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.
You might want to go to google and research ARCHAEOPTERYX.
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.
Beyond any shadow of a doubt? I was unaware of this and would appreciate more information on these inconclusive findings which completely debunk evolution.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
Regarldess..the bible gives an account, of individuals and places that actually "existed" within history.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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".
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.
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).
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.
The question is, does a faith based belief have any place in an environment where science is being discussed?
If the answer to the above is "no"..then both the TOE and ID should be taken out of science curriculum.