Ask Me Help Desk - Intelligent Design & Evolution

By ScottGem

Quote:

Agreed. But that leaves it up to the individual to choose whether to believe only in what can be proven or to rely on their faith as proof

.
In my opinion that's exactly who should have the last word right or wrong. We as humans still have a long way to go before we can even begin to unravel the mysteries of the universe. And yes we will get many differing opinions but the main thing for now is how we deal with each other while we go through this period of I don't know for sure! So to answer the OP, In my opinion we should bury our prejudices and fears and give our children ALL the knowledge they can handle and leave that politically correct stuff alone. If nothing else maybe the next generation will not be obsessed with being right and more tolerant of others who are different!

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

So to answer the OP, In my opinion we should bury our prejudices and fears and give our children ALL the knowledge they can handle and leave that politically correct stuff alone.

I agree.

HOWEVER, the OP was not whether ID should be taught but whether it should be taught as a science. There is also the question of where it should be taught.

In my opinion it should be taught as part of a person's religious education. Not in public schools.

Unfortunately and this is sad, intolerant people usually pass it to their kids so I think its safe to say it will be a while before we get it enough to make a difference.

Always reminds me of the song from South Pacific, You have to be carefully taught!

All the scientists that Starmanposted were copied from a religious web site called "Abounding Joy". Slanted to say the least!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Refuse or just don't accept? As Tom keeps saying there is no scientific proof of a Creator. Absent that, how can any scientific proofs be made for Creationism or Intelligent Design?

Frankly I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. All my posts here have been simply a statement of why I believe in evolution and attempts to refute claims that the Theory of Evolution is totally unfounded.

No, my feelings about religion have little to do with my feelings about Evolution. I have said several times that I don't believe that Evolution is in direct contradiction to the Bible, except for a literal interpretation. My belief in Evolution is due to the fact that its the only theory that is supported by a preponderance of scientific fact. Something I have stated several times and something I don't see refuted, by anything other than rhetoric.

And I've responded to this by suggesting that you review what you've said. Because much of what you have said seems to be denigrating the scientific facts, not just Evolutionist interpretation of them. If you want to disagree with Evolutionist interpretation that is your right. But then deal with the interpretations not the facts themselves.

As for your quotes. It is my experience that support against Evolution is a highly emotional charged since antievolutionists feel its an attack on their religious beliefs. Ergo, even normally rational scientists may succumb to emotional rhetoric.

The quotes were given by respected scientists. The problem is that if they are not evolutionists then you conveniently conclude that they aren't worthy of your respect.

Preponderance? Support?

Preponderance of interpretations of things discovered in order to fit in what is already believed to be the reasons.

Do nor understand?

That's because you don't really understand what I said due to your inability to grasp the concept of inconsistency.

If you don't know how evolutionists are being inconsistent how can you say one way or another?

If you do understand then why don't you offer up as refutation instead of falling back conveniently like a broken record on you accusations of emotionality and claims of preponderance?

As for emotions: You come across as very upset whenever someone doesn't accept your claims. Also, the argument stands or falls on its own merits. The person's emotions have NOTHING to do with its validity. Many arguments that are pure drivel are offered up by people with deadpan expressions and seemingly unemotionally. That doesn't add one iota of value to what they say if what they say is drivel--does it?

BTW
The reason I don't believe in evolution is because I find the arguments presented unconvincing. Am I allowed that here?

I think we all can say our peace without the personal stuff!

No one as said you aren't allowed to believe what you want.

Since you seem to totally misread what I've said and have decided, to put your own biased interpretation despite words to the contrary, I see no reason to continue butting my head against it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGem

No one has said you aren't allowed to believe what you want.

Since you seem to totally misread what I've said and have decided, to put your own biased interpretation despite words to the contrary, I see no reason to continue butting my head against it.

About bias, and misinterpretations, the opinion is mutual.

Because science cannot prove or disprove doesn't mean it cannot exist. Ahh! Then you accept the existence of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy. (your logic, not mine)

Quote:

speedball1 disagrees: Because science cannot prove or disprove doesn't mean it cannot exist. Ahh! Then you accept the existence of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy. (your logic, not mine)

Just for the record I don't celebrate any of the holidays you refer too, so it must be YOUR logic not mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Just for the record I don't celebrate any of the holidays you refer too, so it must be YOUR logic not mine.

No Tally,

I wasn't the one who stated, "Because science cannot prove or disprove doesnt mean it cannot exist."

All I did was to answer, " Ahh! Then you accept the existence of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy."

Now you may explain to me the difference in beliving in gods and goddesses and believing in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy.

The operational word here is "belief" and whether you celebrate these holidays or not doesn't change anything.
Are you saying with this statement, " Just for the record I don't celebrate any of the holidays you refer too," that your beliefs are "flexible"?
Then that would render your original statement untrue wouldn't it?

LMFAO, Gary Trudeau and Carl Sagin are two of my "heros"

Not sure what your point is since it is based in the way YOU see things which is cool. But your reach from GOD to Santa Claus? And for the record your interpretation of my statement IS entirely Your logic and has nothing to do with me one way or another. And also for the record, YOU did more than answer, YOU cast the issue of my GOD with the cloud of YOUR own logic which makes no sense to me at all. MY belief is mine and no, flexible is not the word I would use but PERSONAL would be a lot more accurate. If you believe what "scientist " tell you Fine, I'm not trying to convert you ,I really don't care what YOU or anyone else believes to tell the truth . I probably won't be there to argue your point with YOUR GOD! If the Easter bunny or Santa Claus really do exist SO WHAT! What does that have to do with me! Now If the God that I understand presented himself in a red suit and red hat, I'd say HMMMM********Speedball was right! Until then... To each his own! :cool: :D

Good response Tally,

I was just ragging on you and having a little fun. Now enjoy the rest of your week end. Cheers, Tom

LOVE the debate my friend, And it is a holiday and it is TIME TO PARTY!! ENJOY-Bob

As a scientist I can tell you that there are many signs of evolution, that is we descended from other primates. Human DNA resembles chimpanzee's DNA 95%.

Isn't it interesting how some folks can dismiss a book that has been proven correct so many times by fulfilled predictions, archeological finds, scientific discoveries, and an unbroken line of history through ancient scribes, and yet swallow the claims of evolution whole. Now THAT really takes gullibility. To say that evolution has been proven is a total mistake. There are many recognized scientists that do not accept evolution as a cause. Mutation is not the same as evolution. Evolution is a religion and just as vigorously supported as any other religion. So admit it. Your are religious after all.

Excellent points--I agree 100%!

And isn't it also interesting how many creationists tap dance around the word "Creator". I also find it fascinating the while discussing intelligent design "The Drsigner" is left out of the equation.

"Isn't it interesting how some folks can dismiss a book that has been proven correct so many times by fulfilled predictions, archeological finds, scientific discoveries, and an unbroken line of history through ancient scribes,"

And whadda you know, here it is again! We just did a "soft shoe shuffle" right around the word," Bible".

Tippity-tap-slip and slide! Isn't it fun to watch the creation apoligests twist and turn to avoid using that nasty word "religion" in their arguments.
Having a "Creator" or a "Intelligent Designer" as the center of their claim but not being able to give evidence that such a deity even exists plus having to deny that religion has nothing to do with intelligent design as they attempt to force the public school system to teach it as science must put a terrible strain on them. But it is amusing to watch them try.
Not having a shred of physical evidence to back up the claim of either creationist science or intelligent design the best they can do is attempt to debunk evolution.
Keep it up guys! Tippity-tap-tap and a soft shoe slide! We're enjoying the act!

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbiased_thinker

As a scientist I can tell you that there are many signs of evolution, that is we descended from other primates. Human DNA resembles chimpanzee's DNA 95%.

Resemblance doesn't prove descent. We live on the same planet and have to deal with the same gravity, radiation, atmosphere, temperatures and so on. So physically there will be resemblances which simply means that the same plan was used
To deal with the same environmental conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedball1

And isn't it also interesting how many creationists tap dance around the word "Creator". I also find it fascinating the while discussing in belligerent design "The Drsigner" is left out of the equation.

"Isn't it interesting how some folks can dismiss a book that has been proven correct so many times by fulfilled predictions, archeological finds, scientific discoveries, and an unbroken line of history through ancient scribes,"

And whadda ya know, here it is again!! We just did a "soft shoe shuffle" right around the word," Bible".

Tippity-tap-slip and slide!! Isn't it fun to watch the creation apoligests twist and turn to avoid using that nasty word "religion" in their arguments.
Having a "Creator" or a "Intelligent Designer" as the center of their claim but not being able to give evidence the such a deity even exists plus having to deny that religion has nothing to do with intelligent design as they attempt to force the public school system to teach it as science must put a terrible strain on them. But it is amusing to watch them try.
Not having a shred of physical evidence to back up the claim of either creationist science or intelligent design the best they can do is attempt to debunk evolution.
Keep it up guys! Tippity-tap-tap and a soft shoe slide! we're enjoying the act!!

Inability to see plain evidence and refusal to acknowledge, accompanied by
A mocking attitudeand false accusations doesn't constitute proof. Add to this inconsistency in reasoning and your whole argument, if indeed it can be classified as such, comes crashing down like a house of cards.

It seems to me that both sides of this argument can be accused of being rather closed minded and I find it amusing that both sides think their so right that now the arrogance and name calling as reared its ugly head! When did we get so sensitive?

"Inability to see plain evidence and refusal to acknowledge, accompanied by
a mocking attitudeand false accusations doesn't constitute proof. Add to this inconsistency in reasoning and your whole argument, if indeed it can be classified as such, comes crashing down like a house of cards."
,
More tippity-tap, (I love it! ) You saying that I have the "Inability to see plain evidence and refusal to acknowledge it" just adds more soft shoe routine to the act. You speak of "evidence", isn't that what I've been asking for ever since this thread started? PRODUCE THIS "EVIDENCE" that you claim you have. I don't see one answer to my previous post. Not one response except to put me down. You attempt to discredit my augments while not offering one tiny shred of physical evidence to back up yours.
One more time! Making me look bad doesn't make you look good. Try! I have argued reason and logic against faith and belief for decades with militant fundamentalists and am still waiting for the evidence to back ip their claims. I find you no different from them. Welllll! Perhaps a bit more humorous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

It seems to me that both sides of this argument can be accused of being rather closed minded and I find it amusing that both sides think their so right that now the arrogance and name calling as reared its ugly head! When did we get so sensitive??

I agree. This thread is going to the gutter.

Quote:

I agree. This thread is going to the gutter.

Yep, this is why I like to read these more than reply to them. I get bored hearing all the name calling, over and over and over again. :)

Yodeladeehoo (insert name here)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Name calling
:D :D :D :D :D :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedball1

"Inability to see plain evidence and refusal to acknowledge, accompanied by
a mocking attitude and false accusations doesn't constitute proof. Add to this inconsistency in reasoning and your whole argument, if indeed it can be classified as such, comes crashing down like a house of cards."
,
More tippity-tap, (I love it!!) You saying that I have the "Inability to see plain evidence and refusal to acknowledge it" just adds more soft shoe routine to the act. you speak of "evidence", isn't that what I've been asking for ever since this thread started?? PRODUCE THIS "EVIDENCE" that you claim you have. I don't see one answer to my previous post. Not one response except to put me down. You attempt to discredit my augments while not offering one tiny shred of physical evidence to back up yours.
one more time! Making me look bad doesn't make you look good. Go ahead and try! I have argued reason and logic against faith and belief for decades with militant fundamentalists and am still waiting for the evidence to back ip their claims. I find you no different from them. Welllll! Perhaps a bit more humorous.

Respectful disagreement doesn't constitute putting you down unless you interpret it that way by identifying yourself worth with the ideas you put forth as fact. Your beliefs are not you. On the other hand, I agree that name-calling and mockery are ad hominem. However, I don't agree that my saying that you are unable to see my viewpoint is either. Actually, you have all the right in the world to hold whatever belief you wish and it shouldn't be any skin off anybody's nose unless your manner of stating your beliefs is offensive. In that case it's the manner of your expressing your views and not your beliefs that are questionable. I think that the problem in your case is that you express your views very vigorously and when someone responds with a little vigor you can't seem to tolerate it and begin to accuse these people of putting you down. I strongly suspect that if you'd tone it down a bit yourself then the responses you receive would most likely not be as irritating. No harm meant just a little advice.

As for the proof you require, I garnered some web site links that you might or might not wish to read. That's entirely up to you.

evolution
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION. The following are just some of the little publicised facts which contradict the "proven fact" of evolution theory. 1. FOSSILS
Ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/evol.htm

EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution
... EvC Forum All Forums Science Forums Biological Evolution Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution... Topic: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution. Wj. Member..

Science Against Evolution Official Home Page
... Science Against Evolution is a California Public Benefit Corporation whose... evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution...
www.scienceagainstevolution.org

SCIENTIFIC FACTS AGAINST EVOLUTION —. ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. 3 Volume. ENCYCLOPEDIA. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 1... SECTION 7 - Additional Scientific Evidence Against Evolution. 25- THE LAWS OF NATURE VS. EVOLUTION The First and Second...
Evolution-facts.org/EncyclopediaTOC.htm

Scientific Arguments Against Evolution
Evidence for Intelligent Design... Evolution. Science Itself Refutes Darwinism... to the theory of evolution, at some time in the... • Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example...
www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

Scientific Creationism - The Web Site
A collection of essays and articles which refute the theory of evolution and support young earth creationism.. . Evidence against the theory of evolution. Scientific Evidence Against the Theory of Evolution. A Critique... Primary Evidence Used to Support the Theory of Evolution. Rebuttals to other...
www.scientificcreationism.org

Evolution Exposé
... we get is, "If the scientific evidence is against the theory of evolution, then why don't all scientists... answer is that the theory of evolution isn't scientific, it is philosophic...
www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v7i12f.htm

Evolution vs. Design: Is the Universe a Cosmic Accident or Does it Display Intelligent Design?
The universe, the earth and life on it testify to the involvement of an Intelligent Designer. Macroevolution fails to explain the history of life on planet earth.. . falsifiable, predictive biblical creation model. Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe - Why... macroevolution is false. A Scientific Case Against Evolution by Robert Locke, a...
www.godandscience.org/evolution

Main Creation Science Web Links
... advance knowledge of the scientific evidences of creation (and against evolution) in schools and among... We provide Biblical and scientific evidence that God created the universe, and...
www.creationism.org/topbar/linksWeb.htm

Evolution is not Necessarily True
Evolution is not Necessarily True. David D'Armond. Naperville, Illinois. Editor's Note: Mr.. . became aware of the serious scientific deficiencies of evolution as a result of changing... 3. Scientific facts and evidence are against evolution: A. Genetics-Evolutionists have...
http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive.../GOT020259.htm

Evidence Disproving Evolution
Thank you all very much! Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000. Evidence Disproving Evolution... both in evolution and God, It is interesting that when shown scientific evidence against their theory evolutionists... that their belief in evolution is not based on science...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/767711/posts

BTW

I find you humorous as well.

I believe evolution to be fact ,somewhat. The thing you must remember is that whenever the facts can't explain things then man in his infinite wisdom fills in the gaps with his own impeccable logic. To a man whatever we come up with in our own mind, nobody can shake loose and we will fight to the death to preserve what ideas we think is the way it is. Most of us don't have the capacity to admit to not knowing so we defend whatever opinion hits our "logic" and present it as true. We have proven it here as well as our attitude that prevents us from SHARING ideas and concepts. I would find it really amusing if we come to find out that we all are ego tripping and none of us has a clue. No that's not thunder That's GOD laughing at our feeble attempts to understand our world. And sadly that's what we teach our children," we don't know squat but your a dumb *** for not seeing I'm righter than YOU!" End of rant.:cool: :rolleyes:

Thank you Starman, The debate ends now. I couldn't prove my point any better then you just did.

"As for the proof you require, I garnered some web site links"

You sure did and as I have always claimed not one of the "Proofs" (Coppied from The Bountiful Joy website again?) give any physical evedence of Creation but not being able to prove Creation the only thing they can do is attack evolution and attempt to muddy the waters. All of your so called "proofs" do just that. Just look at the titles of the "proofs you put up. Tippty-tap tippty-tap and a soft shoe slide! (Sounds of hands clapping! )

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION.
Evidence Disproving Evolution
Against evolution)
Macroevolution fails to explain the history of life on planet earth.
Evolution Exposé
A collection of essays and articles which refute the theory of evolution
Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

Starman, I respect your views and you have good debating skills but you got to admit that the sites did more to attack evolution then to prove intelligent design. My point exactly! Rick and Tal are right, this debate's become both boring and repetitive. As far as I'm concerned, the debate's over, done, finished! ( And you did debate very well) Regards and respect, Tom

I consider all the sites attacking the existence of a creator to be muddying of the waters. So I guess we have that in common. Yes, there are more who choose to believe in mindless organization of matter into complex biological machines based on what evolutionists prefer to say. That's OK. But that doesn't constitute proof. It only shows preference of the majority to go in that particular direction for many reasons. To not be considered ignorant. Because of blind faith and unquestioning trust in scientists. In order to feel they are accountable to no-one and can do as they please. Because of lacking critical thinking ability, or simply because it makes more sense to them for some other reason.

But you are right, this discussion is really redundant and will not go beyond what it already has gone. But this isn't due to my reluctance to address the issue. This is due to the constant evasion of anything that smacks of being irrefutable via changing of the subject, refusal to be consistent in the application of the scientific method, a predisposition to view all scientists and their statements as silly if they believe in a creator despite their qualifications, and a tendency to fly off the handle via resorting to mockery and fallacious reasoning.

In any case, I am willing to throw in the towel and bring this useless discussion to a halt. No problem.

BTW

My only attempt at debating here was in reference to the arrowhead example and I was skillfully evaded via being presented with a false analogy and being classified as unreasonable for not accepting the false analogy. Another p[oster claimed not to understand inconsistency. That put an end to any attemprt at debate.

Everything else was just padding or pitter-pattering in order to counter the tipity tapping.