Skip to comments.Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution
Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9
click here to read article
Theres a brain-stretcher. ID is noncoporeal. In other words, this idea doesnt have a physical body.
Theres a brain-stretcher. ID is noncoporeal. In other words, this idea doesnt have a physical body.
So you eat the cake they serve. Enjoy it.
When you learn to formulate sentences in English, feel free to let me know.
The demise of the theory of evolution has been imminent for 175 years now. It seems to be surviving the predictions rather well.
Attempts to silence dissent will encourage others to examine the evidence and reveal the truth.
Strange. Nobody seems to be "silencing the dissent" in Knoxville -- or anywhere else IDers can be found pushing their wares. And nobody I'm aware of is stopping the Discovery Institute from doing actual research.
Could it be that others already have "examined the evidence" for ID and found it wanting?
Sorry about the typo, I saw it as I already punched "post". But I figured some shallow person would point it out to me. Thanks
"The straw man is that you cannot believe in the Christian God ID concept unless you believe the Earth is 10,000 years old and the Bible is 100% fact."
Bullinger did some interesting research interpreting the scriptures regarding this, and shows how an earth much older than 10,000 years is consistent with what the scriptures say. Many have misinterpreted the scriptures in believing the earth is only 10,000 years old. Also explained are dinosaurs, etc.
See Genesis 1:1,1:2, in PDF format:
How many creationists have gone to jail? How much did Ken Ham and Kent Hovint gross last year?
The typo? Your one-line idiocy contains a heck of a lot more than one typo. If you want a substantive response, you might want to think about posting something of substance.
Was Attila the Hun a Darwinist too? You people are as hilarious as you are predictable.
I realize that you Evolutionists will never change your mind with or without actual proof one way or another. I do enjoy pulling your chain and go on most all these threads about Evolution more for fun than anything else. Sure enough, on every thread, there is someone who just has to respond. You are the one on this thread.
So, pointing out documented harassment is a "persecution fetish" ?
I guess you don't need to read the report I cited since it doesn't help your cause.
It is remarkable how much this debate mimics the debate on global warming. With both theories, the defenders are apoplectic, and perhaps even religious. The doubters are called names, marginalized, and put in their place.
You High Priests of Evolution should start a union with the High Priests of Global Warming. You could share dogma, saints, martyrs, and feed off each others fervor.
At least you cop to being a troll.
> It is only a matter of time before the entire Darwinian
> fraud comes crashing down.
I don't get it ?
Trolls hit and run. I am always here to pull the chains of people like you who just have to say something. Just can't let it go. LOL Besides look at how long I've been a Freeper. I've got you beat.
Neither the theory of evolution, nor its progeny (common descent, punctuated equilibrium, etc) are "frauds" in any sense.
They may have some details wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. In fact, there are parts of the germ theory of disease (and every other scientific theory) that aren't altogether complete or true.
There may be implications that some have taken or interpolated from the theory (like abiogenesis) that prove ultimately wrongheaded, perhaps.
But there was no fraud.
If you are firmly convinced there is, then you may find the link I posted useful.
LOLOLOLL! That is good. Only the Darwinists nedds there monkey-god.
Historical scientists are just as captivated by falsificationism as experimental scientists; as three eminent geologists (Kump et al., 1999, p. 201) counsel in a recent textbook discussion of the extinction of the dinosaurs, a central tenet of the scientific method is that hypotheses cannot be proved, only disproved. Nevertheless, there is little in the evaluation of historical hypotheses that resembles what is prescribed by falsificationism. The big bang theory of the origin of the universe provides an excellent example. It postulates a particular occurrence (a primordial explosion) for something we can observe today, i.e., the three-degree background radiation, first detected by satellite antennas in the 1960s. Traces, such as the three-degree background radiation, provide evidence for historical hypotheses, just as successful predictions provide evidence for the generalizations tested in experimental science. There is little or no possibility of controlled experiments, however, because the time frame required is too long and/or the relevant test conditions too complex and dependent upon unknown or poorly understood extraneous conditions to be artificially realized.A theory with "smoking gun" evidence is much closer to the path that ID takes than some would like to admit. I think this is why the falsification process of experimental science is played up in evolution threads.
This doesnt mean, however, that hypotheses about past events cant be tested. As geologist T.C. Chamberlin (1897) noted, good historical researchers focus on formulating multiple competing (versus single) hypotheses. Chamberlins attitude toward the testing of these hypotheses was falsificationist in spirit; each hypothesis was to be independently subjected to severe tests, with the hope that some would survive. A look at the actual practices of historical researchers, however, reveals that the main emphasis is on finding positive evidence a smoking gun. A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the others.
What about it?
If humans are descendants from monkeys, how come monkeys are still around?
Something to ponder about.
> Something to ponder about.
Only if you're really stoned, really bored and have absolutely no understanding of any of the hypothesized or observed methods of speciation...
If Americans are descendants from Europeans, how come Europeans are still around?
From Dr. Sternberg's site...not that facts will bother you.
Summary of key points regarding publication of the Meyer paper
Returning to the original dispute (and the reason for which I first created this web site): Many distortions and inaccuracies have circulated in the press and on the web regarding the publication of the Meyer paper. The key facts are:
I hold two PhDs in the area of evolutionary biology, one in molecular (DNA) evolution and the other in systems theory and theoretical biology. I have published more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific books and publications. My current areas of research and writing are primarily in the areas of evolutionary theory and systematics.
In the case of the Meyer paper I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy.
The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions. The reviewers provided substantial criticism and feedback to Dr. Meyer, who then made significant changes to the paper in response. Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."
Following my resignation in October 2003, a new managing editor for the Proceedings was selected in May of 2004, and the transition from my editorship to the new editor has taken place over the past few months. By the time that the controversy emerged I was finishing up my last editorial responsibilities. Thus, my stepping down had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper.
A full discussion of the publication issues is available here.
Speciation or speculation, it is clear that the intent of the anti-Christians is the destruction of Christian societies, as they have done throughout the millenniums. We won't let it happen, and the more you keep on pushing this evolution trash alive, the more you'll instill in the minds of the citizens of the Western World an awareness of the intent of the anti-Christians.
Evolution is not "anti-Christian".
It may be a difficulty IF one has a particular, peculiar (and **very** screwed up) understanding of Christianity... oh, and if one is, well, "differently abled".
Otherwise, it's not a big deal.
That is not true.
Only European-Americans are descendant from Europeans. Moreover, had you taken the argument that "If
Americans Europeans are descendants from Europeans, how come Europeans are still around?", then you would have compared apples with apples. But in your question you are comparing apples with chestnuts. If we humans are descendants from monkeys, as the evolutionists assert, then there should not be monkeys around as monkeys would have evolved into humans.
> If we humans are descendants from monkeys, as the
> evolutionists assert, then there should not be monkeys
> around as monkeys would have evolved into humans.
You really "think" you're making sense, don't you?
Huh?? Scientists think that one group of apes, in response to their environment, started evolving in a way that would eventually lead to homo sapiens sapiens. Why on earth should that cause the rest of the apes to go extinct?
It's as silly as saying "If I am descended from Irish ancestors [which I am], why are there still Irish people around?" (Yes, I'm aware that I haven't evolved from my Irish forebears; the point is that whatever happened to my ancestors, it didn't affect the rest of the Irish population.)
If you don't believe me, please note that the leading creationist organization Answers in Genesis agrees with me, and now lists this argument in their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use web page.
" oh, and if one is, well, "differently abled".
Only a detractor, an enemy of Western European Culture, having lost the argument, hurls ad hominem attacks at the truth and call the truth sayer, "differently abled," which is to say mentally limited.
"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy."
-- H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)
That "superstition" he's mentioning? Yeah, it's a literal interpretation of Genesis so utterly void of thought or value that even Augustine warned against it 1600 years ago.
"Scientists think that one group of apes, in response to their environment, started evolving in a way that would eventually lead to homo sapiens sapiens."
First off, there is little or no empirical evidence that the above is true. But, assuming it is true, the goal of the evolutionists is not about science but about the destruction of Western Culture and the Christianity that gave rise to it. Organized Christianity won't let it happen, rest assured.
"Yeah, it's a literal interpretation of Genesis so utterly void of thought or value that even Augustine warned against it 1600 years ago.
The ultimate intent of the evolutionists is not the destruction of the myths and fables in the OT, but the destruction of Christianity as a political force and of its culture, heritage, works of art and demographic numbers through illegal and legal immigration and birth rates.
It is from an organized political force of Christianity point of view that I'm arguing against the evolutionists (read: ant-Christians) and not from a divine point of view.
Evolutionists, ie civil libertarians, must realize that the epidemic, criminal anti-Christian behavior toward European Americans and Western Culture will result in laws and the destruction of civil liberties for all. Believers in compassion, charity, brotherhood and love must also understand that these attributes are most possible and most practiced and appreciated in Western monocultural societies, not muticultural ones.
We Christian Eropean-Americans are in a struggle for our heritage, culture, freedom and very existence, and the anti-Christians are our enemies. Evolution is anti-Christian.
You seem to have some problems with the way science works. Here are some definitions which might help (from a google search, with additions from this thread). Pay particular attention to theory, proof, and faith:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from it seems to be correct to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that its use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 9/26/06]
False. Theories cannot be proved. They can be supported or, in some cases, disproved.
The problem is that creationists do not bring scientific evidence to the discussion; they bring religious belief couched in scientific terms. A challenge to a scientific theory must first of all be based on science. If you go to Answers in Genesis or some of the other creationist websites, the level of science they present in most of their arguments would result in a failing grade in first year classes.
When someone DOES challenge, instead of responding like the mature adults that degrees in science might suggest them to be, they instead act like spoiled five-year olds who are told that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Sorry, that is generally not the case. What you may be seeing is a natural reaction to the hundredth (or thousandth) time a scientist responds to a creationist's claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution, or asks "If we descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Even scientists do not have endless patience.
I've lost track and evidently you don't keep track either as you have posted this same crap to me at least seven or eight times. I know what "theory" is and one thing it is not, is fact. Even you can't argue that. (but I'm sure you will) You have your religion (evolution) and I have mine (God).
First off, there is little or no empirical evidence that the above is true.
Actually, there is evidence for the above scenario. In Africa, some 5 million or so years ago, the grasslands were expanding and the forests were contracting. It appears that some groups (probably less successful at forest life) made a living on the edges of the forests, and gradually adapted to the grasslands. While the groups that stayed in the forests changed little, the group that adapted to the grasslands had to change a great deal. We are descended from that group.
But, assuming it is true, the goal of the evolutionists is not about science but about the destruction of Western Culture and the Christianity that gave rise to it. Organized Christianity won't let it happen, rest assured.
I did six years of graduate school, with half of the time in evolution, fossil man, osteology, human races, and related subjects. At no time was "the destruction of Western Culture and the Christianity that gave rise to it" or anything even close ever mentioned. I think you are just making that up from whole cloth.
Please read the definitions. Your arguments will really be more cogent if you do.
Silly boy, St Augustine of Hippo had nothing to do with the development of Western European Culture.
That was created, in its entirety, by rustic American preachers, about a century ago.
Patriot University bookmark
However, many who stump for evolution treat the subject as if it were proven beyond the shadow of any doubt. In fact, I've noticed that, when it is pointed out that evolution is a theory, meaning it is not proven and thus open for inquiry and scepticism (as with anything else in science), that they get themselves all in a huff about how creationists "just don't understand what science means by the word 'theory'", and the implied meaning seems to be that evolution is beyond the pale of investigation (and thus "proven").
For someone who claims to be a chemist, you sure are sounding like a luddite. You need to look at your own discipline and see what impact it has on these areas of study and vice versa. You will quickly see that chemistry is also invalid under such criteria.
Actually, Hitler was more of a creationist and believed eugenics was simply carrying out God's will on Earth. Here are some quotes from Hitler and you will see he did not base his policies on evolution, but on a perversion of Christianity:
"[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission" (Hitler 1943, Mein Kampf, 398).
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord" (Hitler 1943, Mein Kampf, 65).
"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe." (Hitler 1943, Mein Kampf, 214)