One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Farsight001]

When birds were evolving their nest building skills what percentage of eggs do you think they were able hang on to in their shoddy amateurish nest ?

I don’t think these guys needed nests: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorusrhacidae

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

…It (Intelligent Design) can’t be tested because it’s not science and it’s not science because there is no testing.

Heads I win, tails you lose.
Nice arrangement.

The reasoning behind the “nice arrangement” is because the very heart of Intelligent Design
has been from the beginning a religious doctrine, formulated by Creationists, in an attempt
to overthrow evolution. The Scientific Community is well aware of this, so it isn’t even going
to give Creationists a chance to get one foot into the door.

Creationists have an agenda, and we’re on to them.

“Creation mean that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency
of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with
fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 1st Edition 1987

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an
intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins
and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 2nd Edition 1987

“Sudden emergence holds that various forms of life began with their distinctive
features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings,
animals with fur and mammary glands.”
– Design of Life 2007

 

[Farsight001]

Can we be koi?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...i_head_closeup.jpg/200px-Koi_head_closeup.jpg

We used to be.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

i don’t think these guys needed nests: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/phorusrhacidae

I LOVE TERROR BIRDS!
ooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Farsight001]

Is ID Falsifiable? Of Course It Is. Its Falsification Is Darwinism -

Is Intelligent Design Testable?

Michael Behe On Falsification

%between%

That’s not what falsifiable means, buffalo.

 

[Farsight001]

Yep, ID is certainly falsifiable: all one would need to do would be to demonstrate - either in the Lab or in a study of Nature - that irreducibly complex, functional, biological structures and systems could be constructed via random processes.

Well they already proved that irreducible complexity was false, so I guess you’re right, ID is falsifiable, but then that also means its been falsified, so it still isn’t a science.

On the other hand, Darwinism - the notion that complex biological systems were constructed SOLELY by means of random, chance processes with no room for non-random events - has been effectively falsified by the studies of HIV, Malaria, and E.Coli which are documented in Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution.

Once again, evolution is NOT solely by random chance. You keep repeating yourself and stressing that random chance “works” alone more and more with every post, which tells me that you’re reading the clarification that natural selection works in conjunction with it and are choosing to ignore it. Tsk tsk.

 

[Farsight001]

Couldn’t you analyze statistics to determine if random chance is at least as probable as design?

Sure, but why would we? Evolution doesn’t work by random chance alone.

 

[Farsight001]

That’s one of my issues. No transitional forms. All that’s found are fully functioning creatures, with full function, not half a nest-building ability.

Peace,
Ed

Do a google image search for “transitional forms”. marvel at the thousands upon thousands of them and please stop perpetuating such misinformation.

 

[Farsight001]

SPOILER ALERT! You’ve already decided that and the lecture hasn’t finished yet?

Shouldn’t you collect all the evidence first before making a judgement? Or is he “right” BECAUSE he is RC AND a “real” scientist as opposed to Michael Behe who is RC and not?

Is Miller “right” because he has proven his case or because of who or what he is? You do get that that is a fallacy, right?

Don’t get me wrong, I do think Miller has a point concerning “God of the gaps” reasoning that COULD get IDers into trouble, but, it seems to me, that we shouldn’t run from finding the truth about anything just because ID MIGHT be wrong and we might stumble into another gap.

What’s one more “God of the gaps” concession between friends?

We’ll be here with baited breath until you fill us in on what Dr. Miller has to say.

Miller is right because he proved his case. Please just lose the incredulous attitude and watch the video.

 

[Farsight001]

I LOVE TERROR BIRDS!
ooooooooooooooooooooo

You can be first in line at the petting zoo when they “jurrassic park” the things.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

You can be first in line at the petting zoo when they “jurrassic park” the things.

:dancing: :extrahappy: :extrahappy: :dancing:

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

This is why the idea of “random mutations” rubs me the wrong way. It simply means we don’t know why the change happens, but there could be, and very likely are, definite reasons for it. It is incomplete science being passed off as “knowledge” when really it is ignorance. To use that ignorance as a lever against the idea of design is unjustified.

We already know that DNA replication isn’t perfect. If it was, then we would never die.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Miller is right because he proved his case. Please just lose the incredulous attitude and watch the video.

Why don’t you set down a clear and simple depiction of his proof, then, so we can analyze it as a proof?

I think he has given compelling reasons but that is not a proof.

You are making a positive claim that his case has been “proven,” whatever that means. Set it out, then.

Simple logical form with premises and conclusion will do.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We already know that DNA replication isn’t perfect. If it was, then we would never die.

Non sequitur.

That would assume that the source DNA that began to be replicated endowed living things with immortality.

How did you arrive at that as a premise?

 

[buffalo]

It’s one conclusion, and as we know over the course of history, many “correct” conclusions turn out to be flat out wrong. We are only beginning to scratch the surface with our understanding of biology, and we’re filling in a lot of blanks with best guesses. A “conclusion” based on best guesses is anything but a certainty.

True. And guess what? It’s just as reasonable to conclude that in fact it was all a game of chance…unless you believe that God’s hands are tied and is incapable of doing such a thing.

Did Adam look as God planned?

 

[buffalo]

I am trying to understand how God would use “chance” as a mechanism, unless you mean that it appears to be “chance” but is really something profoundly inscrutable, i.e., planned by God to look like chance. But isn’t that the antithesis of Dawkins saying it has the appearance of design but really it is the result of blind, unguided chance processes.

I think we should say what we mean and mean what we say. If it turns out wrong, well, we’re wrong. We admit that and move forward.

As many times I have heard the “God is a trickster” ploy, perhaps Dawkins should ask the very same thing. Everything in biology gives the illusion of design but we know it is not.

 

[buffalo]

Are you implying that Behe is not a “real scientist and ROMAN CATHOLIC?”

By the way, Behe’s arguments have not been refuted yet and certainly not by Miller:

evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

youtube.com/watch?v=V_XN8s-zXx4

trueorigin.org/behe03.asp

youtube.com/watch?v=luRGzVrr2Cs

youtube.com/watch?v=f_YYTdTDoA8

And here is Ken Miller giving false testimony in the Dover Trial:

youtube.com/watch?v=x8pgaG-t-0M

Sure they have.:nope:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=4483

 

[buffalo]

I don’t read a lot of science. To be honest, it bores me to tears, so this post is really just my opinon backed up by nothing. I’m not trying to start a debate or anything.

Aren’t all these interpretations of ‘blind chance’ and ‘intelligent design’ kind of extraneous to science? They seem to me more like a subject of philosophy, specifically metaphysics.

They are, that is why evolution is philosophy.

 

[buffalo]

Chance may not be what we perceive to be chance. Simply look at thermodynamics. One of the things we discussed in thermodynamics was probability. As a specific example, gas in an enclosed space tends towards equilibrium. However, at any given moment the gas may not be in that state. All of the gas atoms/molecules could be packed in one of the corners at a particular point in time, with the rest of the space in the enclosed are void. Highly improbable, but possible.

It is just a possible that a highly improbable course of events could occur creating life. Support for that high improbability would start with no similar life being found elsewhere, consistent with the high improbability. The only problem with that hypothesis is that the beings created as a result of that highly improbable event might doubt that they are the result of that highly improbable event.

I’m the epitome of that, FWIW. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong and move on. Defense of a matter that is proven wrong is an utter waste of energy.

You noticed my plausibility link?

Is it possible? Yes
Is it plausible? No

 

[buffalo]

“…rubs me the wrong way…”
Logical Fallacy Yet Again:** Argument From Personal Incredulity?**
In this fallacy, one argues that because they do not personally find
a premise to be likely or believable, it cannot be true, regardless of
evidence. The fallacy lies in presenting one’s beliefs about a propo-
sition as evidence.
Anyway, you want science to answer WHY, when WHY is not a scientific question. We can ask
HOW, HOW is a perfectly valid question for science to explore, but WHY is answered by God in
his Word, which no Creationist should try to put under a microscope and call it science.

Science will always be incomplete as long as there are yet many things to discover and learn.
Intelligent Design is by no means the answer, but is rather a pleasant story for people who do
not want to accept evolution, and need some sort of mental fortification against a science that
refuses to say “God.”

It is called “chance of the gaps”.