Kansas School Boards Approves "Intelligent Design" Theory in Science Textbooks

whobdamandog

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Well, you've got fossilic evidence of species change,

Which is nothing more than proof of adaptation/variation among animal families, something which ID and Creationism support.

TOE gives a loosely defined version of the word species, which essentially defines "species" down to the level of "variation" within plant/animal families.

"Variation" meaning..minor physical/genetic differences within these families. For example, many evolutionists use claims such as German shepherds, Pitbulls, Scottish terriers..etc.. being different species of dogs..thus this is proof for TOE. Real silly stuff.

ID does not quote scripture or reference any particular religion. It is left upon an individual to decide who/what they believe the intelligent designer is.

Which actually has quite a bit of substantive historical evidence supporting it. Such as the historical evidence of Jesus's existence..and historical accounts that document the miracles he performed. Please give me a link..or provide for me an example..be it historical, scientific, etc..where macro evolution has been observed. And don't give me any of that "variation" within a family speel..I want hardcore proof of an animal of one particular family..evolving into another one(ie reptile changing into a dog or cat, reptile to bird..etc)

And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.

Ya Krunk'd Floo

Well, let's see...

There was 'Lucy'... then there was you. Proof enough?

Isn't it ironic that a term such as 'intelligent design' is thought up by a group of ignorant fundamentalists...The acceptance of such garbage requires an extraordinary leap of 'faith' in comparison with the pattern of evolution recognised by original, cognitive thinkers.

You're talking about a Big Daddy in the sky playing paint-by-numbers, whereas evolution recognises the adaptation of all life to fit its environment.

Sounds like someone needs to go back to school...(Not in Kansas, though!)

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Draco69
Some of you may remember a previous thread about this but it was never concluded. Now that the outcome has been decided, how do you feel about the decision made by the Kansas School Board?

Link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9967813/
Its worrying and very very weird.

Why opress the knowledge? That is the greatest ''sin'' ever!

xmarksthespot

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't creationism a literal interpretation of Genesis as the method by which the Earth was created? How does creationism support fossil evidence, adaptation, chromosomal synteny, orthologous genes, etc? Or vice versa.

BTW could I know of this tangible historical evidence of miracles?

Bardock42

Originally posted by Julie
Although many ID proponents are religious...there are some that aren't...or so I'm told...

it's real.....why do you think evolution's called a theory??? b/c there are other possibilities...Darwin certainly wasn't god...I'll tell you that right now

Well a Scientfis Theory is very much different of the common conception of theory though.

Now I don't think that Creationism should be included in Biology or Science Text books (since it is not part of Biology or Science in general), but it should be taught in Philosophy Classes of course.

Atlantis001

Strange times... we are having again like in the middle ages religion blocking scientific progress, and we even had cruzades to the Iraq...

back to the medieval times....

hang horse horse.................arabia osama arabia

debbiejo

Haven't read through this whole thread, but I will....Just thought I'd add that in my quantum studies...there is some kind of intelligence that goes along with Metaphysics...I think it should be taught in this field.

darthvader_fan

Yea i live in kansas, i just studied evoulution

thought it was retarded

Ushgarak

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Its about damn time. Why should the secular and humanistic religion of naturalism be taught in school with the exclusion of any other...hopefully other states will follow this trend.

As ever, the gibbering idiocy involved in labelling the massive and rigorous scientific presence behind evolution as some sort of faith or religion rears its head. Such a naming is so fundamentally wrong that I am astounded that humans can still produce such ideas.

ID is a philosophical belief and nothing more. it has no place in the scientific forum, which relies on hard and tested facts only. Those facts do not support ID and it should not be there in science any more than Descartes and Gramsci.

PVS

Originally posted by Ushgarak
ID is a philosophical belief and nothing more. it has no place in the scientific forum, which relies on hard and tested facts only. Those facts do not support ID and it should not be there in science any more than Descartes and Gramsci.

here here

not to be a 'me too' but that sums it up.
if your only evidence is an ancient book of stories,
you have a belief, not a scientific theory.
keep your precious bible to yourself.

Eis

Absolute stupidity, Creationism belongs in catechism, no in a sience classroom.

Shakyamunison

It seems that belief trumps knowledge.

Eis

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It seems that belief trumps knowledge.
In Kansas.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Eis
In Kansas.

The home of Dorothy?

Eis

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The home of Dorothy?
Who the hell's Dorothy? confused

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Eis
Who the hell's Dorothy? confused

Sorry, it was an accusation game.

Dorothy - from The Wizard of Oz. She lived in Kansas.

The truth is; I didn't understand why you replied "In Kansas." to my post. I still don't.
big grin

debbiejo

Originally posted by Eis
Who the hell's Dorothy? confused

The girl with toto..little dog laughing out loud

whobdamandog

Oh yes Lucy... roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.

Lucy definately fits within that category..eh? laughing

Please feel free to post more examples of "transitionals"..it only continues to support the "validity" of your argument... roll eyes (sarcastic)

Moving on..

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As ever, the gibbering idiocy involved in labelling the massive and rigorous scientific presence behind evolution as some sort of faith or religion rears its head. Such a naming is so fundamentally wrong that I am astounded that humans can still produce such ideas.

So how does your opinion of someone else's belief system, substantiate Modern evolutionary theory in any way shape or form?

Reading through the past couple of posts...it doesn't seem as if anyone has even attempted to provide any evidence, or answer any questions regarding the validity of "Macro Evolution"..at least not by using anything other than strawman arguments/comments or personal beliefs.

Also..many are confusing ID with Creationism..and although they are similarly related, ID does not attempt to use any particular religious doctrine to validate itself, rather..it uses "science" to validate the existence of intelligence in natures design.

Moving on..let me repeat this statement one more time..and for those of you who are slow on the uptake..please try to respond with substantive scientific data, rather than witty one line retorts.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

Please give me a link..or provide for me an example..be it historical, scientific, etc..where macro evolution has been observed. And don't give me any of that "variation" within a family speel..I want hardcore proof of an animal of one particular family..evolving into another one(ie reptile changing into a dog or cat, reptile to bird..etc)

And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.

soleran30

Originally posted by soleran30
Perhaps you are right however when you get to the point in a lecture/discussion on how everything in the universe happens so precisely despite chaos obviously there must be a higher power directing it.......I think we can all look at that and have an idea on what that discussion can lead to...

So thats the premise behind ID and it leaves TONS of room for discussion on religion and understanding how this could have happened.....

Talk about evolution and it shows single generation mutations that have taken place and then set a new precedent for a species(just one example) you can recreate this with a level of certainty

ID you simply say in a world of chaos there is order how can there be order let me demonstrate how order is establshed......um you cannot so it must be God becuase thats "intelligent" am I not understaning this...Help me here......(this is obviously just one example it can go many other ways.)

Eis

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
laughing

Sorry, it was an accusation game.

Dorothy - from The Wizard of Oz. She lived in Kansas.

The truth is; I didn't understand why you replied "In Kansas." to my post. I still don't.
big grin

Oh.. I've never seen The Wizard of Oz
I meant belief trumps knowledge in Kansas

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Eis
Oh.. I've never seen The Wizard of Oz
I meant belief trumps knowledge in Kansas

Well, I would call Intelligent Design belief, and evolution knowledge. And to teach Intelligent Design in equal standing to evolution in school is as stupid as teaching evolution in Sunday school.

FeceMan

Jesus. H. Christ.

CREATIONISM IS A FORM OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN; INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT NECESSARILY CREATIONISM. Get that through your heads.

(Now, what would happen if the same ignorance was shown about evolution? "zomg stupid religious people not knowing nething lolz" wink

While I don't think ID should be taught in schools, just because Kansas has approved the teaching of it doesn't make them "stupid" or "religious hicks".

debbiejo

Originally posted by FeceMan
Jesus. H. Christ.

What does the "H" stand for??????? roll eyes (sarcastic)

BackFire

Originally posted by FeceMan
Jesus. H. Christ.

CREATIONISM IS A FORM OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN; INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT NECESSARILY CREATIONISM. Get that through your heads.

(Now, what would happen if the same ignorance was shown about evolution? "zomg stupid religious people not knowing nething lolz" wink

While I don't think ID should be taught in schools, just because Kansas has approved the teaching of it doesn't make them "stupid" or "religious hicks".

Yes, it does.

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by debbiejo
What does the "H" stand for??????? roll eyes (sarcastic)

Harold

It's his grandfather's first name.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Harold

It's his grandfather's first name.

laughing

BackFire

According to many of the same beliefs that allow people to believe that IT is science, that's true.

That just provides further evidence of their stupidity/hickness.

debbiejo

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Harold

It's his grandfather's first name.

OHHH....Then that would explain "Hark the HAROLD angels sing"...I don't know how to hark a Harold...How do ya hark one? wink

PVS

its just a way to sneak the bible through the back door and discredit science.
the title "intelligent design" is just a cover and the majority of what will be taught is creationism, of coarse with a token day of class dedicated to teaching the beliefs of heathen religions.

its bullshit and belongs in religion, western civilisation, whatever class that is NOT science. its just more bible beating B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by PVS
its just a way to sneak the bible through the back door and discredit science.
the title "intelligent design" is just a cover and the majority of what will be taught is creationism, of coarse with a token day of class dedicated to teaching the beliefs of heathen religions.

its bullshit and belongs in religion, western civilisation, whatever class that is NOT science. its just more bible beating B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

I have to agree with you.

Damn, I hate agreeing with PVS. laughing

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by FeceMan

Then everyone who doesn't believe in God is an irreligious ******* who I'm going to enjoy watching burning in hell.

I do not believe in your god.

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by debbiejo
OHHH....Then that would explain "Hark the HAROLD angels sing"...I don't know how to hark a Harold...How do ya hark one? wink

Behind closed doors, in the privacy of ones own home.

PVS

Originally posted by FeceMan
Then everyone who doesn't believe in God is an irreligious ******* who I'm going to enjoy watching burning in hell.

well, to enjoy another's suffering is worthy of hell in itself, isnt it?
what would jesus think of such a wish?

that is the part of christianity which has always bothered me and turned me off to organised religion. not the concept of hell, but the wish for it on others, which would fall under "revenge" if im not mistaken.

its one thing to acknowledge that there is a hell and those who piss god off will fry in it, and its another thing entirely to feel that you are somehow a spokesman for god and would be so bold as to damn others in his name...and worse yet, find glee in the thought of someone's eternal suffering...i find that disturbing beyond belief. not to target you, but its such a widespread accepted and encouraged attitude...i have to ask WHY?

debbiejo

Originally posted by PVS
well, to enjoy another's suffering is worthy of hell in itself, isnt it?
what would jesus think of such a wish?

Jesus would not be happy... sad

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by PVS
...i have to ask WHY?

Because, it's just like Muslims and their opinion of infidels, or Jews and their beliefs that other 'races' are beneath them...

It was all thought up by man, and man is inherently a selfish, self serving, devisive animal.

PVS

...and hateful...infinitely hateful sad

KharmaDog

So the debate here is whether or not we agree whether it is appropriate that the belief that a higher power created the universe should be taught in a science class?

Isn't that more of a philosophical debate than a scientific theory?

Shouldn't even the most dyed-in-the-wool christian agree that the belief in a higher power, and that power's supposed involvement with the creation of the universe, is more a question of faith than science?

whobdamandog

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So the debate here is whether or not we agree whether it is appropriate that the belief that a higher power created the universe should be taught in a science class?

Isn't that more of a philosophical debate than a scientific theory?

Shouldn't even the most dyed-in-the-wool christian agree that the belief in a higher power, and that power's supposed involvement with the creation of the universe, is more a question of faith than science?

Believing in a "higher power" is no more or less "philosophical" than the belief that matter somehow spontaneously merged together and formed intelligent life. That belief system is entitled Naturalism

Anyway..there is no tangible proof to support either claim. When you don't have tangible proof of something, then the only thing you have to validate it is "faith."

"Faith" is essentially the foundation of both "life origin" theories. Both claim to have scientific evidence to support them, however, much of the scientific data gathered for either theory is extremely biased. Seeing as how most scientists who gather and incorporate the data into the studies are generally "Creationists" / "Evolutionists" and are not objectively trying to gather information, but rather..subjectively gathering information to support their own personal belief systems.

On a related note..could someone please respond to my previous request..people seem to be avoiding it like the plague. Let me post it again.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

Please give me a link..or provide for me an example..be it historical, scientific, etc..where macro evolution has been observed. And don't give me any of that "variation" within a family speel..I want hardcore proof of an animal of one particular family..evolving into another one(ie reptile changing into a dog or cat, reptile to bird..etc)

And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.

xmarksthespot

Are you saying that every scientist who perform repeatable observable tangible experiments and find data in favour of evolutionary theory is being "extremely biased" because s/he's not actively trying to disprove her- or himself?

Please give me a link..or provide for me an example..be it historical, scientific, etc..where intelligent design or creationism has been observed. And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.

Then I might go bother to trawl through my old notes.

Capt_Fantastic

You want proof, but you know that everyone will run to the fossil record to do so. But, we all know that no one on your side of the debate will accept that as evidence. 150 million years of evidence isn't enough for you. What do you want then? You want a process that takes hundred to thousands of years to be proven to you through observation that has only existed in the last 150 years! That's cool, you need that.

Look at a virus. It evolves. Look at the effect of this bird flu. It's effecting birds, but all the talk about it adapting and changing into a virus fatal to humans is front page. If even the most simple of life forms on the planet can evolve, then why can't we?

Besides, as has been pointed out by numerous people, this thread isn't about which is right and wrong.

Read my first post again, I was addressing you specifically Whob. If you can't accept the definition of science, then fight so hard to change the meaning of science. Not evolution.

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Are you saying that every scientist who perform repeatable observable tangible experiments and find data in favour of evolutionary theory is being "extremely biased" because s/he's not actively trying to disprove her- or himself?

Please give me a link..or provide for me an example..be it historical, scientific, etc..where intelligent design or creationism has been observed. And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.

Then I might go bother to trawl through my old notes.

I'm sure he's tried to look it up on the net. We all have at some point in this argument. However, we all know that the first 150, 000 links provided are coming from biased religious sites. Why? Because they have the most to loose when the reality starts to set in with their followers. So, they toss this fasle evidence up on their websites...and in the process dilute search results.

Ushgarak

'Naturalism' is simply a reatrded term used by despearte relgionists to try and make out that the scientific process that has labelled Evolution as a valid theoty is somehow acting with a pre-disposed bias.

That is the most arrant nonsense and a feeble attempt to try and undermine it. Scientists have NO suich predispositions- they work on one method alone, the scientific method. That supports the modern theory of evolution and it does NOT support Intelligent Design. The science points to what you call naturalism- a 'belief' in naturalism is NOT creating the viewpoint.

EVOLUTION THEORY IS NOT A FAITH. Anyone calling it one has lost all touch with modern rationality and how the scientific method works. And people like whob go around asking for hardcore proof for it to be labelled a non-faith... my word, that is so dumb as to stretch credibility... it proves the very point I am making about how they do not understand the process of science. Science is NOT maths- you do not 'prove' things in that way. You make workable theories based on the available observable evidence- of which there is staggering amounts, from studies of biologies, especially on island habitats, to the fossil record. The sum total of that knowledge- which is forever being assaulted, changed, and added to, and so the theory of evolution will change and improve over time- points towasrds evolution as a valid and acceptable theory to explain observed events. Rather like gravity- you going to ask fir direct proof of its operation now? Sorry, kiddo, we can ONLY observe the resultant effects, which is exactly what we do with evolution. There is no 'only' about evolution being a theory. All working scientific models are theories. The theory of gravity best explains that observed phenomenon of a force aacting on objects. The theory of evolution best explains the development of life on Earth. What evolution is is valid, acceptable, and the best current answer we have.

Unlike ID, which is a BELIEF about the cause of evolution and nothing more. There is no evidence that survives rational assault by scientific method to support it. Hence it does not belong in classes.

Centuries from now, people of even the meanest intelligence will understand this- but still we will have the pathetic and desperate bleating of those wanting a time machine to go back and directly 'observe' these things before they think it is anything more than a faith.

Truly contemptible.

Ushgarak

And for a much quicker quote that sums up the whole thing:

"The very essence of science is that one must always remain open to the possibility of superior explanations to those which we currently find convincing. This is the exact opposite of faith."

yerssot

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You want proof, but you know that everyone will run to the fossil record to do so. But, we all know that no one on your side of the debate will accept that as evidence. 150 million years of evidence isn't enough for you. What do you want then?
as BF (I think) once said:
"They'll be convinced when they find a human foetus in a chimpansee."

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by yerssot
as BF (I think) once said:
"They'll be convinced when they find a human foetus in a chimpansee."

Well, I want to know what the people on Whobs side of the debate think happened to all these other life forms that existed? I'm not talking about dinosaurs, I talking about Neanderthal, Austrolopithicine, etc.

Also, I would like to revise my point of view on the subject, I believe that modern humans were dropped off by aliens. Well, only the white people...the rest are monkeys that god created.

Since I believe this without any observed evidence, I would like it to also be included in textbooks in Kansas. Since Aliens are involved it HAS to qualify as science.

whobdamandog

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Are you saying that every scientist who perform repeatable observable tangible experiments and find data in favour of evolutionary theory is being "extremely biased" because he's not actively trying to disprove himself?

It depends on what you consider as being "proof" of evolutionary theory. "Evidence" can easily be manipulated to support any type of argument, if it is given during the right circumstances, uses the right type of terminology(in TOE case, this is usually represented by quasi-scientific jargon), and is presented to others by one who is charasmatic enough to appeal to the masses.

Neo-Darwinism is a philosophical concept that seems to have mastered the art of evidence manipulation and deception. Particularly since the theory itself is said to be constantly "evolving."

How can a theory be considered scientific..if it has no definitive constants to it? Without constants..such as scientific laws and fundemental theories..science as we know it would fail to exist.

Moving on..if evidence is found that doesn't support the TOE..then guess what happens.. the theory "evolves" into another form..one that the current evidence found can't disprove. Real silly stuff..however, its seems to have worked on the masses for many years, so if it ain't broke..why fix it, particularly since many continue to buy all the tripe that these so called "scientists" preach.

We can argue for hours about mutations, probability, natural selection etc..etc..But as stated above...there is no real tangible proof that supports either claim. Logical inference tells me, however, that the complex interworkings and order found through much of the Universe..more than likely point to the existence of "intelligent design"

soleran30

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

these are not my words but they are very good words and makes a strong case......check out the website on the above link and I think you will understand the need for ID!

whobdamandog

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And finally, for those who have obviously forgotten how science works, here is an explanation of the false concept of 'proof' in this instance:

-----

The phrase "scientific fact" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "scientific proof." Science, unlike mathematics, does not consist of a collection of airtight proofs.

The other technique used by Neo Darwinists to support their claims..flood the chat board..with their "opinions"..in a pitiful attempt to confuse the masses, with scientific jargon/terminology that generally isn't understood by most the common man..or is not read by those who are generally overwhelmed by all the tripe posted. It generally consists of a few truths..but for the most part consists on nothing more than a multitude of deceptions.

I'm only going to respond to this one phrase..seeing as how the rest of your post just seemed to consist of a bunch of nonsensical rambling.

Science is defined as the study of natural phenomena.

A fact is basically defined as something known to have been found or have existed.

So basically what you are implying Ush is that there is nothing that can be found to be true or have existed within the study of natural phenomena? confused

Please clarify this for me.

And while your at it..please provide me examples of valid transitionals from the fossil record.

long pig

Has there ever been any proof that life and awareness just....started from nothing?

Seems to be both Religion and Evolution are based on faith & theory.

Faith that nature can create life out of nothing/faith that god can create life out of nothing.

Ushgarak

That, whob, is a definition of science from scientists. And your definition of science makes no sense- it doesn't have to be natural at all.

Sorry if you thought those statements of fact from men with more qualifications than you can dream of are rambling- the fact that you think that says a lot about your closed mentality. Those claims, btw, say no such thing about nothing being found to be true. They simply talk about what tjhe nature of science is in a way which makes your view look very childish indeed. Nor do they use specialist language. That is all basic English.

As it is, you have a totally twisted view of how science works and it is infesting all your logic, which is why your posts are so lacking in intelligence.

And there you go again, you see- asking for proof like that. Go out and look for the evidence- there is MASSES of it. But if you are looking for incontrovertible evidence, you are playing a fixed game that can never be won.

Everyone- look at how whob works. A perfect example of the broken logic and complete lack of rationality from the Creationist set. Everything described in my posts above- the lack of logic, twisting of facts and total lack of cohesive argument power- he demonstrates.

And all long pig has done is make the same mistake again. In fact, long pig is actively lying- evolution has never,m ever ever claimed that life can be made from nothing.

long pig

Oh yes, this is just so important to me I'd lie about it. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Get over it.

I don't care either way, but what's the explaination on life just "popping" into existance?

The mixture of different elements like carbon and oxygen create life?

PVS

Originally posted by long pig
Oh yes, this is just so important to me I'd lie about it. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Get over it.

I don't care either way, but what's the explaination on life just "popping" into existance?

you're either lying or you're just flapping your gums and blowing hot air when you know nothing of the theory.

you either made it up or you're regurgitating a lie.

either way, what you said is complete and utter bullshit.
dont shoot the messengers, its just a fact.
if you hate the theory so much then all the more reason to learn it.
know thy enemy, right? :/

whobdamandog

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That, whob, is a definition of science from scientists. And your definitiuon of science makes no sense- it doesn;t have to be natural at all.

Science doesn't have to be natural?...lol..okay so where does "science" take place Ush..if it doesn't take place in the Natural world..where else does it take place and what else does it describe?

Does it take place and describe the metaphysical world? confused

Draco69

Ah. Religion vs. Science. A instant thread success...

yes

long pig

Hate the theory? Know thy Enemy?

laughing

Don't paint me a religious nutt by spouting out silly leftist reactionary B.S my way, I could care less about religion.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a jesus-freak, kiddo. Grow up. roll eyes (sarcastic)

I guess a casual, adult debate is out of the question with all these far left extremist.
I recommend growing up, getting a job and chilling out. big grin

long pig

Originally posted by Draco69
Ah. Religion vs. Science. A instant thread success...

yes

So you knew these childish fools would come in and bash anyone and everyone who disagrees with them or gives a slightly different opinion than they do?

You're evil, Draco. mad

PVS

Originally posted by long pig
Hate the theory? Know thy Enemy?

laughing

WHO is assuming? laughing out loud

the irony tickles me

Draco69

Originally posted by long pig
So you knew these childish fools would come in and bash anyone and everyone who disagrees with them or gives a slightly different opinion than they do?

You're evil, Draco. mad

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

evil face

whobdamandog

To be fair..I haven't bashed anyone in this thread..I've actually been on good behavior. wink

Notice how I've cut down on my smilies...lol..

Ush, PVS, and many others on the far left side of this argument on the other hand..have came on here with guns blazing.

Moving on..I'm still waiting for Ush's response. I seriously doubt I'll get one though. At least not a direct one that he has created by himself.

Scoobless

Originally posted by yerssot
as BF (I think) once said:
"They'll be convinced when they find a human foetus in a chimpansee."

that can be arranged ..... shifty

Scoobless

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moving on..I'm still waiting for Ush's response. I seriously doubt I'll get one though. At least not a direct one that he has created by himself.

well if you believe in ID... then none of us create anything... it's all there because someone/something else put it there

roll eyes (sarcastic)

debbiejo

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Harold

It's his grandfather's first name.

NOW...I found out what the "H" in Jesus H Christ.

stands for:

A Sunday school teacher asked her second graders if anyone knew another name for God. She was picturing answers like 'Lord' or 'Almighty'.

After a long moment of silence a little boy raised his hand and said, "Howard."

"Howard?" replied the confused teacher.

"You know," continued the boy, "Howard be thy name."

It's Howard

sorry couldn't resist. embarrasment

PVS

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Ush, PVS, and many others on the far left side of this argument on the other hand..have came on here with guns blazing.

its been my observation that ush falls nowhere near the left.
what a sad strategy to label others as 'leftists' and then cry that
others are labeling you erm

xmarksthespot

The concept of evolution is not a faith. It is a scientific theory. It is a model for the development of modern species. It is based upon a weight of repeatable experimentation and observation of tangible phenomena. The theory is subject to review and scrutiny. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is based upon said evidences, however all scientific theory is dynamic. Therefore if new evidences arise that contradict any scientific theory or do not fit the model that the theory proposes, or a new model is proposed that conforms with said evidence better, the theory is modified to encompass the new evidence/model or the theory is discarded and a new model proposed/accepted. New and/or contradictory substantive evidences cannot simply be dismissed. This is true of all scientific theory determined by scientific method.

The concept of intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is not based upon empirically determined evidences in repeatable experimentation. Intelligent design has not held up to scrutiny or review, to my knowledge not a single peer-reviewed article pertaining to the idea has ever been published in any reputable scientific journal. It does not take into account all evidences available. One of the underlying features of any intelligent design concept is the presupposition of a designer. This presupposition has never been proven, and likely can never and will never be verified by scientific method. This belief does not rest upon material evidences, oft dismissing contradictory evidences rather than incorporating said evidence, and altering the concept or discarding the concept for a new concept. It is a faith.

It should not be incorporated into scientific textbooks.

Ya Krunk'd Floo

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Oh yes Lucy... roll eyes (sarcastic)

I apologise for insulting a direct relative, but I hope you can understand my confusion in light of the paradox of discussing the topic of 'intellligent design' with someone who was not subjected to such a molding.

I think the main problem with 'cretinism' - am I spelling that correctly? - is that that it is borne out of irrational fundamentalism rather than reason and logic. Simple as that, my fiend.

(Side note: The word 'cretin' is derived from Swiss French meaning 'Christian' - another example of evolution succintly following what came before it!)

I'm too good.

whobdamandog

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The concept of evolution is not a faith. It is a scientific theory. It is a model for the development of modern species. It is based upon a weight of repeatable experimentation and observation of tangible phenomena.

Evolution..or "change" within a particular family of plant, animal, etc has never been defined by the ID side of this debate as being a "faith." Variation amongst animal families..such as dogs, cats, equine, etc..is a concept that is widely accepted most proponents of the mainstream scientific community. The "faith" part of Neo Darwinism..lies in two of the fundemental principles.

1. Life seemingly formed from nothing more than a primordial soup of elements..spontaneously out of nowhere..with no intelligence guiding it.

2. The existence of minor gentic differences and mutations within an animal/plant family, alludes to the existence of mutations on a grand scale.(ie Macro Evolution)

There is nothing testible/observable/or scientific that supports either of these philosophical concepts. Just because mutations and variations within nature exist, one can not logically infer that they support "Naturalism."

That's where the deceptive part of Modern Evolutionary theory kicks in. It attempts to validate itself, by known variables..which have in no way been proven/observed/ or shown to be related in anyway to the 2 fundemental philosophical TOE beliefs listed above.

If anything..one could logically infer that variation and mutations give more credo to the belief that nature has a "design" to it.

I have never debated that ID was not a philosophical concept..merely..I have just attempted to point out..that Neo Darwinism is a philosophical concept as well. To state that it is not is obsurdity...seeing as how the fundementals of the theory have as of do not have any tangible evidence supporting them.

BobbyD

In my opinion, I have religous beliefs akin to intelligent design theory because the universe is too ordered and mathematical to not have SOME sort of higher force playing a hand in the universe.

HOWEVER. It's not science. It's more of philosophy. I wouldn't mind intelligent design being taught in philosophy or a religion class but I feel it has no place in a science classroom.

....couldn't have said it better myself, Drac.

Scoobless

Originally posted by BobbyD
In my opinion, I have religous beliefs akin to intelligent design theory because the universe is too ordered and mathematical to not have SOME sort of higher force playing a hand in the universe.

in my experience it's "intelligence" that causes the most disorder in the world

Ushgarak

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Science doesn't have to be natural?...lol..okay so where does "science" take place Ush..if it doesn't take place in the Natural world..where else does it take place and what else does it describe?

Does it take place and describe the metaphysical world? confused

Please elaborate on this new discovery that you've enlightened us with my friend.

Once again strawman arguments..Attacking the arguer..rather than the argument. I have as of yet not received a response from you regarding any of my inquiries. So I'm assuming you don't have a response, and are unable to intellectually and independantly answer them.(independently meaning..not going to google and typing in "evolution..then cutting/pasting a response from someone else)

To be fair to you though..I will repost all questions once again..with the hope that you will at some point gather the information..or perhaps ability..to answer them. The questions/arguments are piling up Ush. And I as many others are eagerly anticipating your answers.

Well, for a start, science CAN be metaphysical if it wants to be- that's what Big Bang theory is.

Secondly, it should be patently obvious to anyone with a brain to all that science often analyses the operation of man-made things that are therefore NOT natural. The purely natural area of science is simply one branch.

Use terms like 'straw man' all you like- as it is, I am very much attacking the argument and have posted reams of evidence doing so. It also so happens that I firmly believer that everyone who holds your belief is an idiot that insults the rational capacity of the Human race. Go figure.

As for your inquiries- go read my earlier posts. Read them properly. Your whining about them being quotes from someone else does not impress me- they are cogent and relevant and explain my points and why your requests are hopeless. And note how silly you are being.

I doubt you will, of course, because you will defend this iditic fallacy 100% until your dying day- and a sad demonstration you are of how woefully deluded a person can make himself. But I will just point out one things- there is massive amounts of observable evidence for the process of evolution, which is what the theories are based on. Every time you say there is not, you are either being stupid, or just lying.

I will repeat- only those who have completely lost touch with the process of rationality and the application of the scientific method could possibly call the massively refined, inter-debated and well supported thoery of evolution anything even remotely approaching a faith. It's just plainw rong to do so. What whob is saying is wrong.

Julie

It take a certain amount of "faith" to believe in the theory of evolution. And it leaves many questions unanswered, but so far as science goes I suppose it's as good a shaky foundation as we're gonna get.

ZephroCarnelian

There are monkeys.

And there are men.

Yet there are no men-monkeys.

If evolution was a continuous process, there would be.

-----------------------------------------

Likewise, there are reptiles. There are birds.

Supposedly birds evolved from reptiles.

Yet there are no Sparrow-diles or Alli-turkeys.

-----------------------------------

The more complex the creature, the more complicated it's DNA.

A bird has more complex DNA than an ant.

An ant has more complex DNA than an amoeba.

Yet supposedly we 'evolved' from these amoebas via random mutations?

How can scientists say this, when they themselves have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that mutation can only result in the LOSS of genetic information from DNA... not the gain of genetic information...?

--------------------------------------------

For example....

Take the Wolf - the ancestor of modern dogs.

Say this wolf starts off in a temperate country where it's hair is medium length to suit the climate.

Some dogs go off North, where it's colder. Due to the colder climate, the dogs with shorter hair will tend to die out easier, leaving more dogs with longer hair to pass on their long-hair genes. Over time, all short-haired dogs will be gone and the only genes being passed on are the genes for long haired dogs.

Evolution? Or loss of genetic information?

Some dogs went south, to a hot country. The dogs with longer hair tend to overheat and die, leaving more short-hair dogs to pass on their genes. Eventually, the longhaired gene is lost and the short-haired gene is predominant.

Again - is this evolution? Is this advancement? Or is the fact that they can no longer breed long-haired dogs a loss of information?

---------------------------------------------

I have been a Christian for three years, since I was 18 years old.

I was as sceptical as anyone - nay - I was downright nasty to Christians, just as many are on this board.

But since I made the choice to become a Christian, my life has changed, I'm no longer depressed as I was and I am now married to my beautiful wife.

Even since becoming a Christian, it's been difficult struggling with issues such as creation, with the media and schools constantly telling people that evolution is fact, not theory.

But I've seen the questions and scenarios above posed to top scientists, top biologists, top professors in America and Britain. And no-one has come up with the goods.

I'm the last person who'd ever brandish a stick and tell you that you're wrong with your viewpoint. It's not my job.

I know people probably gonna rip me a new hole for this post, and if they feel anger or resentment towards me or my words then that's their choice.

I've only posted my two pennies' worth. smile

I have never had any satisfactory explanation of the above. Yet I've had many a time where the words of the Bible have been proven right in my own life and experiences. smile

Know I've been nothing but calm. Nothing but nice, honest, open and non-threatening in this post. I'm not telling anyone how to live or think. Just telling you about how I think and questions that I have.

Yet you just watch people leap on me, to tear me apart. smile

Draco69

That's a very nice post. And both sides tear into each other. Both sides have certain people who feel to degnerate the other side's opinions.

Which is why I like to take a moderate approach to most political issues. Too messy...

Mindship

In this instance, "Intelligent Design" is almost an oxymoron. That it is even being considered...well, this explains why one political party -- and Bush -- have been voted in twice to "govern" our country for the last few years.

BTW, where can I sign up for the Flat Earth Society?

BackFire

I believe their website is www.dumbshits.com.

ZephroCarnelian

Originally posted by Draco69
That's a very nice post. And both sides tear into each other. Both sides have certain people who feel to degnerate the other side's opinions.

Which is why I like to take a moderate approach to most political issues. Too messy...

Very good point. And for someone who is obviously neutral, it's a good position to take. smile

And anyone who calls themselves a Christian but launches headfirst into a debate, where tempers flare and heated words are exchanged, is just kidding themselves.

A Christian is called to let people know about the Bible and Jesus - then leave the rest up to God. smile

Not to involve themselves in arguments that just end up hurting peoples' feelings. sad

Mindship

Perhaps this will help...

As I understand it, Intelligent Design says that our universe is too finely tuned in all of its constants (eg, charge of the electron, speed of light) to chalk it all up to coincidence. What are the odds that everything would work out so darn well?

In cosmology, a similar position is called the anthropic principle: the universe is the way it is because, if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

But there is also something in cosmology called quantum cosmology, wherein the universe is treated as having a wave function, which implies that our universe exists in an infinite number of states. In other words: there are an infinite number of universes, all kinds of universes, some exactly like ours except for one small detail; others so different as to be totally unrecognizable.

If there are an infinite number of universes (and current attempts to unify the forces of nature, or understand the Why of quantum mechanics, suggests there are), then there is no mystery why ours is the way it is. Given an infinite number, eventually you will find one with the constants of our universe. We just happen to be living in that kind of universe which supports creatures which can ponder such questions. Meanwhile, out of "sight" there are many, many more realities where the constants haven't been so life-friendly.

I think what people react to with I.D. is that it suggests a "literal" interpretation of religious doctrine, which, historically has caused more misery than joy. And not just historically, even now: our world is threatened by those who would insist that their medieval view of the world is the correct one, to the point where they are willing to use WMDs (or even just suicide bombers) against innocent, live-and-let-live / many-colors-make-a-rainbow societies.

I have nothing against God (I like the "Guy" wink

. It's just that I see His Infinite Intelligence being far more vast than anything humans could ever put into words. Evolution, because it pursues facts which can be repeated, shared, demonstrated, etc, seems to be, IMO, a closer map of His reality than anything else to date.

FeceMan

Originally posted by PVS
well, to enjoy another's suffering is worthy of hell in itself, isnt it?
what would jesus think of such a wish?

that is the part of christianity which has always bothered me and turned me off to organised religion. not the concept of hell, but the wish for it on others, which would fall under "revenge" if im not mistaken.

its one thing to acknowledge that there is a hell and those who piss god off will fry in it, and its another thing entirely to feel that you are somehow a spokesman for god and would be so bold as to damn others in his name...and worse yet, find glee in the thought of someone's eternal suffering...i find that disturbing beyond belief. not to target you, but its such a widespread accepted and encouraged attitude...i have to ask WHY?
PVS...I wasn't being serious.

I was saying that for effect.

whobdamandog

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, for a start, science CAN be metaphysical if it wants to be- that's what Big Bang theory is.

Well Ush..you do realize that you've just justified astrology, phrenology, and a host of other psuedosciences. Many of these are "metaphysical" studies as well....

Which essentially what TOE/Cosmology(Big bang) are..metaphysical philosophies which are flowered with scientific jargon..nothing more nothing less.

However..why don't you give me some testable hypothesi relating to cosmology. When you're done with that, as I have already asked of you a multitude of times..give me some testable hypothesi and evidence supporting each hypothesi which relates to random mutations forming new families of plants and animals.

Man made things are not natural? confused

Many things are not produced naturally..naturally meaning..they aren't produced in nature.

However..they are still composed of processes/elements that exist within the natural world.

A nectorine is not found in nature..it's a man made hybrid. It is the cross polination between a peach and a plum..correct? Does this mean that it somehow is not related to natural science..since it was artificially made? Of course not..that's a silly supposition.

That's essentially where your logic begins Ush. Regardless of whether or not a process is "artificial" or "natural" it still exists within the natural laws that embody science..therefore it is part of natural science... roll eyes (sarcastic)

This is correct..unless you are now going to tell me that "Man Made" things are not composed of processes/elements that make up the natural world... confused

So are "Man made" processes/elements/etc made from things that represent the "metaphysical" or "spiritual world" Ush? Please enlighten me once again my friend...it seems as if you have once again come up with a newfound scientific discovery.. laughing

I think that pretty much sums up the above. Once again Ush..you condemning those who do not agree with you demonstrates your overall immaturity, naivety, and ignorance. Very childlike. You haven't even adressed any of the questions that I so humbly asked of you, so I'll assume that you can't.

In summary..Neo Darwinism and ID are both philosophical theories. I do not believe in censorship, and believe that everyone should have the right to express their views..as long as their views are represented in an intellectual/tactful/ and informative way. That being stated...both ID/Neo Darwinism should be allowed to be taught in science class.

whobdamandog

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
There are monkeys.

And there are men.

Yet there are no men-monkeys.

If evolution was a continuous process, there would be.

-----------------------------------------

Likewise, there are reptiles. There are birds.

Supposedly birds evolved from reptiles.

Yet there are no Sparrow-diles or Alli-turkeys.

-----------------------------------

The more complex the creature, the more complicated it's DNA.

A bird has more complex DNA than an ant.

An ant has more complex DNA than an amoeba.

Yet supposedly we 'evolved' from these amoebas via random mutations?

How can scientists say this, when they themselves have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that mutation can only result in the LOSS of genetic information from DNA... not the gain of genetic information...?

--------------------------------------------

For example....

Take the Wolf - the ancestor of modern dogs.

Say this wolf starts off in a temperate country where it's hair is medium length to suit the climate.

Some dogs go off North, where it's colder. Due to the colder climate, the dogs with shorter hair will tend to die out easier, leaving more dogs with longer hair to pass on their long-hair genes. Over time, all short-haired dogs will be gone and the only genes being passed on are the genes for long haired dogs.

Evolution? Or loss of genetic information?

Some dogs went south, to a hot country. The dogs with longer hair tend to overheat and die, leaving more short-hair dogs to pass on their genes. Eventually, the longhaired gene is lost and the short-haired gene is predominant.

Again - is this evolution? Is this advancement? Or is the fact that they can no longer breed long-haired dogs a loss of information?

---------------------------------------------

I have been a Christian for three years, since I was 18 years old.

I was as sceptical as anyone - nay - I was downright nasty to Christians, just as many are on this board.

But since I made the choice to become a Christian, my life has changed, I'm no longer depressed as I was and I am now married to my beautiful wife.

Even since becoming a Christian, it's been difficult struggling with issues such as creation, with the media and schools constantly telling people that evolution is fact, not theory.

But I've seen the questions and scenarios above posed to top scientists, top biologists, top professors in America and Britain. And no-one has come up with the goods.

I'm the last person who'd ever brandish a stick and tell you that you're wrong with your viewpoint. It's not my job.

I know people probably gonna rip me a new hole for this post, and if they feel anger or resentment towards me or my words then that's their choice.

I've only posted my two pennies' worth. smile

I have never had any satisfactory explanation of the above. Yet I've had many a time where the words of the Bible have been proven right in my own life and experiences. smile

Very well thought out and well written post. I hope someone actually gives you a direct response..but as you probably have noted that never happens in these forums.

BobbyD

Well done, Zephro. Kudos! beer

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Very well thought out and well written post. I hope someone actually gives you a direct response..but as you probably have noted that never happens in these forums.

Yes, well thought out. Now, is there anyone who isn't a Jesus freak that can justify including mythology and faith in a science class?

long pig

Originally posted by PVS
WHO is assuming? laughing out loud

the irony tickles me
Am I right about you? Yes, of course. Always.

Were you right about me? No, never.

So, I'll just sit back and continue to troll around the General Discussion Form filled to the gills with you silly bunch of upper middle class suburban white kids trying to make yourself feel relevant by pretending you have an opinion on situations you have no experience with. roll eyes (sarcastic)

You're funny, but also embarrassing. sad

Nice sig.... laughing

How old are you again?

Capt_Fantastic

My comments are in bold, inside the quote

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
There are monkeys.

And there are men.

Yet there are no men-monkeys.

If evolution was a continuous process, there would be.

That is because they have a common ancestor. There are no men-monkies, as you put it, becuase they are contemporaries on teh evolutionary scale

-----------------------------------------

Likewise, there are reptiles. There are birds.

Supposedly birds evolved from reptiles.

Yet there are no Sparrow-diles or Alli-turkeys.

Birds did not evolve from reptiles, they evolved from different species of proto-saura...common ancestors with the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were not reptiles. Most current research indicates that they we, in fact, warm-blooded Again, terrible example

-----------------------------------

The more complex the creature, the more complicated it's DNA.

A bird has more complex DNA than an ant.

An ant has more complex DNA than an amoeba.

Yet supposedly we 'evolved' from these amoebas via random mutations?

How can scientists say this, when they themselves have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that mutation can only result in the LOSS of genetic information from DNA... not the gain of genetic information...?

Also not true. Yes, amounts of DNA strands does seem to have a correlation to the "complexity" of the species. However, that has nothing to do with the complex ways in which DNA works. Virus' adapt and evolve into super-viruses. Again, if the most simple forms of life can adapt and change, then why can't we?

Feel free to provide evidence that mutation of genes only results in loss.

--------------------------------------------

For example....

Take the Wolf - the ancestor of modern dogs.

Say this wolf starts off in a temperate country where it's hair is medium length to suit the climate.

Some dogs go off North, where it's colder. Due to the colder climate, the dogs with shorter hair will tend to die out easier, leaving more dogs with longer hair to pass on their long-hair genes. Over time, all short-haired dogs will be gone and the only genes being passed on are the genes for long haired dogs.

Evolution? Or loss of genetic information?

Some dogs went south, to a hot country. The dogs with longer hair tend to overheat and die, leaving more short-hair dogs to pass on their genes. Eventually, the longhaired gene is lost and the short-haired gene is predominant.

Again - is this evolution? Is this advancement? Or is the fact that they can no longer breed long-haired dogs a loss of information?

There's nothing wrong with your examples. But, this is not evolution, this is adaptation. And the genes that result in the long or short hair of the species are not lost, simply turned off...until such a time when they can be useful again.

Also, dogs do not come from Wolves. Again, they are contemporaries...they share a common ancestor.

---------------------------------------------

I have been a Christian for three years, since I was 18 years old.

I was as sceptical as anyone - nay - I was downright nasty to Christians, just as many are on this board.

But since I made the choice to become a Christian, my life has changed, I'm no longer depressed as I was and I am now married to my beautiful wife.

Even since becoming a Christian, it's been difficult struggling with issues such as creation, with the media and schools constantly telling people that evolution is fact, not theory.

But I've seen the questions and scenarios above posed to top scientists, top biologists, top professors in America and Britain. And no-one has come up with the goods.

I'm the last person who'd ever brandish a stick and tell you that you're wrong with your viewpoint. It's not my job.

I know people probably gonna rip me a new hole for this post, and if they feel anger or resentment towards me or my words then that's their choice.

I've only posted my two pennies' worth. smile

I have never had any satisfactory explanation of the above. Yet I've had many a time where the words of the Bible have been proven right in my own life and experiences. smile

As I have said before in this thread, I have no problem with your faith. It does sadden me that in a majority of instances it causes the faithful to close their minds to reason and logic. However, your obsession with your faith should not be impressed on children IN A SCIENCE CLASS!

KharmaDog

Originally posted by long pig
Am I right about you? Yes, of course. Always.

Were you right about me? No, never.

So, I'll just sit back and continue to troll around the General Discussion Form filled to the gills with you silly bunch of upper middle class suburban white kids trying to make yourself feel relevant by pretending you have an opinion on situations you have no experience with. roll eyes (sarcastic)

You're funny, but also embarrassing. sad

Nice sig.... laughing

How old are you again?

PVS is far from being a suburban kid. In fact it''s been many years since he was a kid at all.

The GDF is actually populated wioth quite a few members over 25 years old. It's nice to see you tell people that they seem to not have a clue what they are talking about, and then go about showing everyone that you no even less.

KharmaDog

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
There are monkeys.
And there are men.
Yet there are no men-monkeys.
If evolution was a continuous process, there would be.

Or you could look at many of the proto humans such as Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo erectus,Homo ergaster, Homo habilis, Homo erectus or Neandertals (actually more of a relation than a proto human). Men were not thought to come ditectly from monkeys. Evolution believes that Homo Sapien evolved from apes. If you are looking for a link between a spidermonkey and people, you either think on too simple of level, or have not at all studied evolution.

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian

Likewise, there are reptiles. There are birds.
Supposedly birds evolved from reptiles.
Yet there are no Sparrow-diles or Alli-turkeys.

You might want to go to google and research ARCHAEOPTERYX.

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
How can scientists say this, when they themselves have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that mutation can only result in the LOSS of genetic information from DNA... not the gain of genetic information...?

Beyond any shadow of a doubt? I was unaware of this and would appreciate more information on these inconclusive findings which completely debunk evolution.

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian

I have been a Christian for three years, since I was 18 years old.

I was as sceptical as anyone - nay - I was downright nasty to Christians, just as many are on this board.

But since I made the choice to become a Christian, my life has changed, I'm no longer depressed as I was and I am now married to my beautiful wife.

Even since becoming a Christian, it's been difficult struggling with issues such as creation, with the media and schools constantly telling people that evolution is fact, not theory.

As wonderful that this is for you that you have found meaning in you life through religion, it is a moot point when debating whether religion or religious beliefs should be taught in science classes.

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
But I've seen the questions and scenarios above posed to top scientists, top biologists, top professors in America and Britain. And no-one has come up with the goods.

Define what you mean by "the goods" please. You have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever for you to believe that evolution is even remotely possible?

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
I have never had any satisfactory explanation of the above. Yet I've had many a time where the words of the Bible have been proven right in my own life and experiences. smile

The bible was written many years ago by men. Through the ages it has been translated from ancient hebrew (only 1/4 of which is now recognizable) to latin, back to hebrew, back to latin, and then on to dutch, english, french, italian and so on.

Many words and ideas morph or are hard to express through translation. Over the years that it was translated many ideas, politics and religious beliefs changed, thereby affecting the translations and interpretations.

Yet these words, that have, in a sense, evolved over time hold more validity and truth to you than the scientific findings of yesterday and today?

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
Yet you just watch people leap on me, to tear me apart. smile

Well, when you post in an open forum on a topic that is so heated you have to expect emotions to run high. But please don't prepare to play the victim, it lessons any validity of your comments as your response to any retort can be " you are just attacking me".

Your man-monkey and reptile-bird arguments were rather weak. Your self professed faith and enlightenment through the bible, though wonderful for you, does not relate to the topic (well maybe in in a most peripheral way).

The question is, does a faith based belief have any place in an environment where science is being discussed?

Capt_Fantastic

Kharma, you basically just repeated everything I said in my last post.

Great minds I suppose.

KharmaDog

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Kharma, you basically just repeated everything I said in my last post.

Great minds I suppose.

Sorry to be redundant.

long pig

That just makes it so much worse. At least a 19 year old has an excuse for being so idealistic.

Ya Krunk'd Floo

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
And anyone who calls themselves a Christian but launches headfirst into a debate, where tempers flare and heated words are exchanged, is just kidding themselves.

A Christian is called to let people know about the Bible and Jesus - then leave the rest up to God. smile

Not to involve themselves in arguments that just end up hurting peoples' feelings. sad

...So, I guess we should apply this to the fundamentalists who forced their religious belief into being taught to school-children?

Christian hypocrisy never ceases to amuse me.

whobdamandog

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Or you could look at many of the proto humans such as Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo erectus,Homo ergaster, Homo habilis, Homo erectus or Neandertals (actually more of a relation than a proto human). Men were not thought to come ditectly from monkeys. Evolution believes that Homo Sapien evolved from apes. If you are looking for a link between a spidermonkey and people, you either think on too simple of level, or have not at all studied evolution.

The "Proto-human" argument is a weak one. The "evidences" you've given above are fossils which represent different races of humans and various species of apes. The fact that you've alluded to no "link" or "transitional" to be found within these fossils..further discredits the validity of "common link" argument. No such fossil has been found as of yet. That's why many still use the expression "missing link." The missing link of course representing a fossil comprised of characteristics genetic/physical which relate to both ape and man.

Even though these examples have been widely discredited by much of the mainstream scientific community..many Neo-Darwinists continue to teach these deceptions as if they still carry scientific credibility. The once significantly praised discovery of the "Neandertal Man"...has been relegated to nothing more than a normal human being..with severe arthritis and rickets. Real silly stuff...but for whatever reason it continues to be subjectively taught as being "fact" in the classroom.

Please tell me your joking. Archaepteryx is one of the most notable frauds in evolutionary history. Even National Geographic had to retract its support on this one.

Basically yes..beyond a shadow of a doubt. Mutations do not carry new genetic information, what they do is carry repackaged information, and are usually demonstrated as being harmful when found with in a species of plant/animal/etc.(ie cancer, physical deformities, etc)

The probability of beneficial mutation taking place within an species, is very very very...low. Even if we were to suppose that every some odd hundred thousand years or so..a beneficial mutation did occur..one doesn't have to automatically assume that this would be proof of TOE..but rather..one could easily assume that a beneficial mutation could be the result of an intelligent designer's handiwork.

ID is a philosophical concept, as is Neo Darwinism. If you actually read up on ID, you'll find that the biggest difference between the two theories is as follows:

ID

Supports "evolution"(change) within a family level. This is often referred to as adaptation or variation.

States that the existence of adaptation, mutation, etc are examples of the complexities within nature..thus supporting that an intelligent designer had to be present, to create these complex organisms/systems.

Neo Darwinism

Supports "evolution" outside of the family level. This is often referred to as "Macro evolution" (ie reptile evolving into bird, dog, cat, etc)

States that the existence of adaptation, mutation, etc is an example that
life originated from one single organism..that evolved from random mutations over millions of years.

I believe what he means is that no scientest has been able to provide evidence, replicate, or validate the definitive principle behind TOE..that principle being the existence of "Macro Evolution."

Regarldess..the bible gives an account, of individuals and places that actually "existed" within history.

You're beginning to move off topic with this K-dog..as the debate is not about Biblical translation...but about ID being taught in school curriculum. Let me reitterate once again ID does not quote scripture. It teaches science, and uses science to validate the "design" within things that embody the natural world.

You've just made a very slothful induction my friend.
Newness of information doesn't automatically equate that information as being valid. The substance of information is what gives that information its credo. Let's get back on Topic..again the Bible is not used to support ID.

Actually I don't believe he was even attempting to play the victim..but rather..he was trying to state that one's opinions can be presented in an assertive manner..without being insulting and condescending to those who don't agree with you. He had some very good points, that definately should be considered by people on the both sides of this debate. This includes myself and many others.

Personally I don't take any comments against me to heart, and I generally find the arguments thrown against me rather comical.

However you might find that people may tend to be a little more objective when listening to your viewpoints if you are not actively trying to condemn theirs. Just a bit of advice..use it as you wish.

That's your opinion. Doesn't make it fact. Like you..he is able to utilize his "opinions" to support the argument in whatever way he wishes.

If the answer to the above is "no"..then both the TOE and ID should be taken out of science curriculum.

xmarksthespot

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Even though these examples have been widely discredited by much of the mainstream scientific community..many Neo-Darwinists continue to teach these deceptions as if they still carry scientific credibility. The once significantly praised discovery of the "Neandertal Man"...has been relegated to nothing more than a normal human being..with severe arthritis and rickets. Real silly stuff...but for whatever reason it continues to be subjectively taught as being "fact" in the classroom.I really would like to know which "mainstream scientific community" has deemed Homo neanderthalensis as a man "with severe arthritis and rickets". Please provide me with the peer-reviewed published article in which this was detailed. The title, principle author and journal will suffice.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Basically yes..beyond a shadow of a doubt. Mutations do not carry new genetic information, what they do is carry repackaged information, and are usually demonstrated as being harmful when found with in a species of plant/animal/etc.(ie cancer, physical deformities, etc)This is incorrect and likely stems from a lack of understanding of genetics. For one thing the amount of chromosomal DNA is not correlated to the level or organismal complexity. Again, please provide me with the article in which this claim was proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Supports "evolution"(change) within a family level. This is often referred to as adaptation or variation.So ID supports the evolution of Homo sapiens and the great apes from a common ancestor? They are taxonomically in the same family.

FeceMan

Originally posted by long pig
That just makes it so much worse. At least a 19 year old has an excuse for being so idealistic.
We must strive towards the ideals, for in them is a semblance of perfection.

lord krondor

Forgive me, but I didn't read this entire thread.
So, FeceMan, what do you belive in: Intelligent Design or Evolution?

Jedi Priestess

Originally posted by soleran30
With that in mind doll face perhaps you should start a geography and spelling thread while we talk about the topic of this thread.
Glad you had an opinion on the topic at hand.........so half of KC is in the bible belt its so close I'll just let the influence from the state border creep on over then and assume a very similar view point since geographically they are next to it.

With that in mind doll face perhaps you should start a geography and spelling thread while we talk about the topic of this thread.

I didn't comment on the topic of this thread because I dont HAVE a comment bozo. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Darth Jello

science-any theory, phenomena, process, or structure which can be proven or tested with the scientific theory.
The existance of God or any Gods, or anything spiritual as we understand it cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method and therefore do not belong in a science classroom.
Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience which advocates a particular theory of creation that is based on the belief in the benevolence of the supreme deity revered by 3 religions which happen to make up the majority of the population. This violates the establishment clause since it is an endorsement of a particular belief system by a public institution.
If you want to teach creationism in public school? fine. Teach it in a World Religions elective class alongside as many other creation myths as fit possible and teach it from an analytical, not a factual perspective. Anything else is illegal and unamerican.

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by Jedi Priestess
I didn't comment on the topic of this thread because I dont HAVE a comment bozo. roll eyes (sarcastic)

That's doll face, to you.

whobdamandog

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I really would like to know which "mainstream scientific community" has deemed Homo neanderthalensis as a man "with severe arthritis and rickets". Please provide me with the peer-reviewed published article in which this was detailed. The title, principle author and journal will suffice.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
This is incorrect and likely stems from a lack of understanding of genetics. For one thing the amount of chromosomal DNA is not correlated to the level or organismal complexity. Again, please provide me with the article in which this claim was proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

I'm at a bit of a loss at what you consider to be incorrect X. I never stated that there was a correlation between DNA and an organisms complexity in this post. I have no idea where you have come up with that conclusion. What I did state however, was that mutations found in organism are generally not found to be "beneficial"...and that if a "beneficial" mutation was found..then more than likely..it could be used to support the logical inference of an "intelligent design" within an organism.

Treading back into the real topic of the post I have a few questions for you.

Do you believe that mutations found within an organism are generally progressive rather than being degenerative?

Do mutations offer new genetic information once they occur?

If the answers to these questions is yes, please provide for me peer reviewed published articles/books by notable biologists that support your answer.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So ID supports the evolution of Homo sapiens and the great apes from a common ancestor? They are taxonomically in the same family.

That's one of the cruxes of the ID argument X. That man and ape are not in the same family...and thus do not share a common ancestor... roll eyes (sarcastic)

Current scientific classification systems list them as being such, however, no common "link" has been found between both man and ape. (ie that's why its called "the missing link" wink

Now..another question for you. Can you give me valid examples of "evolution" outside of a taxonomic family level? I've asked this question many times..and no one has of yet given me the "goods" yet. Please answer this question using peer reviewed published articles/books by notable biologists suggest this as being such.

whobdamandog

Originally posted by Darth Jello
science-any theory, phenomena, process, or structure which can be proven or tested with the scientific theory.
The existance of God or any Gods, or anything spiritual as we understand it cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method and therefore do not belong in a science classroom.

def
spiritual: Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.

def:
religion: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

def:
God: One that is worshipped, idealized or followed..."money was there God"

Neo Darwinism is derived from "Naturalism" an idealized spiritual concept..which believes that all religious thought is derived from nature.

Just like Neo Darwinism, Naturalism has no substantive scientific evidence supporting it. Hell..if you look at some of the naturalistic religions of ancient "Pagan" cultures..you'll see an incredible amount of similarities between the concept of Neo Darwinism and them. Many pagan religions believed in man's ability to cross breed with animals and form man beasts..bird men..cat men..flying cats..etc

If ID should not be taught based on it's philosophical principles..then TOE should not be taught as well.

KharmaDog

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The "Proto-human" argument is a weak one. The "evidences" you've given above are fossils which represent different races of humans and various species of apes. The fact that you've alluded to no "link" or "transitional" to be found within these fossils..further discredits the validity of "common link" argument. No such fossil has been found as of yet. That's why many still use the expression "missing link." The missing link of course representing a fossil comprised of characteristics genetic/physical which relate to both ape and man.

Even though these examples have been widely discredited by much of the mainstream scientific community..many Neo-Darwinists continue to teach these deceptions as if they still carry scientific credibility. The once significantly praised discovery of the "Neandertal Man"...has been relegated to nothing more than a normal human being..with severe arthritis and rickets. Real silly stuff...but for whatever reason it continues to be subjectively taught as being "fact" in the classroom.

Are you saying that there were no such thing as neandertal man? That's a whole seperate argument altogether.

As for the fact that did not point to any link or transition between the hominids discussed that the point of the thread. ZephroCarnelian stated, "There are monkeys. And there are men. Yet there are no men-monkeys. If evolution was a continuous process, there would be." What I pointed out were hominids that possesed traits that were indicitive to both apes and homosapien. By posing this information I was showing the innacuracy and the simplicity of his "men-monkey" statement.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

Please tell me your joking. Archaepteryx is one of the most notable frauds in evolutionary history. Even National Geographic had to retract its support on this one.

Actually you are wrong Archaepteryx is still studied as it has aspects that are both reptile and avian. Archaeoraptor is the 'hoax' to which you are referring to. That is the hoax that National Geographic bit the bullet on not Archaepteryx.

ZephroCarnelian made the implication that if birds and reptiles were related than there would be a species that possesed qualities of both. Of course, no one is saying that birds and reptiles are related, they are saying birds and dinosaurs are related (dinosaurs are not considered to be true reptiles) and Archaepteryx possesses traits of both.

In order for you to better educate yourself, perhaps you would consult this artuicle which counters your arguements and misconceptions:
http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/Icon5archy.html

It seems that those who argue against evolution point to the fact that no 'single' missing link has been found. No person ever argues back that there will never be a single missing link found because evolution does not occur at a pace where there is a sudden change it is a gradual process.

As for the sites that oppose evolution such as

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp
or
www.answersingenesis.org

Such sites make claims such as

or list the reason as to the demise of the dinosaurs (that are have claimed to have lived alongside humanity) as:

Capt_Fantastic

LOL! Good god, people!

I can't do this anymore. Evidence upon evidence is heaped up for you guys and you MAKE SHIT UP to disprove undisputable facts. Neanderthal man had F-ING RICKETS! If you're going to get all your information of church websites, that LIE to their members to keep them in the fold, then I have to question why I'm even participating in this argument.

Scoobless

"Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!)"

lmao @ how pathetic that sounds

Draco69

jerry jerry jerry

yerssot

whob, stop quoting trash from the '70's.
If you had any knowledge on evolution you would know that before 1982, they didn't treat de Neanderthalensis as a seperate species AND that they threw any homo into Homo Habilis if some tools were found near it. Both mistakes have been settled, the Neanderthalensis-mistake for instance was fixed by comparing DNA with the sapiens. It showed it was another species, if you don't want to believe me I would be happy to redirect you to archaeology classes or any biology course that touches upon evolution.
So, if you want to quote someone or a magazine please take RECENT sources and not those that (in terms of science) are ancient.

xmarksthespot

A single quote from a 1970's Time article that even though taken out of context, really does nothing to support that H. neanderthalensis were just diseased humans?
Since I found the same statement verbatim on this "creation science" website:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emnh.htm
I'm assuming that's where you found it. You should note that the statement you highlighted is not a quote from Time Magazine. It is a statement from "the Creation Science homepage."
Again this quote provides nothing in support of Virchow's "H. neanderthalensis are humans with rickets."

You should really stop using outdated information based on a man's statement made upon incomplete information over a century ago. If you want to maintain some semblance of credibility, I suggest perhaps you provide some more recent articles, preferably peer-reviewed and in a reputable journal, and books published under academic press.
Frankly neither question is a simple yes/no question. If you had some understanding of molecular genetics you'd know that. I answered both your questions. The fact that you ask me again implies you didn't read anything I provided you with - examples illustrating that mutational processes can increase the C-value, amount of DNA, and how they can produce new functions. In which case do not ask for anything.

Did Virchow "disprove" the other hominidae too?

Darth Jello

i took a look at that site...rickets? wow...

whobdamandog

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Are you saying that there were no such thing as neandertal man? That's a whole seperate argument altogether.

Refer to previous response to X's post..I give a brief summary on "Neandertals." I don't feel the need to repost it.

You took it to the extreme. It was fairly apparent that he was being a bit satirical with the "men-monkey" description. What was essentially meant, from a technical standpoint..was that they're are no hominids consisting of both ape/human traits characteristics. Debate this point all you wish, however, it is the truth regardless of whether or not you accept it to be.

You are correct with that statement of Archaeoraptor, and not Archaepteryx as being recanted in National Geographic. I jumped the gun a bit to quickly with my assertion, without fully examining the terminology being used. However, I believe it is necessary to point out that alleged "Archaepteryx" fossils have been alluded by many as being ancient species of bird or reptiles, rather than a bird/reptile hybrid assertion pointed out by many Neo Darwinists.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/473

It gives a rather non biased description of the debate. Most of what has been found..has alluded to alleged Archaeptyx fossils bearing little difference betweem the birds and reptiles we find in nature today.

You're wrong on this one Karma, Neo-Darwinism gives the impression that birds and mammals were descended from reptile/bird hybrids. Why do you think Neo-Darwinism labels them as "bird/reptile" intermediates...even the ever popular "Evolutionary" bible of Talk Origins..uses this terminology. Below is information to support this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

I have no problem admitting if I have misused terminology, or posted an innaccurate statement within the context of a debate. I hope you are willing to do the same on this issue.

Thank you. Now please do the same regarding the incongrous statements you listed regarding bird/mammal not descending from reptiles.. roll eyes (sarcastic)

What you've just stated is hypocritical and ignorant. If one of the main principles supporting a theory is not found, or is proven time and time again to be incongrous with scientific theory, how can we then justify that theory to be valid?

Like ID..TOE uses logical inference of all evidence to support the existence of the conclusion. In the TOE the conclusion being, the existence of "transitional" fossils. However..as you so humbly stated above..no valid transitionals have been found.

Now please explain to me why TOE is the only theory able to operate under condition of having no concrete evidence to support the conclusion. Why can't ID or any other scientific theory operate in the same fashion? That's a rhetorical question..that you don't have to answer..it just demonstrates TOE overall hypocrisy.

Rules of science do not seem to apply to it, and it is generally presented in a dogmatic unquestionable fashion by Neo-Darwinists. As a wise man once said, a theory that is presented as explaining everything, usually ends up explaining nothing.

I'm not a literal interpretation Creationist, regarding the age of earth, however, many theories have been surmised regarding Dinosaurs existence and eventual extincition.

One such theory is that there were actually fewer Dinosaurs than many Neo Darwinists lead many to believe, and perhaps these animals died of extinction during the "world wide flood" This seems to be supported, by the existence of many plant/animal/and Dinosaur fossils found in mountain ranges, basins, and other land formations which appeared to have been eroded by water over thousands of years.

In addition to this. Many Historical texts mention Creatures akin to Dinosaurs..walking the earth during the same time as man. The Bible refers to such creatures as "Behemoths", and many other ancient cultures recount similar claims.

whobdamandog

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A single quote from a 1970's Time article that even though taken out of context, really does nothing to support that H. neanderthalensis were just diseased humans?

Since I found the same statement verbatim on this "creation science" website:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emnh.htm
I'm assuming that's where you found it. You should note that the statement you highlighted is not a quote from Time Magazine. It is a statement from "the Creation Science homepage."
Again this quote provides nothing in support of Virchow's "H. neanderthalensis are humans with rickets."

You should really stop using outdated information based on a man's statement made upon incomplete information over a century ago. If you want to maintain some semblance of credibility, I suggest perhaps you provide some more recent articles, preferably peer-reviewed and in a reputable journal, and books published under academic press.

Again you're diverging a bit from the topic X, and being a bit misleading about what was actually posted. The original Neandrathal..found..was indeed identified as being a man with severe arthritis..and possible rickets. Others have been found since then..that have been determined to have walked upright, as oppossed to the original specimen examined by Virchow. You can ridicule this claim all you want, but it doesn't take away from the validity of it.

Moving on..Let's just simplify the Neandrathal argument X...what is the Neandrathal currently classified as? Is it currently classified as a homo sapien? Does the Neandrathal qualify as a "missing link" that bridges the gap between man and ape?

A simple yes or no will do.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Frankly neither question is a simple yes/no question. If you had some understanding of molecular genetics you'd know that. I answered both your questions. The fact that you ask me again implies you didn't read anything I provided you with - examples illustrating that mutational processes can increase the C-value, amount of DNA, and how they can produce new functions. In which case do not ask for anything.

Again..upon you not answering the initial question twice..I'll assume the answer is once again "NO."

You don't want to answer the question, because it invalidates one of the major cruxes of your theory.that being..mutations some how mystically generate beneficial changes within nature, that result in large scale physical and genetic changes, creating new species of organisms. As it is often demonstrated within organisms.this is not the case. however I did give you a lead to prove that they do..I'll provide it to you yet again..bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

When you are done taking the lead..please explain to me the ratio of a possible beneficial "progressive" mutation taking place to a "degenerative" one within the timespan of over a billion of year period. Which mutation would have the higher rate of occuring..a progressive one...or a degenerative one..Please directly answer this question X.

BackFire

Don't pull a Bill O'Riely, Whob, you know damn well that not all questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". Trying to trap someone into answering "yes" or "no" when the answer is more complicated indicates that you are trying to lure a specific answer out of the person, this is further enhanced by your assumption that the answer is "no" because they didn't give an answer you wanted to hear. Steer clear of that, makes you look silly.

X listed numerous titles which you could look up and and check on for her answer, the fact that you are not willing to look at said titles while merely assuming the answer you want to hear is the correct one exposes a faulty argumentative structure on your part by not wanting to research all the data that is given to you.

Instead of assuming the answer, why don't you go look at the titles X mentioned. Seems like if you actually wanted to know all the information available and the real answer you'd go and check out the titles X mentioned instead of making faulty and hasty assumptions about the answer to your question.

xmarksthespot

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Again you're diverging a bit from the topic X, and being a bit misleading about what was actually posted. The original Neandrathal..found..was indeed identified as being a man with severe arthritis..and possible rickets. Others have been found since then..that have been determined to have walked upright, as oppossed to the original specimen examined by Virchow. You can ridicule this claim all you want, but it doesn't take away from the validity of it.You claimed that the separate species H. neanderthalensis is the same species as H. sapiens with pathological abnormalities. You based this upon Virchow's comments made over a century ago in which he attributed the structural differences between the species to rickets, arthritis and head trauma. Neither the original specimens nor multitude of subsequent specimens, were the result of disease pathology. You haven't provided anything other than Virchow's hundred year old comments and the view of a creationist website to support this. If you continue to assert that H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis are he same species without providing anything substantive and recent to support it then it has no validity, and you lose credibility.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moving on..Let's just simplify the Neandrathal argument X...what is the Neandrathal currently classified as? Is it currently classified as a homo sapien? Does the Neandrathal qualify as a "missing link" that bridges the gap between man and ape?

A simple yes or no will do.

Again..upon you not answering the initial question twice..I'll assume the answer is once again "NO."H. neanderthalensis is not classified as the same species as H. sapiens (despite your unsupported claims.) H. neanderthalensis is not believed to be the progenitor species of H. sapiens, both diverged from H. heidelbergensis.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You don't want to answer the question, because it invalidates one of the major cruxes of your theory.that being..mutations some how mystically generate beneficial changes within nature, that result in large scale physical and genetic changes, creating new species of organisms. As it is often demonstrated within organisms.this is not the case. however I did give you a lead to prove that they do..I'll provide it to you yet again..bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

When you are done taking the lead..please explain to me the ratio of a possible beneficial "progressive" mutation taking place to a "degenerative" one within the timespan of over a billion of year period. Which mutation would have the higher rate of occuring..a progressive one...or a degenerative one..Please directly answer this question X. I've answered your questions and provided references for you to examine - which I'm unsure if you ever intended to do, so again why ask? No doubt you adamantly want me to use bacterial resistance because some ID or "creation science" website has provided you with a pseudoscientific counterpoint to it. As Backfire said you're attempting to lead specific responses to which you have prepackaged "answers." If you actually wanted answers to anything you would read the literature I have provided, instead of continually asking for a yes/no response.

whobdamandog

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You claimed that the separate species H. neanderthalensis is the same species as H. sapiens with pathological abnormalities. You based this upon Virchow's comments made over a century ago in which he attributed the structural differences between the species to rickets, arthritis and head trauma. Neither the original specimens nor multitude of subsequent specimens, were the result of disease pathology.

You haven't provided anything other than Virchow's hundred year old comments and the view of a creationist website to support this. If you continue to assert that H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis are he same species without providing anything substantive and recent to support it then it has no validity, and you lose credibility.

H. neanderthalensis is not classified as the same species as H. sapiens (despite your unsupported claims.) H. neanderthalensis is not believed to be the progenitor species of H. sapiens, both diverged from H. heidelbergensis.

Are the Neandrathals classfied as humans, apes, or human/ape hybrids? This is a simple question X. All it requires is a simple answer.
But seeing as how you won't answer any of the questions I've asked of you directly..I'll go ahead and do it for you.

A Neandrathal is a "human" my friend.

You can babble about different "species" of human and the "credibility" of my sources all you like..but it still doesn't take away from the fact that they are indeed classified as "humans" and not apes or ape/men hybrids.

Since I can not find any disagreement with my post in your response above..I'll assume that once again you are in agreement with me. Mutations in nature are generally demonstrated as being degenerative..rather than progressive. Thus defeating the whole..."Macro Evolutionary" argument...and the entire concept of Neo-Darwinism.

I've enjoyed arguing with you X, however, it's time for me to end my participation in this thread. It's obvious that I'm not going to convice you that your theory is nothing more than another "faith" my friend, reminiscent of the doctrines of many ancient pagan cultures. Again..you have the right to believe what you like, however, I don't believe that your faith or anyone else's for that matter should be given partiality in science class, particularly in a public school setting.

-Fin