Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

At the core of Intelligent Design, Molecular Biologists become acquainted with DNA. Defined loosely, DNA are blue prints (information) utilized within the cell for the task of manufacturing, much like blue prints are utilized by architects for the task of manufacturing structures- stadiums for example. Molecular Biologists are forced to ponder: Where did the information come from? When nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind did not say, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!" Intelligence is required to manufacture such a machine. Such complexity is present in all organisms, even slugs and meal worms. The big question is, however, where did the information stored in DNA come from? To better understand the complexity of organisms, let us focus on the cell. Click the hyper link below, and enlighten yourself to the automated presentation surrounding protein synthesis. Thank you.

http://www.lewport.wnyric.org/JWANAMAKER/animations/Protein%20Synthesis%20-%20long.html

Ahhh...how refreshing. Finally Intelligent Design is placed where it belongs....

IN THE RELGION FORUM

Leran some biology, learn what science is, then come back.

Originally posted by ushomefree
At the core of Intelligent Design, Molecular Biologists become acquainted with DNA. Defined loosely, DNA are blue prints (information) utilized within the cell for the task of manufacturing, much like blue prints are utilized by architects for the task of manufacturing structures- stadiums for example. Molecular Biologists are forced to ponder: Where did the information come from? When nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind did not say, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!" Intelligence is required to manufacture such a machine. Such complexity is present in all organisms, even slugs and meal worms. The big question is, however, where did the information stored in DNA come from? To better understand the complexity of organisms, let us focus on the cell. Click the hyper link below, and enlighten yourself to the automated presentation surrounding protein synthesis. Thank you.

http://www.lewport.wnyric.org/JWANAMAKER/animations/Protein%20Synthesis%20-%20long.html

If the complexity of human DNA is evidence for Intelligent Design, then how do you explain the fact that 97% of human DNA is junk? Intelligent Design, indeed.

Originally posted by ushomefree
At the core of Intelligent Design, Molecular Biologists become acquainted with DNA. Defined loosely, DNA are blue prints (information) utilized within the cell for the task of manufacturing, much like blue prints are utilized by architects for the task of manufacturing structures- stadiums for example. Molecular Biologists are forced to ponder: Where did the information come from? When nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind did not say, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!" Intelligence is required to manufacture such a machine. Such complexity is present in all organisms, even slugs and meal worms. The big question is, however, where did the information stored in DNA come from? To better understand the complexity of organisms, let us focus on the cell. Click the hyper link below, and enlighten yourself to the automated presentation surrounding protein synthesis. Thank you.

http://www.lewport.wnyric.org/JWANAMAKER/animations/Protein%20Synthesis%20-%20long.html

Woot for duplicate treads.

And the basis for your argument is garbage.

It's always amusing when a proponent Intelligent Design jumps up and says, "Because it's there it must have been on purpose!!!"

I am a believer in God, but I don't believe in the supernatural. If God did it, he could, and probably did, do it through some form of science.

Science isn't an attack on religion, why do they have to attack science? Religions should embrace science.

Religion is symbolic, science is factual... the two should not be confused.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If the complexity of human DNA is evidence for Intelligent Design, then how do you explain the fact that 97% of human DNA is junk? Intelligent Design, indeed.

You're right, but that theory is being revised. SOme stuff is porving to play more a role than we thouht.

There is still absolutly NO evidence for intelligent design.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
Religion is symbolic, science is factual... the two should not be confused.

It does not have to be, if there is a God I believe he follows a law that if we were to understand it we would term it in line with science. I do not believe in a supernatural entity. I believe in an entity that is capable of doing things that we do not understand on a level that we will probably never be able to understand. This does not mean supernatural. You could describe it as supernatural, based on what we understand at present, but I do not.

Symbolic statements do not mean non-factual, and fact does not prohibit symbolism. Anyone who denies scientific fact is a fool.

Originally posted by Regret
Anyone who denies scientific fact is a fool.

I'll drink to that.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'll drink to that.

I'll join you

cheers

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

That aside...
If our observable domain of space and time is the only one, then there is some real basis for considering that the countless constants in our spacetime, which came together to make it all work, did so via Intelligence (though not necessarily divine). Given one shot, it would be, perhaps, too much to expect from coincidence, though that possibility could not be ruled out just on principle.

But as scientists pursue unification theories, more and more it looks like our observable spacetime is not the only one; there may be an infinite number of spacetimes, each with its own set of physical laws. And given infinity to play with, sooner or later you will happen to get a spacetime that looks and behaves just like ours. It is purely a numbers game, no Intelligence need apply.

We have theories for empiricaly testing to see if these other spacetimes exist, and one day, if/when we have the technology, we will conduct those experiments.

Unfortunately, there can be no empirical test for the presence of God (defined here as intangible Spirit/Consciousness). Science itself may have to evolve one day (in terms of tools used and nature of proof) to test for God. But until then, it is best we stick with the simpler and potentially testable explanations.

Einstein didn't intend "God" to have its current reactionary meaning, he used is as sort as a mother Earth-mathematicals type god fused with this Jewish god. Sort of like the laws of Physics as God.

...similar to your ideas/current cosmologicla theory.

Yep, those are my points.

Yep, those are my points.

Originally posted by Mindship
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

That aside...
If our observable domain of space and time is the only one, then there is some real basis for considering that the countless constants in our spacetime, which came together to make it all work, did so via Intelligence (though not necessarily divine). Given one shot, it would be, perhaps, too much to expect from coincidence, though that possibility could not be ruled out just on principle.

But as scientists pursue unification theories, more and more it looks like our observable spacetime is not the only one; there may be an infinite number of spacetimes, each with its own set of physical laws. And given infinity to play with, sooner or later you will happen to get a spacetime that looks and behaves just like ours. It is purely a numbers game, no Intelligence need apply.

We have theories for empiricaly testing to see if these other spacetimes exist, and one day, if/when we have the technology, we will conduct those experiments.

Unfortunately, there can be no empirical test for the presence of God (defined here as intangible Spirit/Consciousness). Science itself may have to evolve one day (in terms of tools used and nature of proof) to test for God. But until then, it is best we stick with the simpler and potentially testable explanations.

Yeah, I'll drink to this one !!......We are only now starting to discover what lies whithin the invisible, and the powers it holds.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yeah, I'll drink to this one !!......We are only now starting to discover what lies whithin the invisible, and the powers it holds.

Erm, you're not talking about ESP and supramystical forces and the global superconscious now are you?

Originally posted by ushomefree
At the core of Intelligent Design, Molecular Biologists become acquainted with DNA. Defined loosely, DNA are blue prints (information) utilized within the cell for the task of manufacturing, much like blue prints are utilized by architects for the task of manufacturing structures- stadiums for example. Molecular Biologists are forced to ponder: Where did the information come from? When nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind did not say, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!" Intelligence is required to manufacture such a machine. Such complexity is present in all organisms, even slugs and meal worms. The big question is, however, where did the information stored in DNA come from? To better understand the complexity of organisms, let us focus on the cell. Click the hyper link below, and enlighten yourself to the automated presentation surrounding protein synthesis. Thank you.

http://www.lewport.wnyric.org/JWANAMAKER/animations/Protein%20Synthesis%20-%20long.html

In the teachings of Buddhism there is a level of awareness that is called the 8th level of consciousness. This is the place were all cause and effect (karma) is stored. This is were the intelligence of the universe lives and interacts with its self. The blue prints, as you call them, are the product of billions of years of evolution. This process is indeed intelligent, but it is not from an outside source like a Christian god. It is the universe expressing its self in the only way that a universe like ours can. We are the eyes and ears of the universe looking upon its self.

IMO the problem with the interpretation of ID as a precursor to the argument for a Christian god is that a Christian god is inherently separate from the universe. There is nothing outside of the universe. The universe is complex beyond all comprehension, and complex systems, like the universe, act in ways that seem to parallel living being. Therefore, it is not a contradiction to view the universe as a living being, while maintaining the cold reality of the universal laws of physics.

Originally posted by Alliance
Erm, you're not talking about ESP and supramystical forces and the global superconscious now are you?



Why??

Well actually It's some quantum physics theories....The invisible is not empty space....It's filled with stuff.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Why??

Well actually It's some quantum physics theories....The invisible is not empty space....It's filled with stuff.

Are you talking about nothingness?

hahaha.......Yeah, I guess I am....

but quantum foam etc is not supernatural.

Originally posted by Alliance
but quantum foam etc is not supernatural.

If you understand everything, then nothing is supernatural.

erm...yes in theory

but you can not understand everything and nto attribute what you dont understand to the supernatural.

Originally posted by Alliance
erm...yes in theory

but you can not understand everything and nto attribute what you dont understand to the supernatural.

Yes, but that leads to the idea that there is something outside of everything, and that is just stupid.

no, I'm saying something else.

ex: I don't know off hand the mathematics behind string theory, but I don't attribute that to a god.

Originally posted by Alliance
no, I'm saying something else.

ex: I don't know off hand the mathematics behind string theory, but I don't attribute that to a god.

Why not?

Originally posted by Alliance
no, I'm saying something else.

ex: I don't know off hand the mathematics behind string theory, but I don't attribute that to a god. Not "a god".......Just what is behind the creative process that seems to have some intelligence to it.

Originally posted by Alliance
no, I'm saying something else.

ex: I don't know off hand the mathematics behind string theory, but I don't attribute that to a god.

Stirng theory is just another God, only with a different name, and aspect.

while I give neither any creedence as there is no evidence directly suggesting they exist, you cannot simply dismiss them off hand and crack wit.............

spooky action at a distance. Recorded and repeated via the scientific method......still no clue as to how it occurs. Information is instantaneously (faster than the speed of light, which by all accounts nothing should move faster than) exchanged via some as yet unknown means. While the ideas of ESP or a superconcious are a bit out there as of our present understanding of the world, it is no further out there than spooky action at a distance.........something we know to be fact and still cannot explain. Any decently intelligent proponent of ESP would argue that the information is exchanged via the very same unknown means that allow the spooky action at a distance to take place. We do know there is an instantaneous form of communication that takes place of which we have no understanding of how it works. That is fact...scientific method...tested, recorded, repeated.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In the teachings of Buddhism there is a level of awareness that is called the 8th level of consciousness. This is the place were all cause and effect (karma) is stored. This is were the intelligence of the universe lives and interacts with its self. The blue prints, as you call them, are the product of billions of years of evolution. This process is indeed intelligent, but it is not from an outside source like a Christian god. It is the universe expressing its self in the only way that a universe like ours can. We are the eyes and ears of the universe looking upon its self.

IMO the problem with the interpretation of ID as a precursor to the argument for a Christian god is that a Christian god is inherently separate from the universe. There is nothing outside of the universe. The universe is complex beyond all comprehension, and complex systems, like the universe, act in ways that seem to parallel living being. Therefore, it is not a contradiction to view the universe as a living being, while maintaining the cold reality of the universal laws of physics.

Let me get this straight. So everything that exists is one large entity for Buddhists, with a centralized realm of consciousness where all the intelligence this large entity encompasses exists? Like some sort of brain? It seems that your argument is only a statement that the universe, viewed as a living thing, could have evolved as it has, and so that view is correct. Also that this process fits with your personal beliefs and so is more probable than the creationist view, which you do not fit with your beliefs. Is this an accurate summation?

Plants grow, it is a natural process. I plant a flower in my yard that did not exist there previously. The flower spreads and is found in various yards in the neighborhood, as well as in untended areas of the environment surrounding the neighborhood. I then move, and you move into the area. You assume that this flower has, at some point in time, come to grow there with out a persons direction, through inference based on the fact that the flower exists in many yards as well as in the wild areas around. You could probably find a scientific reason for its existence that takes me the gardener out of the picture. But the fact is I planted it there. An entity creating things is not a larger jump than assuming that I planted the flower. While I appreciate the need for proof, there is no proof that an external entity did or did not aid in the development of our universe. I believe that planting a flower and the flower growing can be explained scientifically. Why could the method used in a creationist stance not be explained scientifically?

Evil Dead....action at a distance can be explained by quatum mech and sypersymmetry. A though is an electrucal impulse (with our current understanding). In order to get the same thought (and this is way out there and sketchy) You would have to have a series of suppersymetric electons traveing the same path in the brain, but also, the one's person's brain would have to be formed exactly as the others. This is most likely close to impossible, considering each brain forms its own connections. ESP is not credible.

Originally posted by Regret
Given the size of the universe, it would seem a poor assumption that more scientifically advanced entities do not exist.
This is a facinating point. Odds are totally in favor of millions of planets in our galazy having life. The issue here is contact. To send/recieve/return a message take literally forever and interstellar travel has so many physical barriers to overcome, the likelyhood that you would actually contact one of these alien entities is very low.

Originally posted by Regret
I believe that there is a high probability that my views could fit with a mainstream Christian view in regards to creation and intelligent design.

The mainstream Christian view is that creation/intelligent desing are true.

Originally posted by Regret
...I am curious as to the assumed principles of Christianity that do not mix well with science. I may have differing views on these principles due to my stance as a Mormon. I believe that there is a high probability that my views could fit with a mainstream Christian view in regards to creation and intelligent design.

One main point would be that the bible is fact. So, the Earth is only 6,000 years old and it was once covered with water during that period. Both points are not supported by scientific evidence.

Originally posted by Alliance
This is a facinating point. Odds are totally in favor of millions of planets in our galazy having life. The issue here is contact. To send/recieve/return a message take literally forever and interstellar travel has so many physical barriers to overcome, the likelyhood that you would actually contact one of these alien entities is very low.

This is assuming that another, intelligent entity could not move faster than we are aware of. I believe that even 100 years ago men would have stated that it was impossible to travel around the world in the time it takes us to do so now. For us to say something is impossible, is making the same fundamental error that held science back during the dark ages. Just because we seem to have come to a ceiling as to rate of speed, it does not mean that there is not something we do not understand that could decrease time requirements on all forms of travel. The world at one time was flat according to science. Everything revolved around the earth at one point in scientific understanding. Just because we are more advanced does not make it impossible for us to be ignorant all the same. Contact may be more probable than we anticipate at our current level of scientific advancement.

Originally posted by Regret
I am curious as to the assumed principles of Christianity that do not mix well with science. I may have differing views on these principles due to my stance as a Mormon. I believe that there is a high probability that my views could fit with a mainstream Christian view in regards to creation and intelligent design.

Originally posted by Alliance
The mainstream Christian view is that creation/intelligent desing are true.

I do not believe that Shaky was referring to creation/intelligent design. I assume he is referring to aspects of Christianity that do not mesh well with science and are intrinsic portions of our views on creation/intelligent design

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
One main point would be that the bible is fact. Both points are not supported by scientific evidence.

Assuming that the Bible is not fact does not disprove creation or intelligent design. Your attack would be on Christianity and Judaism. The assumption that it is or is not fact is the same as assuming no creation/intelligent design based on the Christian God because you do not believe in one. It isn't evidence, and does not in and of itself mean that it did not occur in that manner.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, the Earth is only 6,000 years old and it was once covered with water during that period.

The issue here is time. I believe that the theory of relativity makes it clear that time is relative to the subjects involved. If God traveled in some manner that man could understand during creation, then it is possible that creation took any amount of time during creation relative to the Earth from the Earths relative frame of reference. Also stating that on any given "Day" things were created can be a reference to God's frame of reference during the periods of creation, since the belief is that he stated the manner of creation that exists in the Bible. Time does not reflect an inaccuracy in the text of the Bible, just not a reliable measure of the time required during creation from our frame of reference.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Both points are not supported by scientific evidence.

The Bible's accuracy is not disproved by science, it merely is not proved thus far by science.

The time example does seem to be supported by science, if God moved objects that were unable to move at an instantaneous rate. Often in the bible it states that in the form that something earthly exists it is unable to do things that God is able to do. It is possible that the materials he used in creating the earth were also unable to attain the level that God exists at, and therefore God took a mortal time in creation that would require following our scientific requirements on travel.

Originally posted by Regret
Assuming that the Bible is not fact does not disprove creation or intelligent design. Your attack would be on Christianity and Judaism. The assumption that it is or is not fact is the same as assuming no creation/intelligent design based on the Christian God because you do not believe in one. It isn't evidence, and does not in and of itself mean that it did not occur in that manner.



The issue here is time. I believe that the theory of relativity makes it clear that time is relative to the subjects involved. If God traveled in some manner that man could understand during creation, then it is possible that creation took any amount of time during creation relative to the Earth from the Earths relative frame of reference. Also stating that on any given "Day" things were created can be a reference to God's frame of reference during the periods of creation, since the belief is that he stated the manner of creation that exists in the Bible. Time does not reflect an inaccuracy in the text of the Bible, just not a reliable measure of the time required during creation from our frame of reference.



The Bible's accuracy is not disproved by science, it merely is not proved thus far by science.

The time example does seem to be supported by science, if God moved objects that were unable to move at an instantaneous rate. Often in the bible it states that in the form that something earthly exists it is unable to do things that God is able to do. It is possible that the materials he used in creating the earth were also unable to attain the level that God exists at, and therefore God took a mortal time in creation that would require following our scientific requirements on travel.

I am not attacking anyone.

You are interpreting the bible fugitively and are opened to the possibility of other interpretations. This is not the kind of mind set was talking about.

Originally posted by Regret
Let me get this straight. So everything that exists is one large entity for Buddhists, with a centralized realm of consciousness where all the intelligence this large entity encompasses exists? Like some sort of brain? It seems that your argument is only a statement that the universe, viewed as a living thing, could have evolved as it has, and so that view is correct. Also that this process fits with your personal beliefs and so is more probable than the creationist view, which you do not fit with your beliefs. Is this an accurate summation?

That is not a Buddhist belief, it is a personal belief of Shakyamunison.



Originally posted by Regret
Assuming that the Bible is not fact does not disprove creation or intelligent design.

Considering that Creation Science is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, yes it does.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is not a Buddhist belief, it is a personal belief of Shakyamunison...

I'm sorry, I usually make that clear, but I didn't in this thread.

My beliefs are my own, they are a reflection of what I have learned from Christianity and Buddhism with my own life experience thrown in, but in no way should they ever be confused with the pure teachings of Buddha.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Considering that Creation Science is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, yes it does.

A creation theory of development does not necessarily need to incorporate the Bible. I probably should have used the term intelligent design. Assuming that the Bible is not fact does not disprove intelligent design, just Biblical creationism. Intelligent design would to me be the equivalent to the agnostic stance, "something created it, could have been a god"


Thanks for the clarification on the Buddhist belief mistake. I know a little about Buddhism, but not enough to know if someone is stating their belief or the Buddhist belief.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not attacking anyone.

I am sorry I did not mean attack in a negative sense. I view statements like these to be a debate. If you state a stance opposing another view I typically term it an attack, it could also be a defense.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are interpreting the bible fugitively and are opened to the possibility of other interpretations. This is not the kind of mind set was talking about.

I am unsure as to your meaning in the phrase "interpreting the bible fugitively." Could you clarify the meaning of this phrase?

I am not mainstream Christian, I am Mormon. I also would probably be considered very open-minded as to interpretation compared to the majority of people that believe the Bible.

Mormons should suspect religious beliefs that conflict with science, although we do take a highly skeptical stance as to anything reliant only on inference from other information, no matter the degree of certainty involved.

Originally posted by ushomefree
At the core of Intelligent Design, Molecular Biologists become acquainted with DNA. Defined loosely, DNA are blue prints (information) utilized within the cell for the task of manufacturing, much like blue prints are utilized by architects for the task of manufacturing structures- stadiums for example. Molecular Biologists are forced to ponder: Where did the information come from? When nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind did not say, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!" Intelligence is required to manufacture such a machine. Such complexity is present in all organisms, even slugs and meal worms. The big question is, however, where did the information stored in DNA come from? To better understand the complexity of organisms, let us focus on the cell. Click the hyper link below, and enlighten yourself to the automated presentation surrounding protein synthesis. Thank you.

http://www.lewport.wnyric.org/JWANAMAKER/animations/Protein%20Synthesis%20-%20long.html


Don't waste your time, no one's gonna make an intelligent rebuttal to your argument.

Originally posted by Regret
I am sorry I did not mean attack in a negative sense. I view statements like these to be a debate. If you state a stance opposing another view I typically term it an attack, it could also be a defense.

Cool.

Originally posted by Regret
I am unsure as to your meaning in the phrase "interpreting the bible fugitively." Could you clarify the meaning of this phrase?

I will try: some people read the bible and take what is written literally, you are not one of these people. Did that help?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Don't waste your time, no one's gonna make an intelligent rebuttal to your argument.

Here is a rebuttal:

Information in the sense that you are describing is material, DNA. Material is copied, via the DNA splitting and combining with other material. Where did it come from? At some point in time what we refer to as a cell evolved into a cell from something else. DNA is not that complex, it is just small. If you look at one individual gene, it is not complex in itself, the sequence, given its size is complex. DNA in itself is not complex, it is complex when compared to the number of possible variations. Intelligent Design theory is saying this, "Oh look at that arrangement of stars, it is so complex, God must have done it" when in reality there are simple gravitational principles that control their arrangement. They claim complexity from our frame of reference, and from the difficulty they have in comprehending the subject they look at. Or else they see that man behaved in the same way as his physiology does and say "look I did a similar thing as my molecular physiology does, some entity must have done what I did to start all this." Maybe when nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind should have said, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I will try: some people read the bible and take what is written literally, you are not one of these people. Did that help?

Yep, wasn't sure if it was saying I had done something in conflict with the Bible. Thanks.

Originally posted by Regret
Here is a rebuttal:

Information in the sense that you are describing is material, DNA. Material is copied, via the DNA splitting and combining with other material. Where did it come from? At some point in time what we refer to as a cell evolved into a cell from something else. DNA is not that complex, it is just small. If you look at one individual gene, it is not complex in itself, the sequence, given its size is complex. DNA in itself is not complex, it is complex when compared to the number of possible variations. Intelligent Design theory is saying this, "Oh look at that arrangement of stars, it is so complex, God must have done it" when in reality there are simple gravitational principles that control their arrangement. They claim complexity from our frame of reference, and from the difficulty they have in comprehending the subject they look at. Or else they see that man behaved in the same way as his physiology does and say "look I did a similar thing as my molecular physiology does, some entity must have done what I did to start all this." Maybe when nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind should have said, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!"

Perhaps I should just have stated that ignorance of origin and complexity do not equal Intelligent Design being a necessary possibility.

as of 2001.....it had yet to be explained. Exactly how the information is transferred nor how it does so instantaneously. A quick google search gives me the impression that in the 5 years since I attended a physics course, no new information has been gained.

It's off-topic of this thread so if you could please PM me the names of the published papers in which this mystery was solved so I can read up on it or atleast a link to some reputable over-view of the findings I would be eternally greatful.

I'll see what I can find on it.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Don't waste your time, no one's gonna make an intelligent rebuttal to your argument.
I'd like to see anyone make an intelligent argument for Intelligent design. I'd be happy to invalidate every one of thier points.

Originally posted by Regret
Here is a rebuttal:

Information in the sense that you are describing is material, DNA. Material is copied, via the DNA splitting and combining with other material. Where did it come from? At some point in time what we refer to as a cell evolved into a cell from something else. DNA is not that complex, it is just small. If you look at one individual gene, it is not complex in itself, the sequence, given its size is complex. DNA in itself is not complex, it is complex when compared to the number of possible variations. Intelligent Design theory is saying this, "Oh look at that arrangement of stars, it is so complex, God must have done it" when in reality there are simple gravitational principles that control their arrangement. They claim complexity from our frame of reference, and from the difficulty they have in comprehending the subject they look at. Or else they see that man behaved in the same way as his physiology does and say "look I did a similar thing as my molecular physiology does, some entity must have done what I did to start all this." Maybe when nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind should have said, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!"

That was wrong in some-many ways, intelligent design claims that intelligence begets intelligence and that systems less complex cannot produce systems more complex. you say a cell evolved from something else but will never explain where the traits make it become different originated.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
That was wrong in some-many ways, intelligent design claims that intelligence begets intelligence and that systems less complex cannot produce systems more complex.

Systems less complex cannot produce systems more complex. This is a false statement. The brain cavity of early human specimens is smaller than that of humans today. This, shows that the brain of the human has evolved to a larger size. If the brain is larger, then the neural network must be more complex by virtue of mere mass. If the brain is now more complex than it once was then we have already shown that this statement is false. Also, humans have shown more intelligence with nearly every generation during the past century.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
you say a cell evolved from something else but will never explain where the traits make it become different originated.

You are committing a logical fallacy of distraction. Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

You are saying because the initial form is unknown that it did not exist.

Humans invented quantum mechanics....THAT is an example of a less complex system begetting a more complex one.

Species are very dynamic. We have obsevered species overcoming natural challenges and they become more complex for it.

Originally posted by Regret
Systems less complex cannot produce systems more complex. This is a false statement. The brain cavity of early human specimens is smaller than that of humans today. This, shows that the brain of the human has evolved to a larger size. If the brain is larger, then the neural network must be more complex by virtue of mere mass. If the brain is now more complex than it once was then we have already shown that this statement is false. Also, humans have shown more intelligence with nearly every generation during the past century.



You are committing a logical fallacy of distraction. Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

You are saying because the initial form is unknown that it did not exist.

What? Less complex systems produce more complex systems all the time. When water freezes it goes from a liquid to a solid and a solid is more complex then a liquid.

Now is that the production of a new system or behavior exhibited by an existing system?

I think its the latter.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? Less complex systems produce more complex systems all the time. When water freezes it goes from a liquid to a solid and a solid is more complex then a liquid.

I think he is referring to what I would term living organisms. But then I'd assume that a purely scientific theory would have to explain the mutation from non-living to living, and I don't know enough about that type of topic to make any guesses there.

So worm to centipede, etc.

Originally posted by Regret
I think he is referring to what I would term living organisms. But then I'd assume that a purely scientific theory would have to explain the mutation from non-living to living, and I don't know enough about that type of topic to make any guesses there.

So worm to centipede, etc.

OK laying eggs to live born.

The Platypus; an animal that lays eggs in a pouch.

http://www.genevaschools.org/austinbg/class/gray/platypus/

remember not to get caught up in superficial complexities, like the number of legs.

Originally posted by Regret
Systems less complex cannot produce systems more complex. This is a false statement. The brain cavity of early human specimens is smaller than that of humans today. This, shows that the brain of the human has evolved to a larger size. If the brain is larger, then the neural network must be more complex by virtue of mere mass. If the brain is now more complex than it once was then we have already shown that this statement is false. Also, humans have shown more intelligence with nearly every generation during the past century.






Here we going again evolutionist drawing a conclusion based on what they see not what they tested.


Originally posted by Regret




You are committing a logical fallacy of distraction. Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

You are saying because the initial form is unknown that it did not exist.

And your jumping to conclusions, I asked a question. Where do these traits come from?

HELLO! Intelligent Design has neither tested nor seen NOTHING!

Originally posted by Alliance
HELLO! Intelligent Design has neither tested nor seen NOTHING!

Typical responce from flukist, seems you can't even make an arguement or answer questions.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Typical responce from flukist, seems you can't even make an arguement or answer questions.

Your questions have too many assumptions.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your questions have too many assumptions.


I asked a question I didn't assume nothing

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Here we going again evolutionist drawing a conclusion based on what they see not what they tested.

And your jumping to conclusions, I asked a question. Where do these traits come from?

Point one: I am a firm creationist.

Point two: Intelligent design is based on lack of knowledge from the statements you have made. We don't know, so intelligent design.

Point three: Conclusions based on what they see, not what they tested? Give me a break. Evolution happens, period. If God didn't use it, it still happens. It has been tested. The gray peppered moth is an example of simple evolution, observed and tested. Peter and rosemary Grant with the Finches showed simple forms of evolution as well. Measurements of the cavity in the skull are differing in size, significantly between ancient and modern skulls, tested. What type of testing is necessary?

Point four: Where do these traits come from? So you aren't asking if I know the origin of the traits then? You are committing argumentum ad ignorantiam. Lack of knowledge doesn't mean anything, that's what drives science.

Science is the exploration of knowledge. An intelligent design could be that knowledge............Science = knowledge.

Originally posted by Regret
Point one: I am a firm creationist.



Congrats!

Originally posted by Regret

Point two: Intelligent design is based on lack of knowledge from the statements you have made. We don't know, so intelligent design.


There are a ton of intelligent Design threads, if you want facts use the search function and look it up.


Originally posted by Regret

Point three: Conclusions based on what they see, not what they tested? Give me a break. Evolution happens, period. If God didn't use it, it still happens. It has been tested. The gray peppered moth is an example of simple evolution, observed and tested. Peter and rosemary Grant with the Finches showed simple forms of evolution as well. Measurements of the cavity in the skull are differing in size, significantly between ancient and modern skulls, tested. What type of testing is necessary?




The grey peppered moth is the my favorite example you flukist use, light tone moths were a majority of the grey peppered moth population while dark toned were the minority. soot from factories darkened the trees that they perched on causing the light ones to stand out and become easy prey. decades later dark tone moths become the majority because of they match the darkened tree's and because of that flukist draw a conclusion. problem is all that took place was natural selection one variation of grey peppered moths decreased while the other increased because it was less likely to be eaten ( Dark tone moth's) and that's evolution to you guy's it's ridicules.


Originally posted by Regret


Point four: Where do these traits come from? So you aren't asking if I know the origin of the traits then? You are committing argumentum ad ignorantiam. Lack of knowledge doesn't mean anything, that's what drives science.


I'm asking a question I didn't say it doesn't happen, your avoiding it( I'm not surprised)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
There are a ton of intelligent Design threads, if you want facts use the search function and look it up.

I wasn't attacking those threads, I was attacking yours. I wasn't looking for other threads to define your position, I am using your first post as the statement of debate.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
The grey peppered moth is the my favorite example you flukist use, light tone moths were a majority of the grey peppered moth population while dark toned were the minority. soot from factories darkened the trees that they perched on causing the light ones to stand out and become easy prey. decades later dark tone moths become the majority because of they match the darkened tree's and because of that flukist draw a conclusion. problem is all that took place was natural selection one variation of grey peppered moths decreased while the other increased because it was less likely to be eaten ( Dark tone moth's) and that's evolution to you guy's it's ridicules.

Have your read the fox farm experiment? Trut N.L. (1999). Early canid domestication: The farm-fox experiment. They bred foxes based on dog-like behavior (i.e. least fearful or aggressive toward people.) Those that did not fit were taken out of this population. Over a several generations the foxes behaved more and more like dogs, and less like foxes. Also, the foxes became more dog-like in appearance, floppy ears, upturned tails, and mottled color patterns, not much like foxes. There are plenty of examples of evolution. There isn't strong support in the scientific community for the idea that evolution did not and does not happen, due to the evidence supporting it opposition is dying. The majority of opposition are religious individuals that have to stand against it just to hold their religion up. It happens, arguments against it are wasted any more, I won't bother defending it, do research and the evidence can support itself.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I'm asking a question I didn't say it doesn't happen, your avoiding it( I'm not surprised)

I didn't avoid it, I don't know. Your statement is that since we don't know, intelligent design. Due to our advances in biology thus far, it would follow that further advances will answer your question. Due to the pattern of advances, it would be illogical to assume that the fact that we don't know leads to intelligent design being a viable option.

Evolution is fact. Its Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as the mechanism for evolution that might be in the slightest bit attackable.

Intlligent design is not a vailable alternative. Until it starts providing testable hypothesis, its a bunch of cockamanie priests and religious right-wingers trying to stamp out intelligent thought and reinstate relgion as the founding conscious of society.

Originally posted by Alliance
Evolution is fact. Its Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as the mechanism for evolution that might be in the slightest bit attackable.

Intlligent design is not a vailable alternative. Until it starts providing testable hypothesis, its a bunch of cockamamie priests and religious right-wingers trying to stamp out intelligent thought and reinstate relgion as the founding conscious of society.

I do agree with you to a point, but as a religious right-winger (OK, maybe not right-wing, but religious) I have to say that I figure evolution was just the means to creation. Intelligent design theorists are cockamamie crackpots who want to say "look your wrong, something actually did it, wasn't science that did." I figure God took a few somethings in a petri dish, we'll call it earth, and let them grow for a while, then he took and killed some off and let them grow, killed some more off, always being careful to kill off ones that didn't have the physiological aspects he was looking for, until he had a something he wanted on earth. He then repeated the process a few times, then let everything loose. Science isn't that big a deal to religion if your religion can accept the fact that God probably didn't waste power on big creations like "Bam! there's a creeping thing!", and then " BaBam!!!! there's a bigger creeping thing!" If it's possible God used science then science isn't a threat to religion. It's when science defies your beliefs about God that there's the crackpot saying "booo, bad science, booo" (and if you saw the Princess Bride, I'm hearing the old lady in Buttercups dream as the voice here )

Guess I'm just saying it doesn't have to be an alternative in my opinion

I certainly agree with you. There's nothing wrong with having faith, but evolution a fact. Thats why I said religous and right-winged

Its those who proclude evolution on the grounds of faith that I have issues with.

Originally posted by Alliance
I certainly agree with you. There's nothing wrong with having faith, but evolution a fact. Thats why I said religous and right-winged

Its those who proclude evolution on the grounds of faith that I have issues with.

Amen to that

HAIL BROTHA!

You didn't push the activation button did you????

Though I don't see why evolution cannot go hand and hand with an intelligence.

Originally posted by debbiejo
You didn't push the activation button did you????

Though I don't see why evolution cannot go hand and hand with an intelligence.

Dear ol' debbiejo commenting on 'Intelligent Design' serves as an example that it absolutely doesn't exist.

Great stuff.

...........It's too early here for me to talk to you..........

I have a different interpretation of what "Intelligent Design" is......

I live outside of all the boxes...........lol

*goes and gets coffee*

here is my reply from a thread in the general discussion forum a few weeks back........start invalidating......

Originally posted by Evil Dead
here is my reply from a thread in the general discussion forum a few weeks back........start invalidating......

Great post...

I agree with you 110%, however, the ID people will either ignore your post or make some stupid insulting remark showing that they didn't even read it. ID has nothing to do with what you described; it has nothing to do with intelligent design. ID is a way to get Christianity into the schools, but you already knew that; I'm just agreeing with you.

Originally posted by Regret
I wasn't attacking those threads, I was attacking yours. I wasn't looking for other threads to define your position, I am using your first post as the statement of debate.


Turning this into a debate is a worst case scenario in this community.

Originally posted by Regret

Have your read the fox farm experiment? Trut N.L. (1999). Early canid domestication: The farm-fox experiment. They bred foxes based on dog-like behavior (i.e. least fearful or aggressive toward people.) Those that did not fit were taken out of this population. Over a several generations the foxes behaved more and more like dogs, and less like foxes. Also, the foxes became more dog-like in appearance, floppy ears, upturned tails, and mottled color patterns, not much like foxes. There are plenty of examples of evolution. There isn't strong support in the scientific community for the idea that evolution did not and does not happen, due to the evidence supporting it opposition is dying. The majority of opposition are religious individuals that have to stand against it just to hold their religion up. It happens, arguments against it are wasted any more, I won't bother defending it, do research and the evidence can support itself..

I've done research, evolution is riddled with in doctrine and hoaxes ( piltdownman, pig toe, etc)


Originally posted by Regret

I didn't avoid it, I don't know. Your statement is that since we don't know, intelligent design. Due to our advances in biology thus far, it would follow that further advances will answer your question. Due to the pattern of advances, it would be illogical to assume that the fact that we don't know leads to intelligent design being a viable option.

Here comes another one , don't ASS-U-ME that I just ask you a question.

Not all advocates of ID try to justify a diety, I dunno how many times I've said this.



Again ignorance, I've showed you that the origin of ID does not stem from religion, it's philosophy.




You flukist love to be on your high horse, everytime I post eveidence of ID you can't even offer a rebuttal. you just throw it off.


It's improbable not impossible.




ID doesn't focus on the designer rather the design. and not all theist belive the universe was created.



Like I said before. not all IDers believe the universe was created.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Turning this into a debate is a worst case scenario in this community.

What? Any thread in a forum of this type is a debate, look at them.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I've done research, evolution is riddled with in doctrine and hoaxes ( piltdownman, pig toe, etc)

Piltdown man had for some time become regarded as an aberration that was entirely inconsistent with the mainstream thrust of human evolution as demonstrated by fossil hominids found elsewhere. The identity of the Piltdown forger remains unknown. The finger of suspicion has been pointed at Dawson, Woodward, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (who worked at the site in 1913 with Dawson and discovered a tooth) and even the name of Arthur Conan Doyle has been mentioned, among many others.

I am unaware of the pig toe example, and was unable to find reference on-line for it.

Sounds a bit like religion in general to me, big difference though, evolutionary hoaxes are generally generated by the non-scientific community, are rather small in number compared to religious hoaxes, and most often pointed out by the evolution based scientists. Also, scientists frequently do not agree with them, as shown by the pitdown man example. Religious hoaxes are frequently perpetuated by mass belief in them.


Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Here comes another one , don't ASS-U-ME that I just ask you a question.

ROFLMAO



Whatever

Edit

thanks for fixing it.

Originally posted by Regret




Piltdown man had for some time become regarded as an aberration that was entirely inconsistent with the mainstream thrust of human evolution as demonstrated by fossil hominids found elsewhere. The identity of the Piltdown forger remains unknown. The finger of suspicion has been pointed at Dawson, Woodward, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (who worked at the site in 1913 with Dawson and discovered a tooth) and even the name of Arthur Conan Doyle has been mentioned, among many others.

I am unaware of the pig toe example, and was unable to find reference on-line for it.

Sounds a bit like religion in general to me, big difference though, evolutionary hoaxes are generally generated by the non-scientific community, are rather small in number compared to religious hoaxes, and most often pointed out by the evolution based scientists. Also, scientists frequently do not agree with them, as shown by the pitdown man example. Religious hoaxes are frequently perpetuated by mass belief in them.






Wow that's BS,hoaxes like heckels fake drawings which were used for 100 years was propagated by the scientific community.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why did you post ED's post like this? You should have quoted it.

He fixed it

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Wow that's BS,hoaxes like heckels fake drawings which were used for 100 years was propagated by the scientific community.

They were not used for 100 years, he admitted the hoax and was expelled from his university. This was not 100 years after the hoax. Scientists today do not rely on Heckel to support evolution.

Originally posted by Regret
They were not used for 100 years, he admitted the hoax and was expelled from his university. This was not 100 years after the hoax. Scientists today do not rely on Heckel to support evolution.

His sketches were found in text books even till this day what are you talking about?

I see this thing is still going on, when will they learn the difference between science and bullshit that's made up as we go along?

Originally posted by lord xyz
I see this thing is still going on, when will they learn the difference between science and bullshit that's made up as we go along?

When will you shut up

When will you learn?

And thats your answer.

Why doesn't anyone quote me.............gosh........it's my birthday..........

Originally posted by debbiejo
Why doesn't anyone quote me.............gosh........it's my birthday..........

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
His sketches were found in text books even till this day what are you talking about?

Woot, I still see crap like intelligent design mentioned in textbooks and given about the same amount of credibility as the sketches, guess they publish just about anything in a text book Text Books aren't proof show me the current respected journal article that uses heckel's sketches as a source.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Why doesn't anyone quote me.............gosh........it's my birthday..........

Because we're not worthy notworthy, and Happy Pre-B-Day!!!!!!!!!!

There, better?

Originally posted by Regret
Because we're not worthy notworthy, and Happy B-Day!!!!!!!!!!

It's not here Birthday, that's tomorrow.

Well I'm busy tomorrow,,,,,..............so, it's today...........hahahaha

Originally posted by Regret
Woot, I still see crap like intelligent design mentioned in textbooks and given about the same amount of credibility as the sketches, guess they publish just about anything in a text book Text Books aren't proof show me the current respected journal article that uses heckel's sketches as a source.

Intelligent design isn't a hoax, like heckels fake sketches.
And how are text books not proof their documented?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Intelligent design isn't a hoax, like heckels fake sketches.
And how are text books not proof their documented?

Text books aren't always peer reviewed. If you have proof that the textbooks you refer to are peer reviewed I'd like to see it.

Originally posted by Regret
Text books aren't always peer reviewed. If you have proof that the textbooks you refer to are peer reviewed I'd like to see it.

so what your saying is a journal is usually more reliable then a textbook

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
so what your saying is a journal is usually more reliable then a textbook

Yes. Textbooks vary in reliability. Some suck, some don't. Even journals sometimes suffer in reliability. Proper journal articles are peer reviewed by 5-20 professors in a given field. There is less chance of crap getting into a journal.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Why doesn't anyone quote me.............gosh........it's my birthday..........
I just did.

happybday, tomorrow
...and many more!

Originally posted by Mindship
I just did.

happybday, tomorrow
...and many more!

10 mins. to go.................yep yep yep!!!

band

Thanks Mindship........always respected your views too........

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
so what your saying is a journal is usually more reliable then a textbook

Yes. This is very true. Most texbooks cite published journals, but not always.

Just goes to show maybe you should learn more before critiquing science.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes. This is very true. Most texbooks cite published journals, but not always.

Just goes to show maybe you should learn more before critiquing science.

I'm not critiquing science just the community.
and if most textbooks cite journals then my is proven. it was a hoax for 100 years.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I'm not critiquing science just the community.
and if most textbooks cite journals then my is proven. it was a hoax for 100 years.

Yes, it was a hoax. You need to show the textbook's presentation as well as any text accompanying it. I can't believe that a decent textbook does not address the hoax if it is showing his sketches, unless of course the textbook is not citing references properly. If such a sketch is in a textbook without addressing it I would seriously suspect the information in it. The research done for such a text is incomplete, and would not pass a proper peer review.

Here's a paper from richardson in 1997 "Anatomy and embryology
http://www.mk-richardson.com/PDFs/Anat%20Embryol.pdf

Alright, now just to be clear I agreed that Heckel was a hoax.

I am unsure as to the purpose of your quote. It states that scientists proved Heckel wrong in 1868. It also states that some textbooks used them into the 1990's. It does not state how many textbooks used it.

I took a number of biology, physiology, human physiology, and evolution classes while doing my University work. I have never seen Heckel's sketches. I would assume that if the sketches were widespread I would have seen them. The most I ever heard in classes was one mention of Heckel and his drawings being fraudulent. I never read about Heckel in my texts, the one class was all I ever heard.

Biogenetic law does not refer to the process of evolution, it refers to an organism displaying characteristics of species it evolved from during emryonic maturation.

Originally posted by Regret
Alright, now just to be clear I agreed that Heckel was a hoax.

I am unsure as to the purpose of your quote. It states that scientists proved Heckel wrong in 1868. It also states that some textbooks used them into the 1990's. It does not state how many textbooks used it.



It also said until 1950's heckels drawings was final removed from most textbooks.

Alright, now just to be clear I agreed that Heckel was a hoax.

I am still unsure as to the purpose of your quote.

Originally posted by Regret
Alright, now just to be clear I agreed that Heckel was a hoax.

I am still unsure as to the purpose of your quote.

The purpose was to show you it was a hoax that was used for roughly 100 years.

And my point is a number of hoaxes have been created to futher evolution.

more hoaxes have been created to further relgion.

There was an abundance of proof that explained evolution by natural selection. THe entire basis of evolution was not based off of Heckel.

It wan't untill around the 1950s that evolution really became prominent basic sicentific textbooxs anyway if I remember correctly.

Intelligence doesn't need to have a person behind it..........Intelligence can be it's own entity.

no.

Sure it can...............what box are you living in??

not yours

Get a bigeer one.................

I live in a sphere, the box was nice and all, but it's way to open, all those angles to consider.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Get a bigeer one.................

Mine is bigger...than yours

Originally posted by Alliance
Mine is bigger...than yours Ok, but mine has no walls.............

then by definition its not a box.....





























then.......





















your a LIAR

then it isnt a box

correction...I thought she said she was in a box.

She did not.

Therefore, I say that debbie is merely unaware of the box she exists in.

nope. a Box as preconcieved ideas, ie walls......D

i know...but I disagree. We all think in boxes (hypothetically)

Are you sure??

Yes. Everyone is limited in their thinking to some degree.

Only a god would say that ya know..........

What are you implying

I think you know.......

We are all part of what it is..........

Originally posted by debbiejo
I think you know.......

We are all part of what it is..........

We are part of the intelligent part of the universe.

WE'RE GODS!!!!

I think im the one true god.

but shakya is right.

Well, shaky and I agree...........so you are also agreeing???

I'm not saying we are actually gods.....I'm saying we are part of this intelligence........which makes us whatever it is..........

yupo

Whoa............

*orders a Long Island Ice Tea*

as long as the intelligence is human and not a god/invisible power. Its all brain cells baby.

Originally posted by Alliance
as long as the intelligence is human and not a god/invisible power. Its all brain cells baby.

How do you know what's in the invisible...........*runs upstairs to grab quantum books*.........

ok, wrong word...nothing spiritual...just raw human power.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Huh, by chance could you give me the names of the observers? Because the fossils say NO!

I've observed (micro)evolution. and fossils absolutely say yes. Care to grace us with your amazing knowledge that no one else in science has?

Originally posted by Alliance
I've observed (micro)evolution. and fossils absolutely say yes. Care to grace us with your amazing knowledge that no one else in science has?

Where are all the transitional fossils Alliance? They seem to be missing for some reason? I don't means the "Might Bee's) I mean the millions that show the transitions from one specie to another?

Alliance,

I think you might like this thread huh? Great! When you come up with all the transitional fossils in the fossil record showing the vertical evolution you believe in could you e-mail me say maybe....2?

The Creationist: "There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record."

The Evolutionists:
Sources:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
Response:

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

Thanks Omega, but don't wast your time. Let JBF post his evidence that "fossils don't prove evolution"

He probably doesnt eve realize that more things than fossil records prove evolution as well as Darwins Theory of natural selection.

Originally posted by The Omega
The Creationist: "There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record."


1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.



The re-definition of the word "transitional", is a code word for "re-interpretation". This is common among cultists and those who want to mislead. The Darwinian concept of "Vertical Evolution" is unseen and upon close observation of any of these so called, "Transitional Fossils" a person would discover it's D.O.A.

I agree with Dr. Morris.

I continue to be facinated by the theory held by those in this camp that "Something Came From Nothing"

Originally posted by The Omega
The Creationist: "There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record."

The Evolutionists:
Sources:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
Response:

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

I am also sure that Dr. Morris and his team has observed some of these claims and has concluded they again are a far stretch of the imagination to disprove creationism.

Originally posted by Alliance
Thanks Omega, but don't wast your time. Let JBF post his evidence that "fossils don't prove evolution"

He probably doesnt eve realize that more things than fossil records prove evolution as well as Darwins Theory of natural selection.

Alliance,

There are many ways to prove there is a creator and not random chance. The fossil record is huge and I will stay with you and Omega on this. Stay posted friends...because if the fossils don't show proven transitions from one specie to another (Wing to arm, fish to land animal and all the nonsense described by this Theory) the whole Evolution theory is dead.

OK...lets see it. You vs me.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Alliance,

I think you might like this thread huh? Great! When you come up with all the transitional fossils in the fossil record showing the vertical evolution you believe in could you e-mail me say maybe....2?



Originally posted by Alliance
Thanks Omega, but don't wast your time. Let JBF post his evidence that "fossils don't prove evolution"

He probably doesnt eve realize that more things than fossil records prove evolution as well as Darwins Theory of natural selection.

Don't worry I just love to toss some hard facts and evidence in teh ring when Creationists whine about "no proof"...

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I am also sure that Dr. Morris and his team has observed some of these claims and has concluded they again are a far stretch of the imagination to disprove creationism.

Soooo... You've just been cornered, dear. A long list of transitional fossils showing evolutions.
And the BEST you can do is whine and say is does NOT disprove Creationism???
It's not MY job or Dr. Morris job to DISPROVE your theory, dear. It is YOUR job to give us the slightest tiniest smallest fragmental piece of evidence to show anything that even remotely resembles intelligent design/Creation.
I've debated this with many here at KMC. NO ONE has shown me ANY evidence... Maybe you can???

Originally posted by The Omega
Don't worry I just love to toss some hard facts and evidence in teh ring when Creationists whine about "no proof"...



Soooo... You've just been cornered, dear. A long list of transitional fossils showing evolutions.
And the BEST you can do is whine and say is does NOT disprove Creationism???
It's not MY job or Dr. Morris job to DISPROVE your theory, dear. It is YOUR job to give us the slightest tiniest smallest fragmental piece of evidence to show anything that even remotely resembles intelligent design/Creation.
I've debated this with many here at KMC. NO ONE has shown me ANY evidence... Maybe you can???

Maybe Ta...Ta for now. Be seated when we discuss the discovery of the D.N.A. and it's unrefuted proof. Be seated and ready on this....better get your guns loaded....

Originally posted by Alliance
OK...lets see it. You vs me.

Yeah, I am on the EDGE of my seat here, too... Evidence of Creationism???

(Wonders if it will be more petty stabbing at evolution)