it' s never going to be answered, so state what you believe and let it be...kinda like what I did, you can't make someone else believe the same thing as you, no matter how hard you hit them over the head with it! :banghead:
manda said:it' s never going to be answered, so state what you believe and let it be...kinda like what I did, you can't make someone else believe the same thing as you, no matter how hard you hit them over the head with it! :banghead:
I think not said:I don't think evolution is a matter of belief, it's a matter of proven science. You can still believe in God and evolution. I don't get it :?
I think not said:I don't think evolution is a matter of belief, it's a matter of proven science. You can still believe in God and evolution. I don't get it :?
How about this...Gawd got the ball rolling and evolution is the process.
There, now everybody wins.
Jo Canadian said:I have no idea what the difficulty is either.
Just to regurgitate something that I said on the third post here:
How about this...Gawd got the ball rolling and evolution is the process.
As Robert Carroll observes in his Skeptic's Dictionary,
The difficulty, at least as I see it, is that Intelligent Design is metaphysical pseudoscience pretending to be real science, and many of its supporters claim it should be taught in science classrooms as an alternative to the legitimate science of evolution.
Reverend Blair said:... my personal version of their creation myth...
Reverend Blair said:I've never really developed it much. It seems to have a lot to do with incest and a stripper I saw once who had a boa constrictor as a prop. Oh, and an invisible T-Rex named Bolan.
peapod said:Personally I don't care what they believe, its their lies, and slander and taken out of context legitimate scientists that makes my blood boil :twisted: Can't prove anything the legitimate way, so cheating and the back door is okay! Blah!
Think is exactly correct when he says, you can believe in evolution and god if you choose. Not once in this entire thread has extrafire shown one crumb of legitimate science to back his claims.
Actually I think you do care, because you almost never answer my posts with relevant material, just anti-young-earther stuff, which I pretty much agree with you on. I think that you're basicly trying to portray all creationists and ID'ers as fundementalist young-earthers (that caricature I was talking about) because they're so easy to argue against.Personally I don't care what they believe, its their lies, and slander and taken out of context legitimate scientists that makes my blood boil Can't prove anything the legitimate way, so cheating and the back door is okay! Blah!
Actually I have, but you've only answered with anti-young-earth arguments, which makes it seem to me that you're trying to direct attention away from things you have trouble with.Not once in this entire thread has extrafire shown one crumb of legitimate science to back his claims.
Focus on the last sentence. A transitional form (climbing creature with half wings) wouldn't stand a chance of survival from predation. Can't climb worth a sh*t, can't fly, can't jump worth a sh*t, can only fall slowly as an advantage and once on the ground wouldn't be able to run worth a sh*t either. Such a transitional creature wouldn't live long enough to reproduce. So Sears has suggested that Dawkins was totally wrong in his description of an evolutionary pathway for the bat wing, but his own explanation is equally untenable.Sears believes that bats began to evolve when this one gene became activated. Although it is a small developmental change, if it allowed the ancestors of bats to grow extended digits it could explain how bats evolved flight so rapidly, Sears told the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in Denver. Relatively few transitional forms would have existed just briefly before being displaced by more advanced forms.
I think not said:I don't think evolution is a matter of belief, it's a matter of proven science. You can still believe in God and evolution. I don't get it :?
Yes, and as I answered that earlier post, that's a popular belief known as Deism, and you're correct, it very well could be. But although Dex recognizes the validity of that view, the official scientific elite absolutely reject it, and want to suppress it.Just to regurgitate something that I said on the third post here:
Quote:
How about this...Gawd got the ball rolling and evolution is the process.
There, now everybody wins.
Not so. The fossil evidence, for example, shows an ever increasing and complexity of lifeforms, but no trasitional forms. A transitional form would show up as creature A, gradually evolving over the years till it became another species B. Instead, each form appears complete in the fossil record and stays basically unchanged until extinction. The species never start out as one and gradually change into another. It’s always a series of unconnected steps.The evidence *does* support it, overwhelmingly. You've chosen not to understand the evidence.
Many evolutionists agree with me on that one and not you.Wrong again. It goes nothing like that. Premise 1 is emphatically not true, there is only a superficial appearance of design which disappears on closer inspection.
It’s even been admitted that the theory is seriously flawed but only kept because there is no other naturalistic explanation. The idea that there could be a creator is disqualified at the outset because of an a priori belief in naturalism.You've demonstrated once again that you don't understand the evidence. Nor does science claim evolution is "true" in any but a strictly scientific sense, which means, to avoid being long-winded about it, simply that it's the best explanation we have for the evidence.
ID is a conclusion based on an open minded study of where the evidence points.ID doesn't explain anything beyond saying, in effect, "that's just the way it is," and is pseudoscience in its purest form.
Doubt if you will, but that’s the truth. I did indeed have pre-existing religious beliefs, but my education and subsequent interest in science caused me to re-think them. After much examination of all my knowledge on both sides, I came to an acceptance of a deist position. Over time, with the increase in information that has come to me, my position has moved more toward a theist belief. Unlike most people of my acquaintance, I have had to opportunity to make an informed (from both sides) decision.I doubt that. You had pre-existing religious beliefs and chose to believe discredited sources that support them.
Well, you can test gravity by jumping off a cliff. Since evolution cannot be tested, it remains a theory. And when prominent evolutionist point out the flaws in each other’s arguments, conflicts that cannot be reconciled and without which the theory will not work (paradox) that’s pretty good evidence for serious problems with the theory itself.The theory of evolution isn't a matter of belief anyway, any more than the theory of universal gravitation is. And you're taking a typical creationist tack, taking a disagreement between experts who've probably forgotten more about this subject than you and I will ever know as evidence for your position of intelligent design.
I will not blindly accept what I am told without a valid explanation to back it. A few years ago on another forum I asked a PhD evolutionist why, if evolution was such a fact, did textbooks teaching it for decades, right up to the present, use outright fraudulent examples. He danced around the question for a few posts and finally admitted that there weren’t any real ones, and it was OK to use these just to illustrate so students would understand.You still don't get it, and never will. You've chosen not to, in the face of all evidence and logic.
Not so. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.The main purpose of ID appears to be to prove the existence of God
That is the purpose of ID if you leave out the word “only”.design is empirically detectable in nature and that it can be explained only as a consequence of intelligent, purposeful actions by some initially unspecified being
There are those who argue for other deities but there is no way to tell for certain. However, only the Judeo/Christian creation story coincides with the physical record.invariably turns out to be the Christian deity.
Extrafire said:The fossil evidence, for example, shows an ever increasing and complexity of lifeforms, but no transitional forms.
How many is 'many?' Name a dozen and provide citations.Many evolutionists agree with me on that one and not you.
By whom? Name them, provide citations. And even if the theory is seriously flawed, another point you're not getting is that that is not evidence for your position.It’s even been admitted that the theory is seriously flawed...
There's another thing you're not getting. The notion of a creator is disqualified because it isn't useful, explains everything (i.e. God did it) and illuminates nothing....but only kept because there is no other naturalistic explanation. The idea that there could be a creator is disqualified at the outset because of an a priori belief in naturalism.
Bullshit. It's a pre-existing religious position that looks for confirming evidence and ignores contrary evidence.ID is a conclusion based on an open minded study of where the evidence points.
Bullshit. You don't seem to know what a theory is in the scientific sense either. A theory that can't be tested isn't science, it's metaphysics,which evolution emphatically is not. Evolution's tested every day, nothing in any modern biological laboratory makes sense without it. It's used to guide research into new antibiotics and antiviral medications, for instance, and the over-use of antibiotics in recent decades, and the arrival of resistant infectious agents, is an ongoing experiment in evolution....evolution cannot be tested, it remains a theory.
So what? The experts disagree, the theory's not complete. That's not evidence for your position. Your position's a cop-out: God did it, that covers everything we don't know and don't understand, without being at all helpful as a guide to further investigation and thought.And when prominent evolutionist point out the flaws in each other’s arguments, conflicts that cannot be reconciled and without which the theory will not work (paradox) that’s pretty good evidence for serious problems with the theory itself.
So he's as ignorant as you are.He danced around the question for a few posts and finally admitted that there weren’t any real ones
You're going to have to provide a citation for that, with full contextual information.When Dawkins was confronted with the fraudulent examples, he admitted that he had known for 20 years that they were fakes...
If you leave out the word only, you leave open the possibility of other explanations, and if that's true of you, you must be the only person in the creationist/ID camp who'd allow that. Sure, a creator is a possible explanation for it all, but not a useful one. It provides, as I've said before, no new insights, no explanations, points to no new hypotheses to be tested, it closes the door on all of it. God did it, that's all we can know.That is the purpose of ID if you leave out the word “only”.design is empirically detectable in nature and that it can be explained only as a consequence of intelligent, purposeful actions by some initially unspecified being
... only the Judeo/Christian creations story coincides with the physical record.