|
|
| Evolution Vrs Intelligent Design, By Request (no kidding) |
| 12.03.04 (6:02 am) |
We've been having a bit of a discussion about the theory of evolution vrs the theory of intelligent design. This posting will address that topic, as well as a few of the more common misconceptions about these theories and some of the more commonly held viewpoints about the creation of our world and the life-forms that currently inhabit it.
To begin with we will state the theory of Intelligent Design. The theory itself is very simple, it merely states that some form of intelligence to a role into our creation. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. The theory does not speak to the processes or procedures that intelligence may or may not have used to create such life, nor does it speak to the manner or nature of that intelligence. It simply states that some form of intelligence took a hand in our creation.
Now, despite common belief this theory is not incompatible with the theory of evolution, as the theory of evolution simply addresses itself to postulating the manner or process in which life might have evolved on this planet. The Theory of Evolution, as stated by Darwin, does not rule out the notion that a intelligence, or a creator, might have been involved in this process. However the Theory of Evolution is more often that not misrepresented particularly when being taught in the grade school and high school levels to rule out the possibility of intelligent design. It is this misconception that causes so many of the problems between proponents of the Theory of Evolution and proponents of Intelligent design.
That having been said, it is important to realize that the Theory of Evolution is far from perfect, in fact it has holes in it large enough to drive several semi trucks through. The first a most glaring problem with the Theory itself is the lack of fossil support.
Fossilized bones of animal species have provided us with a rather rich history of life here on earth. We have discovered fossils of dinosaurs and other species that have been extinct for thousands, even millions of years. However despite the thousands of different species we have discovered as part of the fossilized record, to date we haven't found a single fossil of a transitory species.
If the Theory of Evolution is true, it means that at some point a species would "evolve" into another species, or two species would have a common ancestor. To date nothing in our fossil record really supports this notion. While we have found a few promising prospects, most, on further examination, have proven not to be transitory species at all. So the question becomes, with the thousands of different species we have discovered in the fossilized record, if evolution is indeed true why have we never discovered a fossil that supports it? This is a troubling question indeed.
But this is by no means the biggest hole in the Theory. The biggest hole in evolutionary theory is our own species, Homo Sapiens. Strictly speaking, as species go, our evolutionary design is terrible. We are physically the weakest species on the planet, because we walk erect. From an evolutionary design standpoint, it is a terrible design. All of our vital organs are exposed as a result, and all of our muscle groups must work against each other to hold us erect, making the energy available for lifting, grasping, running, etc far less than other designs.
Pound for pound there isn't a monkey or gorilla out there that doesn't far exceed us in the categories of physical strength and endurance, speed or dexterity. Many proponents state that our ability to stand erect is a result of our origins in the Savannah, where the ability to stand erect allowed us to sense danger more readily. as we could see much further this way. That would make a certain amount of sense, I suppose, if not for the fact that the predators we most likely would be trying to sense would not be standing erect, and as such our ability to see over the top of the grass would not be all that useful in spotting predators hiding in that same grass. It is also interesting to note that if this were indeed a desirable trait it is not a trait that man alone possesses. There are several other species that can stand erect when the situation calls for it, such as bears or even many species of ape.
So from an evolutionary standpoint, our ability to walk erect is actually a step backwards. The only reason we have survived as a species is thanks to our cognitive abilities. If, as evolution suggests, that man and ape had a common ancestor, it would have made far more sense from an evolutionary standpoint that the dominant species on this planet would have been far more akin to the ape in physicality but more intelligent. He would have walked only semi-erect, maintaining the lower profile and protecting his vital organs from attack as well as maintaining the superior strength and speed benefits.
Such a species would have been far more adaptable and survivable, and as such would have easily replaced us according to evolutionary theory. The only evolutionary advantage we have is our superior intelligence, and had both we and the ape evolved from a common ancestor as evolution suggests the natural evolutionary result would have been a creature that moves and carries itself like an ape and thinks like a man. Had we truly evolved from a common ancestor there is little doubt that our evolutionary path would have ended in a much different result, if the only guiding force in evolution was that of natural selection.
There are other problems with evolution as well, certain structures in the human body simply make little to no sense if the only guiding force in our species development was random mutation and natural selection. Our heart, for example, contains a lining that has perhaps the lowest coefficient of friction of any substance known to mankind. This allows our heart to be extremely efficient.
But this efficiency really doesn't translate into an evolutionary advantage persee. Simply making the heart larger or making the hear muscles more powerful or making our bodies smaller all would have accomplished the same evolutionary goal, this particular function of our design really doesn't lend itself to explanation through natural selection.
Then you have structures such as the human eye. The eye is pretty much an all or nothing type of affair. In order to function all of the parts have to be there and they all have to be in working order and in the right proportions. How does something like this "evolve"? Why aren't the vast majority of species on this planet blind, and if we are looking at a process of natural selection (blind creatures have a disadvantage and as such went extinct) why aren't there thousands of species of blind creatures in our fossil record? How is it that a structure as complex as the eye, one that would lend no evolutionary advantage until it was complete (requiring vast amounts of time and random mutations), evolve? Sure, it's technically possible, but it would require a vast number of random mutations to explain, and most of these mutations would have no evolutionary advantage until the structure was complete. So, if random mutation and natural selection are the process by which we evolve, why did all of these random mutations that had no real evolutionary advantage survive and reproduce as opposed to those more numerous, non-mutated members of the species that had all the same evolutionary advantages until the eye structure was complete enough and complex enough to lend an advantage? Furthermore where is the fossilized record of all of these blind species that must have existed prior to the evolution of the eye? It really just makes no sense, if random chance and natural selection are the only means by which life progressed, that the eye would develop as a result. It would be far more likely that our world would be populated by species that are mostly blind, and only a few or even one would have achieved sight through evolution.
These of course are just a few examples, there are others. This should serve as sufficient evidence that by itself the theory of evolution does have some major problems that cannot adequately be addressed at this time. It lacks a proper amount of scientific evidence to be taught as fact, and as a theory there are some obvious problems that show that the theory itself, at least in its current form, is probably either incorrect or at the very least incomplete.
So I don't really object to the theory itself being taught in the grade school/high school levels, however I do object to the manner in which the theory is most often presented. The theory is most often presented more as fact than theory, and it is most often presented incorrectly as scientific fact that proves there is no Creator. I've had some rather direct experience in this regard, both of my older children attended public school for a time and their textbooks and their teachers presented the Theory of Evolution in this fashion. When approached on the topic, the teachers and the school administration got extremely defensive almost from the get go, and I was informed very quickly that as far as they were concerned this curriculum was mandated by the Constitution and various court decisions, it was not open to discussion or interpretation.
Welcome to the current state of affairs in our public schools. The Theory of Evolution is now being taught as scientific fact and being misrepresented to give the students the impression that there can be no God, no Supreme Being, no Creator. Sad but true.
This post is getting somewhat lengthy, so I think I will stop here for now and put the more in-depth discussion of Intelligent Design, as a theory, in the next posting.
Submitted by: Stepdad
|
|
|
|
| |
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (7:17 am)
Please explain what your deffinition of transitory species is? There must be a disconect in the deffinition, or the understanding of how evolution works.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (7:29 am)
You wrote:
"The biggest hole in evolutionary theory is our own species, Homo Sapiens. Strictly speaking, as species go, our evolutionary design is terrible. We are physically the weakest species on the planet, because we walk erect. From an evolutionary design standpoint, it is a terrible design. "
Obviously you don't understand how evolution works based on this statement. As there are many variations in each individual, there are variations in many different features. So, as man's brain developed it became the overriding feature. So, physically weaker individuals would be able to succeed if they could think their way around a problem. This being the case humans became weaker over many generations, because the weaker individuals could survive as long as they could reason.
The same flaw in reasoning applies to your conjecture that there are no transitory species fossils. The only way to gather this kind of evidence is to have thousands of intact dated fossils and do a plot of the variations over time. Since this is impractical, the same type of data has been demonstrated using DNA data. Variations in the DNA over many generations have been used to measure the dates where two species shared a common ancestor.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (7:39 am)
Your conjecture that the eye would have no reasonable function until it was fully evolved is ridiculous. The light sensitive organ was already being evolved in very early creatures. There are millions of blind worms that still exist today, and they are soft-bodied creatures that rarely leave a fossil impression. But, snails and slugs evolved light sensitive organs that don't create the same image that we would consider clear.
So, the blind creatures that exist today had similar creatures as ancestors in ancient times. The eye of snail has most likely evolved as well over time, so a simpler light sensitive organ most likely existed in the past. Of course the eye is a soft organ and wouldn't leave a fossil in most situations.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (7:47 am)
You wrote:
" Welcome to the current state of affairs in our public schools. The Theory of Evolution is now being taught as scientific fact and being misrepresented to give the students the impression that there can be no God, no Supreme Being, no Creator. Sad but true."
Somehow you jump to the conclusion that there is no God, because we teach that the Theory of Evolution is a fact.
However, at the begining you clearly say that intellegent design means that God could have started the whole process at the begining and therefore is not in conflict with the Theory of Evolution.
It sounds to me that you are trying to make several loosing arguments, and if they all loose, then I'll settle for the fact that God started the whole thing.
An interesting point however is that before the universe was created there was no time. Think about that. That means that God just created the time as well as the matter and the space all at once. We are just experiencing a small piece of the universe in space-time.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (9:09 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
"Somehow you jump to the conclusion that there is no God, because we teach that the Theory of Evolution is a fact. "
No Doc, as was explained quite clearly in the article my children were being taught that the Theory of Evolution was fact, which in and of itself is a huge problem because it isn't, but in addition they were being told that the Theory of Evolution proves that God does not exist. That is how their text books read and how the material was presented to them. No assumption on my part at all.
"It sounds to me that you are trying to make several loosing arguments, and if they all loose, then I'll settle for the fact that God started the whole thing."
A supposition for which you present no evidence whatsoever. You completely ignore all the facts posted and simply state that it is a "loosing argument". Sorry, no soap there. Post an actual argument or refutation please. If my arguments do "loose" then please show how they do, specifically. Your response is quite frankly nothing but your own opinion, and opinion which would seem ignorant considering that you can neither bring facts to support it or refute the facts presented showing it to be incorrect.
In short Doc, time to put your money where your mouth is. Got proof? Post it. Otherwise the only losing argument here is yours and yours alone.
I have shown several major flaws in the theory of evolution if one assumes that only natural selection and random mutation account for the evolutionary process. I have also shown (in the follow up post) the mathematical fact that it is impossible for life to have developed from lightning striking some form of primordial ooze and thus started as a function of random chance. I have proof, facts and science in my presentation. You gave nothing to refute it, merely stated from on high I was wrong.
Sorry Doc, but if this was Jeapordy they'd be hauling your butt out the door for trying to B.S. your way through it. No dice. Refute my evidence or present counter evidence of your own, otherwise it's just a load of opinionated crap and pseudo scientific wishful thinking on your part.
This isn't a matter of opinion doc, this is a matter of science. And the science clearly proves you wrong.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (9:26 am)
You wrote:
"the Theory of Evolution proves that God does not exist. That is how their text books read and how the material was presented to them."
Give me the name and the publisher of this text book. I don't belive it says that. Even in California we would allow such a thing.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (9:29 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
Okdoke, assuming I can get the textbook name and ISBN number from the kids old grade school. Now, while I'm running all over looking for your demanded proof, where's yours?
Where is your proof, scientific, factual proof than anything I stated in my discussion of evolution was incorrect?
Your real long on demanding proof Doc, but real short on providing any of your own. You made a pretty outlandish statement that my arguments "lost".. but can you back that up or was it just hot air?
Got anything to support your views, or is this, as I suspect, just an opinion based on zero facts?
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (9:31 am)
Reply to: stepdad
In addition to what you quoted me saying I have also refuted your other conjectures which you have refused to counter. I supose that means that I have won those arguments.
:-)
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (9:41 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
You've refuted exactly Squat doc, because you haven't posted anything but squat. You made a few statements as if they were fact but have provided absolutely nothing to back them up after several, repeated requests for something other than a smug statement of opinion to support your views.
So what is the the truth here Doc, are your views well based in scientific fact? Or are they just based on arrogant, uniformed opinion that denies the facts, but one which you assume is correct because you've done absolutely no research and given the subject absolutely no real critical thought whatsoever.
So is that it Doc? You based your opinion on the same sludge they tried to teach my kids in school, given it no research or thought of your own, and now that your backed into a corner your trying to bluster your way back out?
Come on Doc, you guys on the random creation side of the argument are supposed to be the ones with all the scientific proof and evidence on your side, right? At least that's what they probably always told you. Running scared now that your learning it isn't true?
Lol.. sorry doc, but these blowhard pronouncements of victory are pretty transparent when you read through your postings and we find not a single shred of proof, evidence or scientific fact among them. You have not refuted anything I stated nor have you presented any empirical evidence of your own. And all the blustering in the world isn't getting you out of that corner. Or as the wise men of my fathers generation often said,
Time to Put up or shutup doc.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (9:42 am)
You wrote:
" Okdoke, assuming I can get the textbook name and ISBN number from the kids old grade school. Now, while I'm running all over looking for your demanded proof, where's yours?"
Well, I can prove that this claim of yours is false, if you live in the USA and attended a public school. This is because text books in the USA are published by big publishers that need to meet the requirements of the states that approve them. The publishers are lazy and they have generally acceptable guidelines for publishing textbooks. This means that they need to be accepted in either of the two big states of Texas or California. The Texas standards need to meet the Christian right requirements. The California ones need to meet the more liberal standards.
In addition to knowing that whether or not God exists is not a fact I was also on the select6ion commitee for selecting new science text books at in my school district. I specifically read the sections on evolution in all of the science text books.
Not to mention that if you actually had a text book that made the statement that you lied about it would have made National news....
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (9:48 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
"In addition to knowing that whether or not God exists is not a fact I was also on the select6ion commitee for selecting new science text books at in my school district. I specifically read the sections on evolution in all of the science text books. "
Which does absolutely nothing to address how the material in the book was presented (which was in fact my original point) nor does it even begin to provide a single shred of evidence to support your rather arrogant and unsupported opinion of my argument being a "loser".
In short Doc, you got bupkiss here. You made some pretty sweeping statements, even went so far as to call me a liar. No hiding in tangents here Doc, try discussing the core issue instead.
You stated my argument was a "loosing" one as if such a thing were a proven fact. Back that up Doc. Provide some evidence. Quite trying to weasel out. It's just tiresome after a while.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (9:49 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You post some shit about an eye not being totally evolved and claim victory. Ha ha ha!
You prove that you don't understabnd evolution then you claim victory. Ha ha ha...
I guess you are the one making an attempt at humor.
I have explained how evolution works, and you don't even argue with me on the facts. You claim fossils must be found to prove transitory species existed, but DNA evidence proves otherwise. Did you even read what I wrote. I tried to keep it simple for you, but if you are having problems I will go into detail....
Of course people on the non-science side don't care about the truth...
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (10:08 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
You haven't explained squat Doc, and that much is obvious from your replies. You also didn't bother to read what I actually posted, which is also obvious from your replies. All you have is one very arrogant opinion based on supposition based on flimsy scientific evidence at best. You have offered nothing, no empirical data whatsover to support anything. Nada Doc. Zero. Zilch.
Your still trying to bluster your way out of your corner I see. Sad. So, what will it be Doc? Care to step up and provide something other than a load of bluster?
Care to present some actual, scientific evidence to support your views?
Or are you going to continue to waste everyones time in this pathetic attempt to mistate my argument without ever actually addressing the points it makes?
Bluster, obfuscate, run for cover, repeat. Sad.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (10:15 am)
You wrote:
" You haven't explained squat Doc, and that much is obvious from your replies. You also didn't bother to read what I actually posted, which is also obvious from your replies. All you have is one very arrogant opinion based on supposition based on flimsy scientific evidence at best. You have offered nothing, no empirical data whatsover to support anything. Nada Doc. Zero. Zilch."
I see you have taken a lesson from the Republicans and the Religious zelots. Ignore the facts and they go away. You have refuted the facts about the evolution of the eye. You haven't refuted the DNA evidence as proving the transition species you want to know about. You demand fossils for shoft bodied animals, because you know that they can't be found.
Ha Ha Ha.....
You just continue to prove your ignorance...
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (10:27 am)
By the Way, I just checked out the Creationist website that claims which arguments should not be used, because they are most likely wrong. Your three arguments are there. For example:
‘Natural selection as tautology.’ Natural selection is in one sense a tautology (i.e., Who are the fittest? Those who survive/leave the most offspring. Who survive/leave the most offspring? The fittest.). But a lot of this is semantic word-play, and depends on how the matter is defined, and for what purpose the definition is raised. There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go hand in hand (e.g. What is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would claim that the theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can’t explain how motors work.) — it is only that circularity cannot be used as independent proof of something. To harp on the issue of tautology can become misleading, if the impression is given that something tautological therefore doesn’t happen. Of course the environment can ‘select’, just as human breeders select. Of course demonstrating this doesn’t mean that fish could turn into philosophers by this means — the real issue is the nature of the variation, the information problem. Arguments about tautology distract attention from the real weakness of neo-Darwinism — the source of the new information required. Given an appropriate source of variation (for example, an abundance of created genetic information with the capacity for Mendelian recombination), replicating populations of organisms would be expected to be capable of some adaptation to a given environment, and this has been demonstrated amply in practice.
You can check it out so you can find better arguments for next time:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (10:51 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
Ok doc, can you read? I'm not arguing Creationism.. that was stated right at the outset, quite empahtically of course.
Also, nothing posted on their website denies or gives scientific data to disprove anything I've stated. For example, their recommendation not to use transitory species as a portion of the argument notes that "some candidates have been found, even though they are highly dubious". I mentioned that in my own posting, that there were a few fossil findings that initially showed promise of being a possible transitory species, but so far the vast majority of them have proven not to be transitory species at all. While the possiblity exists that we might indeed someday find such a fossil (which is why these folks don't recommend this course of argumentation), my own argument is a bit simplier than that.
Why is it that in the thousands of fossils we have found, and the thousands upon thousands of species we have on this planet both now and in the past, why isn't there clear indication of at least one if not dozens transitory species in the fossil record? If the Theory of Evolution is correct one would expect to find them in droves. We haven't. In fact all we have found is a few big maybe's, and most of hte maybe's after investigation turn out to be no's. This isn't presented as positive proof mind you, but it does begin to cast some serious doubt on the Theory of Evolution.
As to how a Creationist might argue his point of view that is entirely his perogative. I'm not a creationist and I don't support their views, (ok sorry about the caps her folks but apparently I need to make a big impression on this one) AS I STATED IN MY ORIGNAL POST WHICH YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T READ BUT ONLY SKIMMED, AGAIN.
It's getting kind of old Doc, you don't really read whats posted, you do some half arsed research and expect to be able to cut and paste a website that offers a differeing viewpoint but one that really doesn't condradict or disprove anything I've stated, something you might know had you read the original posting in it's entirety.
Sorry Doc, but if you really want to argue this topic your going to have to take a bit of time, think about the scientific evidence and post some. Lamo statements from Creation Scientists won't cut it here. Everything presented was scientifically factual. The conclusion drawn from those facts is obvious given the data at hand. So, you either need to dispute the facts (good luck) or you need to show additional facts that cast doubt on the conclusions at hand (again, good luck).
This isn't something I blindly stumbled onto one day after reading the Bible Doc, this is a result of a great deal of reseach and study done over the course of a decade or two, starting at a time in my life when I was an agnostic.
So if you really want to debate this step up, otherwise do us a favor and step off. This was posted at the request of another individual who hopefully intends to debate it from a more scientific standpoint. Your attempts thus far have been beyond weak, they actually border on the insulting.
Address the core issues her doc, head to head.. or do us a favor and just let someone more qualified take up the challenge for you. The opinions of a single "Creationist Website" on the subject of which arguments they like to use and which ones they don't proves absolutely nothing, except that perhaps I'm not a Creationist nor do I agree with there views.
Of course I stated that, at the very top of the posting.
So please Doc, if your next attempt doesn't take at least 30 minutes or longer to post and doesn't contain at least one scientific fact that speaks directly to the facts/conclusions that represent the bulk of the original posting do us all a favor and just don't post it. Let someone else face the challenge instead.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (11:09 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You wrote:
" So please Doc, if your next attempt doesn't take at least 30 minutes or longer to post and doesn't contain at least one scientific fact that speaks directly to the facts/conclusions that represent the bulk of the original posting do us all a favor and just don't post it. Let someone else face the challenge instead. "
So, I guess that you don't believe that worms existed. This was a scientific fact speaking to your claim that their weren't any blind creatures.
"Why aren't the vast majority of species on this planet blind, and if we are looking at a process of natural selection (blind creatures have a disadvantage and as such went extinct) why aren't there thousands of species of blind creatures in our fossil record?"
There are thousands of species that are blind bacteria, plants, worms, invertibrates of many types. There would have been even more in the past.
"How is it that a structure as complex as the eye, one that would lend no evolutionary advantage until it was complete "
This is false, because just sensing shadows can allow creatures to hide from preditors.
"Furthermore where is the fossilized record of all of these blind species that must have existed prior to the evolution of the eye?"
Just look at snails and slugs. These animals have very simple eye structures. However, their ancestors eyes two billion years ago would have been even more primative.
"It would be far more likely that our world would be populated by species that are mostly blind, and only a few or even one would have achieved sight through evolution."
Another false statement, because a creature that can sense shadows can use that to it's advantage when hunting.
So, your entire eye argument is a set of false statements. And, you ask me to give scientific proof. Where is yours?
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (12:06 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
Ok doc, go back and reread the posting. Find that portion of the post where I supposedly say there are no blind species on earth, and quote it verbatim.
When you cannot, kindly apologize for calling me a liar since I never said any such thing. I will expect your apology by tommorow.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (12:19 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
"Why aren't the vast majority of species on this planet blind, and if we are looking at a process of natural selection (blind creatures have a disadvantage and as such went extinct)
why aren't there thousands of species of blind creatures in our fossil record?"
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (12:28 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
Funny, no where does that state what you said it did, that I said
"So, I guess that you don't believe that worms existed. This was a scientific fact speaking to your claim that their weren't any blind creatures. "
I never said any such thing. Now, this is the second time you have called me a liar, there will not be a third. Just so I am perfectly clear on this, I expect an apology for being called a liar, and I expect it by tommorow.
You have misquoted me, very badly. And even so I do not state that you are a liar, because I don't treat people with such disrespect. Nor will I tolerate being treated with such disrespect by you. Hopefully that is clear enough.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (12:38 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
Sorry, I meant to say ...weren't many blind creatures in fossil record
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (12:39 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
That is not an apology for having called me a liar. I do expect such an apology and I expect for you not to treat me with such disrespect in the future. Period.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.03.04 (12:52 pm)
Calling a liar a liar is appropriate. If you don't want to be called a liar then don't lie. When you use deception to make your point it is a lie. Of course the right wing conservatives have a disease in the lying department and you don't seem to be immune. You are not being honest with the mechanism in the chemistry here. If you don’t believe me, then go look it up.
posted by: whoisjohngalt
post date: 12.03.04 (4:25 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
"In addition to what you quoted me saying I have also refuted your other conjectures which you have refused to counter. I supose that means that I have won those arguments.
:-)"
SILENCE! Only Stepdad is allowed to point out when you skip over points! ;)
posted by: whoisjohngalt
post date: 12.03.04 (4:38 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
"You have misquoted me, very badly."
Seeing as how he made a supposition (based on the paragraph he highlighted above, and evidenced by the "So I guess..." in front of the statement), and never quoted you at all, how is it he misquoted you? Hmmm...seems like your harping on something here. WOAH--deja vu.
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.03.04 (5:00 pm)
My Response:
http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=deviant1&static=353427
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.04.04 (7:05 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
your done here.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.04.04 (7:11 am)
Reply to: whoisjohngalt
people are always free to disagree with me, however they are not allowed to treat me with such a level of disrespect and call me a liar. If you can't conduct yourselves with a modicum of civility your not welcome here, no matter what your opinions happen to be.
dr forbush was warned, repeatedly, and chose to ignore it. as a result he is no longer welcome here and has been placed on the banned list. he will remain there until an apology is recieved, period. he had absolutely no right to call me a liar. none.
if you wish to debate the issues or facts your welcome. if your here to act like a snotty child your not. life is too short to put up with that sort of idiocy.
i hope that is clear enough.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.04.04 (7:18 am)
Reply to: whoisjohngalt
you can join him if you wish. his behavior was reprehensible. i never called him a liar and i won't accept such treatment from him, or you.
if you wish to debate the facts or issues by all means lets do so. if you continue to push a defense of drforbush's indefensible behavior then by all means go over to his blog and talk about it to your hearts content.
the subject is closed here. anyone is free to post any opinion they wish here provided they can do so without behaving in such a childish fashion. there is no need for personal attacks on other posters and they will no longer be tolerated here. period.
this closes that particular subject. any responses you wisht o post about the evolution - intelligent design are welcome.
any further 'defense' of drforbush's childish and inappropriate behavior are not. i hope that is clear enough.
posted by: whoisjohngalt
post date: 12.04.04 (11:03 am)
Reply to: stepdad
I already addressed your Creationism Lite argument over on my blog. Your argument is fundamentally flawed several times over. As for Dr. Forbush's, unquoted misquotation, I'll just take a page from your book and note that you didn't address my point at all.
A few blatant flaws in your ID argument, cribbed from the link on my blog ("Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations"). You *definitely* made numbers #1, 3, and 4.
"1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences."
posted by: whoisjohngalt
post date: 12.04.04 (11:04 am)
Reply to: stepdad
"I have proof, facts and science in my presentation."
And you did it all without a single citation. Impressive. ;)
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.06.04 (3:54 am)
Reply to: whoisjohngalt
Adust your attitude, and quickly. Such personal attacks are not welcome here. This will be your final warning.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.06.04 (4:54 am)
Reply to: whoisjohngalt
Ok. For the Record, one final time.
1. I'm not discussing Creationism, never have been. In fact I even stated in the beginning of the second article some of the many problems with Creationism.
2. I am also not discounting entirely the theory of evolution, merely pointing out that by itself using nothing but random mutation and natural seleciton there are some problems with the theory. Any good scientist would readily admit that. If such were not the case it wouldn't still be a theory.
3. The attitude with which you and others have presented your arguments is beginning to convince me that their are simply far to many individuals that lack the maturity level necessary to discuss this issue. So far the level of personal attacks and downright snottiness has been in the extreme. This type of behavior is no longer welcome here. I have no intention of allowing anyone here to engage in personal attacks any longer. I may have put up with it to a certain extent in the past, however Dr. Forbush has polevaulted across that line by calling me a liar. I will not accept that sort of behavior here. I wouldn't allow a conservative vistor to call you a liar either, that sort of behavior is simply childish and unecessary. It is possible to present an opposing viewpoint without attacking the original poster.
4. I will post response to the factual objections you have raised, as you do make a few good points. However if the personal attacks continue I probably won't bother. I'm not going to provide well researched arguments and rebuttals if the opposing sides response is likely to be something childish. If people are interested in a factual discussion of the topic then so am I, but if all your here to do is throw stones and call names you've all come to the wrong place. I'm not interested in any childish, snotty retorts. If the discussion cannot stay on a fact based, adult level then the disucussion will simply not take place. I hope this is clear. If you want to behave like a spoiled brat you can do it on your own blog. If you want to sit at the big people's table and converse with the adults, no more throwing your peas.
Everybody got it? Good.
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.06.04 (12:06 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
Just curious as to why you didn't respond to my post on Evolution.
posted by: whoisjohngalt
post date: 12.06.04 (1:42 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
"1. I'm not discussing Creationism, never have been."
As one site I read put it, ID is the evolution of Creationism. So you're right but only in a literal sense; it's not coincidence that the points you're raising were all raised by Creationists first.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Here's one specific example, your "The eye couldn't evolve" claim:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html
As I joked on my blog, what are the odds that so many ID and Creationist's arguments are *identical*?
2. " I am also not discounting entirely the theory of evolution..."
You seem convinced evolution hasn't happened (this blog, e.g., the human eye) and the means by which it would happen (from Redux: "It is simply impossible..."). What parts of Evolution do you not discount?
Two other points:
1. Evolution *is* a fact (and theory):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
2. Your statement "...to date we haven't found a single fossil of a transitory species" is an error of fact:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
posted by: RedneckBob
post date: 12.07.04 (7:52 pm)
Reply to: whoisjohngalt
I'll leave arguing science to scientists, but I have one point to make. This discussion started for the most part with the complaint from Stepdad that the teaching of evolutionary theory in school is being used to "prove" that there is no God. In fact, there is an increasingly rabid movement in the public realm to remove the mere mention of the Christian diety from public discourse altogether.
Regardless of whether you believe ID theory or are a fan of the Big Bang, one cannot state definitively as fact that there could not possibly have been a Creator involved. I used to argue creationism vs. evolution, but unfortunately often I see those arguing creation science as stretching to make the parable of Genesis fit scientific facts. I also see evolutionists stretching their facts into a proof that there is no God, which evolutionary theory, no matter how advanced or solid, simply does -not- prove.
For me, it is enough that I believe in a Creator. I have had life experiences that lead me to believe that there are things in heaven and earth that are greater than ourselves. Evolution science does not dilute that belief. It is simply the most likely, most proven method by which the Creator's design was executed. Nature itself, in all it's wondrous variety and complexity, argues for far more than random chance having caused it's occurence, in my opinion. Atheists are, of course, free to disagree.
Ultimately, your belief, or not, in God (by whatever name) is a matter of faith. God is bigger than science. Just because something is explained by science does not mean that there is no way in which a Creator could have been involved. From my own standpoint, I believe that God granted us intelligence and the capability to understand science so that one day we may understand our own creation. I also don't think we're there yet. The Christian sects believe in a second coming. I believe we will meet God again once we come to understand ourselves. It is also my belief that that level of enlightenment is not yet within our grasp.
You say there is no God. I say there is. You can't prove there isn't anymore than I can prove otherwise. A scientist or teacher stating that they know enough about the universe to tell a child in their charge that there can be no God is arrogant and bigoted. It is intolerant of a belief that differs from your own. It implies that you -know- that which is unknowable. And frankly, it is not a schoolteacher's place to deny the existence of a Creator. Matters of faith are for parents to instruct their children on, not schoolteachers.
So y'all can argue Creation vs. Evolution till you are blue in the face. In my mind Evolution is part and parcel of Creation, and the two go hand in hand. If you don't believe in a God, fine. However, the much-vaunted "tolerance" of the left needs to be open to the beliefs of those that believe that there is a God. Thus far that tolerance has been shown time and again to be lacking.
You will state that the reason for your vehemence is that Christians are "trying to ram their God down my throat". While the viewpoint is understandable, walk a mile in the other guy's shoes. From the Christian's standpoint, -you- are trying to ram the idea that there is no God down -his- and his children's throats. So, yeah.... they are pushing back. It would be far more tolerant of -everyone- if both viewpoints were discussed, along with a discussion of the best science available, and both sides have to admit that they have no way to prove whether or not there is a God that created us, because that knowledge defies the limitations of our understanding.
Stated again in summary: Evolutionary theory, for everything that it is, is -not- a proof against the existence of a Creator. For a schoolteacher, paid by public funds, to state this -as fact- to children of diverse backgrounds is arrogant, bigoted, and is something that is not their place to say. Your "separation of Church and State" goes both ways in this. A schoolteacher has no more business proselytizing for Atheism than she does preaching Christian sermons in the classroom. All discussions of science aside, that is the primary complaint that must be addressed in the debate over how origin science is taught in the schools.
posted by: whoisjohngalt
post date: 12.07.04 (9:44 pm)
Reply to: RedneckBob
I'm assuming by "This discussion started ... with the complaint from Stepdad that the teaching of evolutionary theory in school is being used to "prove" that there is no God." you are referring to this line from Stepdad:
"The theory is most often presented more as fact than theory, and it is most often presented incorrectly as scientific fact that proves there is no Creator."
The latter part of this statement, that evolution is "most often" presented as proof that God (let's cut the "Creator" BS; that's who we're talking about here, isn't it?) doesn't exist is pretty outlandish. Before I even consider a rebutal, I'd like to see some *nonpartisan* evidence that *any significant* number of kids are taught this, yet alone 51% (which is about the most conservative estimate of "most often" as you can get) or more.
I will add that I thoroughly agree with you that (public school) teachers should not inject atheism OR religion into their classes. However...
"It would be far more tolerant of -everyone- if both viewpoints were discussed..."
Of course, at that point the people on the ID side of the aisle have won; they've gotten their *supernatural* explanation into a science class. As this site put it, "The goal of scientists is to explain the universe, period. If that could best be done by including God in the equations, it would be. However, God is inscrutable even according to creationists, so *God is useless as an explanation.*"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602_2.html
posted by: newbie
post date: 12.08.04 (3:01 am)
Reply to: RedneckBob
Evolution does not rule out the possibility of a creator. Neither does the Big Bang for that matter.
That being said I still don't want to see ID taught as science. Its not. It makes for logical connections as to its premise. I can't say for sure that its false. What it doesn't do is follow scientific method. Therefore I feel a science classroom an inappropriate forum for it.
I have no issue with student exposure to the material, but elsewhere as in a religion class.
Atheism has no place in a science classroom for that matter. Philosophy class would be better, no?
I can find no evidence of the Theory Of Evolution being taught as an argument to disprove the existance of a Creator in any Primary or Secondary school. Do you have some?
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.08.04 (5:12 am)
Reply to: whoisjohngalt
I'm not arguing Creationism nor do I support it as a theory, regardless of what arguments they may have used. I've stated that several times now, and your attempts to paint me with the same brush as those that support Creationism are unwarranted and untrue. So please stop doing it and debate the facts.
"You seem convinced evolution hasn't happened (this blog, e.g., the human eye) and the means by which it would happen "
I'm not saying evolution cannot happen, what I'm saying is that the mechanism of evolution by itself, with only random mutation and natural selection as it's guiding forces, is insufficient to explain certain things, such as the structures found in the human eye or the human heart. If one discounts the notion of a designer then the theory of evolution has some rather large holes in it that cannot be explained scientifically.
Now, the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. It's a guess based on observation and first hand accounts. It cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. Yet it is taught in public schools.
The existence of things like tachyons, also a guess. Again there existence cannot be proven or disproven, but they are still discussed in many public schools.
So what about the existence of God, or a Creator? Again, cannot His existence cannot be proven scientifically. But any discussion or mention of Him, even in something as innocous as a Christmas song or a pledge causes the public school system and the "rabid" (to borrow your own phrase) atheists to go into a tither. Why?
Why are you so threatened by the mere concept? If you choose not to believe that is your perogative. But why be so incredibly threatened by those of us who do?
The existence of God has as much scientific support as many of the other scientific theories that are taught everyday in public school. It's possible to discuss the scientific possibility of a Creator or an intelligent force guiding our development without the mention of any specific religion or any specific theological tenants. Merely acknowledging the scientific possiblity would be enough. So why must we all be so fearful of acknowledging that simple, scientific possibility?
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.08.04 (5:39 am)
Reply to: deviant1
Haven't finished researching the portion that relates to the quadraped/biped heat exchange vrs intelligence argument completely, and I still haven't had a chance to make it to the library so I have the information necessary to formulate a proper response. I'm assuming you didn't want just a quick, off the cuff answer to your posting but would prefer something logical, factual and well presented.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.08.04 (6:31 am)
Reply to: whoisjohngalt
I did wish to point out one thing, that what we are discussing here is not truly the existence of God, nor should it be presented as such if one were teaching it from a scientific standpoint. The term creator or guiding intelligence would be appropriate as a scientific possiblity, but that is where scientific evidence ends and faith begins.
I believe in God, but muslims would believe in Allah, and a buddist might refer to an unnamed, interconnective conciousness.
Beliefs vary widely on what form this Creator or Creators might take, there are some who believe it might even be an extraterrestrial race who are responsible for the intelligence guiding our development as a species.
But this becomes a matter of faith, not science. I'm not asking, nor would I recommend, that public school teachers present any of these varying explanations as to the nature, desires or ultimate goal of the Creator or intelligent designers. I don't advocate that they teach about the Christian God anymore than I advocate that they teach about the Allah of Islam.
I merely state that to deny the possible existence of a Creator or Creators is unscientific at best, and that it should be acknowledged that there is scientific evidence to suggest a Creator or Creators, some form of guiding intelligence, might exist.
That is what we can say scientifically, and that is where it should be left as a matter of science. As to the rest, that is a matter for faith and individual choice to decide.
My own experiences with the public school system, in regards to my daughters and varioius other family members is that the public school system, at least her locally, has a tendancy to teach evolution not as a theory but as fact.
It's also been my experience that at least in several cases we have had science teachers tell our children much of what those arguing for evolution have said here, that the notion of God is unscientific or that it is silly to believe that He exists.
That may not be the same experience others have had with public schools, but that is the experience that we had with them. The "science" teacher in my girls former school was a "rabid" atheist to say the least, and was using his position as a teacher to try and preach his agenda. Again, this may not be the experience others have had with public schools, but that has been my experience as a parent.
But it goes beyond just this, I had one of my girls come home in tears one day, distraught over the fact that global warming was supposedly destroying the planet and that we would all probably be dead in a matter of a few decades as a result. Yup, they pushed that halfbaked junk science theory of global warming so hard it made my little girl cry. I explained the situation to my daughter, gave her the actual facts and then objected to the school over the presentation.
I was told, not so politiely mind you, in essence to go jump. That was their curriculum and that was how they would present it. I noted the many flawed assumptions on which there material was based, asked them to present the facts and the opposing views and not to present the issue so one-sidedly, and I was ignored completely as were the other parents in our district who had similar problems.
The truth is public schools no longer present objective facts and allow the students to decide for themselves, instead they have become political indoctrination centers for a few left wing teachers and administrators to try and brainwash kids by presenting some very one sided material and convincing them that what they are being taught is the "truth" and any other information, even that given to them by their parents or grandparents, is just plain wrong.
Does that sound paranoid? Lol.. Ok, maybe a little, but it also happens to be true. My oldest daughter did a presentation on Kwanza one year and recieved a failing grade because her presentation didn't match verbatim the information given int he textbook about the holiday.
It didn't matter that all of this information was given to her first hand by two different sources, both of whom had actually been to Africa and had participated in the actual Kwanza celebration as it is observed there. One was my daughters grandmother, who worked in Africa as a missionary.
The second is a dear friend of the family, the son of a tribal cheiftan, a man who was born in raised in Africa. But their information was considered "suspect" and "wrong" even though they had actually been to Africa, and the instructors viewpoint was considered correct even though all of her information was coming from a single textbook.
But because my daughter did her own research and presented them information about the actual festival (including I might add several items used in a true, traditional kwanza gathering) she was not only given a failing grade but they wanted to give her "counselling" to boot. Why? Because her information didn't agree with their agenda. Factual or not, well presented or not, it didn't agree with the political/social beliefs that the school administration and the school's teacher wanted to indoctrinate her class too.
These are just a few examples of problems I've had with the public schools here locally, and given the vast number of other complaints I've seen and new stories I've read (including this latest lets ban the Decleration of Independence from Grade Schools article that started this whole discussion) I see plenty of evidence to believe that this problem is very, very widespread indeed.
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.08.04 (12:34 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
The more research the better. I just wondered why you hadn't responded.
In regards to your response to whoisjohngalt:
OK, thats your experience with Public schools. If this problem is "widespread" (teaching Evolution as "fact" instead of the thoery of Evolution) Why can't you provide sources?
BTW, I am still confused as to what that means. The Theory of Relativity is taught as that and most everyone accepts it as the best solution that we have even though it is a theory. If not it would be referred to as the "Law Of Relativity". It will be that way until a GUT theory unites all four major forces in the universe. Such as Hawking is working on.
Could you please define fact for me? I think that we need to define terms in order to proceed.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.08.04 (12:39 pm)
Reply to: deviant1
I realize you probably added this through tblogs add comment feature, just to let you know we've switched our blog over to haloscan so at the moment I'm the only one that can see tblog comments - you might wish to drop by and repost using the new haloscan system were implementing. I'd love to stay with tblogs internal comments but we really wanted the trackback feature, which tblog doesn't support.
Just didn't want you thinking we were "pulling a fast one" or "censoring" you in any way, we just disabled the internal comment system for tblog to avoid confusion with the new haloscan system, and which was the one you were supposed to use to leave comments. Apologies for the inconvience.
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.08.04 (1:33 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
No worries and will do ...
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.08.04 (1:43 pm)
it doesn't seem to be working correctly as I can not comment using the traceback feature.
posted by: whoisjohngalt
post date: 12.08.04 (2:21 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
"there is scientific evidence to suggest a Creator or Creators"
And what would that be?
posted by: whoisjohngalt
post date: 12.08.04 (3:53 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
"is insufficient to explain certain things, such as the structures found in the human eye"
Again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
"Now, the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory."
It's a *FACT* and a theory. It's a *fact* that evolution occurred and continues to occur:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
"(to borrow your own phrase)"
Er....I don't think that was mine. ;)
"Why are you so threatened by the mere concept?"
I'm not.
"The existence of God has as much scientific support as many of the other scientific theories that are taught everyday in public school. "
Okay, that's totally out there, dude. Even global warming, a theory I don't fully believe at least has *reproducible* results. Physical evidence (fossils) backs up evolution; a lack of said evidence is the closest your ID argument has come to having supporting physical evidence. Evolution has predictive capabilities. Taken antibiotics lately? The doctor will tell you not to stop taking them. Why? Because some strains of bacteria have grown resistant--evolution in action. How does ID explain that? That the Creator intended us to produce antibiotics AND for the bacteria to adjust to that? Even for the almighty, that's starting to sound a little far-fetched, don't you think?
ID shouldn't be taught as a science until there is some actual science behind it:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/ 2083_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_3_16_2001.asp
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.09.04 (4:22 am)
Reply to: whoisjohngalt
Just FYI, we changed to an external comment system so at the moment these are not actually being posted to the blog. I had to shut off the internal tblog comments to avoid confusion.
As to your assertion that evolution is a fact, I'm afraid your mistaken. Adaptation is a provable scientific fact. Evolution is still just a theory.
posted by: whoisjohngalt
post date: 12.10.04 (12:23 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
"Adaptation is a provable scientific fact."
Renaming it won't work; this is natural selection in action.
posted by: newbie
post date: 08.18.05 (1:05 pm)
Your site is realy very interesting. http://www.bignews.com
|
|
|
