly Brings Damnation"
I believe he is. He was given an opportunity to believe in Christ, and rejected him.
Acronym77 3 years ago
okay, stop with those annoying acronyms.
and you're a monster if you think gandhi deserves to burn in a horrific lake of fire just because he didn't accept jesus. open your eyes. you're an intolerant bigot filled with delusions of holding the supreme ultimate moral highground.
RaustBD 3 years ago
R.a.u.s.t.B.D. = "Revelation apocalyptically Unveils serious torment burning doubters"
Acronym77 3 years ago
you're getting really annoying, you know that?
RaustBD 3 years ago
G.A.N.D.H.I. = "God Almighty Now Damns Hinduism's Idolatry"
Acronym77 3 years ago
I can give you a plethora of verses to back up my post about Hinduism. I was exposed to all religions at an early age from a parent who was a Unitarian Universalist that believes all paths must be respected. I found out, though, that the God of the holy Bible is the one true God. I experienced a spate of supernatural miracles that falsified my prior atheism/nescience, in a redoubtable, heuristic fashion.
Acronym77 3 years ago
Dude you're fucked up!!
kusalaviro 3 years ago
Assholes Constantly Regurgitate Offal, Needless Yogurt Man
damianpoirier 3 years ago
D.a.m.i.a.n.p.o.i.r.i.e.r. = "Damian attacks me in acronym now, playing on incondite reasoning in english-mangled reply"
You're not the same "Damien" in "The Omen" are you? Well, judging by the spelling of your name, you just might not be.... But your hostility toward me is telling...
Acronym77 3 years ago
Revelations describes nothing even REMOTELY like the explosion of atomic weapons. To suggest that it does is to be disingenuous in the extreme.
effyleven 4 years ago
Well being that you used to be an atheist I should listen to what you say and just start believing in things that have no evidence at all to support them.
Wow, my eyes are opened! God is great! I can feel his power flowing through me!... no wait, it's just gas.
KurNorock 4 years ago
Okay, rebuke all the arguments that atheists give.
internetaccount122 3 years ago
OMG!!! Evolution is part of the design!!! Both sides are right! If God did not exist, we would surely have found him by now! The only clue to God's existance that I need is that there are no clues!
JusticeLeague9 4 years ago
No clues = proof?
I have never seen any clues of an elephant in my front yard. Does that mean there is one?
KurNorock 4 years ago
hahah YES!
mattb521 4 years ago
Christians we need to Fight for what we believe. Go vote on intelligent design right now on every site you can find polls. The evolutionisys are tearing up the net, they are voting like mad dogs to try and keep God out of schools. Please do something. Lets win this one. We are the majority but they are fighting harder by a thousand to one than us christians.
NoneBeforeNoneAfter 4 years ago
The polls show that the majority of the population do not want creationism ins science class.
internetaccount122 3 years ago
My video to be or not to be
Proves intelligent design
What did you think?
oh you never
4take4give 4 years ago
i missed this is there a place i could find it
nailo1 4 years ago
I would argue that this video says "is ID a scientific alternative to evolution"...
Absolutely not. Creationism is promoted dogmatically; it's a religion. However, evolution isn't science, and should be understood as dogma, too.
I would argue that even young-Earth creationists believe in some types of Evolution -- they don't dismiss it all.
but I'm not going to argue about this. The Bible says not to "cast your perils before swine". Cheers.
DreamAnderson 4 years ago
Evolution isnt dogma, in that, an excellent paper refuting evolution, or even just dealing a significant blow, would be accepted in a peer reviewed journal.
No one is holding there breath for that to happen.
4ourthofjuly 4 years ago
Theistic evolution (a rational compromise accepting both science and God) is not the same as Intelligent Design. The concept of ID was made up as a cover for young-earth creationism. It attempted to discredit the Theory of Evolution (using unscientific arguments and deceit) while claiming that life came into existence fully formed.
There are many scientists that agree with evolution AND believe in God, but that is NOT the same as believing in the idea of Intelligent Design.
nin4247 4 years ago
Well stated.
seethebright 4 years ago
Spending a couple of hours hitting the thumbs down button 1000 times (or writing a robot to do it for you) is a slightly better use of creationists' time than spending it trying to get a science paper through peer review!
danmoore5000 4 years ago 3
Schools are trying to shove science down students' throats. My school tried to brainwash me with some crap about the THEORY of Gravitation. As if I'm gullible enough to believe that every body of mass in the universe exerts a force on every other body of mass inversely proportional to the distance between them. They can't see every particle of mass in existence, so how could they know that!?
nin4247 4 years ago 3
sarcasm?
menotyou66 4 years ago
Yeah. I know. I want to be a doctor. The idiots at the hospital keep referring to my friend's demonic possession as 'epilepsy'. Prove it! Until they do, I'm taking him to a preacher for an exorcism.
tattypatty 4 years ago
Six thumbs down is a slightly better argument than Irreducible Complexity.
danmoore5000 4 years ago 2
Looks like the ID'ers came through here and gave a thumbs-down to all the comments, instead of putting forth an argument.
particle409 4 years ago
i know it's hilarious.
they're so pathetic.
ManBearPiglet 4 years ago
That by itself defeats the whole purpose of science for it forces a scientist to gleefully abnegate his research whenever he encounters a problem he cannot explain -- a death sentence to exploration of unknown.
ariakokoschka 4 years ago
According to some proponents of ID, at some points in evolution, certain number of "insertions" have been deliberately "injected" into the process by the intelligent designer/agent which we can discern as specified complexity. The problem with this theory is that the science of evolution becomes a game of cat and mouse where scientists are challenged to determine at which points such complex transitions have occurred.
ariakokoschka 4 years ago
Wow,just watched the entire episode on the Nova website. I knew ID had weak evidence but this really exposed them. Is'nt it funny how the Creationists threaten murder and the Evolutionists just go on about their business.This episode really showed how slimy these people are,murder threats,lieing in court. SHAMEFUL.
tigeroak 4 years ago
It's real easy to make general statements and lump people into a group you can easily dismiss. There are very real scientist that believe in ID. Science is in constant state of change. How many times in the past has science proved that what science once believed was fact was indeed wrong. As our knowledge grows so does the possibilities..
klscon 4 years ago
"It's real easy to make general statements and lump people into a group you can easily dismiss. There are very real scientist that believe in ID."
True, depending on your definition of ID. The phrase has been hijacked of late by a small group of propagandists concerned with bringing down the Theory of Evolution and affecting a cultural change toward fundamentalist Christianity. If your definition of ID is different from the Discovery Institute's, I may not have as much of a problem with it.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
klscon,
1) Science far more often proves religion wrong.
2) There are very few biologists that believe in ID. Of those, like Michael Behe, they usually acknowledge common human/ape ancestry. Even then, Behe's argument was shown to be religion, and not science.
particle409 4 years ago
And if you look into Behe's personal history, his upbringing, his religious background and his key mentors, you will find that he set out to obtain advanced degrees in particular areas that would give him credibility in attacking evolutionary theory. Not a very science-like thing to do. It's a little bit like first drawing a conclusion and then seeking out observations and facts to support it.
seethebright 4 years ago
If were so "intelligently" designed, howcum we only get two pairs of teeth? I know that Everytime I get a toothache, I, for one, envy the humble alligator!
fmix10 4 years ago
Fundamentalism is definitely part of the foul underbelly of our society.
ske5721 4 years ago
Apparently at least 1 out of 3 Americans ( including our Retarded President) reject the idea of evolution. This in part explains the results of the '04 election!
ske5721 4 years ago
The issue is hardly whether or not something is 'anti-Christian' or Jesus-related at all. The real issue here is the danger of pseudo science and misrepresentation. How exactly is society at large supposed to deal with willful ignorance? There really isn't much we can do, but that's not good enough because those such as Creationists/ID proponents aren't just ignorant, they do seek to undermine science and go to any lengths at which to do it -- misrepresentation, misquoting, slander...
tofolkvangr 4 years ago
I would second that statement, with only a possible correction to suggest. I don't think it's entirely fair to say that Creationists or proponents of ID are trying to undermine science itself. They are, I believe, trying to redefine it, so as to make possible the consideration of non naturalistic {ie supernaturalistic} explanations.
Tyrel003 4 years ago
Which is undermining science. It is an attempt to turn it into something it is not. Namely, theology.
dawkinsatheist 4 years ago
Yes, I suppose I agree. However, what I mean to say is that, from their perspective, they aren't so much belittling science, as they are "combining it" with faith. All while they are going about it ridiculously wrong, what I meant to say is that, because of their paradigm, they don't see themselves as the ones undermining Truth. That is to say, they are idiots, perhaps, but they are not malicious.
Tyrel003 4 years ago
"This is ANTI-Christian and has been a blemish on the "true" teachings of Jesus"
It is obvious that the FREEDOM and INDEPENDENCE of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are thearted by AL-QEIDA as well as the CHRISTIAN RIGHT (BORN AGAINS).
collateral121 4 years ago
So, erosion can produce little gullies in a field (micro-erosion) but it can't produce river valleys (macro-erosion)? Get a grip. The mechanics of how major changes in body systems can occur have recently been worked out to a large extent. Check out the beautiful series of fossils that show the various fully functional animals living successfully in their own ecosystems, with no thought that their distant descendants would be whales.
boingsquared 4 years ago
ALL organisms are transitional, that's what these tools don't understand. There is no end-goal of evolution; humans are not the prize of evolution and are not the end. All species will continue to evolve. It is nothing more than ego that would make someone believe their species is ideal.
farslayer9 4 years ago
Well, yes, you're right. It is a continuity without a real goal, making everything transitional, except for the absolute last member of a species.
However, I was referring specifically to transitional predictions like 'we should find a half-fish half-amphibian looking thing that is this old'. We actually have found such fossils at approximately the correct geological stratum. That's huge evidence in favor of the theory that predicts it.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
And you would be dead correct sir :) We have found these fellows, and they are creepy as can be. Do you ever visit Pharyngula? Great website and he sometimes posts pictures and diagrams of these things, including the lineage. Very cool stuff!
farslayer9 4 years ago
Cool.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
Ok, I didn't see my reply to you? Anyway, just in case it doesn't show, you're dead right. There are tons of cool fossils that show these predicted organisms. I love biology and paleontology esp.
farslayer9 4 years ago
As I stated previously, there is no "transitional" fossil which can be proven to be half-way between two species.
Where are the vast majority of transitional fossils that Darwin predicted? Where is even one that is exactly mid-way between to species, and doesn't look like one more than the other? The number of "transitional" fossils only decreased as science advances, despite evolutionists' intense desire to conjure up more.
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 10
"The number of "transitional" fossils only decreased as science advances"
Sigh. How anyone can misunderstand something as simple as evolution so much is beyond me. Oh yeah, you can read creationist books.
Stop thinking in terms of Macro evolution. it doesn't go fish > mamal. There are likely 10s of thousands of steps inbetween. Macro evolution doesn't exist. Only micro evolution over long periods of time.
Jonobos 4 years ago
'As I stated previously, there is no "transitional" fossil which can be proven to be half-way between two species.'
Define "half-way". Do you mean exactly half-way as in 2 is half way between 1 and 3, not 1.99999999999999999?
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"Where are the vast majority of transitional fossils that Darwin predicted?"
In Biology departments at your local colleges and universities, and in science museums.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"Where is even one that is exactly mid-way between to species, and doesn't look like one more than the other?"
You're setting up conditions for which you'll never be satisfied and are making up your own definition of transitional as exactly half way. Evolution roughly defines transitional fossils as being morphologically in between two already known species as well as occupying the particular era in time after the first species was already known to exist, and before the second species shows up.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
More and more transitional fossils are coming in every year. Natural history museums around the world are filled with them. And even today in our own world, new species are evolving and being documented. Paleontologists do not have a lack of transitional fossils to prove evolution correct, you simply have a lack of desire to learn about them.
quiIl 4 years ago
'The number of "transitional" fossils only decreased as science advances, despite evolutionists' intense desire to conjure up more.'
I don't know what to say here other than that you are flat wrong. We have found transitional equines, cetaceans, hominids and australopithecines. We have found transitional fossils between fish and amphibians, amphibians and early reptiles, diapsid reptiles and birds... the list goes on. Without Darwin's theory, these verified predictions MAKE NO SENSE.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
I saw it, i think it says alot about Christians nuts in power beating their irrational beliefs into young kids.
Judge was appointed by a republican christian also, so its a slap on their face. literally
lvthypain 4 years ago
Watched it tonight.
An important piece of journalism.
The judges summation was excellent in describing how religion should not interfere with progress in todays world of medical and scientific advances and pursuit of knowledge.
It is time for the 30-50% of Americans to recognize the truth science offers and abandon the ego/species-centric notion of a human-like, all-powerful omniscient being.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
whoa, the devil's working overtime!
skihas1 4 years ago 7
Ok new rule: if the extent of your knowledge about evolution comes from anywhere other than actual science books (like creation seminars, or church sermons), then dont bother wasting peoples time with your ignorance. Just go read a book. Try "Finding Darwin's God" for starters.
zakiechan 4 years ago
Who makes the rules here? You?? If I were to make the ridiculous demand that you can't use anything but Creationist books ("real science books") to prove your point, you would rightly call me crazy and ridiculous. However, it is you who are requiring me to do just that (prove my point with your books.)
New rule: stop making ridiculous rules.
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 10
No, if you are going to debate science you need to use scientific resources. The books/sites/etc you use are largely NOT written by scientists and don't use the scientific method. Kent Hovind is not a scientist. I know that might shock you but it is true. He grossly misunderstands every single debating point he brings up.
Jonobos 4 years ago
Luke, you are clearly just copying and pasting talking points off of a website like AIG. You're not even debating with us. You just post a random claim, we debunk it, and then you go on and post the next claim.
It's clear from this process that you don't know the first thing about the science yourself, but are just repeating what you can copy off of some tract or website.
quiIl 4 years ago
How about we develop a system to make it easier to identify which publications are good science and which are not?
Oh wait, we have that. It's called peer review. Creationists tend to try to get around it...
danmoore5000 4 years ago
I have never heard of Kent Hovind and I'm only using my knowledge on the subject.
I have yet to see you debunk any of my statements with actual facts. All you guys are doing is stating what you've be told by other evolutionist and their websites. Have you seriously and equally examined both points of view?
Peer review is mostly run by evolutionists, so Creationists don't usually waste their time trying to get their opponents to review it. (What would you do if you were in their situation?)
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 10
"All you guys are doing is stating what you've be told by other evolutionist and their websites."
And their peer reviewed journals, and their classes, and their labs and museums where you can actually SEE the evidence and the tests.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"Peer review is mostly run by evolutionists, so Creationists don't usually waste their time trying to get their opponents to review it. (What would you do if you were in their situation?)"
We were in their situation when Darwin first proposed Evolution. Know what we did? Kept doing research, got stuff through peer review anyway and convinced the entire scientific community through honest evidential research.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
Every scientific theory, including evolution, has had to fight its way up through the peer-review process in order to gain acceptancy in science. Creationists attempt to bypass that process altogether and go straight to the classrooms before their ideas have any support in the scientific community. That's cheating, and it goes against the entire scientific process.
quiIl 4 years ago
It I was a creationist, I would do some actual research. And guess what, all of the peer reviewed astronomy journalists are run by moon landing believers. What are the hoax-theorists to do!!?? The answer is do some research and get some evidence.
For example, if a creationist found a rabbit fossil with trilobite fossils, that would be a start.
zakiechan 4 years ago
Its common sense. I am not going to go discuss the holocaust if the extent of my knowledge of it comes from holocaust deniers.
I am just in favor of intellectual honesty. Willfully ignorance (such as you seem to want to promote) is not part of intellectual honesty.
zakiechan 4 years ago
First of all, just because we can observe that small changes can build up in creatures doesn't mean they can continue on indefinitely (this was what Darwin believed, before genetics were understood). Now, however, we know that there is only a certain amount of change is possible in one's DNA and genes.
Second, there scientific LAWS, which are much more likely to be accurate than a theory. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are examples of well-known scientific laws.
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 6
"just because we can observe that small changes can build up in creatures doesn't mean they can continue on indefinitely"
Yes, but there isn't much evidence that they can't continue on. On the other hand, there is fossil evidence and geographic distributive evidence that they do continue.
"we know that there is only a certain amount of change is possible in one's DNA and genes."
That's true within a single person, but evolution is about what happens to genes across generations of individuals.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
Evolution is made up up two separate "theories:" macro-evolution which is at best an unconfirmed hypothesis, and micro-evolution, which is indeed a well-documented scientific theory.
DNA can only hold a certain amount of information, a certain amount of change. The only way we have discovered to increase the amount of data that DNA can hold is mutations. However, no one has ever documented the existence of a beneficial mutation, yet macro-evolution requires it.
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 7
"However, no one has ever documented the existence of a beneficial mutation, yet macro-evolution requires it."
False statement. Thousands of beneficial mutations have been cataloged and filed, and more are coming in every single week through the journals. The only way you can believe that there has never been a documented beneficial mutation is if you've never bothered to read about them from a scientific source - which, sadly, is true for too many people.
quiIl 4 years ago
Ok, name a dozen by name, (or one for that matter), if there are actually thousands.
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 7
From your admission of "microevolution", I surmise you know very well that bacteria and viruses are constantly mutating in response to our drugs. Those are beneficial mutations. They enhance the organisms' survival. If you really need specific citations from journals, I can give you some, but I have a feeling that if you think about it, you already know beneficial mutations occur -all the time-.
quiIl 4 years ago
"Ok, name a dozen by name, (or one for that matter), if there are actually thousands."
Do a little research. Google 'beneficial mutations' and the first thing that comes up is a page full of examples.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"Evolution is made up up two separate "theories:" macro-evolution which is at best an unconfirmed hypothesis, and micro-evolution..."
Another false statement. There is only one scientific definition of evolution - the change in heritable characteristics within any population of animals over successive generations. There is no force which stops it from occurring at the arbitrary point you imagine between "micro" and "macro". Evolution continues indefinitely as long as the population exists.
quiIl 4 years ago
There is a huge difference between micro-evolution, which only requires the switching on or off of certain alleles in genes (which I am not disputing at all, because it has been tested), not the adding of additional information to DNA, which has only been seen to happen in mutations (which are "random" mutations of DNA, and have Never been found to be beneficial; sickle-cell Anemia is the mutation that is closest to being beneficial, and people with the disease usually die prematurely).
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 7
That's a total misunderstanding of what microevolution and macroevolution mean. They are the exact same process. The only difference is in elapsed time.
Again, the genetic journals are filled with descriptions of new beneficial mutations month after month, year after year. All you have to do is spend ten seconds Googling "examples of beneficial mutations" and you'll have more peer-reviewed citations than you can deal with.
quiIl 4 years ago
The claim that mutations have never been observed to "increase information" is equally absurd and can only be believed by people who lack an understanding of how the process of DNA replication works. Every time a DNA molecule replicates, copy errors are made which we call mutations. They can result in an increase in "information", a decrease in "information", or a rearrangement of "information" with equal ease. This AIG stuff really has been debunked into the ground.
quiIl 4 years ago
"sickle-cell Anemia is the mutation that is closest to being beneficial"
It sure is... if you ignore most of today's research on other beneficial mutations.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"DNA can only hold a certain amount of information, a certain amount of change."
That's just not even remotely true. Are you suggesting that when a DNA molecule grows to a certain length, it breaks down? Because otherwise there is no limit to the amount of "information" a DNA molecule can contain, in the form of amino acid bonds.
I would seriously advise you to reconsider this viewpoint of yours. The points you are making really are demonstrably incorrect.
quiIl 4 years ago
I did not mean that DNA cannot be lengthened, but the DNA in your cells in a certain length, and apart for mutations, they will not be lengthened (however, the added DNA would most likely be harmful to you in some way).
Nevertheless, I do not believe that DNA is expandable infinitely as you said. What evidence do you have that DNA has no limit to its length? How can DNA be infinitely long if the mass of the cell it is contained in can only be finite?
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 6
"...the DNA in your cells in a certain length, and apart for mutations, they will not be lengthened..."
Yes, apart from mutations. In other words, mutations do increase the information in a genome, don't they?
And yes, most mutations are either harmful or produce no effect. Only a few impart a survival advantage. That's where survival of the fittest comes in. Only those imparting a survival advantage persist, because those members of the species reproduce more successfully.
quiIl 4 years ago
I was not suggesting that a DNA molecule could actually be mathematically infinite in length. But certainly your statement, that DNA could hold only a certain amount of information, was patently false for the purposes of our discussion. Humans have only 44 chromosomes and there's room in a cell for quite a bit more than that.
quiIl 4 years ago
Sorry, I know you've heard that argument before, but the micro- versus macro- dichotomy you're referring to is a false one.
Over the billion+ years we now know that evolution has been occurring, there has been plenty of time for "micro" evolution to have "macro" effects.
Your position has been debunked numerous times.
danieljpost 4 years ago
"Evolution is made up up two separate "theories:" macro-evolution which is at best an unconfirmed hypothesis, and micro-evolution, which is indeed a well-documented scientific theory."
"macro evolution" as creationists call it, is only the compiling of lots of micro evolution over extended periods of time. The idea that fish became mamals is a fallacy of the creationist mind. Evolution does not actually propose any such thing once you grasp it.
Jonobos 4 years ago
"Second, there scientific LAWS, which are much more likely to be accurate than a theory."
In science, a law isn't necessarily 'higher than' or 'more valid than' a theory. You're likely thinking of the lay person's definition of theory, which is different from the scientific definition. It would be an error to think that scientists aren't as sure of evolution as thermodynamic laws because of the lay person's definitions of 'law' and 'theory'.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
Scientific laws are higher than theories because they try to describe how something like gravity acts (and includes times when the law does not apply), while theories only try to explain the existence of gravity, for instance.
Lastly, the fossil record does not support macro-evolution because there is not a single fossil for which one could make a water-tight argument.
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 6
"Scientific laws are higher than theories because they try to describe how something like gravity acts (and includes times when the law does not apply), while theories only try to explain the existence of gravity, for instance."
If anything, what you said just makes them different. It's like you said that A is higher than 3...
danmoore5000 4 years ago
Laws are not higher than theories, they are not the same thing. A law is a description of an observation (fact); one good one is the calculation for the speed of light. A theory is an explanation of a model; laws don't describe why something happens, theories do. A law never becomes theory, and a fact never becomes a law.
farslayer9 4 years ago
"the fossil record does not support macro-evolution because there is not a single fossil for which one could make a water-tight argument."
Predicting transitional fossils and then finding them is a pretty damn good argument.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"...the fossil record does not support macro-evolution because there is not a single fossil for which one could make a water-tight argument."
Show a creationist a theropod dinosaur with feathers, and he'll say it's clearly a reptile. Show him one with feathers and wings, and he'll say it's clearly a bird. If you would be honest with yourself about what a transitional species would actually look like, you would find that the fossil record is brimming over with them.
quiIl 4 years ago
Truly transitional species would be a mostly even mix of two separate species, in DNA, skeletal structure, internal organs and their functions, and means of reproduction.
Furthermore, a realistic theory/hypothesis as to how this could have occurred eludes scientists, who have only found mutations to be able to add DNA material of any type. However, mutations are never beneficial, so this is a dead end.
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 6
"However, mutations are never beneficial, so this is a dead end."
That argument is a dead end. Again, I have given you examples of beneficial mutations, and you know damned well that beneficial mutations occur all the time. Repeating the same old nonsense is not going to help you win an argument, nor is it going to get you any converts. You know what you're saying is patently false.
quiIl 4 years ago
"Truly transitional species would be a mostly even mix of two separate species, in DNA, skeletal structure, internal organs and their functions, and means of reproduction."
Not necessarily. That's an unfounded assumption.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
Well they certainly wouldn't be very close to one of the two species, otherwise, why couldn't they just be a form with unusual genes? However, this is what is true of all so called "transitional forms" (as far as I know, except some may be species that were previously unknown)
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 6
"except some may be species that were previously unknown"
Yes, that is always potentially the case, but that's not the point. The point is that those fossils were predicted BEFORE we actually found them. When a theory predicts something, THEN finds it, the theory has something going for it.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
Swimming reptiles with flippers where predicted to have legs in the oldest layers, sure enough they did .
flyingscience 4 years ago
"Well they certainly wouldn't be very close to one of the two species, otherwise, why couldn't they just be a form with unusual genes?"
Quite true. Good thing we have some fossils like those that are between fish and amphibians!
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"mutations are never beneficial, so this is a dead end."
Incorrect. A frame shift mutation allowed a bacterium to develop enzymes that could digest nylon. It now has a new source of food. That's pretty damn beneficial. There are other examples, but why don't you try to do your own research (off the AiG propaganda website) for a few minutes.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"Lastly, the fossil record does not support macro-evolution because there is not a single fossil for which one could make a water-tight argument. "
So what is your water tight argument for creation or ID? If you expect science to have a water tight argument, then you must also expect creation/ID to have a water tight argument.
And the fossil record is huge. I blows me away how many fossils we have found.
Jonobos 4 years ago
I am only talking about the fossil record, not the theory of evolution.
Yes, the number of fossils we have found is amazing, but what type of creature is the most prominent in the fossil record? (The answer might surprise you) Clams make up over 90% of all found fossils, and are found in literally every strata layer, yet they are not shown in the geological column (evolutionists' visual representation of the fossil record). How can evolution explain this? By ignoring the clams.
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 6
Don't shift the goal posts. You expect water tight arguments, so I do as well. What is your water tight argument? You don't have one. The only thing people like you can do is attack evolution. Its called a negative argument, and it is proof of nothing.
So you are claiming some type of scientific conspiracy or cover up of the truth? Get a grip man. Get off the AiG website.
Jonobos 4 years ago
The fossil record by it's very nature will always be incomplete,but if your gonna try to argue that fossils show evolution is not correct then find me one Hominid in the early geological record.A Hominid fossil along side a trilobite,or even a Dinosaur,would be very damning. Also,the fossil record is nothing compared to the genetic record,something you don't see creationist bring up,ever.
Aaron518 4 years ago
"Clams... are found in literally every strata layer, yet they are not shown in the geological column."
Utterly false claim.
There is no such thing as a fossil which is not part of the geological column. You would understand that if you had any idea what the term "geological column" means. Anything found in the earth is part of the geological column, including all clam fossils. Whatever website you got that claim from was full of shit, and frankly, so are you.
quiIl 4 years ago
The geological column is a representation of the fossil record, with the fossils categorized by the strata layer they are commonly found in (though no place in earth's crust looks like that, it is a combination of many different places on earth). The two are not the same. The geological column does not contain all fossils, while the fossil record does.
I didn't get this information from any one source, or even a website at all. This is the combination of years of research.
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 6
"I didn't get this information from any one source, or even a website at all. This is the combination of years of research."
Great! Then you can cite several quality sources.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
Yes, that's exactly right. The geological column IS a representation of the fossil record arranged by the strata the fossils are found in.
So how on earth can fossilized clams occur in every geological strata, yet be absent from the geological column?
It makes no sense.
quiIl 4 years ago
"Clams make up over 90% of all found fossils, and are found in literally every strata layer, yet they are not shown in the geological column (evolutionists' visual representation of the fossil record)."
That's funny, because I'm sure I've seen mollusks in evolutionary diagrams before. How can one explain this? By ignoring the diagrams.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
My main point is that clams are in "literally every strata layer" and this is not shown in the geological column, not that some geological column representations have clams and/or mollusks. Please don't ignore my main points, give me a fair hearing.
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 7
"Please don't ignore my main points, give me a fair hearing."
Fine. Fair enough. I'll read your evidence of that. Cite it please so I can take a look.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
But Luke, the strata layers ARE the geological column. The geological column is simply the layers of geological strata stacked on top of each other, so saying fossilized clams exist in the strata, but not in the column, is pure gibberish.
Websites like AIG can only make claims like that because they know their readers will not understand the science well enough to realize how false they are.
quiIl 4 years ago
Really, you keep telling us to look at both sides, give yours a fair hearing, etc., but from the mere claims you're making, it's clear that you haven't done the same.
quiIl 4 years ago
Oh yea. I just remembered that I heard a debate between Hovind and someone, and both the interviewer and Hovind's opponent spent literally half of the debate trying to explain to Hovind how columns are a cross-section of multiple strata and why that is significant and he just wasn't getting it.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
Marine shells are not found in all layers .The paleozoic ocean level droped 600 feet when the ice caps formed
flyingscience 4 years ago
Actually, in science, laws are lower than theories. A scientific law is just a statement about how things generally are. Nature often breaks scientific laws; for example, Newton's law of gravity fails to apply in certain cases. Theories, on the other hand, are never broken.
But that wouldn't matter anyway since evolution contains numerous laws, such as the laws of heredity and the law of natural selection. ;)
quiIl 4 years ago
I'm sorry, but it is incorrect to say that theories are never broken. Any law, theory, or hypothesis that science makes can be broken, possibly with only one experiment. Science cannot prove anything, it can only make guesses
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 8
When I say that a scientific theory cannot be broken, I mean that if a scientific theory can be shown to have been broken, it ceases to be a valid theory. That's as opposed to a scientific law, which can be broken and remains a valid law, because all that scientific laws are supposed to be are generalized observations about the natural world. Hence Newton's Laws continue to be valid laws, even though the Einsteinian THEORY of Relativity shows them to be sometimes incorrect.
quiIl 4 years ago
Right, but that seems to me that that makes laws better than theories, because they can repaired without scrapping the whole law, while theories cannot (or can they... what about Neo-Darwinism and the constantly "evolving" theory of Evolution?)
LukeBlueFive 4 years ago 8
You're missing the point. Newton's Laws are wrong in certain cases. They haven't been "repaired" to make them universally correct. They are simply wrong often enough, but that's okay, because a law in science is only expected to be GENERALLY true, not always true, whereas a theory has to be ALWAYS true.
When a theory has a flaw, it is revised to be once more in accordance with reality. Instead of sneering at that process, you should applaud it.
quiIl 4 years ago
The original 19th-century theory of evolution turned out to be wrong on some of the details. When scientists became aware of that, they revised the theory to bring it once more in line with the facts. I don't understand how you could consider that to be a weakness. If anything it shows how scientific theory is more reliable than religious dogma, which never changes no matter how much evidence is presented.
quiIl 4 years ago