I'm not an advocate for evolution, but don't believe in intelligent design either... Why are you trying so hard to prove that evolution is just a theory, instead of trying to make a case for intelligent design? Even if you somehow prove evolution wrong, it doesn't mean intelligent design is right; and I think that's the point of the thread... You implied we should be teaching "verifiable science"; and as this is an intelligent design thread, I assume there's some "verifiable science" behind intelligent design... I'm interested to hear more about it...
The complex biological machine also has it in themselves to change to better function with changing factors around it. In evolution, it is believed that life arose by a chance combination of basic elements that comprises a cell. I'm not sure if we have seen a transition of a species into a new species in mankind's observational history but cellular and molecular studies have show the behavior of biological machines changing and the capability of them to change. Also with these studies you can see patterns with the data that can trace connections between almost all of them. We can see the natural workings and progressions of life and can give evolution substantial credence in observational science. In other words we can connect the dots with our logic and data. It makes scientific sense. In intelligent design you can say that we are just applying taxonomy steps in the study of evolution but when you see these biological machines move and study their movements you can see how these changes can occur. For instance, chomosome changes like in downs syndrome. In the big picture chromosomes are still working themselves out over time and their might be a change in the future that lasts for every generation after it.
Protiendude is resorting to copy and pasting garbage now. With is pretty consistent with his previous examples of his inability to form an opinion of his own. He needs to be told everything. You are right, it is. We know it and they know it. they just lack the intellectual honesty to acknowledge it. They know that the only leg they have to stand on is to discredit any other theory in the hope that their "god done it" idea will take it's place by default. Well that isn't how truth is revealed. This is how their mind works, Which i think goes a long way to explaining how they could believe in this garbage in the first place.
Yup, same text can be found here: http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/evidence-for-intelligent-design.htm
I wouldn't even mind if he posted a citation, but not giving credit when credit is due kind of bugs me... And some people say the religious ones have more morals!
This thread is quite entertaining! Good job. KalvinB, you are making yourself look pretty bad here. How about answering the questions ?
I am answering the questions. It's not my fault you can't understand the relavence of science supporting ID as laid out in the Bible. The point is, everything that science has observed, supports intelligent design (the biblical account of creation) as much as it supports evolution. That's why it should be in the classroom if evolution is allowed in the classroom. There's nothing to debate. The only reason there is even a discussion is because evolutionists don't know what Evolution is. So they assume that somehow it's different than ID in the aspect of religion.
You keep saying this but you are yet to give examples. Chimp chromosome 13 and retrovirus DNA in our genome entirely support, and only support, The idea that we evolved from lower primates. Give us an insight in to what would be taught in an intelligent design class. Would people have to bring their own bible to this "science" class? No, You aren't, You are avoiding them. Go back to the OP and have another look at the question which were aksed.
Do you know who else has 48 chromosomes? Humans with down syndrome. Prove to me that apes are not a degenerate form of human. You assume those two "similar" chromosomes joined together. Prove to me they didn't break apart. Read. Comprehend. Respond. Why is a Bible necessary? Any class on evolution that has a book that claims we evolved from sludge is a religious text. Any class on evolution that claims the universe is billions of years old is a religious text. Those are two claims that cannot be proven by the scientific method. Does that make your science text a bible? Why can't an ID class just focus on the observable, recreatable science? Why does it have to be a religious course like Evolution currently is? Give an example of something science has observed that Intelligent Design can't deal with. What does Intelligent Design argue that science can prove false that isn't a religious claim to begin with? You can't prove God doesn't exist, you can't prove we evolved from sludge and you can't prove the universe is billions of years old. Those are the key issues that make ID different from Evolution. Notice, they are purely religious arguments and have nothing to do with real science which is the only thing that belongs in the science classroom. What you can't seem to wrap your mind around is that the whole debate is about religion in the classroom. You want to pick on ID but your arguments against ID in the classroom would prohibit Evolution from being in the classroom as well. Your original argument ends with the fact that ID and Evolution agree 100% as far as observable science is concerned. And observable science is the only thing that belongs in the science classroom.
because primate fossils have been found dating back millions of years, (modern day) Humans fossils have only been found in layers dating 200,000 years (max). Now answer the questions you were asked two pages ago and stop avoiding them. I love how we have you people flapping and running around without a clue of what to say and what to do. it demonstrates exactly how flimsy and easily destroyed your whole premise is.
See, once again, it's turned into a debate over evolution, which is the common tactic used by the believers of "intelligent design", to completely sidestep the issue of attempting to prove their theory... This thread was supposed to be about intelligent design, and not a single person has yet to post anything supporting the theory, instead launching attacks on evolution...
Yep. The fact that nothing science has observed contradicts ID, is completely irrelavent. The only disagreements between ID and Evolution are the unscienficially based assumptions of both religions. Nobody is attacking evolution. If you find facts upsetting then that's not my issue. The fact that an ancient text would say something that would be illogical for the time does nothing to support it either. What other account of creation states that light came before the observable light sources? Let's ignore what people are saying and pretend no one is saying anything to support ID. That's how we win debates around here. We ignore what people are saying because it wasn't a "yes" "no" response that we can understand. What you meant to say was that primate fossils have been found that are assumed to date back millions of years based on dating methods that cannot be scientifically verified by the scientific method. It's a religious, not scientific claim. As such, it is irrelavent to the discussion. If you bury someone six feet under they are, according to the "scientific" form of dating, at least thousands of years old.
That's the first correct thing you have said. The basis for a theory isn't the inability to contradict it. It's evidence to support it Could i teach your children about the teapot orbiting mars simply because you are unable to offer a theory contradicting it? Now answer the questions.
Ok, so your argument for intelligent design, is: "the bible says so"... right? Not trying to be a smartass, just making sure that's what you're saying...
Being a smartass would require understanding what I'm writing. Read. Comprehend. Respond. All the observable science supports ID as much as it supports Evolution. Where ID and Evolution disagree is purely religious. What part of Genesis 1 does science not agree with that isn't religious anyway? Science: there was nothing Bible: there was nothing Science: light was created Bible: light was created Science: stars were created Bible: stars were created Science: planets were formless Bible: planets were formless Science: planets started to have form Bible: planets started to have form Science: simple life like plants started to exist Bible: plants came to be Science: animals started to exist Bible: animals started to exist Science: humans came about Bible: humans came about Wow. What a coincidence. You could use the Bible as a text to support the scientific argument for the order of how things came about. The only thing the disagree on is the religious argument of who was behind it if anyone and the timeframe. Which doesn't belong in the classroom anyway. Learn to read. It's not my fault you can't apply what I'm telling you to the questions you asked. So start applying that same standard to the religious claims of Evolution.
No it doesn't, Not at all, In the slightest. Intelligent design entirely rejects the idea of evolution by natural selection and science completely proves it. Well done on demonstrating that not only do you not understand evolution, But you understand ID equally as poorly. Now answer the questions. You are continuing to use anti-evolution arguments to support ID.
That's adaptation. Not evolution. ID accepts natural select which is proven. ID does not accept that adaptation leads to entirely new species which has never even been proven possible. This is why it's impossible to have a discussion with an evolutionist. They can't tell the difference between adaptation and evolution. "Science" has long wanted to engrain the idea that they are the same and it looks like they finally succeeded. Turns out all they had to do was print in a text book that adaptation proves evolution and a bunch of school kids who can't think for themselves would think that it's true. All because they can't think logically for themselves. Bacteria have billions of generations within years and yet never seem to manage to be anything more than bacteria even though they may have changed in certain ways. Odd. A classroom experiment shows that after billions of generations adaptation didn't lead to a new species. Learn to read.
Kalvin, please answer this: 1)Is there actually any evidence for intelligent design it;s self or does it entirely consist of refuting claims made by evolution? 2)How would intelligent design get through this process and be considered a scientific theory: 1. Observation 2. Speculation 3. Empirical testing 4. Theory 5. Peer review If you did answer the questions as you claim, please copy/paste your answers near the corresponding question (All of us do not seem to see your answers). If you cannot do this simple task, don't even bother replying.