Evolution And I.d. Evidence Arguments

[The Voice of Reason]

Lisa -

After all this time, all of these threads, all of the posts, and all of the pages in the threads, it has become apparent that regardless of what scientific evidence is presented, no matter the source of information, and in spite of all of the patience shown you, you have absolutely no intention whatsoever of looking at Evolution as anything other than a heresy. You and KBC (along with a couple of others) have misapplied scientific studies, misused scientific principles, twisted logic beyond recognition, closed your minds to reality, and refused to acknowledge MOUNTAINS of evidence.

Let's just cut to the chase - you didn't start this thread because you are searching for evidence of anything - your mind is made up that Evolution is false, and Creationism is right, and you are not about to listen to anything (or anyone) that states otherwise. You really started this thread because you were getting waxed, plucked and buffed in the thread about the Premise of Intelligent Design - and that pasting will continue because you are out in left field. Of course, you will not face the reality of this, but I just thought I'd point it out...

Contemptuously,
TVOR

 

[Steve]

Hi everyone

AGAIN I point out that none of the evidence supports 'ID' or creation. Pointing out 'flaws' in theory X does not prove theory Y. What evidence does Creationism have?
I have heard no supporting evidence of a designer, only problems with theory X
Where is the evidence for theory Y to counter theory X?

I see your point here but heres why i disagree in this case. If i show u a buliding i can conclude that there must be a builder/designer, its logical and we need no further "proof" or "evidence" that there was a builder, but if someone wants to convince me that this building isnt the result of a designer/builder then they need to show how it can happen without the builder/designer.
If there are only 2 options, which there are, created by a creator(ID) or not created by a creator(which evolution is often used to support), then wouldnt showing the flaws in one make the only other option more reasonable?

For those who want evidence for a Designer what exaclty would you class as satisfactory? The existance of the Human Brain, the complexity of DNA?. The way the earth is placed the correct distance from the sun so we can recive the right amont of energy, and the moon from the earth so that tides exist yet dont compleatly flood the earth each day. The list could go on and on and on, what would it take for you to belive that what we see is the product of design? What more do u need to see?

I belive the Bible, the account it presents as our history i belive and here are some "evidences" that i belive support the Creation Model and history presented in the Bible. These are some things you would expect to find if the Bibles account of history is true.

1. Evidence of a global flood.
2. The earth is "young" not millions of years old.
3. Animals producing after their kind.
4. Awsome order and complexity right from the cells to the solar system.


1. Evidence to support a global flood which is part of the Creation model.

There is evidence that the different layers are not vastly different ages, Squashed radio halos in coalified wood in 3 supposedly different ages from 35 to 245 million years.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/geologictime.asp

There is evidence that the strata has been all soft together at the one time.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/grandcanyon.asp

Polystrate Fossils.
Fossils that go through multiple layers (some fossilized trees upside down), show that its more likely that the layers all formed by a catastrophic flood and it shows that the strata couldnt have taken millions of years to form because the thing to be fossilized wouldnt remain while waiting for the next layer.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/yellowstone.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-081b.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/polystrate.shtml

There is alot of evidence that many of the things we see is the result of catastrophy.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/warped.asp

Massive amounts of sandstone in some areas and the way it has been deposited.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/sisters.asp

Cultures and flood stories.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-153b.htm

Marine fossils ontop of the worlds highest mountains.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-177b.htm


2. Evidence to support the earth is young and not millions of years old.

Recent dinosaur bone discoveries which show that dinosaurs have been around much more recently then we are led to belive.
"Not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely “history”." from
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp

The decline of the Earths magnetic field.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-100.htm

mitochondrial DNA
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp

Wood found in layers suppose to be 142–205.7 million years old was carbon dated at around 23,500 years. This wood was found near index fossils for the Jurrasic period.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

Revival of bacteria by scientist from a layer claimed to be 250 million years old. Not possible if it really is 250 million years old.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/saltysaga.asp

Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio. This ratio should reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't reached that point yet. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 73-74

For more go too http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
or for information about radiometric dating methods http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

3. Evidence that Animals produce after their kind.
We all know this is what happens. Speciation is not a problem for creationists the original "kind" would have had the genetic information that now exists in the various species we now see. Speciation is a loss of information not a gain.
However to say that we see changes in life forms so we now have proof of evolution is not proof at all because the changes witnessed must add information to the lifeform. Mutations cause loss of information or scrambling, they do not increase the information. Mutations are mostly harmful (cause defects, desease etc), and the ones that actually prove benificial to the life form are because they have lost information not gained it, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i4/poison.asp shows examples of how animals can "become" resitant to poisions etc.
"Polyploidy (multiplication of the number of chromosomes), chromosome translocations, recombination and even (possibly) mutations can generate 'new species', but not new information, not new characteristics for which there were no genes to start with." - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp

Increased amounts of DNA dosnt mean increased function or information.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp

Id say there is more evidence that supports the world was created with all this information and we are now losing it through mutations etc not gaining it.


4. Awsome order and complexity right from cells to the solar system.
Many of you know how complex a sigle cell is then consider the average adult has around 100 trillion cells.

A plants ability for photosynthesis.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-363.htm

Symbiotic relationships show signs of design.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/sylvan.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-064.htm
Just to name a few.

I know that if i created somthing as complex as the human brain it wouldnt impress me much if someone went around saying its the product of random chance.

 

[LISA63]

Dr. Pascale Ehrenfreund leads a team of astrobiologists at Leiden University in the Netherlands.
In the third presentation in a “Life Detection” seminar series at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Dr. Ehrenfreund, a specialist in complex molecules in space, who described herself as an experimentalist rather than a theorist, first put astrobiology into the larger context cosmology and astrophysics.
"Prebiotic molecules either had to be formed in situ on the early earth, or had to be delivered via comets,asteroids, or interstellar dust."
They put thin films of amino acids (glycine and D-alanine) into a chamber made to simulate a Martian environment, complete with the UV radiation expected at the surface. The goal was to determine, even if such molecules could form in early Martian lakes, whether they could survive long enough to contribute to prebiotic chemistry. The answer was depressing: the amino acids had a half-life of only eight hours under those conditions. They repeated the experiment ten times with the same results.
She also said that ribose is very unstable in all conditions, and so are phosphates, the essential backbones of nucleic acids. This forced her to suggest that the biomolecules with which we are familiar were not involved in the origin of life, and that astrobiologists must seek simpler, more stable, more abundant, more primitive building blocks to get life started. Even PNA, a popular alternative to RNA, is already fairly “evolved” and therefore unlikely to be the first, she said.
The entire presentation can be viewed in streaming video from http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/

 

[LISA63]

Lisa -

After all this time, all of these threads, all of the posts, and all of the pages in the threads, it has become apparent that regardless of what scientific evidence is presented, no matter the source of information, and in spite of all of the patience shown you, you have absolutely no intention whatsoever of looking at Evolution as anything other than a heresy. You and KBC (along with a couple of others) have misapplied scientific studies, misused scientific principles, twisted logic beyond recognition, closed your minds to reality, and refused to acknowledge MOUNTAINS of evidence.

Let's just cut to the chase - you didn't start this thread because you are searching for evidence of anything - your mind is made up that Evolution is false, and Creationism is right, and you are not about to listen to anything (or anyone) that states otherwise. You really started this thread because you were getting waxed, plucked and buffed in the thread about the Premise of Intelligent Design - and that pasting will continue because you are out in left field. Of course, you will not face the reality of this, but I just thought I'd point it out...

Contemptiously,
TVOR

whatever you say must be true right?
now do you have evidence for this thread or just personal attacks?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

whatever you say must be true right?
now do you have evidence for this thread or just personal attacks?

I think the general opinion people are not agreeing with is that something someone says is "must be true." That is the mentality that brings us to this this point in the argument. (I say 'argument' instead of 'debate' when one side is completely unwilling to listen to the other side. )

 

[The Voice of Reason]

whatever you say must be true right?
now do you have evidence for this thread or just personal attacks?

First, my post was not a personal attack - it IS a simple observation about your mindset and intent. Because my words are true, it may feel like a personal attack, but it is not - in this case, the truth stings, and my words have cut a little too close to the bone for your comfort.

As far as the "what you say must be true" line, nothing in science is true simply because I (or anyone else) says it is so. If evolution is true, it is because it is constantly being tested and modified in light of new findings, like all scientific theories. If Intelligent Design is true, it will be for the same reason. Since Intelligent Design is NOT being tested or modified, it can make no legitimate claim to "truth" - rather, it must rely on people that are trying to promote a personal agenda (usually faith based) to remain in the public eye. That puts ID into the realm of religion - not science. Regardless of how many threads you start, it is not, and never will be, science. It is faith based - get it?

So, in answer to your question - yes, I do have some evidence. I have evidence that you are on a mission, and that you are not about to let a little scientific evidence get in your way. My evidence would be the reams of posts in which you demonstrate absolutely no evidence for ID, and an unceasing attack and misinterpretation of scientific evidence for evolution.

TVOR

 

[Steve]

Since Intelligent Design is NOT being tested or modified, it can make no legitimate claim to "truth" - rather, it must rely on people that are trying to promote a personal agenda (usually faith based) to remain in the public eye. That puts ID into the realm of religion - not science. Regardless of how many threads you start, it is not, and never will be, science. It is faith based - get it?

The claims of Creationists are being tested and contrary to what you seem to belive as stated in my previous post there is a creation model that can be tested, and is supported well by the evidence. If its recreation that you say isnt being tested as in (energy from no energy, matter from nothing) your right neither theory can test this so its not an aurgument for or against either.

The fact is no matter how far you go back in either theory something "unscientific/unnatural/supernatural" must have happened. Afterall its science that tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So when it was created it must have been supernatural whenever or however it happened. To claim that science has all the answers is ignorant considering its science that tells us it dosnt.

So, in answer to your question - yes, I do have some evidence. I have evidence that you are on a mission, and that you are not about to let a little scientific evidence get in your way. My evidence would be the reams of posts in which you demonstrate absolutely no evidence for ID, and an unceasing attack and misinterpretation of scientific evidence for evolution.
TVOR

If LISA63 is refusing to except your evidence on grounds that it is "scientifically" refutable and she is showing her reasoning isnt that the purpose of science? As you stated earlier about scientific theories, they are "constantly being tested and modified in light of new findings, like all scientific theories"
Just because many "evidence's" are put put forward to support somthing dosnt make it any more legitimate if each one of the evidence's is flawed.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The claims of Creationists are being tested and contrary to what you seem to belive as stated in my previous post there is a creation model that can be tested, and is supported well by the evidence.

Sorry - I must have missed the test results. Perhaps you could give us the link for the tests, as they were set up, and the results, as they were collected.

If its recreation that you say isnt being tested as in (energy from no energy, matter from nothing) your right neither theory can test this so its not an aurgument for or against either.

I'm saying that NOTHING about Intelligent Design is being tested - because there is nothing to test. The theory (and it's a stretch to call it a theory) simply says that because things look "complex" that they must have been designed by an intelligent being (a thinly veiled euphimism for God). Just how would one go about testing such a claim? Look to see if something is complex? Okay - I'll give you that - some things in this world are complex. Now all you need to do is set up some type of test that eliminates all other possibilities, and introduce some intelligence (remember, nothing else can be present or it might contaminate your findings). If, at the end of your test, your enclosed environment has given rise to everything that is complex, then you would have proof!! Heck, I'd like to see the experiment run, and have it produce ANYTHING complex. That wouldn't provide definitive proof, but it would certainly lend credence to the argument.

The fact is no matter how far you go back in either theory something "unscientific/unnatural/supernatural" must have happened. Afterall its science that tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So when it was created it must have been supernatural whenever or however it happened. To claim that science has all the answers is ignorant considering its science that tells us it dosnt.

To misuse and missaply science is ignorant. No one in science is claiming that the universe began in any given manner. You are confusing Evolution (one of the points of this discussion) with the Big Bang theory. It would behoove us to stay on topic. As for your assertion that if you go back in either theory far enough... You need to understand that the laws of physics (as we know them) almost certainly did not apply at the beginning of time. The laws of physics (as we know them) get bent and twisted as one approaches a black hole. To claim that our understanding of the laws of physics should apply under such circumstances is uninformed - we don't even fully understand the laws of physics as they apply to our current situation - why would you think that science should know exactly what they would be under such extreme conditions??

TVOR

 

[Vash]

Just how would one go about testing such a claim? Look to see if something is complex?

Design detection, to be fair, seems like a tried and true scientific method:

"Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences."

"The evidence for design theory is composed of both evidence

for design as well as evidence against the naturalistic theory. As noted above, when there are only two possible explanations, evidence against one is evidence for the other."

I would suggest giving DD the benefit of the doubt purely for arguments sake.

Here are a few of the more common arguments against ID, and responce from William Dempski:

"Take the trio of objections that constitutes Kenneth Miller’s standard attack on intelligent design. Miller’s main interest is in unseating Michael Behe and his notion of irreducible complexity. Behe argues that certain types of functionally integrated systems, those exhibiting irreducible complexity, resist Darwinian explanations. Miller argues that they don’t. To make his case, Miller focuses on three points:

(1) Because irreducibly complex systems invariably contain subsystems that are functional in their own right and therefore subject to natural selection, the Darwinian mechanism faces no obstacle in bringing about irreducible complexity.

(2) Genetic knock-out experiments that disable a key component of an irreducibly complex system and then successfully (re)evolve a substitute component that restores function support the evolution of irreducibly complex systems.

(3) Evolution is a proven instrument for bringing about biological complexity, a fact that can be seen from biological structures that serve the same basic function but that exist at various levels of complexity (e.g., the eye in its many incarnations).

None of Miller’s three points holds up under scrutiny. With regard to (1), just because a functionally integrated system includes a subsystem that can be functional in its own right does not mean that the system evolved from the subsystem. To confirm the evolution of the subsystem into the system requires that a continuous sequence of functional intermediates be exhibited and that a nontelic process be specified that could plausibly connect the intermediates. Miller offers neither. With regard to (2), whenever Miller cites such experiments, he fails to underscore that gene(s) coding for the substitute component were either already present or introduced by the experimenter. Far from showing how irreducibly complex systems might have evolved in the first place, these experiments at best show how sensitive such systems are to perturbation. And, finally, with regard to (3), Miller is presupposing precisely the point in question, namely, whether evolution, a materialistic form of it, can bring about biological complexity. Sample enough organisms, and you’ll find structures in different states of complexity that perform the same basic function. But arranging such structures according to some similarity metric and then drawing arrows marking supposed evolutionary relationships does nothing to show whether these systems in fact evolved by material mechanisms. Similarity may suggest evolutionary relationships, but evolution is a process, and the evolutionary process connecting similar structures needs to be made explicit before the similarity can legitimately be ascribed to evolution. Miller’s analysis never gets that far. He gestures at similarities but never demonstrates how evolution accounts for them."

 

[Fatmop]

OK! Design detection! The ID proponents really like pointing to things that humans have designed and saying, "look how complex it is! Now tell me that wasn't the work of intelligence!"

Take a cross-section of any mountain or volcano and you'll see how complex it is - how faults, hot spots, and other tectonic activity produced the multilayered majesties before you. THE ONLY PROOF you have that those mountains were created by intelligence is that the Bible says so. So, unless you somehow doubt geologists entirely, you must agree that those "complex" mountains DID come about without intelligent manipulation.

There's the flaw in your argument, Steve - not everything that is complex necessarily has to be the result of intelligent design.

 

[Vash]

OK! Design detection! The ID proponents really like pointing to things that humans have designed and saying, "look how complex it is! Now tell me that wasn't the work of intelligence!"

If you are refering to me, don't make the mistake of assuming I am an "ID proponent".
I am a neutral observer, and I am trying to help keep the debate fair and balanced. Very hard thing to do since it seems EVERYONE on BOTH sides is wieghed down by personal bias.

 

[Fatmop]

I wasn't really referring specifically to you, but I did accidentally lump you into that category. My mistake.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No design, bud ...

Eur J Morphol. 35(1): 25-30, February 1997

On the development of Cetacean extremities:
I. Hind limb rudimentation in the Spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata)

D Sedmera, I Misek & M Klima

The Cetacea are group of animals which have completely lost their hind limbs during the course of evolution as a result of their entirely aquatic mode of life. It is known, however, that during their embryonal period, the hind limb buds are temporarily present. The control mechanisms of this regression are not yet understood, and vestigial limbs can sometimes be found in adults. The aim of the present study is to describe the course of hind limb rudimentation during prenatal development of Stenella attenuata (Spotted dolphin) at tissue and cell levels and compare the results with other natural or experimentally induced amelias. Hind limb buds of dolphin embryos, CRL 10-30 mm, were examined histologically. Before total disappearance, they show histodifferentiation comparable with other mammals. Initially, they form the apical ectodermal ridge, which soon regresses. The mesenchyme undergoes the process of condensation to form anlagens of prospective skeletal elements. These condensations are surrounded by vascular plexuses. During the course of rudimentation, some mesenchymal cells die, while the others are incorporated into the body wall. Nerve ingrowth into rudimentary limb buds was also detected. The temporary presence of hind limb rudiments in cetacean embryos can be regarded as a good example of recapitulation of phylogenesis in ontogenesis.

- see Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes

 

[Vash]

No design, bud ...

As a self-appointed defender of the underdog, I just want to point out that I don't think ID proponents would see these wierd things in nature as a problem. Heres why:

• Premise 1: X was intelligently designed,
• Premise 2: X was not designed by humans.
• Premise 3: The only conceivable beings capable of intelligent design are humans (who exist) and God (who may or may not exist).
• From (3): The only conceivable beings capable of designing X in particular are humans (who exist) and God (who may or may not exist).
• Recall (2): that X was not designed by humans.
• If God doesn't exist, then X was also not designed by God.
• Thus if God doesn't exist, then none of the conceivable beings capable of designing X designed X, in which case X was not designed at all.
• Since God not existing therefore results in a contradiction of (1), God must exist if (1) is true.

X usually stands either for the whole universe, the evolution process, human kind, a given animal species or for a particular organ (e.g., the eye) or capability (e.g., language in humans). It can also stand for the fundamental constants of the universe, based on the anthropic principle that these constants seem specially tuned to allow intelligent life to evolve.

The wierd examples you provide seem to still fit the definition of species...as a 'set of actually or potentially interbreeding organisms'.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The wierd examples you provide seem to still fit the definition of species...as a 'set of actually or potentially interbreeding organisms'.

I seriously doubt that either of us has a clue as to what you're talking about, but I'm quite sure that you haven't the foggiest idea as to the import of the above quote. Hint: it has absolutely nothing to do with species or speciation.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Excellent reply, Vash. Of course, the fact that your premises make several assumptions that are not conceded (actually, they are very much denied), weakens the argument (or destroys it outright), is of little consequence to those that have twisted logic from the very outset of these debates...

Premise 1 - when applied to the Universe, is the very point of this entire debate. To use this as a premise is the ultimate in begging the question.

Premise 2 - is a fine premise, but is the exact opposite of the very basis of the claims of ID proponents (i.e. mankind can make a watch, and it clearly demonstrates intelligence in its design). So, Premise 2 can ONLY be applied to naturally occuring things, and is therefore limited in its application.

Premise 3 - a fairly large assumption, as one of the main reasons the phrase Intelligent Design is substituted for God is to allow it to be taught in school. The way this is accomplished (or attempted) is to say that perhaps aliens provided that intelligence.

From that point on, the entire argument falls apart (which one would expect, since your three main premises are flawed).

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Vash]

Excellent reply, Vash. Of course, the fact that your premises make several assumptions that are not conceded (actually, they are very much denied), weakens the argument (or destroys it outright), is of little consequence to those that have twisted logic from the very outset of these debates...

Premise 1 - when applied to the Universe, is the very point of this entire debate. To use this as a premise is the ultimate in begging the question.

Premise 2 - is a fine premise, but is the exact opposite of the very basis of the claims of ID proponents (i.e. mankind can make a watch, and it clearly demonstrates intelligence in its design). So, Premise 2 can ONLY be applied to naturally occuring things, and is therefore limited in its application.

Premise 3 - a fairly large assumption, as one of the main reasons the phrase Intelligent Design is substituted for God is to allow it to be taught in school. The way this is accomplished (or attempted) is to say that perhaps aliens provided that intelligence.

From that point on, the entire argument falls apart (which one would expect, since your three main premises are flawed).

Thanks,
TVOR

Yes indeed the ID premise is based on assumptions. But I think people tend to forget that every scientific theory has assumptions that cannot be proven. If any of these assumptions prove to be invalid, then the theory is false. To be fair, the Theory of Evolution also has unproven assumptions. Some of these are as follows:

1. Life arose from non-living matter (Spontaneous Generation).
2. Spontaneous Generation occurred only once.
3. Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are interrelated.
4. Multicellular animals evolved from unicellular organisms.
5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. Vertebrate animals evolved from invertebrate animals.
7. Vertebrate animals evolved from fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals, etc.

Am I the only person here who has the ability to periodically switch perspectives, and look at things objectively from the point of view of other side?

As an agnostic, TVOR, it seems to me you should be applying your standards equally to all sides. Evolution has a lot going for it, but a complete lack of assumptions isn't one of them. I call em like I see em, if I'm out of line I apoligize.

I'm not here to prove the ID assumptions are based in fact. I'm here to try to clarify the ID position as I understand it. I'm not an ID proponent...I'm just trying to be fair.

Personally, I believe niether side has much leg to stand on.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Vash -

I do not mean to imply that you are a strong advocate of either ID or Evolution, I am simply rebutting fallacious arguments, wherever I see them. As for Evolution being based on assumptions, I agree. You are also correct, in that all scientific theories are. In and of itself, that does not invalidate a theory - the theory is just a starting point. In the case of Evolution, the theory is underpinned by much evidence that fits what the theory postulates. When evidence is found that contradicts the reigning beliefs of the time, the theory is modified to embrace the new evidence. That is how all science works, not just the Theory of Evolution. This technique has allowed mankind to continually update his understanding of the physical laws of the universe, and has led to all of our greatest inventions (i.e. electricity, medicine, hydraulics, gas flows, etc.). With that track record in mind, I'd say that giving science the benefit of the doubt is warranted, in this instance, regarding Evolution. To anyone that has an open mind, the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming, and beyond doubt.

You say that as an Agnostic, I should give ID an equal opportunity, as if I simply rejected it out of hand. Nothing could be further from the truth. If, and when, those that espouse ID can provide evidence to support their theory, I will gladly examine it with eyes wide open - but until then, I will remain an open minded skeptic, unwilling to accept an idea based on someone else's revealed faith in God.

As you said, "Evolution has a lot going for it ..." and I agree with your appraisal. Unfortunately for those that are proponents of ID, it has nothing going for it, other than blind faith, and unfounded hope - neither of which appeal to my Agnosticism.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Vash]

You say that as an Agnostic, I should give ID an equal opportunity, as if I simply rejected it out of hand. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you are basing your appraisal of ID on the discussions around here, I would say you are doing yourself and ID an injustice.

ID is too new for all the nitty-gritty to have trickled down to the public. To do it justice one has to go to the source. The writings of William A. Dembski is a good place to start.

When I think of ID vs. Evolution, I can't help but think of David Vs. Goliath. On the one hand, we have a massive brute wearing the armor of 100+ years of research, and armed with the devastating weapon of Media.

On the other hand we have David. Young, small...and all he needs is one rock.

Very exciting

 

[Steve]

I am simply rebutting fallacious arguments, wherever I see them.

Good to hear many of the commonly accepted "proofs" for evolution are in need of a good rebutal.

When evidence is found that contradicts the reigning beliefs of the time, the theory is modified to embrace the new evidence. That is how all science works, not just the Theory of Evolution.

Glad you agree. So why are many so unwilling to even look seriously at much of the evidence presented against evolution? Even when it is legitimate scientific evidence. I put forth the idea that evolution needs all its theories to stand up or it all falls down thats why many are willing to look at the evidences that oppose evolution theory. Suppose that the evidence for a yound earth were true, dosnt that bring the rest of evolution down? Or how about the evidence that many of the sybiotic relationships are impossible to have formed via the evolution theory? The evidence that the layers dont represent vastly different amounts of time?

This technique has allowed mankind to continually update his understanding of the physical laws of the universe, and has led to all of our greatest inventions (i.e. electricity, medicine, hydraulics, gas flows, etc.). With that track record in mind, I'd say that giving science the benefit of the doubt is warranted, in this instance, regarding Evolution. To anyone that has an open mind, the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming, and beyond doubt.

Heres a major difference - electricity, medicine, hydraulics, gas flows, etc. are all able to be tested, the theories that support all these inventions are testable. Many of the foundational theories that evolution requires are not testable and many that are testable do not hold up because of things we find that are contray to what these theories teach. We come to conclutions about the past by the "evidences" we can find today.
Your comment about natural selection is pointless, both evolution and creation models accept natural selection, its where this information thats being selected comes from thats the issue in regards to origin of life.

You say that as an Agnostic, I should give ID an equal opportunity, as if I simply rejected it out of hand. Nothing could be further from the truth. If, and when, those that espouse ID can provide evidence to support their theory, I will gladly examine it with eyes wide open - but until then, I will remain an open minded skeptic, unwilling to accept an idea based on someone else's revealed faith in God.

As you said, "Evolution has a lot going for it ..." and I agree with your appraisal. Unfortunately for those that are proponents of ID, it has nothing going for it, other than blind faith, and unfounded hope - neither of which appeal to my Agnosticism.

Thanks,
TVOR

Many of the points i posted befor evidences for the creation model. They also show that many commonly accepted "proofs" for evolution are flawed.
As has already been pointed out, as quoted by Vash

when there are only two possible explanations, evidence against one is evidence for the other."

You say "those that espouse ID can provide evidence to support their theory, I will gladly examine it with eyes wide open" then please do