Id Vs. Evolution In Public Schools

[thespin]

thespin, how is a B52 on mars relevant to this topic? i dont think that giving completely random hypothetical evidence is helping at all. and what you said about the sun being an incredibly complex masterpeice, i dont think it is so. this sun is a ball of hydrogen and helium that came together because of mutual gravitational attraction of the atoms. it gives off energy (in many forms) because of the nuclear fusion that began when the pressure and heat inside rose to sufficient levels (also due to gravity). if i need to explain nuclear fusion to make even clearer how completely un-mystical the sun is, please feel free to ask.

553997[/snapback]

The B52 argument are for those who say that the sophisticated design of the universe JUST EXISTS WITHOUT A CAUSE. Again if you were to find a B52 on mars tomorrow, would you say it had no cause ??

 

My friend, I am a Physicist. And if you had any idea of the processes that occur in the sun and how those processes generate the other elements that we are familiar with, you wouldn't be so blase about it's DESIGN !

Evolution is BAD SCIENCE. When Darwin came up with his theory, he thought that eventually it would be proven by the finding of links between species in the fossil record. We always hear about 'the missing link' between man and ape. What is not generally known is that THERE ARE NO LINKS BETWEEN ANY TWO SPECIES, extinct or alive, in the fossil record. To cover their butts, evolutionists have lately modified their 'theory' to explain this lack saying that evoltionary changes don't happen over millions of years but in sudden spurts. What a crock!

They have also come up with two types of evolution, micro and macro. Micro evolution is basically what man does with dogs, breed them. This happens under natural pressures also. But there is NO evidence of macro evolution in the fossil record. All so-called evidence 'discovered' so far has later been found to be hoaxes.

 

Anyone come up with an explanation for the existence of mathematically precise, invariable, simple, and harmonious (working together) natural laws that man discovers and applies in all his technological tools ?

Edited October 3, 2005 by thespin

[greenguava]

I always figured if there was a higher being that created everything, that (he/she/it) would make everything work on some logical sense... not just "POP" there you go, earth and all the animals and plants and the universe. I mean when you ask Hawkins where the matter for the big bang came from he says that you might have to look to god for that one. (Not an actual quote, but its close from my memory) We have a long way to go to figure out this one, but we are taking educated guesses and tiring to figure it out for our selves for once. Look through history and see how cultures and religions have used Gods/God to explain the miss understood, because people don

[ThunderChicken]

i dont know if this has been said or argued, but....

 

 

people who say its unconstitional to teach creation over evolution is completely wrong, our country was funder under one nation undergod, it was founded under words like this*not saying those are the only ones*

[LoArmistead]

i dont know if this has been said or argued, but....

people who say its unconstitional to teach creation over evolution is completely wrong, our country was funder under one nation undergod, it was founded under words like this*not saying those are the only ones*

554217[/snapback]

 

oh Thunder Chicken...that's so politically incorrect. Yeah it's been argued before, and not much ground was gained or conceded on it, unfortunately.

[Aristotle]

The historical religious foundations of the USA are irrelevant to determining their place in society. It is one thing to teach the development of the Christian faith in America from its early beginnings to its current state today and another to blatantly promote a specific religious ideology such as Creationism. It is also irrelevant to the topic itself as it does not provide any reason to promote the idea that ID is a science.

 

The B52 argument are for those who say that the sophisticated design of the universe JUST EXISTS WITHOUT A CAUSE. Again if you were to find a B52 on mars tomorrow, would you say it had no cause ??

 

My friend, I am a Physicist. And if you had any idea of the processes that occur in the sun and how those processes generate the other elements that we are familiar with, you wouldn't be so blase about it's DESIGN !

 

Evolution is BAD SCIENCE. When Darwin came up with his theory, he thought that eventually it would be proven by the finding of links between species in the fossil record. We always hear about 'the missing link' between man and ape. What is not generally known is that THERE ARE NO LINKS BETWEEN ANY TWO SPECIES, extinct or alive, in the fossil record. To cover their butts, evolutionists have lately modified their 'theory' to explain this lack saying that evoltionary changes don't happen over millions of years but in sudden spurts. What a crock!

They have also come up with two types of evolution, micro and macro. Micro evolution is basically what man does with dogs, breed them. This happens under natural pressures also. But there is NO evidence of macro evolution in the fossil record. All so-called evidence 'discovered' so far has later been found to be hoaxes.

 

Anyone come up with an explanation for the existence of mathematically precise, invariable, simple, and harmonious (working together) natural laws that man discovers and applies in all his technological tools ?

 

First: What about the formation of the field of Evolution can be identified as bad science? What specific processes involved in this field are representative of bad science?

 

Second: "When Darwin came up with his theory, he thought that eventually it would be proven by the finding of links between species in the fossil record." <--- Are you sure? Apparently Darwin didn't think many "transitional species" would be found in the fossil records because of natural impurities in the environment and the fossil record itself.

 

Source: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_record

 

Third: "To cover their butts, evolutionists have lately modified their 'theory' to explain this lack saying that evoltionary changes don't happen over millions of years but in sudden spurts. What a crock!" <---- This theory is known as "Punctuated Equilibrium", and it is a fairly recent theory. This does not mean that "Evolutionists" are trying to "cover their butts". Science is open to speculation as long as one provides evidence that meets the standard requirements. If someone has a hypothesis supported by legitimate evidence, by scientific standards of course, then the hypothesis is promoted to a theory and is considered a possible explantion of phenomenon until proven otherwise.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

 

Fourth: "The B52 argument are for those who say that the sophisticated design of the universe JUST EXISTS WITHOUT A CAUSE. Again if you were to find a B52 on mars tomorrow, would you say it had no cause ??" <--- You are assuming that which you are trying to prove with this argument. In other words, you are specifically creating an instance where the Universe would have to have design in order to form the conclusion that the hypothetical instance proves the existence of design. This presents the problem of data being initially biased to one point of view and disallows for one to draw a different conclusion. Yesh, the B-52 being on Mars would have to have an initial cause in this instance; however, it is only true for that hypothetical instance.

 

Fifth: "Anyone come up with an explanation for the existence of mathematically precise, invariable, simple, and harmonious (working together) natural laws that man discovers and applies in all his technological tools ?" <--- Simple, mathematics and the laws that we, as humans, have instantiated have been based solely on observation. We have fined tuned our sciences and mathematics to accurately represent the phenomenon which we observe. Our knowledge is based only on what we can know and it just so happens that some of our knowledge does a really good job at representing some phenomenon. The laws we apply are based solely on observation of the things which are observed.

 

To go further and argue that their consistency and reliability demand one to conclude the existence of a divine being is an argument not based on observation, for where in any observation has there been observed any intriniscal influence of a higher power? You claim that the presence of "beauty", "harmony", and "order" verify this; however, an observation is based solely on what the senses can observe, meaning observation is of an empirical nature, while the evidence you cite clearly indicates that the evidence is not of an empirical nature and instead consists entirely of ideas about those observations, which are of an a priori nature, meaning that it is knowledge not based solely on observation. This is because properties such as "beauty" and "harmony" are indefinite representations of physical things and lack continuity in both application and definition.

[LoArmistead]

  Invidious: ya lets teach kids about every single religion on earth just to be fair. thats just retarded, we teach evolution because its scientific and not based on fear and dilusions.

 

Is christianity based on fear and dillusions?

[Vampire]

I dont think people should be taught something based on a fictional book that was written for children to keep them on their best behaviour all those years ago

[thespin]

First: What about the formation of the field of Evolution can be identified as bad science? What specific processes involved in this field are representative of bad science?

The assumption by evolutionists that similarities in APPEARANCE mean similarities in BASIC STRUCTURE. I encourage you to read Evolution by world famous microbiologist Michael Denton to see what's really happening as revealed at the microscopic level.

 

Second: "When Darwin came up with his theory, he thought that eventually it would be proven by the finding of links between species in the fossil record." <--- Are you sure? Apparently Darwin didn't think many "transitional species" would be found in the fossil records because of natural impurities in the environment and the fossil record itself.

Yes, I am sure. He states it in his original work The Origin of Species.

 

Third: "To cover their butts, evolutionists have lately modified their 'theory' to explain this lack saying that evoltionary changes don't happen over millions of years but in sudden spurts. What a crock!" <---- This theory is known as "Punctuated Equilibrium", and it is a fairly recent theory. This does not mean that "Evolutionists" are trying to "cover their butts". Science is open to speculation as long as one provides evidence that meets the standard requirements. If someone has a hypothesis supported by legitimate evidence, by scientific standards of course, then the hypothesis is promoted to a theory and is considered a possible explantion of phenomenon until proven otherwise.

The fact is that there was no scientific basis for their original hypothesis except APPEARANCES which is not evidence. Now they HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR NEW HYPOTHESIS. AGAIN, it's just a cya 'theory' ...

 

Fourth: "The B52 argument are for those who say that the sophisticated design of the universe JUST EXISTS WITHOUT A CAUSE. Again if you were to find a B52 on mars tomorrow, would you say it had no cause ??" <--- You are assuming that which you are trying to prove with this argument. In other words, you are specifically creating an instance where the Universe would have to have design in order to form the conclusion that the hypothetical instance proves the existence of design. This presents the problem of data being initially biased to one point of view and disallows for one to draw a different conclusion. Yesh, the B-52 being on Mars would have to have an initial cause in this instance; however, it is only true for that hypothetical instance.

I give you that this particular argument does assume a design to the universe. I deal with this below ...

 

Fifth: "Anyone come up with an explanation for the existence of mathematically precise, invariable, simple, and harmonious (working together) natural laws that man discovers and applies in all his technological tools ?" <--- Simple, mathematics and the laws that we, as humans, have instantiated have been based solely on observation. We have fined tuned our sciences and mathematics to accurately represent the phenomenon which we observe. Our knowledge is based only on what we can know and it just so happens that some of our knowledge does a really good job at representing some phenomenon. The laws we apply are based solely on observation of the things which are observed.

 

To go further and argue that their consistency and reliability demand one to conclude the existence of a divine being is an argument not based on observation, for where in any observation has there been observed any intriniscal influence of a higher power? You claim that the presence of "beauty", "harmony", and "order" verify this; however, an observation is based solely on what the senses can observe, meaning observation is of an empirical nature, while the evidence you cite clearly indicates that the evidence is not of an empirical nature and instead consists of entirely of ideas about those observations, which are of an a priori nature, meaning that it is knowledge not based solely on observation. This is because properties such as "beauty" and "harmony" are indefinite representations of physical things and lack continuity in both application and definition.

This sounds like Clinton's "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." LOL Or maybe something from Martin Heidegger's ramblings (I know .. blasphemy! LOL).

WE DIDN'T FINE TUNE ANYTHING. WE OBSERVED IT. WE DESCRIBED WHAT WE OBSERVE USING THE BEST TOOL WE HAD - MATHEMATICS - WHICH IS A BRANCH OF KNOWLEDGE INDEPENDENT OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES. I might agree that Mathematics is within us since there are branches of mathematics based just on mind games and not on any observation. BUT our physical sciences are not within us. Our physical sciences ARE these mathematical descriptions of how the universe behaves and ALWAYS behaves.

 

MY argument is that there are very sophisticated patterns to the universe that demand an intelligent cause (seeing how they are more sophisticated than man can produce - man being our standard of intelligence). Without these patterns, the universe would be a chaotic mess if it existed at all. YOUR argument reduces to "I don't see God so God doesn't exist". But you have never seen an electron, a proton, a neutron etc. Do you believe they exist from the EVIDENCE that they exist?

Edited October 4, 2005 by thespin

[Aristotle]

I'm tired so I'll post the rest of my post tomorrow and address the easy sturff now. Michael Denton appears to not understand Evolution at all. I was skeptical when reading some of his sturff on the web. Sure enough, my suspicions were correct. The following debunk or correct major errors in his book: "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mar...tic/denton.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html (same article but on a different site)

 

It should also be noted that in his book "Nature's Destiny" that he becomes an Evolutionist. So I am not so sure if he is a reliable source for either side...at all....

[Kamikaze_Badger]

Is christianity based on fear and dillusions?

554341[/snapback]

 

Well, it's based on Judasim, which was based on Zoroastrianism. However, some Judaistic beliefs spawned from fear, and the first 10 commandments were sacrficial rules <_<.

[thespin]

I'm tired so I'll post the rest of my post tomorrow and address the easy sturff now. It should also be noted that in his book "Nature's Destiny" that he becomes an Evolutionist.  So I am not so sure if he is a reliable source for either side...at all....

554415[/snapback]

It's easy to write an article. But to write a cogent article supported by real evidence verified by many independent sources is another matter. The article you linked to doesn't fall into this category. Denton's Evolution does. Denton's book is SCIENCE. The article linked to is more like a drawing room discussion.

 

His other book "Nature's Destiny" is not pure science so I won't use it. I haven't read it but it looks like he is getting into his own personal metaphysical beliefs. I may read it another time.

 

I like to avoid the life/evolution issue when discussing ID because evolutionists have been so successful in selling APPEARANCES as evidence. Denton debunks this. But since your last post rests there, I will say this about that:

 

Let's imagine the first life form in existence. What do we know about it ? It must be able to:

1) take in food energy

2) discriminate as to what food it takes in (else it would poison itself)

3) use the food/energy to maintain its structure (and for reproduction)

(we are talking many complex processes like protein production etc here)

4) separate and eliminate waste (else it would poison itself)

5) reproduce itself (an extremely complex process)

6) I think I should add 'evolve' here too for y'all even though it's 'accidental'

 

We tend to think that 'simple' life forms are simple. BUT THIS FIRST ORGANISM IS VERY, VERY, VERY COMPLEX. How could such a complex organism happen by chance ?

[Aristotle]

thespin: I ask that you please read those articles as they explain many of the problems inherent in Denton's reasoning. Most of his reasoning isn't based on Science in fact. It consists of bending facts and using fallacious or misleading arguments to persuade the reader that ID exists and that Evolution is wrong. Here is another source to which also offers its corrections to his book.

 

http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml

 

The sources I have posted clearly negate Denton and his arguments. They should not be cast off so lightly.

 

We tend to think that 'simple' life forms are simple. BUT THIS FIRST ORGANISM IS VERY, VERY, VERY COMPLEX. How could such a complex organism happen by chance ?

 

This is an argument appealing to ignorance, meaning that because one doesn't know the answer one must therefore accept your posit, that life was intelligently designed, without question.