Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indeed, it does. And those smarter than you have acknowledged that ToE does not address the origin of life. It only addresses what has happened after life began to exist.
Of course it does not address the origin of life- where did you get the idea I said that? I have SAID it does not address the origin of life- because that's not what the ToE is about. It was never MEANT to.
The ID hypothesis is not even a good hypothesis. It falls over because it cannot explain the diversity of life on earth and it does not address all the obvious evidence (DNA analysis, fossils, comparative anatomy, vestigial organs, retroviruses etc) that life forms evolved from earlier life forms by modification.
According to the book Of Pandas and People (the 'textbook' the Dover school board wanted to use in their science classes in 2005), the conjecture of Intelligent Design is:
"that the origin of new organisms is in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent" and "a sudden appearance ex nihilo of already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
Basically, that an "intelligent agent" poofed animals, birds, fish, humans etc into existence already intact at one time out of nothing. Sound familiar?
It doesn't really take much debunking as it doesn't fit the observations at all, it doesn't predict anything, and it's main claim of irreducible complexity has been debunked.
It's not a Scientific Theory or even a scientific hypotheses. It's just religious Creationism with the word God replaced by the phrase "Intelligent Designer"
You did answer the questions, but you did not explain how there is observable proof for evolution.
You seem unclear on the concept of evidence. "How" something is has nothing whatsoever to do with establishing whether or not that something is. The latter is simply an observation of objective fact. The former is a theory. Theories explain facts. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Explaining why you believe so by stating that there is overwhelming observable evidence is a circular argument and you know it.
Again... there is no argument involved. Directly answering your question doesn't require one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Please elaborate on such evidence.
No. I have done so before and you proved impervious to the demonstration. I only cast my pearls before swine a certain number of times before I have learned it is not worth repetition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Have you ever personally observed evolution taking place?
Of course. I used to breed tropical fish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Do you know of any published studies that have produced observable evidence of evolution?
Thousands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
You are a historian, so you know what constitutes evidence, and valid support for a claim.
No. We have no evidence that any such designer was perfect or infallible.
Why do you assume the designer is God?
Was the 'designer' actually a committee? A committee of inebriated designers who decided to create all life on earth one day after they had had one too many cups of ambrosia?
No. We have no evidence that any such designer was perfect or infallible.
Why do you assume the designer is God?
Hmm lets' see. Because the Kitzmiller v Dover trial showed that Intelligent Design proponents took a Christian Creationist textbook called "Of Pandas and People" and went through it replacing all the words Creator, God Creationist etc
"The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists"
Hmm lets' see. Because the Kitzmiller v Dover trial showed that Intelligent Design proponents took a Christian Creationist textbook called "Of Pandas and People" and went through it replacing all the words Creator, God Creationist etc
"The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists"
Young Earth Creationists claim they have incontrovertible 'evidence' of a 6000 year old earth. They have a book written by an "eye witness" who was there. The eye-witness was God and the book he wrote is the Bible.
They say that 'evilutionists' can't have any evidence of an old earth or evolution because they weren't there to witness it.
A time waster on the part of both parties. Ham I can forgive because he's going on faith and faith doesn't have to be logical. Nye should know better as a scientist. Ham can fall back on the simple fact that God can do anything. Therefore it is within the realm of possibility that God just made things as if they took millions of years to evolve when they didn't. When you are not required to prove your case, and religion is not required to prove anything, it's easy to dismiss anything you want in science by just saying that God made it that way.
Take Adam's belly button. Do you suppose he had one even though he never had an umbilical cord? Or a giant redwood tree on the day of creation. Do you suppose it had growth rings for years it didn't exist? Is God capable of making a man with a belly button he never used or a tree with growth rings for years it never existed? If God can create a man and a tree in mature form, why not a planet, entire species and a universe? I'm not saying this is what happened only that it is possible and if there is any possibility religion wins here because science cannot prove that this did not happen. Religion only needs something that is possible given the omnipotent nature of God. What's science got going up against that?
This debate should not happen. Nye should know better.
Science only studies the laws of the universe. It does not study what God did or did not do. Only the laws that were laid down on the day of creation however this universe was created. Science needs to stick to that and quit trying to be religion too. It's not religion.
Much ado about nothing, other than erroneous interpretations of scripture, which is not such an unanticipated event, considering the cryptic nature of the bible to begin with, followed by editing, translation and so forth.
There have been small experiments where a couple of dozen people are gathered. A story is told one, who in turn tells the story to the next person, and they inturn tell the next ... by the time the last person recounts the story, it bears little resemblance to the original story. This is just the nature of human beings and how they filter and add and subtract and fill in blanks. Only cultures who have relied on verbal accounting of history seem able to maintain consistency in stories. It takes tremendous discipline and ritual.
There are a lot of parables in the bible that were not intended to be taken as literal accounts, but only stories to impart a deeper spiritual or moral truth. I suspect that early followers of Christ understood when literal stories were told, and when parables were used.
Who's to say that the part about God creating the earth in 6 days literally means 6 earth days? Could this not mean 6 celestral days, each day equating to ten's of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years?
Arguing points that can never be proven or disproven is a fools errand.
We were created through billions of years of evolution by an intelligent designer.
I cannot fathom how someone believes that everything that we see popped into existence.
Well that's what Creationists and Young Earth Creationists and most Intelligent Design proponents believe.
What you are saying is NOT what most Intelligent Design proponents say - Intelligent Designers do not accept evolution. They think that all life was designed at the same time full formed.
Sounds like you are just replacing the word Nature with Intelligent Designer. Not sure what was so "intelligent" about using evolution though. Very inefficient.
How the hell does one who exists "debunk" that fact of creation?
I think that in an open, tolerant society all theories should be looked at, otherwise, we're robbing children of education.
The words "God" and "Intelligent Design" can be left out, if needed, but how do you, in a science class explain where everything came from without broaching the subject?
What's wrong with asking the question "where did we all come from?"?
Asking that question in a science class is not only right, but logical.
If a student says "My parents told me that God created everything.", how is that in any way unconstitutional? After all, the public school system has no qualms about bashing the Christian Crusaders in history class.
Lefties are and always have been afraid of religion.....the very first thing socialists and commies do is replace religion with the state, which is in itself a religion.
That is indisputable.
Gosh I guess I guess they could discuss scientific hypotheses of the origin of life in a science class rather than magical religious faith-based ones?
Of course if you want ALL 'ideas' included in a science class regardless of whether there is any evidence at all for them, you could discuss the merits of astrology vs astronomy, alchemy vs chemistry, phrenology vs whotheheckknows, flat earth 'theory' vs geology/geophysics, the Stork 'theory' of reproduction vs biology etc.
Teach religious myths in comparative religion classes and science in science classes.
There is very good reason to be afraid of religious zealots inserting their religious beliefs into science classes. How scientifically illiterate and dumbed down do you want Americans to be? Oh wait- you want more far right voters who want a theocracy vs a democratic republic - is that it?
I noticed you didn't address ANY of the points in the Ken Miller video on ID.
I am supported by the fact that I have been created.
How?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sound familiar?
