|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:33 am
Proof for Darwinism: it's theory. Therefore by definition we don't have the final proof. Yet. (though I think we will never know what was the first organism on earth, we were born some few billion years too late to know that). As I said earlier: it's the only scientific theory we have that explains things. And with each day we're getting closer to understand how this works, and what is the final shape of this theory.
Sealikamprf: can't tell, as I don't exactly know what we're talking about here. You must deal with my English and spell it the right way wink . Nevertheless - if you take a look at sharks. Sharks exist on this planet for milions of years. Why? Because they're perfectly shaped and they do not really need to evolve much. What changes in sharks over the recent milions of years is some slight modificiations to the exterior, while interior stays the same. It's simple: they already have all the features they require and no additional change is needed. Basically speaking - they can survive with what they have, otherwise they would already be exinct. The fact that some species lives on this planet for milions of years doesn't mean there's no evolution. It only means that what evolution made them into was enough for them to survive until today.
Once again - I don't deny ID theory a chance at school. I only deny it a chance at the science class, because it's basically no science here. For the reasons I presented above.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:01 am
kacisko Proof for Darwinism: it's theory. Therefore by definition we don't have the final proof. Yet. (though I think we will never know what was the first organism on earth, we were born some few billion years too late to know that). As I said earlier: it's the only scientific theory we have that explains things. And with each day we're getting closer to understand how this works, and what is the final shape of this theory. Sealikamprf: can't tell, as I don't exactly know what we're talking about here. You must deal with my English and spell it the right way wink . Nevertheless - if you take a look at sharks. Sharks exist on this planet for milions of years. Why? Because they're perfectly shaped and they do not really need to evolve much. What changes in sharks over the recent milions of years is some slight modificiations to the exterior, while interior stays the same. It's simple: they already have all the features they require and no additional change is needed. Basically speaking - they can survive with what they have, otherwise they would already be exinct. The fact that some species lives on this planet for milions of years doesn't mean there's no evolution. It only means that what evolution made them into was enough for them to survive until today. Once again - I don't deny ID theory a chance at school. I only deny it a chance at the science class, because it's basically no science here. For the reasons I presented above. it's spelled "coelacanth." if you look at my post, i basically said the same thing about that fish as you said about sharks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:45 am
MegaTherion777 kacisko Proof for Darwinism: it's theory. Therefore by definition we don't have the final proof. Yet. (though I think we will never know what was the first organism on earth, we were born some few billion years too late to know that). As I said earlier: it's the only scientific theory we have that explains things. And with each day we're getting closer to understand how this works, and what is the final shape of this theory. Sealikamprf: can't tell, as I don't exactly know what we're talking about here. You must deal with my English and spell it the right way wink . Nevertheless - if you take a look at sharks. Sharks exist on this planet for milions of years. Why? Because they're perfectly shaped and they do not really need to evolve much. What changes in sharks over the recent milions of years is some slight modificiations to the exterior, while interior stays the same. It's simple: they already have all the features they require and no additional change is needed. Basically speaking - they can survive with what they have, otherwise they would already be exinct. The fact that some species lives on this planet for milions of years doesn't mean there's no evolution. It only means that what evolution made them into was enough for them to survive until today. Once again - I don't deny ID theory a chance at school. I only deny it a chance at the science class, because it's basically no science here. For the reasons I presented above. it's spelled "coelacanth." if you look at my post, i basically said the same thing about that fish as you said about sharks Indeed. You did. I just wanted to show another example. And actually - wasn't sure if you're talking about the same fish xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:45 am
kacisko MegaTherion777 kacisko Proof for Darwinism: it's theory. Therefore by definition we don't have the final proof. Yet. (though I think we will never know what was the first organism on earth, we were born some few billion years too late to know that). As I said earlier: it's the only scientific theory we have that explains things. And with each day we're getting closer to understand how this works, and what is the final shape of this theory. Sealikamprf: can't tell, as I don't exactly know what we're talking about here. You must deal with my English and spell it the right way wink . Nevertheless - if you take a look at sharks. Sharks exist on this planet for milions of years. Why? Because they're perfectly shaped and they do not really need to evolve much. What changes in sharks over the recent milions of years is some slight modificiations to the exterior, while interior stays the same. It's simple: they already have all the features they require and no additional change is needed. Basically speaking - they can survive with what they have, otherwise they would already be exinct. The fact that some species lives on this planet for milions of years doesn't mean there's no evolution. It only means that what evolution made them into was enough for them to survive until today. Once again - I don't deny ID theory a chance at school. I only deny it a chance at the science class, because it's basically no science here. For the reasons I presented above. it's spelled "coelacanth." if you look at my post, i basically said the same thing about that fish as you said about sharks Indeed. You did. I just wanted to show another example. And actually - wasn't sure if you're talking about the same fish xp yar 3nodding the prehistoric fish they thought was extinct and then found out it wasnt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:00 am
kacisko Proof for Darwinism: it's theory. Therefore by definition we don't have the final proof. Once again - I don't deny ID theory a chance at school. I only deny it a chance at the science class, because it's basically no science here. For the reasons I presented above. There IS proof for ID, scientific proof for ID, therefore it has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to be taught in science class. If darwinism can be taught on basically BLIND FAITH, for there is no proof, leaving out ID is wrong. EVEN if you don't believe in God, that's your personal choice. But the fact remains very simple: people won't allow equality BECAUSE of their freaking "personal choice". I have gone to a christian school my entire life. I was taught evolution and different theories, all through school. We HAD a choice. We choice for ourselves, IN science class. IN bible class. I have learned about every world view, I have studied ethics. BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME. It's not RIGHT, that this is overlooked because of a stigma.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:05 am
My Hollow kacisko Proof for Darwinism: it's theory. Therefore by definition we don't have the final proof. Once again - I don't deny ID theory a chance at school. I only deny it a chance at the science class, because it's basically no science here. For the reasons I presented above. There IS proof for ID, scientific proof for ID, therefore it has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to be taught in science class. If darwinism can be taught on basically BLIND FAITH, for there is no proof, leaving out ID is wrong. EVEN if you don't believe in God, that's your personal choice. But the fact remains very simple: people won't allow equality BECAUSE of their freaking "personal choice". I have gone to a christian school my entire life. I was taught evolution and different theories, all through school. We HAD a choice. We choice for ourselves, IN science class. IN bible class. I have learned about every world view, I have studied ethics. BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME. It's not RIGHT, that this is overlooked because of a stigma. suggestion: you continually say that there are scientific studies to back up ID, but you don't provide links to said research. perhaps your argument might seem stronger to the skeptics if you provide some linkage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:39 am
MegaTherion777 My Hollow kacisko Proof for Darwinism: it's theory. Therefore by definition we don't have the final proof. Once again - I don't deny ID theory a chance at school. I only deny it a chance at the science class, because it's basically no science here. For the reasons I presented above. There IS proof for ID, scientific proof for ID, therefore it has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to be taught in science class. If darwinism can be taught on basically BLIND FAITH, for there is no proof, leaving out ID is wrong. EVEN if you don't believe in God, that's your personal choice. But the fact remains very simple: people won't allow equality BECAUSE of their freaking "personal choice". I have gone to a christian school my entire life. I was taught evolution and different theories, all through school. We HAD a choice. We choice for ourselves, IN science class. IN bible class. I have learned about every world view, I have studied ethics. BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME. It's not RIGHT, that this is overlooked because of a stigma. suggestion: you continually say that there are scientific studies to back up ID, but you don't provide links to said research. perhaps your argument might seem stronger to the skeptics if you provide some linkage? I haven't have I? rofl I am such a fool!! Yeah, I'll provide textual exerpts tomorrow, I thought I had but I went back and I hadn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:43 am
My Hollow kacisko Proof for Darwinism: it's theory. Therefore by definition we don't have the final proof. Once again - I don't deny ID theory a chance at school. I only deny it a chance at the science class, because it's basically no science here. For the reasons I presented above. There IS proof for ID, scientific proof for ID, therefore it has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to be taught in science class. If darwinism can be taught on basically BLIND FAITH, for there is no proof, leaving out ID is wrong. EVEN if you don't believe in God, that's your personal choice. But the fact remains very simple: people won't allow equality BECAUSE of their freaking "personal choice". I have gone to a christian school my entire life. I was taught evolution and different theories, all through school. We HAD a choice. We choice for ourselves, IN science class. IN bible class. I have learned about every world view, I have studied ethics. BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME. It's not RIGHT, that this is overlooked because of a stigma. And that is great you learned this at a Christian school. This is what I'm talking about - it belongs to schools where religion is one of the main drives. Because the thing is that it still concerns supernatural powers. But the fundamental question for a person like me is: which supernatural powers. The Christian God's? The Muslim God's? Any other god's? It is a question that cannot be today answered by the government as it contradicts the freedom of choice of your religion. And no, any proof for ID is not scientific. If it was, it would be already published in major scientific journals. I know this somehow makes me attack you (or more your beliefs) and I hate doing it. But I will stick to my opinion that this proof is not scientific. Unless you're able to point me to scientific publications concerning this subject. As much as anyone could argue that scientific community is this or that, one thing remains: they will never back off any scientific theory (or fact) with strong scientific (i.e. empirical, proof. This problem is really complex as it (unfortunately) violates people's religious beliefs. That's where it is difficult to discuss for both sides - for those with these beliefs and for those that do not share these beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:00 am
kacisko My Hollow kacisko Proof for Darwinism: it's theory. Therefore by definition we don't have the final proof. Once again - I don't deny ID theory a chance at school. I only deny it a chance at the science class, because it's basically no science here. For the reasons I presented above. There IS proof for ID, scientific proof for ID, therefore it has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to be taught in science class. If darwinism can be taught on basically BLIND FAITH, for there is no proof, leaving out ID is wrong. EVEN if you don't believe in God, that's your personal choice. But the fact remains very simple: people won't allow equality BECAUSE of their freaking "personal choice". I have gone to a christian school my entire life. I was taught evolution and different theories, all through school. We HAD a choice. We choice for ourselves, IN science class. IN bible class. I have learned about every world view, I have studied ethics. BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME. It's not RIGHT, that this is overlooked because of a stigma. And that is great you learned this at a Christian school. This is what I'm talking about - it belongs to schools where religion is one of the main drives. Because the thing is that it still concerns supernatural powers. But the fundamental question for a person like me is: which supernatural powers. The Christian God's? The Muslim God's? Any other god's? It is a question that cannot be today answered by the government as it contradicts the freedom of choice of your religion. And no, any proof for ID is not scientific. If it was, it would be already published in major scientific journals. I know this somehow makes me attack you (or more your beliefs) and I hate doing it. But I will stick to my opinion that this proof is not scientific. Unless you're able to point me to scientific publications concerning this subject. As much as anyone could argue that scientific community is this or that, one thing remains: they will never back off any scientific theory (or fact) with strong scientific (i.e. empirical, proof. This problem is really complex as it (unfortunately) violates people's religious beliefs. That's where it is difficult to discuss for both sides - for those with these beliefs and for those that do not share these beliefs. I will reply to this in a bit, after I get my book together and after I compose myself rationally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:50 am
I will try and find some proof myself as well. And I do understand where many are coming from. If there is scientific proof we will be able to find it. I do have a site that some of you may want to check out. Click here please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:42 am
Battousai Akuma I will try and find some proof myself as well. And I do understand where many are coming from. If there is scientific proof we will be able to find it. I do have a site that some of you may want to check out. Click here please. I just read the article about the coloring of the one type fish, and I don't see how it proves....anything really. It just says that some of them are one color whereas some are another, seemingly just like hair color/skin color/eye color.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:34 pm
As for scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, I submit this: Irreducible Complexity. Evolution fails to explain how mechanisms that are completely reliant on every component can develop in accordance to the rules of evolution. Take, for example, the mousetrap example. Remove ANY key component for a mousetrap, and it ceases to function. Now, I know that its been said that it is reducible, because you can take off the base and use it as a paper weight, and you can use this part for that, etc. But this in no way defeats the argument because that is dismantling it, not constructing it from the beginning. I have looked at the arguments and counter-arguments for many examples, and still hold that there are examples of irreducible complexity. And per-evolution, everything must be able to be broken down and broken down to simpler and simpler states, and there are examples that disprove this. Now, I will not propose a God of the Gaps argument here, that because evolution fails to explain it, that it must be God. But instead I say this, examples in nature that show systems in place that are seemingly "built", point to NO other conclusion than that there was indeed a builder. Once again, I know this argument is used often, but it is valid in this case. I am not filling in evolution's gaps, but I am letting the evidence stand on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrior of Metal Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:55 am
Warrior of Metal As for scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, I submit this: Irreducible Complexity. Evolution fails to explain how mechanisms that are completely reliant on every component can develop in accordance to the rules of evolution. Take, for example, the mousetrap example. Remove ANY key component for a mousetrap, and it ceases to function. Now, I know that its been said that it is reducible, because you can take off the base and use it as a paper weight, and you can use this part for that, etc. But this in no way defeats the argument because that is dismantling it, not constructing it from the beginning. I have looked at the arguments and counter-arguments for many examples, and still hold that there are examples of irreducible complexity. And per-evolution, everything must be able to be broken down and broken down to simpler and simpler states, and there are examples that disprove this. Now, I will not propose a God of the Gaps argument here, that because evolution fails to explain it, that it must be God. But instead I say this, examples in nature that show systems in place that are seemingly "built", point to NO other conclusion than that there was indeed a builder. Once again, I know this argument is used often, but it is valid in this case. I am not filling in evolution's gaps, but I am letting the evidence stand on its own. I disagree with this statement. If you look at dinosaurs and today's mammals, you will easily notice that both groups developed species that come with similar features, like long neck to reach leafs, like the horn on the nose such as todays' rhincesors have and probably many more. Why this happened? Because the same circumstances required the same evolution. This specific feature helped these totally different animals to get the same result. Leafs are always high on the trees. The only way to reach them from ground not climbing the tree is to grow. And it apparently is best to simply have long neck. Long neck = access to more leafs = better chance to survive = these genes gain majority = these genes make a specific species. @moustrap: it's too simple an object to work as an example - take a plane without a roof that was suddenly blown off during flight - could it still fly? Yes. Now, take a human and take out his heart. Can this human survive? No. It really depends on WHAT you take out of the object. If you take out an arm of human - (s)he will survive, if that is carried on in genes, there will be for example five people without an arm. And so on, until you get really lots of them. The thing is that until now they were not able to survive and moreover, they were not able to have children. Civilization changed the environment and these genes will now be carried on to next generations. @fish article: that's what science is about - asking a question and then either find the 'yes' answer or 'no' answer - but always through empirical means of understanding - the problem with creationism is that it says "God created this" - and while that may be true, it's not measureable with empirical methods. And that's why it's not science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:16 pm
kacisko Warrior of Metal As for scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, I submit this: Irreducible Complexity. Evolution fails to explain how mechanisms that are completely reliant on every component can develop in accordance to the rules of evolution. Take, for example, the mousetrap example. Remove ANY key component for a mousetrap, and it ceases to function. Now, I know that its been said that it is reducible, because you can take off the base and use it as a paper weight, and you can use this part for that, etc. But this in no way defeats the argument because that is dismantling it, not constructing it from the beginning. I have looked at the arguments and counter-arguments for many examples, and still hold that there are examples of irreducible complexity. And per-evolution, everything must be able to be broken down and broken down to simpler and simpler states, and there are examples that disprove this. Now, I will not propose a God of the Gaps argument here, that because evolution fails to explain it, that it must be God. But instead I say this, examples in nature that show systems in place that are seemingly "built", point to NO other conclusion than that there was indeed a builder. Once again, I know this argument is used often, but it is valid in this case. I am not filling in evolution's gaps, but I am letting the evidence stand on its own. I disagree with this statement. If you look at dinosaurs and today's mammals, you will easily notice that both groups developed species that come with similar features, like long neck to reach leafs, like the horn on the nose such as todays' rhincesors have and probably many more. Why this happened? Because the same circumstances required the same evolution. This specific feature helped these totally different animals to get the same result. Leafs are always high on the trees. The only way to reach them from ground not climbing the tree is to grow. And it apparently is best to simply have long neck. Long neck = access to more leafs = better chance to survive = these genes gain majority = these genes make a specific species. @moustrap: it's too simple an object to work as an example - take a plane without a roof that was suddenly blown off during flight - could it still fly? Yes. Now, take a human and take out his heart. Can this human survive? No. It really depends on WHAT you take out of the object. If you take out an arm of human - (s)he will survive, if that is carried on in genes, there will be for example five people without an arm. And so on, until you get really lots of them. The thing is that until now they were not able to survive and moreover, they were not able to have children. Civilization changed the environment and these genes will now be carried on to next generations. @fish article: that's what science is about - asking a question and then either find the 'yes' answer or 'no' answer - but always through empirical means of understanding - the problem with creationism is that it says "God created this" - and while that may be true, it's not measureable with empirical methods. And that's why it's not science. I think you missed the point on that statement, I understand adaptations, I'm not saying they appear "built", I mean something like the flagellum, which, like with the mousetrap argument, if you attempt to reduce it, which, per evolution, everything can be taken back to a more primitive state and broken down until you reach the original cell, the origin of life. However, the flagellum, and I've seen the counter-argument based on the bacteria with a similar structure that's less complex, cannot be explained in such a way. As to the counter-argument, the similar structure is of a completely different usage, and only similar in appearance and basic structure, not function and complete structure. And as to the mousetrap, it is not too small, that's the point of the illustration. It is something so simple, yet it is irreducible in its basic function. Evolution cannot explain, and because it is simpler to understand I will stick the mousetrap as an illustration, how the parts came together. What did they come from? A more primitive spring action? But if anything is converted back, it does not function any longer. And I understand how many things in biological structures can be broken down and broken down again and what not, I'm just staying that there are some examples that DO exist, and that as I said before, and will say again, show that the were placed together purposefully by a Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrior of Metal Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:22 pm
Well, of course there's things that can't be broken down, they had to start somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
