Adaption is evolution. This was previously explained to you. Evolution = change. if a large enough change takes place a new species is produced. Now answer the questions.
That's the plan... Ok, you're stating this as fact, that science supports intelligent design as much as evolution, please cite a source... You want us to point out a part of the bible, that's not religious? ... came about ^ exactly, but how? I'm not going to argue that humans never "came about", but I'm looking for an argument that supports why people think they "came about" through intelligent design... I'm not interested in the "order of how things came about", but "why or how things came about".... Exactly! So... why do people believe in intelligent design? Why is that more feasible then the alien theory? I don't think anything does, until it's known as fact... Once again, I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about intelligent design...
Only according to people who can't think logically. What scientific experiment has proved that? I don't think religion belong in the classroom. I've stated that on numerous occasions but everyone here seems to having reading comprehension issues. Only the scientifically verifiable parts of Evolution and ID should be in the classroom which are religiously neutral. Why insist on putting a false label on things? The verifiable science is not ID or Evolution. Since the original argument is over I'm now focusing on why people think the religion of Evolution belongs in the classroom and why they think that science which neither proves nor disproves evolution or ID should be given the religious label of "Evolution."
I said don't bother responding if you're not going to do as i asked, yet you did.. Can you please copy/paste your responses to the corresponding questions ? I really would like to know your answers.
Who died and put you in charge of the internet? Uh oh, there I go again not doing what Lord of the Internet told me to do. In a verbal discussion it would make sense to repeat myself. However, when what I write is forever stored in print on the internet, it just makes you look lazy to demand a copy/paste. Seriously, at what point in time did idiots from around the world decide that they could actually order people around? It just makes you sound like a vagina in training. No offense to women. It's like guys who buy big trucks and think they own the road. You know they're sporting a vagina or are afraid their penis is going to turn into one.
All we're looking for is honest answers, and you're side stepping questions and attacking other theories that have nothing to do with this thread... I'd still like to see a source for this claim:
Buy a dictionary. better yet i'll post the definition of biological evolution here and every can get to see how dishonest you are. NOTHING and changing in to a new species. ONLY CHANGE. Like i said before, such experiment can not take place because of the time involved. Tests have been done though. Specifically finding shared retrovirus DNA between chimpanzees and humans, 100,000+ instances of shared retrovirus DNA. now answer the questions. You are still refuting evolution to prove ID.
You are making yourself look pathetic. How does it feel to be so dishonest ? You could of just not posted in this thread, or you could of said "Yes, i believe ID to be true, but i have no way to even begin proving it". That's it. But you didn't. You are a complete waste of time.
What observable science disproves the non-religious aspects of ID? Just because you can't figure out what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm being dishonest or sidestepping questions. That's what happens when you can't understand what people are telling you. Did I say that ID has religious aspects? Yes. Did I say that you can't prove religious claims. Yes. Did I say that religion does not belong in school. Yes. Now, go back to school and learn to read, comprehend and respond. And stop acting like a vagina in training.
Normally I find your posts to have thought, but on this thread you seem to be ignoring what Kalvin said completely. Basically science goes as far as proving both ID and evolution and then after that it is a persons faith. stox has faith in evolution and Kalvin does not. stox's faith is based solely on what he learned in school - told by other people what is true, yet no one has proof, yet he believes - that is what faith is. evolution is a faith based religion. You have to believe in the unseen and the guesses based on findings. 10,000 years from now some "evolutionist" will dig up a city and conclude that a toilet is actually an idol because everyone had one in a specific room.
Ok, so you believe the theory of intelligent design because it hasn't been disproven... The theory that aliens put humans here also hasn't been disproven; why don't you believe that? That's all I was waiting for... You can't prove intelligent design... You could have said that 15 posts ago... So... In summary, you believe in intelligent design because you put faith into the bible, but you cannot post any evidence for it... Who's talking about schools??? Grow up...
I did. That is the point. I'm not joking when I say "read. comprehend. respond." Read. Comprehend. Respond. Evidence for what? The religious side that it took 7 days and God did it? Of course not. I wasn't there. It wasn't recorded on videotape and we can't repeat it in a scientific experiment. But, ID is based on science as well. ID agrees 100% with observable science. You have failed to provide a single observed phenomena that ID can't deal with. So in that regard, there's just as much proof of ID as there is for Evolution or any other theory that doesn't just ignore observed science. Considering the Bible is the only record of creation that puts light before the source, that's very good evidence that the person who wrote it knew something that no one would even think was possible until recently. Or would you just say it was a lucky guess that some ancient person would make the same claim that science would 6000-10000 years later? Is it just a lucky guess that the Bible contains the only record of creation that agrees with the order of creation that "science" is preaching? Maybe you don't see that as evidence, but then again you think you can just dismiss the Bible and have a discussion about ID. Now why would the Bible and "science" agree on the order of creation? Maybe because it's logical, orderly and kind of like it was intelligently designed. But it's not logical to people who don't understand how the world works based on scientific observations. But there it is, even with no scientific backing, they have the same story that "science" has 10,000 years later. "Science" just differs on the cause and the timeframe. I was refering to DevilHellz who thinks he can boss people around like a vagina in training that hogs the road in their big ol truck. Maybe if you'd learn to read, comprehend and respond you'd have realized that wasn't directed at you.
First I think we should be able to acknowledge that there is design such as closed loop feedback systems like our hand eye coordination, biochemical systems such as our digestive tracts, and our massive visual data processing and storing that allows us to remember visual details from our early days. I don't think anyone could honestly argue against these designs. The only argument is whether it was random chance or if it had intelligence driving it. The question is then; does complexity result from randomness or by intelligence? Intelligent design gets through that process when bias is removed. You ask what would be taught in an intelligent design class, I might start with a lesson on trigonometry within physics. Show the kids how complex the mathematics of precision projectile launches are. Go on to explain how a six axis robotic manipulator is with it servo resolver systems. Explain to them the complexities of turbulent an laminar flow over a sphere of uneven surface. That's quite a bit of design, ask them to combine these into a system to that could accurately project an object based on an input to the system. I would guess most of the kids would not know where to start with such a design and would agree that this design would require much intelligence. Then pick up a ball ask who can see the intelligent design required in such an example. Throw them the ball utilizing your built in trigonometric, physics, 6 axis servo resolver articulation, air drag estimation system.
YES STOX IS RIGHT. I did copy and paste and forgot to put a link in clear violations of digital poit rules. There is no denying it. When I stuff up I admit it. I also received a well deserved infraction. The part where stOx is wrong is that what I copied and posted was garbage even though it was taken from a scientific journal. When I have the time I will try and repost it and give the link which in anycase was provided by someone else. My "inability" to think is not in play here. What is in play here is the fact that despite proof, many evolutionists resort to all sorts of errors that defy belief. A bit like stOx claim Jesus is NOT the most influential person of all time. Anyway, I'll be back later.
Great post by tbarr60. Toss in a measure of time, a million years here, a million years there with respect to how things develop over time. Like how man went from the first time picking up a stick and hitting the ground to the modern day jackhammer.
He asked that we not disprove evolution but back when I was ten, I liked to think about how groovy or neato evolution was but something always bother me about how it could "just happen" but I could always bury it in another ten or twenty million years. But that was back when the planet was 150 million years old and now it's 6 billion or something like that (I am aging gracefully for being 5.85 billion years old) so now you can bury your concerns under billions of years but you will still be nagged by the thought that for every positive mutation, randomness dictates there is a negative mutation. If you take off the blinders and observe the design of the physical world you can be constantly be amazed at the design.
I don't find any evidence of "design" in any of this. I do find evidence of the complexity of nature. I really don't see how an explanation of fluid dynamics, for instance, necessarily imputes "quite a bit of design...that would require much intelligence." And this is the rub. I think these are two approaches. Science goes from the known to the unknown, by heuristic process, continually striving to discover a rational answer to nature's riddles by empirical method. In this framework, an unknown merely begs further inquiry, and that is all. To take a question KalvinB once asked me, To which I answered, Intelligent design, indeed, all religious faith, at some point makes the conclusion that the unknown is due to a supra-natural intelligence - no matter how much "science" is utilized to come to that endpoint, there takes place the leap-off from empiricism to an imputation to a Greater Intelligence. Therefore, I don't believe these two worlds intersect. And "Intelligent Design" does not belong in a science classroom. I do want to stress that this is not a condemnation of religion, or someone's faith. As an atheist, I admit the end of science may very well be a laughing Yahweh/Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, Brahma, Krishna (any others, please join in), saying, "See? And you worked so hard!"
If there is a designer someone needs to fire his incompetent ass. if the universe, and us, was designed whoever done didn't do a very good job. Take human beings for example. We have a jaw not big enough for all of our teeth, We have an apendix that we don't need that is highly prone to infection, We have a birth process which is one of the most dangerous things a woman can go through. So not only is there no evidence for intelligent design what so ever, They is even actually a very strong case against it (even if we ignore the evidence from evolution) just by looking at how poorly "designed" we are. So no actual evidence then? Just another case of you not understanding how something works and atutomatically claiming god done it as your explanation. Sounds like an interesting class. Not really about intelligent design though, is it. It's more of a physics/match class. They are already taught these things, They don't need to be taught them again under the guise of a made up subject.