Check out the latest care2 poll.

 [ send green star]

Intelligent Design,or Big Bang Theory,Science,Sprituality teachings,which ever it is......There's a time when real,long lasting peace needs to happen on earth. Humanbeings have had wars of different kinds for centuries,and certain Christian,along with other religious readings have continued to say with continuing newsletters "we will see when peace will come,It will come within the next..years,....the next centuries....the next...." and it never really comes.So it's not realistic to say "complete peace" for everyone on earth comes while we're all living...but only after the world desintegrates after a Third World War or worse?      No more world,no more war,no more cares,no more hatred.no more wondering about theories..no nothing....???? At least with Buddhism we are taught from the very beginning truth.."Life is suffering because we are born,will inevitably get older,inevitably get sick,and will inevitably die."Hopefully we die with a peaceful mind,so not to furthur any bad karma."Ok,it's ok.lol,to add discussion about disbelief in this,as this is a scientific forum.It's the only forum where you can discuss different things.  By the way,what is the most current scientific thinking-theories lately?...

 [ accepted]

That sucks that they got fired, and even worse if it was because of their beliefs.

What were their beliefs BTW, and the beliefs of their university?

 [ send green star]

Definition of Intelligent Design;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design, And Creationism;     http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2005/05/Faqs-What-Is-Intelligent-Design.aspx, (Creationism believes more that "God" created the earth et.cetera...in 7 Days as written in the Bible.).. 

I would tend to agree  that "Intelligent Designers" are "abandoning scientific inquiry." and add "because they are not patient enough to find out what really is the cause,effects,results,or don't want to admit they don't know,thus  ironically undermind their own intelligence.   But by "Intelligence",you people on this thread aren't speaking of the so-called,"Alien" species of intelligence are you?" I doubt real Ph.D. candidates,or there abouts,believe in"aliens", I can see how spirituality helps people(including myself) but to totally deny scientific evidence(geology,geography,Archaeological Sciences,Planetary Science,Chemistry,Physics,Astronomy,Earth Sciences,Biology,)...is blind ignorance.

 [ accepted]

I like where you're going here.  But, let's remember that merely MOST of the members of delphinidae have larger brains than average for body size.

Exactly, if a dolphin were to be shrunk to a human's average size, there brains would be slightly larger than ours.  Pretty amazing!

yup...but this isn't all that important in the classification.  Both Platanistidae and Phocoenidae are generally smaller.  Or are you talking about the difference between Odonteceti and Mysticeti (baleen whales)?  Still, not all members of delphinidae are sleek and slender.  Most are, and most have a distinct beak (not the orca), but not all.

I was comparing Odonteceti to Mysticeti.  You are very true, but I think the problem is that I'm speaking more generally since we could write thousands of pages on marine mammals!  I said "and they have incredible agility; faster, smaller than most whales."  Then there's the non-beaked Risso's Dolphin, just as how Orcas are non-beaked.  I guess I'm more referring to Bottle Nosed Dolphins as speedy/agile.

Don't bank on sperm whales (Physiteridae) to remain in Odonteceti for long.  Current research is suggesting they may have more in common with the Mysticeti than previously thought.

They do seem to be more of a Mysticeti, but I mean Odontocetis are all toothed (I think) and all Mysticetis are baleens (again, I think).  The sperm whales is a toothed whale.

"Think about Seaworld, could a narwhal (also a toothed whale) be replaced with the orca? I doubt it."- I don't think I understood what you meant here.

Oh, sorry.  I was showing the difference between a toothed whales and a toothed whalish creature.  The narwhal (whale) can not do as well as the Orca (whalish, yet similar to most dolphins.  It would probably be improbable, or impossible to replace that toothed whale with an orca.  Makes sense, yet?

Really, calling them a whale isn't all that incorrect.  The only problem with it is that it isn't all that specific, either. 

Whales can be described as a large creature, or something else.  Like you sad, not quite specific on the term.

Most "ocean dolphins" have dorsal fins, which are usually curved (falcate), but much variation exists.

TRUE.  Definately MUCH variations, that's one of the reasons that makes the classification so difficult. 

You and me, both.  Then again, my heart's skipped a beat more than a few times when a dolphin or porpoise surfaced nearby when I was waiting for a wave.

Wooo, hooo!  That sounds awesome.  I've never seen a shark, whale, porpoise or dolphin, in real life!

However, not all members of delphinidae do this.

It is a behavioral instinct they have in common with eachother, though.  It's not evidence, but a clue.

Dolphins are aliens.  One day they will leave and say, "so long, and thanks for all the fish!"

He, he, he.

I have yet to learn much about biosonar and stuff like that.  So I may be lacking education since I'm only in 9th grade, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid (hopefully).

Only lacking direction...not education.  Most college graduates are lacking an education.  Echolocation is utilized by all members of Delphinidae, though the Platanistidae doubtlessly use it more, and probably better. 

Hopefully I will find direction.

In other words, it's all in the teeth!  If a new animal came to be discovered tomorrow that fit the above characteristics, it would be the 33rd member of Delphinidae!

Teeth is definately a huge part; baleen verse toothed whales.  They're luck they don't have to go to a dentist, though.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

There are many theories on how the original life forms may have come about.  I don't know if teaching any ONE of them is sound, either.  But ignoring the vast knowledge gained from evolution's discovery, to the development of theories on its mechanisms and intracacies, would be equally unsound.>

Which is why I don't believe we should ignore any of those ideas and mechanisms etc. In fact most of them are part of the creation science model as well such as natural selection, adapation, mutation etc.

However, above you inferred that evolutionary hypotheses being developed before the gathering of the evidence was unscientific. >

No. You misunderstood. I never stated it was unscientific. My point was that it is scientific to do that first and then gather and interpret the evidence. That was my point...that evolutionists developed hypothesis's first. I think there was a miscommunication on our parts. I thought you were saying they didn't do that.

 Only, how do you gather the evidence before a hypothesis is formulated, since you have to have a hypothesis to decide how you want to develop the system of data collection and analysis, which you need to do before you actually collect and analyze the data?>

Exactly! You realize that although we disagree on whether the macro evolutionary concepts work we do agree on the hypothesis etc.

I believe YOU have a misunderstanding of your views on this particular thing.  However, if you are saying that your views are that populations do, in fact, change over time...then I think your views are misunderstood.>

I think both of us didn't do a good job communicating our ideas originally. In terms of populations changing over time creation science would collapse as a model if they didn't.

  If your problem with evolution lies in the precise mechanism(s) that regulate it, you're not alone.>

That would be accurate. I firmly believe in what most call "micro" evolution and so do all young earth creationists by the way. I don't believe the mechanisms given for macro evolution are capable of doing the job.

 [ send green star]

A word can mean whatever the creator wants it to mean.

Language, without a common understanding of interpretation, is meaningless.

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

 [ accepted]

True, and porpoises also belong to the "Delphinidae" family.

Phocoenidae.  I have to correct myself, too...Stenidae was recently placed in Delphinidae, as a genus of the family.  Delphinidae is basically ocean dolphins, orca, false killer whale, pilot whale; Platanistidae contains the river dolphins; and Phocoenidae the porpoises.

One MAJOR thing is that they both have large brains. 

I like where you're going here.  But, let's remember that merely MOST of the members of delphinidae have larger brains than average for body size.

and they have incredible agility; faster, smaller than most whales.

yup...but this isn't all that important in the classification.  Both Platanistidae and Phocoenidae are generally smaller.  Or are you talking about the difference between Odonteceti and Mysticeti (baleen whales)?  Still, not all members of delphinidae are sleek and slender.  Most are, and most have a distinct beak (not the orca), but not all.

Although the sperm whales ranges around 60 feet or so and are toothed whales. 

Don't bank on sperm whales (Physiteridae) to remain in Odonteceti for long.  Current research is suggesting they may have more in common with the Mysticeti than previously thought.

Think about Seaworld, could a narwhal (also a toothed whale) be replaced with the orca? I doubt it.

I don't think I understood what you meant here.

Orcas swim and jump like dolphins.

Fairly similar, mmm-hmmm. They socialize fairly similarly, too.

Orcas are often called whales because of their large size.

Really, calling them a whale isn't all that incorrect.  The only problem with it is that it isn't all that specific, either.

I know that adult males dorsal fins can reach up to about 6 feet tall, where as females dorsals are only about 3 feet and more curved.

Most "ocean dolphins" have dorsal fins, which are usually curved (falcate), but much variation exists. 

Whale sharks are often mistaken for whales also, because they are filter-feeders and about 30+ feet longer than the longest predatory shark.  Whalesharks are currently the largest fish/shark in the world (I would love to swim with one!).

You and me, both.  Then again, my heart's skipped a beat more than a few times when a dolphin or porpoise surfaced nearby when I was waiting for a wave.

Orcas and dolphins also come up and snatch prey on shore.  It's pretty scary if you've seen it on film!

However, not all members of delphinidae do this.

I don't know much about dolphins, though.  I've been taking more interest into them lately, especially dolphin cognition.

Dolphins are aliens.  One day they will leave and say, "so long, and thanks for all the fish!"

I have yet to learn much about biosonar and stuff like that.  So I may be lacking education since I'm only in 9th grade, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid (hopefully).

Only lacking direction...not education.  Most college graduates are lacking an education.  Echolocation is utilized by all members of Delphinidae, though the Platanistidae doubtlessly use it more, and probably better. 

Now, the answer...the reason they are classified in the same family is because they share certain physical characteristics.  These suggest a relatively recent speciation, or "split" from a common ancestor.  The fact that the Phocoenidae are in a separate family doesn't mean that they aren't closer to the ocean dolphins than other toothed whales...just that it is believed the porpoises diverged from the common ancestor with their dolphin/orca/pilot cousins just a bit earlier than the split that defines the various Delphinidae.

In the delphinid skull, the facial depression is broadly expanded. The posterior end of the maxilla rises up above the rostrum. The zygomatic process of the squamosal is small and hidden from dorsal view by the expanded maxillae and frontals. The lower jaws are fused for less than 40% of the length of their rami. The upper toothrows diverge posteriorly.  The teeth are peg-like and circular in cross section.  Delphinids are small to medium-sized cetaceans, ranging from about 1.5 m in length and 50 kg weight to almost 10 m in length and 7000 kg.

In other words, it's all in the teeth!  If a new animal came to be discovered tomorrow that fit the above characteristics, it would be the 33rd member of Delphinidae!

 [ accepted]

I'm not half as sensitive as FreeDiver.  I dish it, I take it.  That simple.  Don't worry 'bout it.

I have stated that if one is going to claim that certain ideas in terms of design aren't in terms of original origin aren't then by that standard neither would the specific origins part of evolution be.

There are many theories on how the original life forms may have come about.  I don't know if teaching any ONE of them is sound, either.  But ignoring the vast knowledge gained from evolution's discovery, to the development of theories on its mechanisms and intracacies, would be equally unsound.

I have never stated that.

However, above you inferred that evolutionary hypotheses being developed before the gathering of the evidence was unscientific.  Only, how do you gather the evidence before a hypothesis is formulated, since you have to have a hypothesis to decide how you want to develop the system of data collection and analysis, which you need to do before you actually collect and analyze the data?

Once again I believe you have a misunderstanding of my views on this.

I believe YOU have a misunderstanding of your views on this particular thing.  However, if you are saying that your views are that populations do, in fact, change over time...then I think your views are misunderstood.  If your problem with evolution lies in the precise mechanism(s) that regulate it, you're not alone.

 [ accepted]

  Gonna be gone from Friday to Sunday with my youth group trip to Phoenix.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

They both belong to the family delphinidae, as well as the order Cetacean.  However, that doesn't make an orca a dolphin.  Had you said they belong to the dolphin family, it would have been different.  Of course, whales/dolphins/orca, they're ALL cetaceans, aren't they?  And, in the case of this particular order, it's rather confusing to use the vernacular term, don't you think?  Delphinidae, the family, does not include many animals known as "dolphins," as I'm sure you know.  For example, the family Stenidae is composed of three genera of such dolphins.

True, and porpoises also belong to the "Delphinidae" family.

How is it that orcas and dolphins came to be classified into the same family?

There are many reasons.  One MAJOR thing is that they both have large brains.  They are both of the sub-order "Odontoceti" (toothed whales, hopefully I spelled it right), and they have incredible agility; faster, smaller than most whales.  Although the sperm whales ranges around 60 feet or so and are toothed whales.  Think about Seaworld, could a narwhal (also a toothed whale) be replaced with the orca?  I doubt it.  Although whales do breach, Orcas swim and jump like dolphins.  Orcas are often called whales because of their large size.  I know that adult males dorsal fins can reach up to about 6 feet tall, where as females dorsals are only about 3 feet and more curved.  Whale sharks are often mistaken for whales also, because they are filter-feeders and about 30+ feet longer than the longest predatory shark.  Whalesharks are currently the largest fish/shark in the world (I would love to swim with one!).  Orcas and dolphins also come up and snatch prey on shore.  It's pretty scary if you've seen it on film!  I don't know much about dolphins, though.  I've been taking more interest into them lately, especially dolphin cognition.  I have yet to learn much about biosonar and stuff like that.  So I may be lacking education since I'm only in 9th grade, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid (hopefully).  There is honestly so much more info left out of this post!

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

That excuse is weak. 

 [ send green star]

It's a good enough paraphrase! 

 [ accepted]

Brian I am sure you could point that out without launching into a personal attack.

If you are going to make that kind of accusation it is best to use quotes.

 [ send green star]

So, KAELA...

How is it that orcas and dolphins came to be classified into the same family?

 [ accepted]

The guy flip-flops all over the place! 

Evolution isn't scientific because it doesn't conform to the scientific method.  But evolution isn't scientific because it conforms to the scientific method.

If it's personal to call this type of logic loony...so be it! 

 [ accepted]

FD, why did you block Jeff? 

A bit too trigger-happy with that block button are we? 

 [ send green star]

good show!  Yes, now you've impressed me.

They both belong to the family delphinidae, as well as the order Cetacean.  However, that doesn't make an orca a dolphin.  Had you said they belong to the dolphin family, it would have been different.  Of course, whales/dolphins/orca, they're ALL cetaceans, aren't they?  And, in the case of this particular order, it's rather confusing to use the vernacular term, don't you think?  Delphinidae, the family, does not include many animals known as "dolphins," as I'm sure you know.  For example, the family Stenidae is composed of three genera of such dolphins.

 [ accepted]

Orcas are not whales, they are dolphins.

Actually, they're cetaceans.  No big deal, though.  We decided to leave you alone, since having to live stupid is punishment enough.  But, since you want to bring it up as evidence that I'm uneducated, it's a cetacean.

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know that I said that you are very smart, not uneducated.  Since you think I'm uneducated, though, dolphins ARE cetaceans!  Orcas are of the "delphinidae" family.  It's funny that you like to bash people to make yourself feel better.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Metaphysical beliefs do not belong in science class.  Poetry, religion, mythology, or literature, yes.  Science, no.  Only what you can test, belongs in science class. 

Michelle is exactly right.

ID belongs in a religion or philosophy class.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Orcas are not whales, they are dolphins.

Actually, they're cetaceans.  No big deal, though.  We decided to leave you alone, since having to live stupid is punishment enough.  But, since you want to bring it up as evidence that I'm uneducated, it's a cetacean. 

 [ accepted]

Just google it.  You can't miss.

Basically, it's a field of study that seeks to combine knowledge and findings from the fields of biology, paleontology, the behavioral sciences, morphology, molecular biology, phylogenetics, behavioral sciences, etc.  It's the multi-disciplined approach to science.

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]

None of which has anything to do with the fact that in it he also made many hypothetical statements etc which were highly influential in his grandsons work as I noted.

Actually, not really.  Wait...My bad!  Not AT ALL!  Not any more so than the rest of the scientific world in the middle part of the 19th century, especially in other works that would be used for reference to the medical field for about 30 years.  That goes for both your claims, of course.  Now, if you were saying his work was highly influential in the work of Lemarck, you'd have a point.  After all, Erasmus thought that evolution was goal-oriented...which Charles didn't.  That being the main difference between Charles and most of his colleagues, it's a pretty salient point to the fact that you're talking out of your ass again. 

Once again you just admitted what I stated....the evidence was interpreted after the idea came about and it was intepreted within that framework.

There you go again.  What a maroon!  Where was the framework when Edward Tyson's work was published?  How about Carolus Linnaeus?  How about Isaac de la Peyrere?  Both Darwins did plenty to examine the evidence and further the knowledge available thenceforth.  If you go spend 30 years as a physician and surgeon, then you can crow about how hypothetical Zoonomia was.  Here's a "secret" shared by those of us who've actually read it: the book was a PATHOLOGY!  A pathology would be a silly place for endless hypotheticals, and luckily it isn't that at all.  Once again, go read it, and then tell me how hypothetical his 14 pages of musings on the diseases of the heart is hypothetical!  Your implied claim that science should consist of only brand new findings is silly, though fitting for someone who is as diametrically opposed to knowledge as you are.  It is a decidedly ANTI-science position.  Of course, we've already established that Creationism is anti-science, but thanks for providing independent verification.

His findings confirmed hypotheses made by others because they interpreted that evidence within an existing framework. You can keep trying to move it back but every single time we find that they had an idea and then interpreted the data within that idea.

Nope.  It's called independent confirmation for a reason.  You can keep trying to act like your insanity is reality, while the majority of the world is somehow incapable of grasping the simplicity of dogma, but it doesn't change the fact that you're just living in the dark ages.  You, and those who join with you in your belligerence toward reason and logic, are merely the waste product of the information age.  You crave simplicity, because knowledge requires intellect and effort, so you rebel against the dizzying array of information flying over your head by ignoring the true precepts of science: accumulated knowledge, and a process to eliminate biases.  Your "science" features neither of these two characteristics.  You cling to the creation story because it's so simple, though science had already disproved the geological timetable provided therein by 1830, and the idea of "fixity of species" was ALREADY a quaint remnant of a darker time.

On the contrary....you assume incorrectly although it has been awhile. lol Once again my statement was a broad statement which has been confirmed.

I've assumed nothing.  I assessed, as I've learned to do, that you were BS'ing your way through that.  I see it all the time!  Do you think you came up with anything new?  Do you think you're just that much more clever than anyone else?  You're deluded!  You're also a liar.  You can't reason.  You've failed to provide any if-then-therefore forms of logic...merely sweeping generalizations and lies, often displaying your ignorance more than you even realize.  Any teacher worth his salt would fail you for that crap you tried to present as some sort of "persuasion".  And that's a FACT!

When we follow the trail back we find that someone came up with a hypothesis and then they took that hypothesis and interpreted data within that framework.

The only thing you just stated here is that you are openly hostile toward science and knowledge.  Your idiotic "framework" argument proves it.  Science itself is a "framework," a large picture of natural knowledge compiled by the hard work and dedication of independent scientists focusing on specific aspects of the evidence at hand.  You've neither worked hard nor been dedicated to anything but being "God's soldier," ironically, and you believe that acting like a brick wall accomplishes something to that end.  You're just another mindless fundie, convinced by someone who targeted you for your lack of knowledge and education that evolution is this and science should be that, and you never even checked his facts.  All you've done is memorize talking points, and weak ones at that.

You've fallen far short of establishing for yourself the level of credibility one would need to judge the work of those scientists and have it mean anything.  Like I said, come back with an education, or at least a foundation in logic, and we can get somewhere.  As it is, you're just treading ignorance, while the rest of us float by on the way to serendipity.  Have fun!

 [ accepted]

  Not that it's totally on subject, but it's a little weird that a bunch of people keep saying they're highly educated when no one corrected me on the post with sharks and orcas.  Orcas are not whales, they are dolphins.  It doesn't matter, though.  Just because you didn't post that I made a mistake, doesn't mean that you didn't know.

  When it comes to teaching in schools, I think either none of them should be taught, or you should be able to choose.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

You clearly aren't familiar with the work of any Darwin, though you pretend to be.  Erasmus Darwin was the father of integrative biology, was very knowledgeable in the areas of embryology (pre-genetics, of course), biogeography, paleontology, and his works reflect this.  Zoonomia is a very detailed work on pathology, for the most part.  It's scientific integrity is beyond your comprehension apparently.>

None of which has anything to do with the fact that in it he also made many hypothetical statements etc which were highly influential in his grandsons work as I noted. As to it's integrity that is a matter of pure subjectivity.

The fossil record would provide independent confirmation of many of the concepts of evolution, while shedding new light on others. >

Once again you just admitted what I stated....the evidence was interpreted after the idea came about and it was intepreted within that framework. Thanks.

Nope.  His findings confirmed others, while expounding upon them in a new way, which was how it was revolutionary. >

His findings confirmed hypotheses made by others because they interpreted that evidence within an existing framework. You can keep trying to move it back but every single time we find that they had an idea and then interpreted the data within that idea.

Go ahead and read it.  It won't bite.  Most of it is wrong anyway, so it's not like you have to accept it as dogma.  I love his observations regarding domesticated canines being all one species (which would only be verified much later).  Even more, I love his detailed anatomical descriptions.  I love his descriptions of pigeons and the domestic varieties thereof, for which there seems to be no precedent in the wild.  His reproductive mechanism theories are rather quaint.  And that's just in the first chapter!  Overall, though, for a scientific work 150 years old, it's rather easy to read.  You should give it a shot, since you clearly haven't done so thus far.>

On the contrary....you assume incorrectly although it has been awhile. lol Once again my statement was a broad statement which has been confirmed. When we follow the trail back we find that someone came up with a hypothesis and then they took that hypothesis and interpreted data within that framework.

You clearly misrepresent your knowledge of evolution.  Reading someone's mischaracterization of Darwin isn't the same as reading Darwin.  >

I haven't misrepresented anything. In fact it is you who don't even realize your admitting what I have been trying to point out. It is you who also doesn't have a clue what creation scientists even believe.

Come back educated, otherwise you're just dirtying bandwidth with your ignorant crap.

I could be getting nookie right now.  You've been wasting our time.  >

Once again all you did was post a link trying to make it sound as though I was wrong when in fact the link does nothing to contradict my overall statement and idea. You keep trying to make it sound as though the evidence somehow just drove them to come up with the hypothesis when in fact we find that in every single case they had the hypothesis and then took data and interpreted it within that framework.

As for knowledge on a subject...please don't lecture me when you can't even name more then a couple creation scientists without googling and regularly make statements about the creation model that no one who had bothered to do more then skim evolutionary propoganda sites would ever make.

 [ send green star]

lol...You might want to read Erasmus and Zoonomia sometime. It wasn't evidence at all but a hypothesis which he admittedly didn't have much evidence to support. I demonstrated that Darwin had a hypothesis which he set out to prove. He quite admittedly interpreted the evidence within that paradigm. The point is that Erasmus had next to nothing in the way of actual evidence. He had an idea and put it down and his grandson took those ideas and set out to try and gather evidence to support them. The opposite of what you claim! lol

You clearly aren't familiar with the work of any Darwin, though you pretend to be.  Erasmus Darwin was the father of integrative biology, was very knowledgeable in the areas of embryology (pre-genetics, of course), biogeography, paleontology, and his works reflect this.  Zoonomia is a very detailed work on pathology, for the most part.  It's scientific integrity is beyond your comprehension apparently.  http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a3099

so we have an admission that the fossil record was not one of the evidences which caused him to come to the conclusion for his theory of evolution.

The fossil record would provide independent confirmation of many of the concepts of evolution, while shedding new light on others.  It came later.  http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a485

so in other words he had an idea he placed the evidence within and interpreted it within before he started. Thank you for admitting that.

Nope.  His findings confirmed others, while expounding upon them in a new way, which was how it was revolutionary.  Go ahead and read it.  It won't bite.  Most of it is wrong anyway, so it's not like you have to accept it as dogma.  I love his observations regarding domesticated canines being all one species (which would only be verified much later).  Even more, I love his detailed anatomical descriptions.  I love his descriptions of pigeons and the domestic varieties thereof, for which there seems to be no precedent in the wild.  His reproductive mechanism theories are rather quaint.  And that's just in the first chapter!  Overall, though, for a scientific work 150 years old, it's rather easy to read.  You should give it a shot, since you clearly haven't done so thus far.

In example after example we find that the idea preceded the evidence. They were interpreting the evidence within a given framework.

Hey, where've you been?  Do you really think you're educating ME? http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=6387&pst=478934&archival=

You clearly misrepresent your knowledge of evolution.  Reading someone's mischaracterization of Darwin isn't the same as reading Darwin. 

Come back educated, otherwise you're just dirtying bandwidth with your ignorant crap.

I could be getting nookie right now.  You've been wasting our time. 

 [ accepted]

About that frozen DNA.  You dismissed it flatly and said "no it isn't."  Well, yes, it is.  It seems to me that you are the one who is not being open-minded. >

Here is the problem. That the dna exists is a fact. That is proves what you state is pure speculation and interpretation by some scientists who are evolutionists. I am aware of their views and have read them. Have you read the creation science and ID views?

 Instead of putting down everyone else for not having read enough "creation science," maybe you should explain scientifically why the trees studied could not be that old, without using the Bible.  >

I just cited a site which has numerous articles on dendrochronology in which many go into technical details on the science and don't use the Bible at all.

If you truly have found scientific evidence for a literal interpretation of the Genesis story, share the SCIENCE. >

Let me ask you something. Why is it that I have several evolutionary sites bookmarked and try and keep up with secular journals who are evolutionary in the area of origins and also try and follow different evolutioninsts work..........but when I expect that people speaking about how wrong creation science is should have some of the same things in this area I am somehow asking a lot?

 

Meanwhile, here are some links that talk about the DNA studies being done on the extinct Adelie penguins, and also comparing various other extinct flightless birds with penguins.  >

Thanks for these links. I want to mention once again thugh that I was already familiar with these ideas and the manner in which they interpret the data. Is it asking too much for people to do the same in return?

 [ send green star]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_22_166/ai_n8576738

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0322_020302_TVancientDNA.html

 [ send green star]

The Bible's the Bible.  You can't add to it, which is why it isn't science.>

I didn't say it was. And there is where you are confused. I have never said the Bible is a science book. However, where it touches on areas of science and provides a framework we can do exactly the same thing that Darwin did and examine the data within that framework.

 Science is the accumulation of knowledge.  What's the point, if the entire goal of study is to wind up at the same point you started?>

Correct...an accumulation. Darwin started with an idea about evolution passed on to him by others. He examined the hows and rejected some ideas of how it could work and accepted other ideas of how it could work. Creation science starts with an idea that on the areas where the Bible does speak of these things it could be accurate. They then examine the hows and reject some ideas of how it could work and accept others.

Darwin's theory, as all scientific theories, provided several plausible predictions of how the theory could be disproved.  That's a requirement of science, which can't be met if you claim that your "theory" is inerrant.>

Once again you have a problem here though. Evolution itself cannot be disproven because no matter what aspect you falsify the search continues for how it could have happened. Creation starts with an axiom as well and most certainly many parts within it can be falsified in just the same manner.

No.  I majored in history.  Then I taught it.  Amazing how the thousands of historians who've contributed to history were somehow in collusion with me to rewrite it...oftentimes, as it happened!>

Amazing how you claim that all those historians are in collusion with you. They aren't. Your statements about massive heresy and the church rejecting and hating Darwin etc etc........you never did tell us where Darwin was buried when he died? Oh wait...in Westminster Abbey....one of the greatest honor the church could bestow on a person. Yep...they hated his guts. I cited Scofield and other major conservative giants of the day whose reference Bibles were extremely mainstream and widespread.......you cited some vague idea of the middle ages etc.

We've already determined that you are not a part of "the church" (which denounces fundamentalism) and therefore have no room to speak for it.  But the Pope can!  >

Now that is a cute bit of double speak. So now we are specifically speaking of the catholic church when referencing the church...hmmmm.....................by the way....if you are referencing the roman catholic church of that day you might want to note that the position I stated about creation and the fall is the one they held at that time. lol

The "modern" model, which was created after Cuvier PROVED extinction?  How silly!  Why do you need a "modern" model, >

Wow..you really are showing you know next to nothing about creation science. lol You need a modern model because the Bible gives us the overall framework and the model provides the details.

hen the literal translation of Genesis is supposedly infallible.  The "modern model" merely means the same old dogma, wherein you've removed all those areas where your dogma was found to be utterly unsupported by any amount of evidence.>

It is infallible but it only gives the basic framework just like Darwin just had an idea that evolution took place and searched to find out the mechanisms for how it would occur.

Thank you for again demonstrating the unscientific nature of creationism.  The ARCHBISHOP John Usher's (not a scientist) opinion in 1660 was before the availability of the evidence that would disprove him.>

Thank you for making my point. I never stated that his dates were scientific. Neither does the creation model. Those are based on that record. The scientific evidences for a young earth are different. lol

 What the heck would Usher know about scientific knowledge between 1700 and the present?  Oh, that's right...NOTHING! >

Correct. Which is why we believe the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supports the Biblical dates given. They are not the same thing.

For one, we've found trees whose rings date back to 8,200 years ago (even before you start, this has nothing to do with radioactive carbon)! >

No you haven't. That is a field of science called dendrochronology and there are many major assumptions which are made in the dating of those trees. There are also some very nice refutation and examples of how tree rings cannot be used in that manner at answersingenesis.org. But hey..that would require you actually view the other viewpoint huh?

Your adherence to the dogma of 400 years ago does nothing to demonstrate your knowledge.  Rather, it proves your closed mind.>

Right...coming from a person who doesn't even know what creation scientists believe. lol When you get around to actually being open and reading some creation science model material let us know.

 [ send green star]

How funny...you say it's demonstrably untrue, but you demonstrated nothing.  What does Darwin have to do with it?  Darwin was working from the EVIDENCE compiled by others.  It wasn't some abstract "idea."  He was one link in a chain of scientists who led to the modern concept of evolutionary theory. >

lol...You might want to read Erasmus and Zoonomia sometime. It wasn't evidence at all but a hypothesis which he admittedly didn't have much evidence to support. I demonstrated that Darwin had a hypothesis which he set out to prove. He quite admittedly interpreted the evidence within that paradigm.

I'm quite familiar with the Darwin family.  Your point?  >

The point is that Erasmus had next to nothing in the way of actual evidence. He had an idea and put it down and his grandson took those ideas and set out to try and gather evidence to support them. The opposite of what you claim! lol

Darwin PREDICTED that the fossil record would support the idea of gradual change over time, inheritable from one generation to the next. >

Right...so we have an admission that the fossil record was not one of the evidences which caused him to come to the conclusion for his theory of evolution.

 You are correct in that he didn't base it on the fossil record very much, since it was virtually nonexistent in 1859.  But thanks for demonstrating the difference for us.  Darwin didn't just come up with it.  He "stood on the shoulders of giants" and tested their theories, clarifying discrepancies. >

Oh...so in other words he had an idea he placed the evidence within and interpreted it within before he started. Thank you for admitting that. lol

 He followed by making his own claims and predictions that would verify or disprove his theory.  Erasmus wasn't the first, either.  Evolutionary thought has nothing to do with proving previous thought, but rather finding what previous research was unable to unearth.>

You just continue to dig a hole for yourself. In example after example we find that the idea preceded the evidence. They were interpreting the evidence within a given framework.

 Darwin travelled around the world, recording detailed observations about very diverse and previously unknown organisms, and drawing conclusions based upon them to arrive at his theory of natural selection.>

You mean the idea of natural selection people like Dr. Edward Blythe were talking about decades before Darwin? (Blythe was a creationist by the way). Natural selection is a major part of the creation model. It fits into both models quite well. Once again he interpreted natural selection within a view he held prior......

 His mechanism for reproduction/heritability was flawed, and that was found by many scientists who followed him.  As opposed to a religion, where finding fault would be considered heresy, as was the creationists' reaction to the work of Buffon and Cuvier.>

You really don't have a clue in this area. Perhaps you can explain why creationists have proposed and continue to propose all kinds of concepts and ideas within the creation model which are accepted or rejected. The canopy theory was once widely held by creation scientists but after considerable research it has now been rejected. Various models with plate tectonics have been researched and are argued in the technical peer reviewed creation journals even as we speak. But this would require that you actually took some time to look at them.

 Oddly enough, neither of them denounced God.  Buffon proved first that the earth was more ancient than counting the list of geneologies in Genesis could show, and Cuvier proved the fact of extinction. >

Actually Buffon used a certain method of interpretation and upon that based his idea that the earth was older. He didn't prove anything as one has to accept uniformitarian assumptions for his ideas to be true. Cuvier proved the fact of extinction which is actually a prediction of the modern creation science model. Are you trying to say that since some older creationists rejected it that means that modern creationists do? Wow....should we then judge evolutionary thought by what some evolutionists in that time thought and accepted and rejected? lol

 Creation arguments then didn't hold water, yet here you are still trying to say it should replace evolution.>

You do realize that just like evolution there is now a modern creation model right? Or should we judge evolution by the old evolutionary views? lol

Untrue.  You've provided no support for this argument.  He actually evaluated the evidence within existing hypotheses: amarck's theory of inherited adaptation, which was disproved; and the hypotheses of "fixity of species," for example.  He demonstrated where each of these failed to account for the evidence at hand, and ONLY THEN proceeded to formulate his own hypotheses, followed by pages and pages of documented observation >

On the contrary you have supplied the evidence yourself. lol The question wasn't whether or not evolution was true or not but how it occurred. He rejected one specific idea of how it would occur and came up with another. He placed the observable data within that model. Evolution as a general idea already existed and he was out to see how it could work.

  However, it accomplished the aforementioned burden of evidence,>

Great...then so does creation science since natural selection and all those observations are also a part of the creation model.

and was amazingly able to posit an acceptable mechanism for selection IN THE ABSENCE of an accurate model for reproduction!>

With a little help from creationists like Blythe. lol

The Bible's the Bible.  You can't add to it, which is why it is  [ send green star]

<This is untrue. For the evidence led to the formulation of evolution, while the creation story was used to explain what evidence was not available, or to explain what they couldn't deduce from what evidence WAS available.>

Demonstrably untrue. Darwin was working from an idea put forth by others well before the he ever went on his voyage etc.

How funny...you say it's demonstrably untrue, but you demonstrated nothing.  What does Darwin have to do with it?  Darwin was working from the EVIDENCE compiled by others.  It wasn't some abstract "idea."  He was one link in a chain of scientists who led to the modern concept of evolutionary theory. 

His grandfather Erasmus was famous for his evolutionary views on origins and wrote a book called Zoonomia which in the manuscripts of "Origins" you will find scribbled on different pages by Darwin.

I'm quite familiar with the Darwin family.  Your point? 

Darwin noted that the fossil record would later either support or destroy his view. He didn't base it on the fossil record.

Darwin PREDICTED that the fossil record would support the idea of gradual change over time, inheritable from one generation to the next.  You are correct in that he didn't base it on the fossil record very much, since it was virtually nonexistent in 1859.  But thanks for demonstrating the difference for us.  Darwin didn't just come up with it.  He "stood on the shoulders of giants" and tested their theories, clarifying discrepancies.  He followed by making his own claims and predictions that would verify or disprove his theory.  Erasmus wasn't the first, either.  Evolutionary thought has nothing to do with proving previous thought, but rather finding what previous research was unable to unearth.  Darwin travelled around the world, recording detailed observations about very diverse and previously unknown organisms, and drawing conclusions based upon them to arrive at his theory of natural selection.  His mechanism for reproduction/heritability was flawed, and that was found by many scientists who followed him.  As opposed to a religion, where finding fault would be considered heresy, as was the creationists' reaction to the work of Buffon and Cuvier.  Oddly enough, neither of them denounced God.  Buffon proved first that the earth was more ancient than counting the list of geneologies in Genesis could show, and Cuvier proved the fact of extinction.  Creation arguments then didn't hold water, yet here you are still trying to say it should replace evolution.

Darwin came up with a hypothesis and then interpreted all that data within that hypothesis.

Untrue.  You've provided no support for this argument.  He actually evaluated the evidence within existing hypotheses: Lamarck's theory of inherited adaptation, which was disproved; and the hypotheses of "fixity of species," for example.  He demonstrated where each of these failed to account for the evidence at hand, and ONLY THEN proceeded to formulate his own hypotheses, followed by pages and pages of documented observation (minutely detailed, which was the main reason for its popularity), and then an explanation of how his theories were more inclusive of the available evidence.  It wasn't accepted as gospel, then or now.  However, it accomplished the aforementioned burden of evidence, and was amazingly able to posit an acceptable mechanism for selection IN THE ABSENCE of an accurate model for reproduction!  The Bible's the Bible.  You can't add to it, which is why it isn't science.  Science is the accumulation of knowledge.  What's the point, if the entire goal of study is to wind up at the same point you started?  Darwin's theory, as all scientific theories, provided several plausible predictions of how the theory could be disproved.  That's a requirement of science, which can't be met if you claim that your "theory" is inerrant.

Brian rewrote history.

No.  I majored in history.  Then I taught it.  Amazing how the thousands of historians who've contributed to history were somehow in collusion with me to rewrite it...oftentimes, as it happened!

The church's position is that all creation was good until the fall and then death and disease entered the world.

We've already determined that you are not a part of "the church" (which denounces fundamentalism) and therefore have no room to speak for it.  But the Pope can! 

Extinction is a prediction of the modern creation science model.

The "modern" model, which was created after Cuvier PROVED extinction?  How silly!  Why do you need a "modern" model, when the literal translation of Genesis is supposedly infallible.  The "modern model" merely means the same old dogma, wherein you've removed all those areas where your dogma was found to be utterly unsupported by any amount of evidence.

I would put Usher's historical and scientific knowledge up against yours anyday...by the way....Newton spent a considerable amount of checking Usher's figures.

Thank you for again demonstrating the unscientific nature of creationism.  The ARCHBISHOP John Usher's (not a scientist) opinion in 1660 was before the availability of the evidence that would disprove him.  What the heck would Usher know about scientific knowledge between 1700 and the present?  Oh, that's right...NOTHING!  For one, we've found trees whose rings date back to 8,200 years ago (even before you start, this has nothing to do with radioactive carbon)!  Your adherence to the dogma of 400 years ago does nothing to demonstrate your knowledge.  Rather, it proves your closed mind.

 [ accepted]

I disagree with what seems to be your working Hypothesis:  Science and God nullify each other? 

Wrong.

You clearly decided my position was entirely different than it is in reality.  I'm not an atheist.  And nothing I've said would suggest otherwise.  It is your own preconceived notion that, somehow, those who subscribe to the concept of evolution, and its various theories, are atheists. 

So I guess you're really disagreeing with yourself.  If you ever want to have a discussion with another person, which would involve having an open-enough ear to understand what they are saying, I'll be around.  Have fun with yourself until then!

 [ accepted]

I disagree with what seems to be your working Hypothesis:  Science and God nullify each other?   

If scientist supply a space ship to go to Mars, would they not mimic nature by designing reduntant systems in case of a system failure?

Would they stock items that may never be used, but may need to be used in certain circumstances?

Redundancy is the natural order.  It also seems to be God's order.  Time & time again we witness miracles large and small and many of us still fail to recognize that God is in the works of all things.

The Catholic Church & the Pope recognize the "Big Bang Theory" as valid.  No fight between science and religion there.  No book burnings or hysterical mobs.  But look at the "Big Bang"  and try to understand it.  If you see the barriers that the Big Bang runs into, you may just see what?  God's mind at work.

"OUT OF NOTHING CAME SOMETHING"

So says God,,, So says the Big Bang.

And by the way,,,, science is still seriously limited in its depth & knowledge of understanding the universe and even atoms.

Quantum mechanics does not work with Newtonian physics.  The mathematical systems do not correlate with each other.  There is MUCH we dont know and cant explain.

Have you heard that when science looks at the universe in its totality.  (What can be seen, measured, tested, and observed)  Science can only account for & explain 20% to 25% of the mass of the universe.  The rest is DARK MATTER.  

We are looking at a lighted Christmas tree from a distance and all that we can see and make account of are the lights.  We dont know a thing about the tree that holds the lights.

When I have problems justifying the existence of God and Science,,,  I just trust Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin.  They are more intelligent than me and they both believed in God and marveled at the beautiful science they found in God's mind.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

You'd do it the hard way?

Why not?  He went to all the trouble to make all the other naturally-occurring materials, why DIDN'T he use them?  Of all the amino acids out there, why do the vast majority of them get no use whatsoever from any form of protein known to anyone? 

Of all the nucleotides out there, why are most of them just...well, floating nucleotides?

If I were a great, all-knowing creator, I think I'd know enough that I wouldn't leave all those extra parts unused.  I'd kind of like to think he's capable of knowing ahead of time what he'd need.  Maybe we're just God's Mr. Potatohead.  Right?  Then again, you say he ran out of skeletal structures, organs, and other parts...maybe he got so sidetracked going hog-wild with the microscopic parts, he only had like a half-hour before that sixth day was up and he just threw all the big animals together in a hurry.  This is a form of science???? 

 [ accepted]

Both theories require the evidence to first be interpretted with the assumption that the theory is correct before the evidence supports the theory. Otherwise it is meaningless.

This is untrue.  For the evidence led to the formulation of evolution, while the creation story was used to explain what evidence was not available, or to explain what they couldn't deduce from what evidence WAS available.

You can work backwards through the evidence to arrive where we started.  It was the creation which determined the history of the world, until science began unraveling the evidence available.  When the church's position was that all of God's creation was good, and therefore no animals were made extinct, especially since he saved them in the ark, scientific evidence was eventually deduced to arrive at the FACT of extinction.  The church called it heresy, books were burned, mass hysteria ensued.

When dogma was that the earth was 6,000 years old, its proof lay in adding up the years listed in the lineage of the old testament for the priests who called themselves scientists.  It was scientific evidence which led scientists to deduce that the earth was far, far older than this.  The church called it heresy, books were burned, mass hysteria ensued.

Creationism was a sufficient explanation when scientific evidence was slim and hard to come by.  The idea that evolution is somehow religious in nature is completely contradictory to the FACT that scientists have strived to achieve objectivity in collective results because of the problems associated with personal biases.  As evidence unfolded, the dogma was contradicted, and each piece of evidence was re-examined numerous times to reinforce the dogma.  The scientific method replaced dogma.  Evolution has been a development of science ever since the revolutionary discoveries were being made that would inevitably lead to the release of control over knowledge of natural history and understanding to experts in study, rather than experts in scripture. 

The attack on evolution by creationists is a pure grab by those who want to have that control on knowledge in place once again.  The general outline of evolution has been confirmed, along with some particular details, though the picture is not yet complete.  Knowledge of the natural world, though, is better than its ever been before, and better than it ever could  have been under the control of the church...i.e. creationism. 

But intelligent design is all about politics and knowledge control, and nothing about science.  For whether one believes in a type of "intelligent designer" or not, it should not be a material aspect of how the evidence is interpreted to understand the natural world.  In fact, to do so can only prevent an objective perspective when interpreting the evidence.  And that just leads us to cries of heresy, burning books, and ensuing mass hysteria!

 [ accepted]

You'd do it the hard way?

 [ send green star]

If you were the creator, wouldn't you do it the same way?

As a matter of fact, NO!

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Why the hierarchy?

If you were the creator, wouldn't you do it the same way?

 [ send green star]

Roberto, that can just as easily be explained by design. When you write computer code you do the same thing. The code for microsoft word and excel would be mostly the same except for a few percent difference

Yes, I understand why Microsoft programs would be similar to each other and different from Apple programs, for instance. They were created by different designers. But in this case we are talking about the same designer. Why the hierarchy?

Some have said in this thread and might repeat "The purpose of the designer shall be revealed to us later". I don't have a problem with that, but that's a matter of faith, not science.

Kaela:

This is getting a bit out of hand, so I'll just state things clearly.

Some people claim they have seen the Yeti, others Bigfoot, and others have seen little green marcians. None of these "theories" can be proven wrong. Does that mean you have to include in all the taxonomic lists a statement about the possibility of such species existing?

For something to be included in science manuals, you need something more than "you cannot prove that it's wrong". Otherwise you'd have to create 4 new editions a day for every book, since new theories come up every couple of minutes!

I agree, for instance, that issues such as the big-bang or the Oparin-Haldane theory should not be included in science classes. They are, after all, theories which have never been anything more. So is Creationism/ID (I still have failed to figure out the difference: what's the difference between a creator and a designer?).

Evolution however is a different matter. Almost 150 years since "The Origin of Species", a lot has happened, from Mendel, to Avery, to Watson and Crick, and so on. These days, the debate among the scientific comunity is about HOW evolution ocurred, not whether it did.

Evolution is supported (not proven, yet supported) by lots of different evidence, a tiny small fraction of which has been presented here already. It is accepted by the generality of the scientific community (even though creationists will say it is not), even by those who believe in the existence of a creator (e.g. Brian) that Evolution did occur. In fact, the expression "Intelligent Design" does not exist past the American borders.

AND it is widely accepted by all the religious comunities in the world. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which has a long History of being a huge obstacule for scientific progress, was resistant at first, but has since then accepted Evolution as a scientific fact. Only a small fraction of the US church is having a problem with this. I don't like making political statements, but looking at the recent Supreme Court nominations, I think most of us have a pretty good idea of who is behind all this crap.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Both theories require the evidence to first be interpretted with the assumption that the theopry is correct before the evidence supports the theory. Otherwise it is meaningless.

Roberto, that can just as easily be explained by design. When you write computer code you do the same thing. The code for microsoft word and excel would be mostly the same except for a few percent difference.

 [ send green star]

  The thing is that it's just an excuse to say "Oh, there is no reason to believe that mutations were harmful and rare a long time ago."  Maybe, but maybe not.  I don't see how Evolution is any more Scientific than ID.  I'm not saying that is any LESS Scientific, either.  This debate could go on forever, and we'd never get anywhere because we all stay true to our own convictions.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Roberto:

“Science is not a type of Religion any more than Physics is a type of Chemistry or the other way around.”   Already stated I was very poor at trying to get across my comunication.

“Science and Religion are two separate subjects whose paths sometimes intersect, specially when it deals with issues such as the origin of life.”   Agreed

As for the rest… I agree to disagree.

I’ve already stated my opinion on the subject of whether or not ID should be taught in school. If it’s not I’ll teach it at home.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

OK Roberto's gone. Anyone else gonna chicken out?

 I loved that one! No, Sarvo, I didn't out, I was just busy these days, so I anwered the post that was especially directed at me, and saved the others for later.

I'll be happy to discuss anything you want, but first you will have to translate your post for me, because I didn't understand any of it.

Brian:

The Roman Catholic Church has a great history of backing the right scientific idea, ever since they stopped claiming they had anything to bear on the matter.  And, unlike rogue creationists, the Vatican has a large payroll of scientists who have actually found that evolution is highly supportable and the theologians have determined that scripture must be interpreted accordingly.

Couldn't agree more.

Every point in the history of science ever since has only served to refute the infallibility of a literal interpretation of said scripture.  While the Vatican resisted for a great deal of time, it eventually came to see that theological interpretation was helped greatly by scientific discovery, and not the other way around. 

Ditto.

Kaela:

What I meant was that there are no reasons to why we were are here because we were created by accident, as you believe.  Therefore, you set your own purposes.

Then why should I feel depressed by that? I find it remarkable that nature by itself was able to create such a beautiful planet and such beautiful beings. It makes me think: "I'm alive! Everything else is negotiable..."

(1) RARE EFFECTS—Mutations are very rare

(3) NOT HELPFUL—Evolution requires improvement. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and injure.

4) HARMFUL EFFECTS—(*#2/21 Mutations are Always Harmful*) Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive.

Btw, point 4) is called Natural Selection. Yes, all of the above is true... NOW!

You see, since Natural Selection (NS ) ensured that the individuals with the bulk of beneficial mutations would be the ones to survive and have offspring, basically current individuals have most of the beneficial mutations in their genome. In English, that means that of all possible genetic combinations, every species has now in the bulk of their genes a combination that provides one of the greatest possible advantages for them, and that is due to NS. So, any current change to that would almost invariably be a harmful one.

However, in the time before any mutation for a particular gene or characteristic had occured, and therefore before NS played any role, the existing individuals did not have the best possible gene combination, and therefore by random chance there was a MUCH greater possibility of a mutation being beneficial. For all we know, it could even be 50/50, or perhaps even more!

Not to mention that the ozone layer only came about after the first autotrophic oxygen-producing beings appeared, which means that in the beginning (when the most important mutations occurred) there was no protection from radiation and therefore the frequency of mutations was much greater. Of course that meant a greater frequency of harmful mutations as well, but NS would eliminate those.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

There is no reason to expect an intelligent designer to use a different code for different organisms. (Freediver F.)

The DNA statement assumes that a similiarity in dna proves a common ancestor but similiarity in dna is also what is expected from a common designer etc. (David H.)

The problem isn't just that the DNA code is similar. The thing about it is that no matter how you look at it, whether it's DNA structure, protein composition, enzyme structure, functioning and regulation, etc. there is a clear and distinct hierarchy. I mean in terms of internal molecular biology, not phenotypical variations caused by environmental pressure such as wings on bats, even though they are phylogenetically mammals AND their internal body functions as those of mammals.

No matter what aspect you're studying, humans are biologically closer to chimpanzees than to other apes, closer to apes than to other mammals, closer to mammals than to other non-aquatic animals, closer to these than to fish, closer to fish than to invertebrate animals, closer to animals than to other multicellular beings, closer to these than to unicellular eukaryotes and closer to these than to prokaryotic cells.

This shows a clear hierarchy which can only be explained because closer similarities mean a more recent separation from a common ancestor, so that each of the new species didn't have as much time to evolve as those which were separated a longer time ago, which had a longer time to evolve and therefore the differences are much much MUCH more noticeable.

There is no reason whatsoever why a god or creator or designer or however you wish to call him would go through all the trouble of creating such a hierarchy, since that would mean some species would not get the best possible characteristics. All creationists who tried to explain that have failed, such as Linné, whose work has ironically been one of the greatest boosts Evolution Theory has ever recieved.

THAT, not the similarities of code, is the one thing that makes Creationism scientifically inviable.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Michelle:

I loved your post about penguins. I haven't seen the documentary yet, but I was looking forward to it and am even more looking forward now. If what you say is true, one would have to ask: What idiot could have possibly designed this?

Dynamite:

I believe Science is a type of Religion and all basic Religions are connected and originated from one.  We all have to come together to get the picture of the whole.

I agree with the second sentence, not the first. Science is not a type of Religion any more than Physics is a type of Chemistry or the other way around. Science and Religion are two separate subjects whose paths sometimes intersect, specially when it deals with issues such as the origin of life.

And I don't think all Religions originated from one. Religion is an attempt by people to explain that which they do not understand, and also to give them courage to do the right thing at all times because they "know" there's someone out there looking after them and protecting them. Since every person on this planet has that need, they all created a religion for themselves, but when you look at them, you find out they are all the same.

One of my favorite writers once said: "Faith sustains us when Reason tells us that we cannot continue, that all of our life is without meaning [...] Faith and Reason are like the shoes in your feet: you can travel further with both than you can with just one".

While being an atheist myself, I DO have faith. I have faith in the human race, that in spite of everything, we all can learn from our mistakes and become better human beings, improve ourselves and the world around us. And I don't think that countradicts the second law of thermodynamics

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

The other problem I have with is the "mutation".

Apparently, you also have a problem with non-fiction literature after 1980.  Even still, it's amazing that you've never heard of the successfully reproduced theory of Genetic Drift.

"If a population is finite in size (as all populations are) and if a given pair of parents have only a small number of offspring, then even in the absence of all selective forces, the frequency of a gene will not be exactly reproduced in the next generation because of sampling error. If in a population of 1000 individuals the frequency of "a" is 0.5 in one generation, then it may by chance be 0.493 or 0.0505 in the next generation because of the chance production of a few more or less progeny of each genotype. In the second generation, there is another sampling error based on the new gene frequency, so the frequency of "a" may go from 0.0505 to 0.501 or back to 0.498. This process of random fluctuation continues generation after generation, with no force pushing the frequency back to its initial state because the population has no "genetic memory" of its state many generations ago. Each generation is an independent event. The final result of this random change in allele frequency is that the population eventually drifts to p=1 or p=0. After this point, no further change is possible; the population has become homozygous. A different population, isolated from the first, also undergoes this random genetic drift, but it may become homozygous for allele "A", whereas the first population has become homozygous for allele "a". As time goes on, isolated populations diverge from each other, each losing heterozygosity. The variation originally present within populations now appears as variation between populations." (Suzuki, D.T., Griffiths, A.J.F., Miller, J.H. and Lewontin, R.C. in An Introduction to Genetic Analysis 4th ed. W.H. Freeman 1989 p.704)

So, there you go.  Mutation happens more and more, the smaller a population gets, such as under conditions of isolation or near-extinction.  Amazing how nature has these little safety features! 

Of course, you could give God credit, but then you'd have to admit that the phenomenon is real.  It is, so you'd just have to accept it.  Now, the concept of "beneficial mutation" is completely relative.  For instance, in the event of major environmental change, as tends to be the case in a world in such flux as our own, a mutation which would be a major hindrance in terms of a species' ideal habitat, may be less of a hindrance to an individual organism. 

Consider the case of albinism.  In general, an albino animal is at a distinct disadvantage, for prey animals in terms of being spotted by predators, and for carnivores in terms of being spotted by prey.  However, if one's -- for example, a fox's -- habitat is changing from a lush floral one to a snowy permafrost arctic environment, those albinos might be the species' only surviving members. 

Now albinism isn't necessarily an advantage for other reasons beyond color, but white coats can be a result of mutations at different points on the genome.  In fact, the above example of a fox is likely how the arctic fox came to be as we know it today.  At the same time, during the Ice Ages, other animals which were limited in range due to limited cold environments before the Riss-Wurm glaciation such as the woolly rhinoceros and the woolly mammoth populated their larger range rather abundantly.  However, as the ice caps receded, they were not able to re-adapt to the shrinking habitat as successfully.  Perhaps because the competition in the shrinking ecology was so fierce as so many cold-adapted species continually fought for survival for fewer and fewer resources, they did not survive the Pleistocene. 

Meanwhile, the warm-weather adapted elephants and rhinoceros have thrived as the temperate regions of the globe have spread to where they are today.  Today, ironically, their only enemy is the one who evolved the capacity to out-think environmental limitations! 

 [ accepted]

The other problem I have with is the "mutation".

"(1) RARE EFFECTS—Mutations are very rare. This point is not a guess but an scientific fact, observed by experts in the field. Their very rarity dooms the possibility of mutational evolution to oblivion.

"Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—*F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.

(2) RANDOM EFFECTS—Mutations are always random, and never purposive or directed. This has repeatedly been observed in actual experimentation with mutations.  Mutations are random, wild events that are totally uncontrollable. When a mutation occurs, it is a chance occurrence: totally unexpected and haphazard. The only thing we can predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new type of organism. This we can know as a result of lengthy experiments that have involved literally hundreds of thousands of mutations on fruit flies and other small creatures.  Evolution requires purposive changes. Mutations are only chance occurrences and cannot accomplish what is needed for organic evolution.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

As for the thermodynamics thing, I already explained to you why it is possible for disorder to turn into order spontaneously in a non-isolated system such as ours; just in case you missed that part, Brian explained it again. Since you apparently skipped both posts, I'll waste no more time repeating the same thing.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

You know, I'm starting to agree with David's friends: maybe Creationists DO believe the Devil placed fossils to decieve us...

Not at all.  The fossils are accurate, but the Scientists assume things because there are missing links and clues.  People only see what they want to see.  People's imaginations confuse with reality.  Our brain imagines things the same way that we SEE things.  That's where closed-mindedness comes in.

No, the fact that an "effect" much have a "cause" (circular reasoning) does not mean that it is "an intelligent cause". Basically any process can be described as a "cause", and nowhere does the law of causality say the cause must be "intelligent".

I was meant to be talking about the Big Bang/Stellar Evolution (not Evolution on Earth).  The cause was "NOTHING", the "effect" was something.  Gravity condensed and exploded creating protons, electrons, etc.  How can "nothing" make "something"?

Since you clearly have no idea of what natural selection is, please ask one of the creationists to explain to you how it works.

I know what it is, but Evolutionists use it in a different way.  Here is what a Creationist said:

"A plant or animal evolves by natural selection when those processes enable it to cross the species barrier, and produce a new—a different—species. But keep in mind that changes within a species are not Evolution." 

The word "evolve" to link with Evolution, but the word "evolve" does not have to link with Evolution.  Evolve=develop.  Evolution=theory of prolonged changes for life on Earth

That's just it, it's a theory, not a law.  You may not be able to take it all the way to the beginning.

I understand that you are probably a depressed human being like other Evolutionists, since Evolutionism believes that life serves no purpose.

What I meant was that there are no reasons to why we were are here because we were created by accident, as you believe.  Therefore, you set your own purposes.

While you're "researching as you type," go ahead and see if you can tell me why, out of over 390 naturally occurring amino acids, the proteins used by every single living organism are made up of the same 22.  Then, see if you can tell me why the DNA of every living organism in the world is in the form of a double-helix.  Now that scientists have "cracked the DNA code", they've found that the "language" of that code is the same for, you guessed it, every living organism in the world.  

How does that DISPROVE Creationism?  Why couldn't a Creator have us all share the same codes, just in differrent combinations?  That just shows that a Creator could have come up with a clever complex idea to use for ALL living organisms. 

If you knew that, then you should know that current apes are not an intermediate between primates and humans, so they cannot evolve into humans unless they "involve" first.

Yet, people still say that we have SO much in common with these apes.  Apes then, are apes now.  Humans in the beginning are humans now.  There are only slight differences.  Lemurs are lemurs, despite the different sub-species.  Humans are not an existing sub-species of ancient apes.  Since apes (ancient or not) look a little alike humans and share common things, people think it's okay to call it our distant cousin.  We share a lot in common with special worms, too.  Does that make worms our distant cousins, also?  No, because if Science said they were, it would be bizarre because we look NOTHING like worms.  People are falling for the ape-man thing because of the visual similarities.  Everybody tries to prove Evolution, when it has already been said that neither Evolution, nor ID can be 100% visually proven.  Science is based on observation, and you can not observe either.  The debate between Evolution and ID would never end because they are both based on faith in certain clues.  I believe that "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" were the greatest hoaxes ever presented.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Now that is quite strange....so the Miller-Urey experiments weren't concerned with how life began....and all those science textbooks in schools which have the evolutionary concepts about amino acids and the primordial ocean etc.

Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory, natural selection, common descent, punctuated equilibrium, or speciation.  'Nuff said!

Dawkins and others have very much supported the idea that evolution gives a purpose for life.

Dawkins is an extremist.  And he may well believe such, but he doesn't advance that as a scientific theory.

If we accept evolutionary precepts then that will affect a persons view in regards to many aspects of religion and philosophy.

That is completely untrue and unsupportable.

First of all why cite the Pope? The Pope isn't a scientist and the Roman Catholic Church doesn't exactly have a great track record of backing the right scientific idea.

A theologian who accepts scientific findings as such is just as cogent an argument as, in fact more appropriate than, an early 17th century scientist who acceptED theological precepts.  However, that's the difference between the two.  Were creationism scientifically viable, you'd expect the Pope to be the first to back it.  You claim that evolution has "precepts," only that is a feature of theology.  Evolution is composed of hypotheses, predictions, and observations which either support or clarify it.  Today, Newton would be a Darwinist!

The Roman Catholic Church has a great history of backing the right scientific idea, ever since they stopped claiming they had anything to bear on the matter.  And, unlike rogue creationists, the Vatican has a large payroll of scientists who have actually found that evolution is highly supportable and the theologians have determined that scripture must be interpreted accordingly.  And the distinction must be made that those scientists were not originally retained in the hopes of finding as such.  They were, in fact, the reason the church was so long in rejecting the notion of geocentricity and young-earth creationism.   

The Vatican is a beautiful example of the harmony between science and theology if kept separate from each other's limitations and read according to its respective context.  Of course you'd try to deny the significance of the Pope's stance, but it is nonetheless quite salient to the discussion at hand.  As much so as, if not more than, the other two characters in the list.

Creation science is just as much science as evolutionary science. Both start with axiomatic beliefs and then apply operational science within that framework.

Again, untrue.  Creationism starts with axiomatic beliefs.  Evolutionary science had to get past the very same beliefs that creationism clings to, in order to find a clean canvas from which to apply findings and analyze them outside of the bias of religion.

The discoveries happened because they believed that God was an orderly God.

And funny how the end product shed much more light on the matter than they imagined going in.  The discoveries were made due to the diligence of the researchers, and not because of staunch religious belief.  In fact, many of the greatest minds in scientific history were only constrained by the limitations placed upon them by theology. 

I suggest you read the writings of Newton and Herschel among others to see just how much of influence their worldview had on their scientific work.

What could possibly make you believe I haven't read them?  Those views were typical at the time, since scientific findings were rather nascent.  Electricity hadn't been discovered or harnessed yet.  Why do we have lightning?  God made it so.  It was acceptable as long as that was all you had.  The Bible's literal translation would be contrary to its own, and characteristic of other sacred texts, cryptic language and style.  In the 1600's, everything and everyone was centered around God.  To try to paint their scientific findings as some kind of "birth" of creationism is silly.  Creationism was the starting point.  Every point in the history of science ever since has only served to refute the infallibility of a literal interpretation of said scripture.  While the Vatican resisted for a great deal of time, it eventually came to see that theological interpretation was helped greatly by scientific discovery, and not the other way around.  To ignore the huge symbolism of the work only demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what is truly important about the Bible.  You, therefore, miss the point of both science and theology.

You once again completely confuse operational science and historical science and don't understand that their starting axioms were by definition religious.

Nope, you are quite as confused as ever.  Their starting point was mere questions about natural phenomena.  Those phenomena that they couldn't answer were often chalked up to the spiritual.  That's only natural in our history, when faced with that which we are unable to know.  A "starting axiom" is not now, nor has it ever been, a part of the scientific process.  In the loosest possible interpretation of the phrase (the only way in which it could be allowed into this conversation) the only "starting axiom" for a scientist is the findings and accepted theories preceding his own.  He may be testing their accuracy, comparing their support with competing theories, or building upon them with new theories.  But the only assumptions of evolution are reproduction and heritability, which were demonstrated through science and not by declaration.  Your own "God as a starting axiom" viewpoint is precisely what hindered science for ages.  As such, I'm going to step out of the time machine and back to the 21st Century. 

 [ accepted]

I'll be busy now, so I'll answer the other posts at another time. I've got a lot of catching up to do...

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

It is hilarious that I posted the Law of Thermodynamics to prove the contradiction between it and Evolutionism, and you never replied about that part. Well, I didn't forget about that Law.  You probably ignored it because you thought it didn't contradict, when it actually did.

You see, unlike other people, I DO have a life involving something other than arguing over the internet 24 hours a day. I answer when I have a chance to.

As for the thermodynamics thing, I already explained to you why it is possible for disorder to turn into order spontaneously in a non-isolated system such as ours; just in case you missed that part, Brian explained it again. Since you apparently skipped both posts, I'll waste no more time repeating the same thing. You can find it at:

Physical Chemistry, by Ira N. Levine

pp 104-105  Entropy, time and cosmology

pp 138-139  Entropy and life

Evolutionary theory requires that matter originally made itself out of nothing

No, that has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Evolution deals only with post-Earth time. The rest is the field of study of other branches of science, not biology, which is where the Theory of Evolution belongs to.

Natural selection is just a fancy term for "chance/coincidence".

Funny you say that since, according to previous posts from creationists, Natural Selection IS part of the Creationist theory. Since you clearly have no idea of what natural selection is, please ask one of the creationists to explain to you how it works.

DUH!  Hominoids:Hominids:Current us.  I am educated with the issues.

Then why did you ask silly questions such as "Why are there apes that still haven't evolved into humans"? If you knew that, then you should know that current apes are not an intermediate between primates and humans, so they cannot evolve into humans unless they "involve" first. And according to the posts I've read, I'm not the only one under the impression that you are trying to pretend you know what you're talking about.

There is clearly no evidence to support that.

You know, I'm starting to agree with David's friends: maybe Creationists DO believe the Devil placed fossils to decieve us...

Law of Causality - an effect can not come before a cause.

It proves that if the law is correct, then an intelligent Cause must have created the highly complex Universe.

No, the fact that an "effect" much have a "cause" (circular reasoning) does not mean that it is "an intelligent cause". Basically any process can be described as a "cause", and nowhere does the law of causality say the cause must be "intelligent".

I understand that you are probably a depressed human being like other Evolutionists, since Evolutionism believes that life serves no purpose.

Am I wrong or are you confusing Evolutionism with Existencialism?

Depressed? Not at all!

I believe WE create the meaning in our lives, it does not exist independently. Our ideas, our choices, and our actions define who and what we are, and most important of all, how people will remember us after we're gone.

We, not an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud, are the ones who decide whether or not our life is meaningful and whether or not it will serve a purpose.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Never mind that last one from me, STB, I misread your post and the previous one.  Sorry about that.  Even Towels make the (very) occasional mistake. 

 [ send green star]

STB, you just did it yourself. 

 [ send green star]

Brian E. wrote:

 10:43 AM

...

You're insane!... 

...

You're full of it. 

...

You've done it...you went over the edge...  That's OK, though...we're used to it by now from you.

Ad hominem attacks appeal to many persons who like to think of themselves as being scientific, just as they appeal to others, also, but they stand in the way of science, truth, and understanding.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Science and religion have separate niches and should be treated accordingly.  It is when one holds a a conflicting-worlds view of them that problems arise.  Any problem I might have with certain religious persons--NOT religion itself--is when it tries to use science to explain the supernatural.   When certain creationists try to "explain" how the ark held all those species, for example, baffles me.  If they really believe Yawheh is all-powerful, why should it matter how it was done.  In their view, God should be able to do it no matter what, because of his omnipotence.   Trying to "explain" these things, then, is contradictory.   

 [ send green star]

For example, where did all life come from and what is our purpose is a question examined by both evolutionists and those that hold to religion.

This is untrue.  Science tries to answer the first, though not through evolution.  Evolution is not concerned with the beginning of life on earth, but rather the diversification of life thereafter.  Science does absolutely nothing to try to discover the purpose of life.  They left that to religion and philosophy, because scientists understand the limitations of their discipline.  Unlike some others, ahem!

You error is in assuming that they are not asking many of the same questions though. In some areas this statement is true...in other areas it would not be.

You're insane!  They may ask philosophical questions, but each of these individuals, including the POPE, understand/-stood that Creation "science" is anything BUT science. 

That is nothing more then a philosophical statement on your part and it ignores that most of the founding fathers in most of the scientific fields were in fact quite religious and believed in an orderly science and rational view precisely because they believed God was orderly and would do things in that manner.

You're full of it.  Far from ignoring the fact that many scientists before the 18th century were very religious, that's exactly what I was talking about.  It wasn't until scientists became aware of the hindrance of an intertwined science/religion that they sought to separate the two.  As soon as they did, discoveries happened.  It both recognizes the status of early scientists' religious viewpoints (of course, they believed that which they could scientifically answer or describe) and the results of science being freed from its constraints.  You have abandoned all basis of reason and rationale in your statement. 

Sir Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the greatest scientist that ever lived and most don't even realize he wrote more in the areas of religion then in the area of what you would call science. His religious views were a driving force for his scientific views in many areas.

Name one person who considers him the greatest scientist who ever lived!  Greatest physicist, maybe, but he suffered two nervous breakdowns in his career, was tearing off angry letters at other respected scientists (the Royal Society and Robert Hooke included), and was known for having a bad temper and for taking liberties with others' research.  His theories of motion were published in 1666, nearly 200 years before Darwin's On the Origin of Species, at a time when the majority of people explained everything away with God.  Yet, Newton was a proficient and thurough scientist.  His theory wasn't that objects would be attracted to each other at a rate acceptable to God.  It was that they would be attracted to each other based upon an "inverse square force."  In other words, he had a mathematical formula.  Clearly, his religious views (which had nothing to do with mathematics) had nothing to do with the matter, since religion dictates that God made the heavens and the earth and so therefore he would have no reason to investigate further if that were the "driving force" behind his scientific work.  As much as you'd like to lay claim to Newton, his work grants the scientific method credibility, and by corollary, he is a major force in the support for evolution.  To say he was a creation scientist is silly.  His field really lends your claims nothing.  What does gravity have to do with evolution? You guys didn't invent creation science until the "Great Awakening."

Not at all. Science should be neutral and in areas where a religious concept agrees with and is examing the same question that is scientific. In areas where it is not then it is not.

You've done it...you went over the edge.  This made absolutely no sense whatsoever.  That's OK, though...we're used to it by now from you.

 [ accepted]

"The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena (not supernatural speculation) that cannot be observed directly."

Actually, it is to provide a reliable framework in which to develop and test explanations for all natural phenomena.

 [ send green star]

  I don't see Science as a religion, but I do think it can be a part of a religion.  You can be a Jewish or Christian Scientist because Science does not contradict with most religions.  I shared this earlier, for people who haven't read it:

Science: a body of knowledge about the Universe gained through a logical process of thought based on observation.   There is no contradiction between Science and Religion.  Science and Religion hasn't created a conflict, man has.  Secular and Religious people both are looking for the same thing, understanding the Universe we live in.  Learning about the Universe around us is not against Christianity and many other Religions.  God created EVERYTHING for a reason, and Science is simply the study of His reasons.  The more we understand His Universe, the more we understand Him.  There is no contradiction between Science and Religion.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

That's why you are generally ignored.

This is not a criticism of my method. It is a criticism of me.

No it was an explanation of a common occurrence that is caused by the topic I was discussing.

 [ accepted]

That's why you are generally ignored.

This is not a criticism of my method. It is a criticism of me.

 [ send green star]

Attacking someone's 'method' is not appropriate either. That is just a disguise for attacking the person.

 [ send green star]

This issue has already been discussed in great detail here:

evolution is not a scientific theory

Please take it up there and leave this thread for debate about ID. 

 [ send green star]

1. Make observations.
2. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
4. Search for confirmations of the predictions;
   if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).

Because scientists are constantly making new observations and testing via those observations, the four "steps" are actually practiced concurrently. New observations, although they were not predicted, should still be explained by the hypothesis.

New information, especially details of some process previously not understood, can impose new limits on the original hypothesis. Therefore, new information, in combination with an old hypothesis, frequently leads to novel predictions that can be tested further.

Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism. Research that only involves simple observation, repetition, and measurement is not sufficient to count as science. These three techniques are merely part of the process of making observations (#1 in the steps outlined above).

Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure—but they do not practice science. Clearly, what distinguishes science is the way in which observations are interpreted, tested, and used.

 [ accepted]

A closed mind is a dying mind.
Edna Ferber

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

A scientific theory has to be falsifiable by definition. The theory of evolution was created and has grown because scientists continue to test their null hypothesis against it, and the theory holds.  It is testable and falsifiable therefore a theory.  "God made it that way," isn't testable!! (Unless there is some way to test for the existance of God).  So it is not a theory it is a belief, theories are what we teach in science- beliefs are what we teach as religons.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

So the idea that God just "made it that way" is somehow just as valid as a theory who predicted that structure before said structure was known? 

"God made it that way" isn't a scientific theory or explanation, but rather an attempt to explain it AWAY!  We aren't discussing two competing scientific theories, but rather two disciplines, one of which for some strange reason can't stand the fact that it isn't in control of the other one. 

The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena (not supernatural speculation) that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for things that really matter. For example, the most important discoveries of science can only be inferred via indirect observation, including such things as atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radiowaves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix.

The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, though no one has ever observed the process to this day and in spite of the fact that direct observation indicates the very opposite. All of these "invisible" inferences were elucidated using the scientific method. When the term "evidence" is used in science, it is used strictly in the context of this scientific method.

 [ accepted]

Brian, evolution explains it by saying that it got that way by chance (they happened to be the first ones) or by a selective process choosing the best ones. ID or creationism says it got that way because God made it so. There is no reason to expect an intelligent designer to use a different code for different organisms.

Jeffrey, I do not see science as a religion. Quite the opposite actually. Science does not deal with 'objective facts,' rather it deals with interpretations of observations.

 [ send green star]

I was not calling you irrational, but rather I focused on an intellectual framework built on the irrational. I said a person, not you, becaue this is a framework advocated by many in addition to you. Most of those people are rational people, which I always found ironic in that they would advocate non-objective foundations of knowledge, but make decisions concerning their personal affairs on solidly objective and rational grounds. There is often a difference between one's avowed philosophical stance and one what is actually willing to act on.

To say that science is just another religion is to undermine the essential nature and premise of science. When properly regarded, science and religion are qualitatively different things. Religion is built on faith, and informed by moral feeling and tradition. It requires no objective verification, and could never provide one. It necessarily has a metaphysical reference which could never, by definition, be observed and tested. It's very existence is assumed through an act of faith.

Science resolutely restricts its scope to the phenomenal realm, where everything exists in time and space. As such, it can theoretically be observed and measured. There are objective facts attributed to objects in time and space, and these objective facts are interpreted through the laws of logic. This is vastly different from the metaphysical faith that forms the basis of religion.

It is true, however, that science assumes an objective reality correctly described by the logical interpretation of sense data. And to a degree, it can be argued that that supposition is itself metaphysical in that we can never prove that external reality is the same as what we sense. This supposition, however, is the prerequisite for all practical thought, and would appear to be validated daily through every minute action we undertake.

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]

Brian,

First I said “I believe” that does not mean you have to.  I look at it that way because science tried to prove that God didn’t exist and it failed. Maybe I should've expressed it differently. All those Scientific “Wisdoms” were trying to prove that God doesn’t exist and instead they back up “Religious Wisdoms” And by the way those Religious “Wisdoms” come from all the primary religions they weren’t just pulled out of thin air … They were there before the Science Wisdoms. Science and Religion can and do coexist. Quantum deals with infinite and finite…just like yin and yang… two sides of the same coin.

Jeffrey,

NO all beliefs come from knowledge and not all knowledge comes from science. And by using “that person” doesn’t disguise the fact that you’re talking about me… either way you’re talking about someone instead of something and chances are that you don’t know that person well enough to be calling them irrational (or anything else).

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

...I'm wasting my breath?

I think you're right.  I'm gonna go see Kaitlyn, I think! 

 [ accepted]

I believe Science is a type of Religion and all basic Religions are connected and originated from one.  We all have to come together to get the picture of the whole.

Well, that's about the crux of it, isn't it?  Science isn't a religion.  It's a pursuit of knowledge.  Religion is the pursuit of that which one cannot know.  Religion and science aren't substitutes for one another, they do not attempt to answer the same types of questions, and they are not at odds with one another except to those who are extreme and ignorant about their chosen fields.  For every Cremo (Hindu Creationist) there's a Richard Leakey (atheist paleoanthropologist).  But in between are all the Donald Johanson's, Pope John Paul's, Ian Tattersall's and the rest of the SANE world, who realize that science and theology are best kept separate, in order that they can concentrate on the answers they respectively seek. 

Now, science and religion have been inexorably linked since the very beginnings of scientific thought.  Even still, there's no complete disconnect, but only in the 20th century did a desire for distinction between the two become seen as a necessity.  The result was a boom of scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, insights and revolutionizing technologies.  Science is hindered by religion. 

The idea that the two need to become "connected" is really to say that they should become "reconnected".  Your argument is supposed to be (????) that they would be more reliable and credible if seen as one.  But that is not true.  Science's credibility would be reduced drastically, while religion's would be raised.  Clearly religion has everything to gain by saying this, but it would be to science's detriment. 

And the various trendy quasi-religions' point of view on the matter is neither surprising nor relevent.  Kabbalah is just the latest swap meet religious philosophy, and the above "wisdoms" could just as easily have come from some tripped-out high school senior on acid at a rave somewhere.  The "wisdom" purported above is proof enough that science and religion cannot coexist.

Quantum reality being about infinity is just a bunch of crap.  Quantum technologies are about the finite nature of the incredibly small.  Like the working 1/1,000 scale model of a car (about the size of a grain of rice)...the only problem is that the molecules of motor oil are too large to work in it, so it gums up the motor.  The point is that size DOES matter.  And science could've never built that 1/1,000 size care with a bunch of priests butting their noses into every debate as if their opinions matter the way they did up until the late 1800's.

 [ accepted]

continued from:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=6387&pst=356449

 [ send green star]