That's facinating. Except for one small problem...they're STILL rabbits and pidgeons. These new "species" you speak of are not a new species at all. Now, show me a rabbit that evolved into a pigeon and we'll have something to talk about.
I really don't understand a seeming double standard. We have an extraordinary amount of evidence to support speciation, so-called intermediations between species, and an equally extrordinary amount of science testing the evolutionary theory historically, into today - Evolution is a dynamic thing; it isn't a photograph, so looking at it as if it were is like looking at a Tsunami at its full height and declaring it couldn't have come from a 6" origin. It is happening today, and Homo Sapiens sapiens will very likely be an entirely new species millenia from now. None of us was around in the past, and none of us will be here 25,000 years from now. Or 100,000 years from now, so we go on the evidence we have, and do our best. Such evidence exists, and empirical method is used to derive an explanation of the past, and predict the future, and evolutionary theory has stood up quite well in the process. With respect to your faith, please provide the evidence supporting the Creation of the Earth as told in Genesis. Barring this evidence, why the double standard?
Debunked, it isn't. My issue over the double standard comes from his call for evidence when there is evidence, an extraordinary amount of evidence, supporting evolutionary theory, while requiring none for the Genesis account of creation. In other words, his call for a proof of a "rabbit into a pigeon" while requiring nothing regarding "show me proof for the Genesis account" is simply a double standard. This was my point. My further point was that a rabbit is still a rabbit because we are observing it in our day and age, as we would an action photograph. We impute stasis to something in action this way, and this isn't a correct way to look at it. A surfer on a wave, caught in a photograph in mid-curl. Is he still? Or moving? In other words, let's talk 90,000 years ago, or 150,000 years into the future, to see what that rabbit was, or will become. Or any of us. My objection is not with your faith, or anyone's - I do not share Stox's views in this way, as is clear from my rebuke of his stand. Always has been, and always will be. My objection is applying the impetuses of faith to science, which is necessarily approached empirically. And when evidence exists, and scientific method is used, it is baseless, and, I believe, as disrespectful to my views as Stox's are to yours or Kalvin's, to call it "religion" without backing up such a claim absent facts. Simply saying that evolutionary scientists conclude what they conclude merely because they hold an atheist or anti-god "bias" dishonors the method they use - empirical, and scientific, and the work derived therein, what these scientists have done in contributing to human knowledge. I take objection to such a characterization.
Genesis doesn't claim to be a scientific fact. However, aside from the time frame and the cause, there is no dispute between godless speculation and Genesis 1. Evolution does claim to be a scientific fact. If evolution wants to be called a fact then it requires hard evidence. There is no double standard. If you want your belief to stop being faith and start being fact then you need evidence. If you don't want to have to prove evolution then call it what it is, a religion. You have proof that things change. You have faith that species can evolve into other completely different species. That's what we call a religion, a myth. A made up story to try to explain your world based on various assumptions such as "God doesn't exist." Unless you have some documentation from 90,000 years ago or 150,000 years into the future, you have no facts to back up your speculations. In 10,000 years your story will change while 10,000 years ago Genesis 1 was written and "science" agrees with everything about the story except the cause and the time frame.
Well, firstly, you have it. In spades. Secondly, I agree with you. Genesis doesn't claim to be a scientific fact, while evolutionary theory should be held to standards of proof endemic to science. Hence, my point all along. "Intelligent design" has zero business being in a science class. You can't have it both ways - Genesis is faith, requiring no evidence, and it stays therefore in the realm of faith; and, at the same time, it is science, and belongs in a science class, alongside evolutionary theory.
Yes, I saw your argument with stox and many of your posts, so I respect what you write because you don't discount someone because of their belief or belittle someone who doesn't agree with you. What I have a problem with the evolutionary religion, is where there are things dug up such as the bones of what is called an early human (don't know all the Latin names) does not give proof to the theory. If the same bones where found without having the theory to start with what would be the logical conclusion to those who found the bones? Maybe they would say it was 1 deformed person who lived during that time. Show where they found many of the same bones during a time period. You see, even today we have deformed people whose bones may even look like those that are supposedly 100 million years old. (carbon dating has many flaws.) There is no proof for evolution as a whole, I understand when someone wants to keep researching and looking for more pieces of the puzzle, but when it is claimed to be a fact when they are missing 99% of a puzzle, it just shows where the person has left science and entered into a religion.
Kalvin, you edited after I posted so I will respond to your additions now, and hopefully respond to Debunked as well. On the face of it, if what we have from ages past is a "myth" or "religion," then history, as a social science depending on primary sources written by dead folks, is equally a myth. Both of course, run the danger of "data-mining" - skewing the search to fit a preconceived theory. But doing so isn't science. But this isn't what historians do, and it isn't what evolutionary scientists do. I've said it before and I'll say it again. My interest in evolution, and my conclusions drawn from that interest, have zero to do with my thoughts on the existence or absence of god. Zero. And I truly have not known a single scientist - at Berkeley, U of Mich., or elsewhere - who starts from a presumption of "no god," such as Kalvin has stated, and moves forward. To do so is antithetical to what gets a bee under the bonnet of what these folks do. They do what scientists do, dig. Now, to evidence, there is so much evidence for evolution, particularly, from what I can tell, evolution based on a punctuated equilibrium, that it would be impossible to detail it here. Do you really discount what's available as pure bunk? Here, a very basic look, admittedly for popular (lay, pun intended) consumption: Speciation New species have even been artificially induced, in a forced pattern not unlike natural patterns intrinsic to punctuated events. Shameless plug, from my old alma mater, some interesting stuff: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_45 And on, and on. The puzzle is not 99% empty, debunked, but quite the opposite. There is a world more, some of which has been posted on this thread by others. The evidence has driven the theory, not the other way around. And, to return to the subject of this thread, which is the teaching of the Intelligent Design in a science curriculum. I'd ask again: as Kalvin says, the Divine Creator account is religion, not science. Therefore, how can it possibly be argued for inclusion in a science class? It cannot be both religion and faith based, and science and science based, at one and the same time.
Col, please see my above post. Firstly, to clear something up, so we're all speaking the same language. "Evolution" is that. It is simply developmental change, and it isn't a bad word. Where the Creationist community seems to take issue is with the second of the following: evolution is change within a species, and change into new species, speciation; with species itself being a defined notion - chiefly, a group that have the same hairstyle, who can breed among members with the same hairstyle, but cannot breed with members of other hairstyles. The pathway introduced by forced means mirrors the pathway occurring naturally. Mutations, recessive trait expression and other substantial variations, occurring during periods of isolation by geographic and other environmental stressors, and all creating new species, is the exact thing that is being asked for here, and I do have to admit I am left scratching my head a bit, as, as evidence has been asked for, it has been amply provided. This is the very stuff of evolutionary theory. Finally, let me admit something. Although I'm an atheist, I'd love to find at the end of the day that there is a deity who is proud of its children for discovering the answer to a wondrous puzzle. Edited to add: I see bluegrass special is aboard. He was who I was thinking of in providing some great insights - follow his line; fascinating material.
I hear ya! It's terminology that is the problem most of the time. What people call a spade is sometimes a shovel. Nature is an incredible thing and very puzzling. However, our human minds are weak. Yet, sometimes powerful in some respects. It's amazing that some spend their entire lifetime analyzing one thing on this earth. By the time they get remotely close to realizing what makes it tick their life has come to an end. It's sad really. Time is what we need to discover all these things and time is the very thing we don't have.
I am being utterly honest here. If I can get one sentence down that honorably conveys my love of all I see and feel, I'll die happy.
Yes, it does. The parasite's DNA has been completely absorbed into the host species. Article Generally no. Mules are almost always infertile (there have only been about sixty cases of fertile mules in the last 500 years). They are the result of breeding a male donkey with a female horse. A mule is a hybrid and not a species. A species must be able to breed with it self to be a species. The only successful mating of mules has been with a purebred donkey or horse. There aren't any cases of two mules being able to propagate. What is not being understood here is that evolution is a process not one concept. It is a complex theory that has many facets. Two of which are adaptation (which by the way was the founding principle of evolution theory) and extinction. Extinction is not limited to evolution, but it is part of the process. When species go extinct they open up resources that other species will adapt to use. Again, trying to confuse evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution theory does not discuss the origin of life. It only discusses the process of how we changed over time into our current state. None of those proven things prove intelligent design. Evolution is the change in a species over time. All of those things prove just that, they do not prove a creator. That is not an issue of uniqueness. Those are vestigial limbs left over from when whale ancestors lived on land. The fact that modern whales do not have them shows that species change over time.
When some says, "A dog is still a dog" or something similar, I think they are a bit misinformed. The offspring of a dog will always be a dog, because animals are classified taxonomically by their ancestors in a nested heirarchy. The offspring will always be a dog in the same way that they will always be a eukaryote or a mammal. They are trying to create some criteria about how a species is defined which is subject only to their personal opinion on the matter.
This is so funny to me because your answer disallows the question itself. Let's look at it again: Is there actually any evidence for intelligent design itself or does it entirely consist of refuting claims made by evolution? I believe the two are NOT MUTUALLY exclusive. LOL... But irregardless, how on earth do you expect me to explain my answer unless I explain my understanding of Intelligent Design and where it comes from, which, of course, is the Bible. You guys are funny. You're as intractible and adamantine as Medieval monks. You parade around as folks eager to understand but really you just want to hear only yourselves, even when you invite others to speak, as soon as they do you want only to shut them up.
You only have to look through this thread to see how little actual evidence creationists have for their myth and how much time they spend simply refuting the opposing argument. If creationists could be intellectually honest and just say that the only reason they believe in creation is because they are religiously required to and the only reason they reject the mountain of evidence supporting evolution is because they are religiously required to people wouldn't argue with them, it would be like arguing with a mad man about whether he is admiral nelson or not. If you want creation to be taken seriously and treated as an equal to evolution let's start seeing some evidence FOR IT, And not just arguments refuting the opposing theory. Every time your argument for creation uses arguments against evolution you are falling foul of the false dichotomy fallacy.
Kalvin and all the pure evolution from chaos theorists. I want you to just watch one video. http://powerflv.com/play2?cat=Docum...gent+Design+-+Unlocking+The+Mysteries+Of+Life In this video it shows one of teh biggest advocates of evolution from chaos noble prize winning micro-biologists who eventually swwitches over to intelligent design because he realized that he just couldnt make full sense of how life could arise from chaos. It also talks about who the worlds most premier micro-biologists get together every year for a round table discussion on their views of this. I promise you will never be the same after this. My fellow dp'er rebecca saw it and i havent recieved a response from her yet , which tells me alot since she supported the evolution from chaos side lol. Now after you guys watch the video i would like to hear any rebuttals if you have any that is. People can debate how new species may arise but as you wuill see in this video they cant rebutt intelligent design, and without intelligent design life cannot start for it to differentiate into different species. This should close this case 100%
I don't have an hour to spare to sit down and watch a video that makes your argument for you. if you can't take from the video what you think supports intelligent design and present it here in writing it leads me to believe that not only do you not understand evolution, But on top of that you don't even understand your own arguments for intelligent design.