Has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible?

[Gabethewiking]

just answer the question, did we come from the ocean, yes or no? And did we come from an wild animal, I don’t care what you want to call that animal, but did we come from one? Yes or no?

Please explain what you mean with "we" in this question? I need to know what you mean, "We" as in Homo sapien sapien? Or something else? The animal defined as Homo sapien sapien did not come from the Ocean, "We", in this context, came from a previous ancestor very similar from what we are.

It is, once again, Arbitrary, when you define "Them" (previous ancestor) to "us" (now), where do You draw the line? You need to explain this to us else it is hard to explain basic Evolution, what do you think the line is?

And if you meant something else with "We" in your Question, feel free to tell me and I will answer accordingly.

 

[Autodidact]

I did understand that, but I gauss I spoke in too much of a simple language that you misunderstood that I understood. Whatever you want to call this common ANCESTOR, whether chimp, human, or cheehum it does not matter to me what you call it. What matters is, can you prove it? This ancestor that is different than human and chimp or any other species alive today, can you PROVE that this species was NOT a variation of human or chimp that just so happens to either be extinct or so RARE that we don’t see it today? Where is the proof? Subjective bones and fragments of bones? That is not proof.

*wishes she had a nickel for every time she had to explain this to a creationist*

Science is not about proof. Ever. Science has never, and will never, prove anything. Science is about evidence. EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE,EVIDENCE. Please don't make me repeat this. The question you should be asking is, what is the evidence for common descent of humans and chimps.

If it hasn't been covered later in the thread, I will be happy to outline this evidence for you.

 

[AxisMundi]

Give me an example of intelligent design using a known conclusion to develop a method. Give me an example of them assuming things based on other assumptions.

I want an example.

Intelligent Design (or Creationism as it was formerly known) is purely a circular argument fallacy. It assumes that there is an "intelligent designer", and then attempts to provide this flawed data as the conclusion for it's basis and all other "findings". In other words, Creationism/ID comes to a conclusion (Goddunnit) and then attempts to use this as a proven factor on which to base all other "findings".

ID is termed a "pseudoscience" for a reason, as it skips several levels of the Scientific Method.

A perfect example is the "Irreducible Complexity" fallacy, which attempts to claim that certain natural structures are simply too complex to have evolved, or as it's creator, Behe, states... "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

An often used example is the "bacterial flagellum", a complex microscopic structure that provides locomotion for bacterium. ID and IC attempts to claim this structure is simply "too complex" to have naturally formed. However, we find the three main pieces of said structure throughout nature.

Not only has Behe's fantasies been discredited by the entire legitimate scientific community, so has ID in general.

"Intelligent Design" is a theosophical exercise developed by the ancient Greek Philosophers. It was resurrected (no pun) in the 1980's by the religious right (which is neither) in response to Edwards v. Aguillard , the 1987 SCOTUS ruling which found that religious doctrine has no place in public school curriculum, as is proper.

ID is merely a failed attempt to attribute science to religion, to not only substantiate religion, but to get religion past our Constitution and SCOTUS rulings and back into public school curriculum, where it categorically does not belong.

 

[Autodidact]

Audodidact
Are you trying to imply I am dishonest?

No, I'm not trying to imply it, I'm affirmately stating that all Young Earth Creationists (YECs) are either dishonest, ignorant, or crazy. Most are ignorant.

But when push come to shove, and they are relieved of their ignorance, and learn the overwhelming evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution (ToE) it has been my experience that most of them eventually respond by repudiating science itself.

That is because, at its core, YEC is an anti-scientific world-view.

To be clear, here is what dishonesty means, it means to KNOW the truth, yet DENY IT with your words and PRETEND you don’t know that to be true, but rather you know something else to be true, yet you don’t TRULY know that other thing to be true, you just PRETEND you know. And you pretend NOT TO KNOW the real truth, but all the while you know the truth. To be clear, I am NOT dishonest. I am NOT pretending to disbelieve in your views, I TRULY and HONESTLY do NOT believe your views or your points that are an attempt to back up your views. So, let’s get that very clear.

I believe you. Now, do you accept or reject the scientific method?

Now let me make something else clear. I don’t disagree with TRUE science, I disagree with false things that are falsely called science. In other words, I define science differently than you do. I don’t define science as macro evolution and cosmic evolution and billions of years. I call that a myth. I call science the thing that deals with the PRESENT physical world to understand how it works and then manipulate it in order to make it work for our purposes. Such is the case when making computers, cars, plains, ect.

If you define science differently than scientists, then you are using a form of dishonesty. The only honest way to use words is to share the common usage. I'll show you what I mean.

I'm an atheist, but I accept TRUE Christianity. I don't define Christianity as meaning belief in an almighty God and His son who died on the cross. I define Christianity as meaning acceptance of truth and reality, which is that there is no God.

See what I mean? Not very honest, is it?

So you reject the scientific method as applied to anything that happened in the past? Like say, a murder that happened yesterday? You also reject astronomy, cosmology, geology, archeology, anthropology, paleontology and most of physics, is that right? You don't think any of those are science?

btw, Why doesn't the scientific method work to tell us about things that happened in the past?

My computer doesn’t prove evolution, that is nonsense. Now if you think it does prove it, SHOW ME HOW IT DOES, otherwise, how am I the one that is dishonest?

I'm sorry, I got too complicated for you. It was an example--an example of what the scientific method has brought us. No science, no computer.

So, I can keep using my computer. Also to be consistent, if your right that the computer proves evolution, and that I would be inconsistent by using the computer yet deny evolution, then for you to be even MORE consistent, you would have to believe that I could not even LIVE in this WORLD OF EVOLUTION and BILIONS of years. So why not believe that?

Reading comprehension problem. In future, I'll speak more clearly for you. First, SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT PROOF. Second, no, the computer doesn't prove evolution, although scientists use computer programs to model evolutionary algorithims. What I said is, no scientific method, no computer.

 

[Autodidact]

Tumbleweed41



No I did not IMPLY Intelligent design is scientific, I outright claimed that Intelligent design IS scientific.

You're wrong. Do you know about falsifiability? As a criteria for science?

Once again, tell me how or why intelligent design is NOT scientific or should not be a science issue?

It's not falsifiable.

Ok, so that means you don’t think there is a huge amount of missing links I suppose? Well could you give me all those missing links? I am talking about MISSING LINKS. A progressional chain of missing links. All the gaps filled in. Where are they?

Fact is, there is TONS of GAPS if macro evolution is true. Therefore, if there is tons of gaps (which there is) then it logically follows that macro evolution is NOT true.

You are mistaken. The existence of gaps in the fossil record is NOT evidence that ToE is not true, far from it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You ever get that feeling, Dirty Penguin and Tumbleweed, that after doing a whole bunch of work it's about to be ignored?

Yep. I try so hard to resist but I'm weak.....

 

[Autodidact]

So, JollyBear, is it your position that no new species ever evolve? That we have the same number of species on earth right now as we did at creation?

 

[tumbleweed41]

You ever get that feeling, Dirty Penguin and Tumbleweed, that after doing a whole bunch of work it's about to be ignored?

Yep, proving my point that the ignorance portrayed is indeed willful.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Jolly, I am getting the feeling that you do not want to debate and learn, but just preah your your views and are not very interested in facts and science. I apologize if I am incorrect, but so far almost every single post has stated that you do not like the Evidence of things you do not want to accept very much.

Do you know how I came to accept the Facts of Evolution? Do you think I went to Church and was told to believe it, no evidence required, just Faith?

Or do you think that I went to School, got a proper Education about, initially, Biological Evolution, which interested me and I continued study it in depth at University, where I learned more, and then life went on, and I read new articles about new findings, everything from new Archologial finds confirming our Human Evolution as well as DNA findings, new Genetic Research making me understand the History of Evolution through the millenias?


Tell us honestly, once and for all, Do you think the Theory of Evolution says that a Human baby was born from a Monkey/Ape or the CrocoDuck Scenario, or perhaps a Fish had sex with a Donkey and we got a Ape, Or do you seriously have a proper basic understanding of Evolution?

If the Question is Yes, this is what you are believed/told by your compadres, you do not have any understanding of Evolution, you need to be educated from Scratch, if the answer is No, that such a thing is nonsense, and you Do understand Evolution, then you would have no problems seeing how the species Homo sapien sapien evolved and other Apes, such as Chimpanzees, went another way in Evolution in which we share a Ancestor.

 

[Galileo]

I found this video a while back and it's just too funny to keep to myself, so I thought I'd share it here. The video features some Aussie guy and Kirk Cameron, for those foreigners out there who don't know who Kirk Cameron is he is an American actor who starred in a sit-com here in the states back in the late 80's and early 90's. He converted to Christianity when he was 17 and he was infamous for telling his co-stars that they were all living immoral lives. Anyway these two knuckle heads are claiming that the banana is the proof of the existence of God. You guys just have to watch it, it'll totally crack you up.


[youtube]nfv-Qn1M58I[/youtube]
YouTube - Banana: The Athiests Nightmare.

If the banana is proof of Gods existence than I suppose the next thing this guy is going to tell us is that the pineapple was put here to test our faith.


Here's another version of the video in which someone has added some funny captions to poke fun at the whole thing.

[youtube]Akc5w_ZqByY[/youtube]
YouTube - Banana - an atheist's worst nightmare.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I found this video a while back and it's just too funny to keep to myself, so I thought I'd share it here. The video features some Aussie guy and Kirk Cameron, for those foreigners out there who don't know who Kirk Cameron is he is an American actor who stared in a sit-com here in the states back in the late 80's and early 90's. He converted to Christianity when he was 17 and he was infamous for telling his co-stars that they were all living immoral lives. Anyway these two knuckle heads are claiming that the banana is the proof of the existence of God. You guys just have to watch it, it'll totally crack you up.


If the banana is proof of Gods existence than I suppose the next thing this guy is going to tell us is that the pineapple was put here to test our faith.

Yea...I saw that a while back and it's too funny. He later, I can't remember where I read it, tried to say he joking but in that video he seemed dead serious....Fortunately for us he's dead wrong and borderline brain dead. The banana, as we see today, is a hybrid creation (created by man)......

 

[Jollybear]

Darkendless

Everything ID does. ID assumes that there is a designer when no evidence exists.

No, you have it backwards, Intelligent design starts off with the physical world, they see design, lots of it everywhere, then they logically conclude there is a designer. It’s equivalent to looking at a house and seeing that the house is designed and then logically concluding someone built the house, the house did not build itself by chance and time from nothing.

ID only works on the premise that there is a creator.

Wrong, looking out at nature, one sees design whether they deny there is a God or not. From this design, one can logically conclude there was a designer. From looking at a house, one sees design, thus they logically conclude there was a builder.

Scientific methods work regardless of whether God exists or not.

I could say the same thing for you, based on your own standard here, you ASSUME chance exists and lots of time went by and something came from nothing and from that something evolved everything else. FROM this assumption, you build your method of science. Your science only works based on this PREMISE. I am just holding you to your own standard.

There, I have highlighted your obvious ignorance of evolutionary biology and the ToE.

Again by quoting everything I said then calling it ignorant that does not help me.

Now go here

An Index to Creationist Claims and learn a few things.

I checked your link out and read some stuff, I also read some articles on this same website in the past. I basically am reading the same thing on there as you and others are saying to me. All those bones are subjective bones and fragments of bones. I looked at pictures of these bones and there are pictures of the bones themselves and then there are RECONSTRUCTIONS of what they think they looked like. And that is where assumptions come into play.

 

[Jollybear]

DirtyPanguin

How about we just call it "Common Ancestor"..?

That’s fine

Be careful throwing the word "prove" around. It's generally a word used in mathematics. Scientist don't (prove) they collect the data which shows the evidence for or against....

Ok, well in that case then, if it’s not about proof, then both sides, the evolutionists and the creationists equally interpret the data.

In recent discoveries we have (

Lucy) as well as a much older find (Ardi)

Archaeology News Report: Ardi displaces Lucy as oldest hominid skeleton

"Ardi was not a chimpanzee, but she wasn't human," stressed White, who directs UC Berkeley's Human Evolution Research Center. "When climbing on all fours, she did not walk on her knuckles, like a chimp or gorilla, but on her palms. No ape today walks on its palms."

They don’t have the bone feet and the hands of Lucy. Yet even if they did, still how could they know if she walked on her palms? What, did they bring her to life and say “show us how you walk oh girl”? Of course not.

And one video shows how they reconstructed the HIP bone for her, check this out [youtube]PaDosd_kYLk[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaDosd_kYLk

As for Ardi all of his upper body bones are not there including his upper arms. And the bones were taken from crushed bones and then reconstructed. Also the feet were of a kind that you could not walk on them for very long. So why would he walk upright if he is adapted for the trees? Here is more detail on this http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/key_bones_of_new_hominid_fossi.html and http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/10/03/news-to-note-10032009

Again, see the information available on Ardi. It's not "proof" but it is evidence.

It’s very subjective evidence.

You keep saying this as if it means something and it doesn't. Imagine, a man was killed fifty years ago and we need to identify who he was. What do we do if all we have is his skeletal remains? Well we examine the remains and collect as much data as possible to form (a) or some hypotheses as to how he lived and sometimes we can even figure out how he may have died. Looking at bones can tell how a person lived and in what health the person was in. We can tell if the person was old, young, male or female. In the fields of Osteology, Dentistry, Forensics or even Anthropology..being able to look at bones works very well. Doctors do very well by using just a (picture) xray of a bone, in most cases, to tell the difference from a bone break and a fracture...so I find statements such as yours not to be of any real importance.

Yea but the difference is that with these bones were debating about, they are thousands of years old, well you would say millions, so the difference is in years. There is a big difference between “fifty years ago” and thousands or millions. So what I say does have meaning. The older a thing is, the harder it is to get evidence out of it and thus the more subjective that evidence becomes. A 50 year old skeleton is usually going to be COMPLETE and STRONG. The bones of ardi and lucy are NOT complete and NOT strong. And they ARE subjective. A 50 year skeleton is NOT subjective. And if a 50 year old skeleton takes SOME SMALL interpretations, how much more does it take MORE interpretations for OLDER specimens?

I agree but I never made the argument that because we look similar that we came from something like a chimp. Actually we have an overwhelming amount of common characteristics with other primates. I never said or contend that alone is the deciding factor.

I know you did not make this argument, but I mentioned it to make a point that common stuff does not mean we came from the same specimen.

No it just shows that we (chimp and man) have common lineage,

No it don’t, and that was my point above, common characteristics does not show common lineage no more than common DNA shows it. Plus, slight differences in the DNA code make for HUGE differences in how the body is built. Those slight differences are not actually slight, but huge in meaning.

but there is no evidence available that says a blueprint was used unless you can present the evidence.

The DNA IS the blueprint. I was referring to the DNA as the blueprint.

Actually the site gets a lot of stuff wrong. That's what happens when sites like that attempts to piece together information to paint a bias picture.

Hey, they are just using the same data your using, just putting a different interpretation on it then your guys do. I find it funny how evolutionary scientists and lay people act like they OWN the data and therefore they are the AUTHORITY on how it should be interpreted. So, your guys have an equal bias picture.

 

[Jollybear]

This quote from the site you provided....

"However, Jeffrey Swartz, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Pittsburg, maintains that man is closer to orangutans in gross morphology. Acts and Facts, 16 (5):5, 1987."

He says Orangutans which, guess what, is STILL a primate. Actually it's like a cousin to the chimp. But what is interesting is the date (1987). We've come a long way in DNA since then as well as Gnome discoveries. Here's some "updated" information.

I think you missed the point of the article for why they gave this reference. I’ll quote the article itself (not the reference which you did) and then it will show WHY they referenced this. It’s reason for referencing this was not to be OUT OF DATE perse, but to show that humans out of all other animals on earth, are more like ape than any other kind of animal. To which I thought you would not disagree with anyway. Anyway, here is the quote from this article http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html#r1

“We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.”

Then the number 1 in the quote goes to the reference you quoted. So really it would not matter if we were closer to orangutans or apes or chimps or monkeys, whatever one we are CLOSEST to by similar look or DNA comparison, the POINT of the article is that this would be EXPECTED if there is similarities in looks, there WILL BE similarities in DNA. That was the POINT of that section of the article.

DNA Chunks, Chimps And Humans: Marks Of Differences Between Human And Chimp Genomes

Since I find this point irrelevant to my purpose (which I explained above) I won’t respond to this article, although I did read it.

Here some information on Ardi should you choose to take a look. Let me just take a moment to quote one thing I found cool from this article.

Archaeology News Report: Ardi displaces Lucy as oldest hominid skeleton

"In all, 47 scientists from 10 countries contributed to the 11 Science papers, providing detailed analyses of the feet, pelvis, teeth and general anatomy of Ar. ramidus and reconstructions of the geology and biology of the area where Ardi lived 4.4 million years ago. Two of the papers analyze more than 150,000 plant and animal fossils – including 6,000 individually catalogued vertebrate fossils – to reconstruct the large and small mammals and birds of the area. Among these are 20 species new to science, including shrews, bats, rodents, hares and carnivores."

I looked at it, but for reasons showed above and the two articles I gave in rebuttal to this, I do not believe it. Those two articles were http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/key_bones_of_new_hominid_fossi.html and http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/10/03/news-to-note-10032009

Sweet. This is how Science is supposed to work.

They already believed in evolution and then looked for ways to find evidence for it.

Very small amount. But let's not get into an appealing to numbers game because it won't mean too much.

You missed the point for why I quoted this
“There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.’”

The other side of that quote was this

“There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.”

The point was to illustrate something with DNA. But that’s ok if you missed the point, I’ll let that go.

Also I agree that getting into the numbers game won’t mean to much, majority does not make something true.

But I would like to quote from a book I am now reading from a scientist who is the head of the human genome project, Dr Francis Collins. He says in his book called the language of God on page 4

“In 1916, researchers asked biologists, physicists, and mathematicians whether they believed in a God who actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer. About 40% answered in the affirmative. In 1997, the same survey was repeated verbatim-and to the surprise of the researchers, the percentage remained very nearly the same.”

But I agree numbers still don’t matter.

 

[Jollybear]

Nonbeliever_92

You ever get that feeling, Dirty Penguin and Tumbleweed, that after doing a whole bunch of work it's about to be ignored?

I did not ignore anything they said. I read everything they said and responded to it.

 

[Jollybear]

PerfectCircle

That's why I prefer to take cynical approach and take their arguments, replace god/intelligent designer with some delicious food product, and feed it back to them. It's much easier, and sometimes they realize how silly they are...

I've seen too many threads where someone takes an inordinate amount of their time to spoon feed the most basic concepts of the ToE to someone, only to see them regurgitate the exact same fallacious arguments over and over again...

You can only beat your head against that wall so many times.

Maybe it’s us believers in God beating our heads against the wall? Did you ever think of it that way? But the only difference between me and you is that I prefer not to even bother saying this, just keep beating away at the points.

Because you see, by you saying this, it does NOT make me lose confidence in my character NOR my position. This does NOT MOVE ME even an inch.

As my high school teacher once said about me “you seem very hard to move”. Then he said “that is good, sometimes”.

There is only two things that will move me, and that’s addressing my arguments ONLY and then those arguments have to survive my scrutiny. And those TWO things ALONE are what will move me, nothing more, nothing less.

I understand you didn't mean to, and for the record, you're a very well tempered person. That's really the only reason I'm taking time to respond.

I’m glad you feel comfortable enough to respond to me. I gauss my well temperedness comes from getting use to a lot of people having bad tempers when pressed and I realizing that I cannot change anybody and that all have a free choice. If we realize that, it makes it easier to not get our pants in a bundle. And also it comes from the fact that me getting angry does not help my case, nor does it help the person who disagrees with me. To me that is common sense and therefore I follow it.

That's the problem here... If you didn't even realize that I was joking when I referenced the "scientific canon" or "awful waffles" then, no offense, but you can't have the slightest concept of what he scientific method is. If this is the case, it makes it very hard to take anything you say seriously.

Well it seems to me that even though science may not claim to have a “cannon” they certainly ACT like there is a cannon. And action to me speaks louder than words.

Plus, I was simply saying, that if they did have a cannon, that this would contradict there definition of science, which is to question things, prove and disprove things. Then you came back and said that you were joking, to which then I say, ok, so that means it’s ok for me to question evolution.

As for me not getting the joke I don’t see how this should dampen anything I say. What I say should be taken like anything else anyone says, it should be considered, examined and scrutinized.

I'm not arguing for any atheistic approach.. I can't prove there's no god. All I was trying to show you with the whole giant taco bit was that all your claims are arbitrary. Anyone at all can come up with any version of "god" they want to.

No they can’t come up with any version of god they want to, I showed that in my arguments I presented to you. By you saying this, is not a rebuttal to what I presented in my arguments.

It is true however that people can make up any god or version of god they want to, true enough, but not all gods or versions of gods can survive scrutiny, the one that can, he is God. And it’s only MY God that can survive this scrutiny. That is not arrogance that is confidence.

Especially since it's such a loosely defined concept...

I already defined what I mean by “God”.

Me claiming that a giant taco rules the universe without any evidence of it is EXACTLY the same thing as you telling me that your god rules the universe. Do you not see this?

No I don’t see this. I gave evidence AGAINST the giant taco (that is the substance of taco chips) to which you did not rebut what I said. However I did say that if you are using the NAME taco for your God, then that is a different story, you call him Taco, I call him God, but if we define him the same, then there is no argument from me.

I have strong SOLID evidence for the existence of God. Perhaps I should make a thread just on that. I have a whole list of things that back up God’s existence. Want to diverge away from this thread and I make a thread about the ‘solid evidence for God’s existence?’

What missing links? What are you talking about? In reference to what species? Humans? There are ample. Go to the museum of natural science. You can see them for yourself. I mean seriously, what level of evidence are you looking for here? A perfectly preserved specimen of every primate for every 1000 years throughout time?

If macro evolution is true, there should be MILLIONS of transitional links, which there is millions of MISSING LINKS within the chain. Even if you want to claim there is SOME transitional links, there is HUGE gaps STILL. And those SOME transitional links that you claim are transitional, I don’t call transitional, I call them a variation of the same kind of creature. And as for some, the bones are so fragmented that it’s not even worth saying what It is.

Even if there were missing links, of course that doesn't show that macro-evolution is false. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

True it’s not evidence of absence, BUT it IS evidence that YOU don’t have evidence of PRESENCE.

 

[Jollybear]

Gebethewiking

Please explain what you mean with "we" in this question? I need to know what you mean, "We" as in Homo sapien sapien? Or something else? The animal defined as Homo sapien sapien did not come from the Ocean, "We", in this context, came from a previous ancestor very similar from what we are.

It is, once again, Arbitrary, when you define "Them" (previous ancestor) to "us" (now), where do You draw the line? You need to explain this to us else it is hard to explain basic Evolution, what do you think the line is?

And if you meant something else with "We" in your Question, feel free to tell me and I will answer accordingly.

Well, “we” came from our mother’s womb and our mother was on EARTH, not the ocean. So I don’t mean “we” as in that, I mean “we” as in where we came from. Did we come out of the earth or out of the ocean? That is we as a human race or living things. Did the furthest back common ancestor that you can imagine come from the ocean? In other words who was the common ancestor of OUR common ancestor? And who was the common ancestor of that common ancestor? And did it come from the ocean?

That is what I am asking.

Jolly

, I am getting the feeling that you do not want to debate and learn, but just preah your your views and are not very interested in facts and science.

Feelings are subjective and yours happens to be incorrect. Also I am not and I have not preached my views, but I am reasoning and debating my views on this forum. Preaching and debating are different. Preaching is when you state what you believe, then keep stating it over and over in so many different ways. That is not what I am doing, I am addressing everything thrown at my views, thus building my case, that is how debates work and that is what I am doing. That is what I am interested in doing and therefore that is what I am going to keep doing. I am not interested in preaching my views or having others preach their views to me, unless they wish to debate the views. Yes I have STATED my views, but that is different than preaching them. I have stated them and debated them so far. I have not preached them.

I apologize if I am incorrect, but so far almost every single post has stated that you do not like the Evidence of things you do not want to accept very much.

Let me put it this way and here is why I repeat over and over that addressing characters and desires does not help anything, neither my case nor yours. Here is why I keep repeating that. In honesty, there are two desires inside of me AND inside ALL OF US. One desire in me says &#8220;I wish there was NO GOD, but I still wish I could live on after I die, that way I can be my own boss, do my own thing and NOT get in trouble for it&#8221; < that desire is EVIL and we ALL have it in us to some extent or another, now that does not mean we all follow it though, but it&#8217;s there. So in light of that, the evidence you give does not shake me up too much, I just happen to see how the opposite interpretation of that evidence is EQUALLY strong using the same data for IT&#8217;S evidence. The views about intelligent design and young earth creationism and NO macro evolution can use the same data as it&#8217;s evidence, just interpret it differently.

Also the other desire in me says I want there to be a God, because then it creates ORDER and authority and greater purpose, it would be GOOD that I am not my own boss or do my own thing and the same with everyone else. It would be GOOD that there are boundaries to follow. That way no one gets hurt and everyone gets in their rightful place.

So, that is why I say addressing my character and desires HELPS NOTHING. There are TWO desires in me and everyone. So addressing that helps nothing. Plus even if my desire for there to BE a God is slightly or even a lot more stronger then my desire for there NOT to be a God, STILL addressing it HELPS NOTHING.

Here is what matters, examination of the evidence itself, NOT what I like or don&#8217;t like or what you like or don&#8217;t like. And that evidence you and others have shown me so far IS in FACT SUBJECTIVE at BEST. Now for the existence of God, the evidence is NOT subjective, I think it is air tight or at least very close to air tight.

Do you know how I came to accept the Facts of Evolution? Do you think I went to Church and was told to believe it, no evidence required, just Faith?

Or do you think that I went to School, got a proper Education about, initially, Biological Evolution, which interested me and I continued study it in depth at University, where I learned more, and then life went on, and I read new articles about new findings, everything from new Archologial finds confirming our Human Evolution as well as DNA findings, new Genetic Research making me understand the History of Evolution through the millenias?

Right, I figured that you would have come to believe it through school and articles and stuff.

Tell us honestly, once and for all, Do you think the Theory of Evolution says that a Human baby was born from a Monkey/Ape or the CrocoDuck Scenario, or perhaps a Fish had sex with a Donkey and we got a Ape, Or do you seriously have a proper basic understanding of Evolution?

No, I do not think a baby came from a monkey or a fish had sex with a donkey and we got a ape. Although I did hear of one defense for why the millions of transitional links are not there, it&#8217;s called &#8220;punctuated equilibrium&#8221; which means macro evolution happening in OVERDRIVE FAST. And that is wishful thinking. I have been accused of believing in magic, yet I call that magic. So if it happened very fast, then this means the transitional fossils for the actual transition would be VERY FEW, therefore not LIKELY to find, since there would not be millions or even possibly thousands, just maybe a few hundred or the LOW thousands. If this was true, then either one kind of animal would be having sex with another kind (which means no babies going to come out) or a heck of a lot of chance would be going on with both sexes of the species evolving at the same time the same way in order to have babies. The ODDS of that happening or VERY SMALL. Talk about winning the lottery.

If the Question is Yes, this is what you are believed/told by your compadres, you do not have any understanding of Evolution, you need to be educated from Scratch, if the answer is No, that such a thing is nonsense, and you Do understand Evolution, then you would have no problems seeing how the species Homo sapien sapien evolved and other Apes, such as Chimpanzees, went another way in Evolution in which we share a Ancestor.

I understand the common ancestor thing. I disagree with it though; the bones are subjective and fragmented. The evidence is subjective. I can equally use it to say it&#8217;s only a variation within a kind of family. In some cases the evidence is so fragmented it&#8217;s not worth even saying what it is.

 

[Jollybear]

Audodidact

wishes she had a nickel for every time she had to explain this to a creationist*

Science is not about proof. Ever. Science has never, and will never, prove anything. Science is about evidence. EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE,EVIDENCE. Please don't make me repeat this. The question you should be asking is, what is the evidence for common descent of humans and chimps.

If it hasn't been covered later in the thread, I will be happy to outline this evidence for you.

Ok, if it&#8217;s not about proof, but about evidence, that means I can use the very same thing you use for evidence of macro evolution and say that is evidence of VARIATION within a kind of creature, and NOT evidence for macro evolution. So it depends on what eye glasses one wears, either the creationist eye glasses or the evolution eye glasses.

You're wrong. Do you know about falsifiability? As a criteria for science?

Yes I know about that. But I have two things to say to you about it

First is, if intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then atheistic evolution also is unfalsifiable.

Second, I am making the bold claim that intelligent design is NOT unfalsifiable. I am also making the bold claim that I can PROVE that intelligent design is real. Now could I be wrong? Possibly, but I am not afraid to look like a fool, I am that confident that I can prove intelligent design. I think the evidence I have is THAT strong that I am willing to step out on a limb here and say this.

It's not falsifiable.

Yes it is, but if it&#8217;s not, then your worldview is not falsifiable either. If I am wrong about intelligent design, you can either prove me wrong, or at least prove that intelligent design is NOT proven. I am going to prove to you that intelligent design IS PROVEN. Now I will request from you that you PROVE that my proof is NOT proof. Then I will say it&#8217;s unfalsifiable if you can prove that my proof is not proof.

You are mistaken. The existence of gaps in the fossil record is NOT evidence that ToE is not true, far from it.

Well if there is TOO MANY gaps in the fossil record, how then do you deal with and still say macro evolution is true? What happened to ALL those millions of transitional links in the chain? Where did they go? What happened to them? Why are they not there? You have to answer this question.

So, JollyBear, is it your position that no new species ever evolve? That we have the same number of species on earth right now as we did at creation?

No, that is not my position. My position is that there are MANY species alive today that were alive at creation. Also there are many species that WERE alive at creation that are NOW extinct, or if not extinct, too rare to be noticed by anyone. Also there are NEW VARIATIONS of species today that were not alive in the past or at creation, BUT those variations are NOT NEW KINDS of animals, but rather a variation within the same kind of family.

Also we have more animals alive today probably then at creation or near the creation, since at the creation only the seeds were made, but from the seeds come more fruit and number. So there would be greater number today then back then, but then again, floods, disasters and all that would keep it from becoming over populated of course.

So, that is my position.

 

[Jollybear]

AxisMundi

Intelligent Design (or Creationism as it was formerly known) is purely a circular argument fallacy. It assumes that there is an "intelligent designer", and then attempts to provide this flawed data as the conclusion for it's basis and all other "findings". In other words, Creationism/ID comes to a conclusion (Goddunnit) and then attempts to use this as a proven factor on which to base all other "findings".

No, this is absolutely incorrect. First off, if you mean creationism as in young earth creationism or any other particular creation story, then NO, intelligent design is NOT referring to any particular creation story, whether it be young earth, old earth creationism or Egyptian stories or Greek stories of creation. Intelligent design is NOT referring to HOW or WHEN or by WHOM creation came. It&#8217;s referring to the fact that design in the universe exists and therefore someone had to have designed it. Intelligent design can be used by ANYONE who believes in a God or god/s and a creation story.

ID is termed a "pseudoscience" for a reason, as it skips several levels of the Scientific Method.

A perfect example is the "Irreducible Complexity" fallacy, which attempts to claim that certain natural structures are simply too complex to have evolved, or as it's creator, Behe, states... "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

An often used example is the "bacterial flagellum", a complex microscopic structure that provides locomotion for bacterium. ID and IC attempts to claim this structure is simply "too complex" to have naturally formed. However, we find the three main pieces of said structure throughout nature.

Ok, we find the three main pieces of said structure throughout nature? And the point is? I don&#8217;t understand how you just refuted Behe&#8217;s points of irreducible complexity?

Not only has Behe's fantasies been discredited by the entire legitimate scientific community, so has ID in general.

You can say that all you wish, it does not make it so. I can say &#8220;it has been discredited by the entire legitimate scientific community that we can&#8217;t fly with our arms&#8221; does that make it so? Of course not, we can&#8217;t fly.

If you want to get into actual examples of design, we can, and then you show me how they are not designed.

"Intelligent Design" is a theosophical exercise developed by the ancient Greek Philosophers. It was resurrected (no pun) in the 1980's by the religious right (which is neither) in response to Edwards v. Aguillard , the 1987 SCOTUS ruling which found that religious doctrine has no place in public school curriculum, as is proper.

It does not matter where it comes from, what matters is that design is in nature and how do you deal with it?

ID is merely a failed attempt to attribute science to religion, to not only substantiate religion, but to get religion past our Constitution and SCOTUS rulings and back into public school curriculum, where it categorically does not belong.

Yes, it does belong there in the school. Intelligent design is NOT religion, it&#8217;s science, BUT it does CONNECT to religious views, but it does not connect to any one PARTICULAR religious view, in other words any religion that believes in God or god/s can use intelligent design. The issue of intelligent design is not to teach religion or any particular religion, but to teach science, the design and complexity of nature and how nature works.

Also if you want to call intelligent design religion, and therefore it don&#8217;t belong in school, then the belief in chance and long periods of time and everything banging from nothing and evolving into everything as we see it now, that also is equally RELIGION. That is a BELIEF, an UNPROVABLE belief, therefore it is equally a worldview. Therefore, it does NOT belong in the classroom since it&#8217;s NOT SCIENCE. Science is that which deals with provable, testable stuff, and that usually is in the PRESENT or NEAR (emphasis) past.

 

[AxisMundi]

No, this is absolutely incorrect. First off, if you mean creationism as in young earth creationism or any other particular creation story, then NO, intelligent design is NOT referring to any particular creation story, whether it be young earth, old earth creationism or Egyptian stories or Greek stories of creation. Intelligent design is NOT referring to HOW or WHEN or by WHOM creation came. It’s referring to the fact that design in the universe exists and therefore someone had to have designed it. Intelligent design can be used by ANYONE who believes in a God or god/s and a creation story.

Ok, we find the three main pieces of said structure throughout nature? And the point is? I don’t understand how you just refuted Behe’s points of irreducible complexity?

You can say that all you wish, it does not make it so. I can say “it has been discredited by the entire legitimate scientific community that we can’t fly with our arms” does that make it so? Of course not, we can’t fly.

If you want to get into actual examples of design, we can, and then you show me how they are not designed.

It does not matter where it comes from, what matters is that design is in nature and how do you deal with it?

Yes, it does belong there in the school. Intelligent design is NOT religion, it’s science, BUT it does CONNECT to religious views, but it does not connect to any one PARTICULAR religious view, in other words any religion that believes in God or god/s can use intelligent design. The issue of intelligent design is not to teach religion or any particular religion, but to teach science, the design and complexity of nature and how nature works.

Also if you want to call intelligent design religion, and therefore it don’t belong in school, then the belief in chance and long periods of time and everything banging from nothing and evolving into everything as we see it now, that also is equally RELIGION. That is a BELIEF, an UNPROVABLE belief, therefore it is equally a worldview. Therefore, it does NOT belong in the classroom since it’s NOT SCIENCE. Science is that which deals with provable, testable stuff, and that usually is in the PRESENT or NEAR (emphasis) past.

1. ID must have a creator deity involved, no other entity could be responsible for such a large and complex undertaking. ID was pulled out of history and dusted off by YECers and other fundie Christians in direct response to Edwards v Aguillard in 1989, the SCOTUS case that kicked the religious doctrine of Creationism out of public schools, where it categorically does not belong. It was developed by members of The Discovery Institute, a fundie think tank, and is pushed by the same organization and other such people.

Intelligent Design is indeed Creationism, as it claims that Jehovah created everything.

2. Behe's claim was that the structure was too complex not to have been designed. You claim to read everything put before you, linked below is a lecture given by Prof. Ken Miller, the legitimate scientist who testified against ID in Dover v Kitzmiller, where the courts decided that ID was indeed religion, as it is. It is about an hour long, but very informative. Prof. Miller, a practicing Catholic, dismantles Behe's pseudosciences, Behe's book "People and Pandas", and ID in general.
[youtube]JVRsWAjvQSg[/youtube]
YouTube - Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

3. "It does not matter where it comes from, what matters is that design is in nature and how do you deal with it?" It certainly does matter, especially when A. it's a circular argument fallacy to begin with and B. who developed the current incarnation of ID. It was developed by YECers.

4. ID is to science as carpentry is to the modern automotive industry. ID attempts to redefine science to fit the YECer mentality and ideals, all in an effort to get religion back into public school curriculum, where it does not belong. Legitimate scientists, regardless of religious backgrounds, and the US courts have all publicly stated that ID is indeed religion.