Thread Options 
|
#472627 - 12/21/05 03:03 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
..... Mutations as a driver of new species? Much too slow to account for grand changes.
Do you have any idea how long 550 million years* is? 
* The period which multicelllular life has existed on earth.
The length required for such an experiment to be completed does not eliminate the need for such replication for a hypothesis to be proven as a scientific law.
Ohhhhhkay. Are you willing to accept the experiments and observations already conducted with organisms (insects, for example) with much shorter generational cycles in the meantime?
Sure, if you can get an insect to change into a mammal, I might be willing to give macro evolutionary hypothesis a chance to be almost a theory.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472629 - 12/21/05 03:19 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
You hear that!!?? Be careful with the word "never." The Jman speaketh. Get off your high horse!
Well, as the poster to whom I was replying understood, this was not something that they should take as personally as you apparently did. Chill out.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472630 - 12/21/05 03:19 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
Quote:
I will agree with micro-evolution - changes within a species over time. That accounts for all of the current micro-biology finds over the last 15-20 years with viruses and bacteria.
But evolution hasn't sufficiently answered questions regarding macro-evolution, nor has it answered where the first single-celled organisms came from.
ZD
Evolutionary theory doesn't have to explain where the first single-celled organism came from. Electromagnetic theory doesn't have to explain where the first ion came from either.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472631 - 12/21/05 03:19 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
..... Mutations as a driver of new species? Much too slow to account for grand changes.
Do you have any idea how long 550 million years* is?
* The period which multicelllular life has existed on earth.
The length required for such an experiment to be completed does not eliminate the need for such replication for a hypothesis to be proven as a scientific law.
Ohhhhhkay. Are you willing to accept the experiments and observations already conducted with organisms (insects, for example) with much shorter generational cycles in the meantime?
Sure, if you can get an insect to change into a mammal, I might be willing to give macro evolutionary hypothesis a chance to be almost a theory.
The sheer idiocy of your position is mind-boggling.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472633 - 12/21/05 03:33 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
His Shifting Sand kung fu is very good! He's gone from requiring an experiment that provides a result predicted by the theory to requiring that the experiment have a specific result.
I'm asking for proof of macro evolutionary theory. The insect to mammal was an example. I bet when someone tells you a cup of coffee down the street is a buck, you expect it to either be a male deer or exactly $1. Show me an amoeba turning into a complex creature like a human. I'll take that. But the fact is, you can't do it.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472635 - 12/21/05 04:14 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
I can't show an atom either; do you reject physics too?
You can, however, show recreatable evidence of atoms, now can't you?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472638 - 12/21/05 04:40 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,276
|
If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.
Science is all about asking questions and seeking answers. When someone questions accepted "state of the art" scientific knowledge (the world is flat), it's a good thing . . . unless we're questionning evolution. Then, even asking the questions is apparently scientific heresy.
Yes, some are asking schools to teach ID as an alternate theory. I'm not necessarily in favor of that. But the direction we're moving in is that evolution must be taught as accepted fact. The schools can't teach that evolutionary theories are incomplete, work continues, and that some people question it. Moreover, the evolution police will tell everyone (like Judge Jones did) that if you question evolution, you're a bigoted religious fanatic, and just plain stupid. That's not what the US is about, and it shouldn't be what our schools are about.
Just teach evolution in the same way as you teach physics and we'd be okay.
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472639 - 12/21/05 04:53 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Gold Star
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 315
Oregon
|
And this is the same church that put Galileo and many other scientists to death isn't it?
The Church didn't put Galileo to death, they put him under house arrest. I'm not sure who the "many other scientists" are so I can't vouch for their fates. Personally, I think the whole Galileo debacle is the reason the Catholic Church has stuck to the sidelines in this debate.
_________________________
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472640 - 12/21/05 04:55 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Can you? How?
What about quarks? Anti-matter? Dark matter? Dark energy?
These things are inferred from observation, testing and mathematics.
Do you reject this as well?
Yes, I reject these things as being hard facts, of course so does real science. They are theoretical entities, not proven things.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472641 - 12/21/05 05:14 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 517
The Land of OZ
|
Quote:
Newton had a theory of gravitation, Einstein advanced another theory and the search for a unified gravitational theory continues to this day.
http://www-hep.physics.uiowa.edu/~vincent/research/node2.html
You must be right. I stand corrected.
I need to call MIT though and tell them to quit teaching Newton's law of gravity in their Physics I class.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472642 - 12/21/05 05:18 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
I will agree with micro-evolution - changes within a species over time. That accounts for all of the current micro-biology finds over the last 15-20 years with viruses and bacteria.
But evolution hasn't sufficiently answered questions regarding macro-evolution, nor has it answered where the first single-celled organisms came from.
ZD
Evolutionary theory doesn't have to explain where the first single-celled organism came from. Electromagnetic theory doesn't have to explain where the first ion came from either.
No, but electromagnetic theory is not about the origin of anything. Evolution is about trying to prove the origin of species, so yes, I'd say that taken to its logical end, it needs to explain where these life forms came from. Nice try.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472643 - 12/21/05 05:18 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 921
Down South, USA
|
Quote:
..... Sure, if you can get an insect to change into a mammal, I might be willing to give macro evolutionary hypothesis a chance to be almost a theory.
So because there are some unanswered questions about evolution you favor teaching, presumably with equal weight, ID for which there is, and always will be, by definition, zero provable scientific evidence?
As far as science goes, there is currently only one working theory on how life on earth got to where it is today. The proposed alternatives are theology, and have no place in a science curriculum. I have no problem with discussion of the theory of evolution's weaknesses, but I object strongly to a synthetic counter-theory being fabricated solely to discredit evolution and pander to those who have their own agenda.
..... And I am still waiting to hear of any reputable university, with a respected science program, that teaches ID in its biology courses. 
_________________________
This is my opinion; it is not legal advice, nor the view of my employer, and it may change tomorrow.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472644 - 12/21/05 05:20 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I don't have the slightest trouble accepting microevolution as the cause behind the adaptation of the peppered moth and the growth of finches' beaks. But I don't see that evolutionists have any cause for jubilation there.
It doesn't tell you how the moths and birds and trees got there in the first place. The human body is packed with marvels, eyes and lungs and cells, and evolutionary gradualism can't account for that.
Evolution is the most plausible explanation for life if you're using naturalistic terms, I'll agree with that. That's only because science puts forward evolution and says any other logical explanation is outside of reality.
The intelligent-design movement are asking terribly important questions. To question whether patterns and complexity, at the level of the cell or the universe, bespeak intelligent design is not stupid in the least.
There are extraordinary minds and polemics in the circle of evolutionists, but the evidence doesn't much impress me. I am struck by the breadth of Darwin's claims as opposed to how scanty were the observable changes. If the pure Darwinist account was accurate and life is all about an undirected material process, then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy. The language of science cuts off choices: Evolution has to be an undirected process or it isn't science.
Then there's the inconvenient fact that most species evolve little during the span of their existence, which leaves the mystery of how to account for evolutionary leaps. The late biologist Stephen Jay Gould speculated that species become isolated and mutate in revolutionary transitions of a few thousand years. That remains a controversial explanation.
The renowned biologist Simon Conway Morris has found many such examples in nature and proposed that it's "near inevitable" that species converge toward an intelligent "solution" to life.
Natural selection? It strengthens existing species, but there's no persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce new species and organs. Mutations as a driver of new species? Much too slow to account for grand changes.
Ooh, that's a good discussion. Thanks Anon. Did you get this from somewhere or are you this articulate normally? Most of the anons are not. I am not.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472645 - 12/21/05 05:25 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Quote:
Can you? How?
What about quarks? Anti-matter? Dark matter? Dark energy?
These things are inferred from observation, testing and mathematics.
Do you reject this as well?
Yes, I reject these things as being hard facts, of course so does real science. They are theoretical entities, not proven things.
Yes, theoretical entities based on the scientific method. Unlike ID, which which is a theoretical entity about theocracy, not science.
I have no problem with stating that evolution is a theory, but don't follow up that statement by saying therefore that creationism is possible.
Keep science in science and keep religion in philosphy, etc.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472646 - 12/21/05 05:33 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
...any reputable university...
This is a Catch-22. If I name a university that teaches ID, you will say they are not reputable.
It is correct that ID is not provable. If indeed the fossil records could be searched and showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that man just appeared, changed, but did not jump species, it still would not prove there is a God who designed all creatures. It would still leave open the possibility that we were inhabited by aliens. Of course, then we'd have to ask, "where did these aliens come from?"
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472648 - 12/21/05 05:47 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 921
Down South, USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
...any reputable university...
This is a Catch-22. If I name a university that teaches ID, you will say they are not reputable. ....
Name one, and then give me a chance to knock it down. If we start at the top, I think that I can safely exclude Ivy League and the Big 10 universities, .... and the prominent state/ state funded universities - UCal, VT, UNC etc. That leaves us looking .... where next? I bet you'd be hard to find even one of the top Christian universities that teaches ID in its science classes!
Quote:
It is correct that ID is not provable. .....
Therefore, if you understand anything about scientific modes of study, you will agree that ID has no place in a science curriculum! 
_________________________
This is my opinion; it is not legal advice, nor the view of my employer, and it may change tomorrow.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#472650 - 12/21/05 06:14 PM
Re: Way To Go, Judge Jones!!!
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 776
Going round and round
|
WT and Straw, sounds like we might agree on something. I have no objection to teaching evolution, as long as it is taught as theory, with the evidence for it and the unproven both given weight. My arguement has been against teaching it as accepted fact, and against suppressing those who chose to disagree with it.
One clarification - Intelligent Design only claims that life was created by an intelligent being - it does not make any claims as to what this being is - a deity, an alien. It simply says that if you look at nature and how it functions, then nature is too well planned out to have happened by chance. The theory itself does not try to adopt itself to religions, though many Christians have latched onto the theory because it reflects what is taught in the Bible. The theory is very difficult (at best) to ever prove. However, I do not have a problem with it being taught in school, as long as it is taught as theory, with all of it's short-comings explained as well. If it really is such an "inferior" theory, students should see it for what it is and be able to make an educated decision.
The advantage to teaching either theory is that it educates the next generation, and may inspire them to do more research which either further validates one of the theories or starts to disprove them. In either case, I'm not sure how teaching either theory is really a bad thing, as long as it is taught as theory.
_________________________
Everything is possible with time and motivation
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index