[jillianleab]

Theory is being taught as FACT and is granted priority to the exclusion of anything else.

Oh for cryin' out loud... for the millionth time:

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.)"

Definition of Scientific Theory

There's a cartoon at the top of the page. Maybe it will help you understand.

[templelane]

The church will eventually say that evolution is god's plan and everyone will be happy again

Funny you should say that but the current Pope and the Vatican already accepts evolution.

I also understand that most creationists are protestant not Catholic so this information has no bearing.

[inthebox]

inthebox the problem with your examples is you are talking about material things. Of course milk cartons with screw caps are intelligence by design, a milk carton is a thing, and it's not a biological or organic thing. Your examples prove nothing for or against evolution or ID.

Isn't it the purpose of those who deny a creator, to reduce everything to a concrete, provable experiment.

If that is the case, then using those same material arguments to prove INTELLIGENCE in everything humans DESIGN from pyramids to computer chips is a valid argument.

It is the purpose of materialism and evolution to prove everything in concrete, provable terms, otherwise they don't believe it. Well look all around and the evidence favors ID.

And it is science that also provides evidence of a Creator.
It is science that questions the validity of evolution.

The secular propaganda that belief and God and scientific endeavor and achievement are mutually exclusive is bovine manure. There is the parable of the talents, God wants us to use our God given abilities, and that does include math, physics, enineering, biology etc.

From the link:


"It is a FACT is that fossil skulls have been found that are INTERMEDIATE IN APPEARANCE between humans and modern apes. It is a FACT that fossils have been found that are clearly INTERMEDIATE IN APPEARANCE between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts MAY be interpreted in DIFFERENT ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves. "

Does the phrase "intermediate in appearance" PROVE evolution? Is that a scientific method? Do evolutionists allow for a difference of interpretation of the facts? Or are they the only ones claiming that the fossil record, what little there is of it, only proves evolution and are unwilling to acknowledge that those same facts may be interpreted as evidence of a creator who created different things?

[sassyT]

Intelligent design a is more reasonable alternative to the hoax that a big explosion from "no where" magically created birds, trees, flowers, humans etc.

[michealb]

Does the phrase "intermediate in appearance" PROVE evolution? Is that a scientific method? Do evolutionists allow for a difference of interpretation of the facts?

No, yes, and if they are within reason yes.

If the only evidence for evolution was the fossil record then you would be on to something but when you combine the fossil records with all of the other evidence you only get one reasonable outcome, evolution.

Sassyt,

We are talking about intelligent design and evolution. The big bang theory is a completely different topic and is not taught even in a biology class. I really suggest you speak with your biology professor about these things I'm sure he can set you straight in an afternoon.

[excon]

Hello again, sassy:

In the olden days, you'd burn people for doing their "magic". I guess some things NEVER change...

I did, however, think the dark ages were over.

excon

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

No, yes, and if they are within reason yes.

If the only evidence for evolution was the fossil record then you would be on to something but when you combine the fossil records with all of the other evidence you only get one reasonable outcome, evolution.

If you are talking about DNA , the question is what does dna say for evolution? Nothing.
If anything it makes a strong case for an intelligent designer who created a marvelously complex, efficient ‘information system’ for encoding life. Because evolutionist have seen that fossil record does nothing for their theory, they are desperate to find other ways to resuscitate their dying theory.
Similarly in DNA just shows a common creator. If God created animals,humans and plants that are going to inhabit the same environment, is it not logical that he would create them with similar matter?
It is not enough to explain how DNA might have gathered into strands by random chance; you must also explain the machinery to interpret DNA. In other words, it’s not enough to explain how random letters could eventually fall into the order S-E-E-T-H-E-D-O-G-B-A-R-K. These letters still don’t mean anything unless you have a pre-existing language system for interpreting those letters! ‘See the dog BARK’ has meaning, but only to a modern English-speaker.

Sassyt,

We are talking about intelligent design and evolution. The big bang theory is a completely different topic and is not taught even in a biology class. I really suggest you speak with your biology professor about these things I'm sure he can set you straight in an afternoon

lol... Evolutionists want to start with a "warm little soup pond" someplace on Earth but before we stand on the bank of a mythical little pond to discuss man's origins, i insist on knowing where you suppose that soup came from. Most evolutionists believe the big bang is what started it all. Where the big bang came from, they don't know. Mmm... Science? :rolleyes:

[sassyT]

Hello again, sassy:

In the olden days, you'd burn people for doing their "magic". I guess some things NEVER change.....

I did, however, think the dark ages were over.

excon

What are you talking about here?

[excon]

Hello again, sassy:

You use terms like "magic" and "myth" to explain your understanding of science. At one time in history, called the dark ages, Christians burned people who did "magic" (science).
I hate to tell you this, but those beliefs are out of date - waaaaaay out of date.

However, given your understanding of science and history, I'm not surprised you turn to the bible.

excon

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

Hello again, sassy:

You use terms like "magic" and "myth" to explain your understanding of science. At one time in history, called the dark ages, Christians burned people who did "magic" (science).

Hello excon, I hate to be the one to break this to you but the Universe coming into being through a magical explosion that came from "no where" and subsequently created a mythical (vegie) soup where a one cell creature crawled out of it and magically morphed into every living thing we see today, is not science.

[michealb]

Sassy, I suggest you then ignore all of the scientific theories on gravity then because we don't know where gravity come from. In fact ignore all science since we don't have a 100% exact model of how everything came into being and live as people did when the bible was written. No electricity because while we know how electricity is formed we don't know exactly where the original energy for it came from. See how silly that is.

Also hypothesizes and theories are part of science. The problems that you all seem to be having is understanding what is required for something to be a scientific theory and what that means.

Sassy are you getting your bio degree at a religious college or a main stream college?

[jillianleab]

Isn't it the purpose of those who deny a creator, to reduce everything to a concrete, provable experiment.

I suppose... but shouldn't the experiment be relavent? A milk carton has no will to live, it's a lousy example.

If that is the case, then using those same material arguments to prove INTELLIGENCE in everything humans DESIGN from pyramids to computer chips is a valid argument.

I see... so... "Everything we use was created by man. Man is intelligent. Man was created by intelligence" Too bad you're talking about things which aren't alive. So, no, not a valid argument.

It is the purpose of materialism and evolution to prove everything in concrete, provable terms, otherwise they don't believe it. Well look all around and the evidence favors ID.

Except your argument doesn't prove anything. I say look around and the evidence favors evolution.

And it is science that also provides evidence of a Creator.
It is science that questions the validity of evolution.

I don't know where science provides evidence of a creator; since science doesn't say, "Woah! This is complex! It must be created by some supernatural, unprovable being!"

And of course science questions the validity of evolution - it's the job of science to ask questions.

The secular propaganda that belief and God and scientific endeavor and achievement are mutually exclusive is bovine manure. There is the parable of the talents, God wants us to use our God given abilities, and that does include math, physics, enineering, biology etc.

I don't know where you get the idea belief in science and belief in god are mutally exclusive... bovine manure indeed. Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, gravity, photosynthesis, etc make no claim for or againat god whatsoever. You can have it both ways.

From the link:


"It is a FACT is that fossil skulls have been found that are INTERMEDIATE IN APPEARANCE between humans and modern apes. It is a FACT that fossils have been found that are clearly INTERMEDIATE IN APPEARANCE between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts MAY be interpreted in DIFFERENT ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves. "

Does the phrase "intermediate in appearance" PROVE evolution? Is that a scientific method? Do evolutionists allow for a difference of interpretation of the facts? Or are they the only ones claiming that the fossil record, what little there is of it, only proves evolution and are unwilling to acknowledge that those same facts may be interpreted as evidence of a creator who created different things?

First of all, the quote you've taken is explaining what a "fact" is, it is not claiming those items alone prove evolution. I don't appreciate you taking something from my link and taking it out of context. It's deceptive and rude.

"Intermediate in appearance" shows there is supporting evidence for evolution. Again, it makes no claim for or against "god". "God" or "creator" is not provable. Ever. Not in a lab. Science can never 100% disprove god. Even if we found every fossil of every species leading through evolution from a single celled organism all the way to me sitting here at my desk today, "god" or "creator" isn't disproven. The literal translation of the bible is, ID is, but "god" or "creator" isn't.

And anyone is welcome to interpret the facts however they want, but if they want their ideas to be considered by the scientific community, they need to publish them and allow them to be peer reviewed and subjected to scrutiny. ID-ers don't do this. Maybe it's because they know their argument won't hold up to scientific review (because it isn't science), I don't know, but they leave that step out and then demand their "theory" be taught in science classes. Now that's bovine manure!

PS: The fossil record isn't small.

[achampio21]

Ooh ooh I just wanted to throw this in because my fiancé and I talke about this all the time!!

Okay... if the "bible" is a "true" story about where everyone came from and how we were all created isn't it kind of strange that "man" wrote the bible and that each "version" of the bible is written and taught however is pleases each "religion". I have come to think of religion and churches kind of like a government. You know the gov has rules. The bible has rules. The gov wants your money. Churches want your money. The gov can violate all of their own rules. Pastors, preachers etc. can break all of their own rules.

OH and the king james bible says that we were all created from GOD. And that he made Adam and Eve and then they just I guess had a lot of kids. But how did dinosaurs get here, because the bible never talks about them... but science has proved their existence...

Anyway... just wanted to get that in there. I have been following this hot topic and I am learning a lot. But will admit I am still a little confused..

[ordinaryguy]

Hello excon, i hate to be the one to break this to you but the Universe coming into being through a magical explosion that came from "no where" and subsequently created a mythical (vegie) soup where a one cell creature crawled out of it and magically morphed into every living thing we see today, is not science.

No, it is not science, it's your caricature of what you think evolutionary theory says. It shows that you understand neither the theory of cosmogenesis, nor the theory of evolution, nor the science of physics, nor the science of geology, nor the science of biology, nor the role of theory in every kind of science whatsoever.

If I thought that your description of what science says was at all accurate, I'd reject it too. Rejecting a wild concoction of misconceptions is a great first step. The next step whould be to get to work on correcting those misconceptions.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

No, it is not science, it's your caricature of what you think evolutionary theory says.

Precisely.. :D

It shows that you understand neither the theory of cosmogenesis, nor the theory of evolution, nor the science of physics, nor the science of geology, nor the science of biology, nor the role of theory in every kind of science whatsoever.

The big bang theory is not science niether is the theory that all living things evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a soup. You don't need to have an education past third grade to know that human and fruit flies sharing a common ancestor is a fairy tale.

If I thought that your description of what science says was at all accurate, I'd reject it too. Rejecting a wild concoction of misconceptions is a great first step. The next step whould be to get to work on correcting those misconceptions

Its not science though... lol

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

OH and the king james bible says that we were all created from GOD. And that he made Adam and Eve and then they just I guess had a lot of kids. But how did dinosaurs get here, because the bible never talks about them... but science has proved their existence...

The bible does talk about Dinosaurs. God created Dinosaurs.

Job 40:15-24 describes a large animal that resembles what would be a dinosaur like a Brachiosaurus

Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1 all describe a large sea animal that does not resemble any animal we know today. Its description fits that of a dinosaur.

[ordinaryguy]

The big bang theory is not science niether is the theory that all living things evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a soup. you dont need to have an education past third grade to know that human and fruit flies sharing a common ancestor is a fairy tale.

Its not science though...lol

You are clearly not qualified to judge what is, and what is not science.

[Galveston1]

Let's see if I can get all of this information straight.

Most of you die hard evolutionists have been forced to admit to the possibility of a god. It's just you believe that he used evolution to accomplish the job.

You don't want him mentioned in the classroom, ANY classroom.

In spite of your claims of observing facts, you observe the fact of LIFE but refuse to pursue any investigation that might support the claim of a creator. Why is that? Isn't that just a tad intellectually dishonest?

You obviously believe in evolution, then deny that you have any beliefs, or at least some of you do.

I offered examples of scientific statements from Genesis, but it did not impress anyone. Why not?

My conclusion? If you accept the idea that there is a creator, then you must somehow make some effort to know about him, and that scares you. If that were not so, you would not mind teaching id/creationism as a counterpoint theory to evolution. Sure, call it theory. That would be better for the students than censorship of anything that might contradict evolution.

[ordinaryguy]

Let's see if I can get all of this information straight.

Nope, not even close.

Most of you die hard evolutionists have been forced to admit to the possibility of a god. It's just you believe that he used evolution to accomplish the job.

Whether there is or isn't a god has no particular bearing on the study of how life works. The evidence that life has existed on this planet for a very long time, and that simple life forms have been here much longer than more complex forms is incontrovertible and overwhelming. Evolutionary theory is a tool that biologists use to develop and improve their explanations of how living things change in response to the changes in their environment. It's not an article of religious faith or a tenet of religious belief. Whether God "used evolution" is a religious and theological question, not a scientific one.

You don't want him mentioned in the classroom, ANY classroom.

It's OK in religion or philosophy classrooms, it just isn't science.

In spite of your claims of observing facts, you observe the fact of LIFE but refuse to pursue any investigation that might support the claim of a creator. Why is that?

Biologists don't "refuse to pursue" such investigations, they just aren't interested because "the claim of a creator" is a religious question, not a scientific one, and it doesn't lead to any testable hypotheses. If you can design an experiment that uses the scientific method to test the hypothesis that there is a creator, by all means, carry it out and publish the result.

You obviously believe in evolution, then deny that you have any beliefs, or at least some of you do.

Again, evolutionary theory is not "something to believe in", it is just a tool scientists use, because it works for the task at hand--figuring out how living things interact and change over time.

I offered examples of scientific statements from Genesis, but it did not impress anyone. Why not?

Because the Bible is a religious book, not a science text. The fact that it contains some statements about the physical world that have been demonstrated scientifically does not turn it into a science book.

My conclusion? If you accept the idea that there is a creator, then you must somehow make some effort to know about him, and that scares you.

No, it's not the least bit scary. The effort to know about god is a spiritual quest, not a scientific study.

If that were not so, you would not mind teaching id/creationism as a counterpoint theory to evolution.

As jillianleab has explained many times, the problem is that creationism is religion, not science, and therefore does not belong in a scientific curriculum.

[michealb]

Let's see if I can get all of this information straight.

Good idea lets see what you have.

Most of you die hard evolutionists have been forced to admit to the possibility of a god. It's just you believe that he used evolution to accomplish the job.

Yes, most athiests admit that there could be a god, we just find that without evidence it's highly unlikely. What has been said in this thread is that evolution doesn't mean you have to be an atheist too. It's not athiests saying we believe that god used evolution to make man.

You don't want him mentioned in the classroom, ANY classroom.

We don't want him mentioned in a science class and we think it's a good idea that everyone teach their own religion in their own time. Instead of using government funds to sponsor a state religion.

In spite of your claims of observing facts, you observe the fact of LIFE but refuse to pursue any investigation that might support the claim of a creator. Why is that? Isn't that just a tad intellectually dishonest?

Science has been looking for god since the beginning. Science hasn't found him yet. If you have an experiment that proves god get it peer reviewed so we all can do it.

You obviously believe in evolution, then deny that you have any beliefs, or at least some of you do.

Regarding something as true because it fits facts and experiments is different than a religious belief because if there was any evidence that disproved evolution it would be abandoned.

I offered examples of scientific statements from Genesis, but it did not impress anyone. Why not?

I think Jillian has already said why this isn't impressive.

My conclusion? If you accept the idea that there is a creator, then you must somehow make some effort to know about him, and that scares you. If that were not so, you would not mind teaching id/creationism as a counterpoint theory to evolution. Sure, call it theory. That would be better for the students than censorship of anything that might contradict evolution.

You seem to have twisted everything everyone said in this thread to fit your own sense of what it's going on. I suggest you reread what is being said because you completely missed what was said.