Believe me the feeling is more than mutual. There are no empiracal tests because the proof comes down simply to the circular argument: Things are irreducibly complex so it must be caused an intelligent creator / designer. Only an intelligent creator / designer can create complexity. Is that a wrong interpretation? There's no proof beyond that self-justifying theory. While the fact that there is observable micro evolution is an empiracally independent observation that supports the idea of Evolution as a whole. To accept ID you have to go beyond independent empiracal observation since it's components can't stand as a positive theory on there own logically. But all of this has been stated by myself and others repeatedly and you've never been able to show independent empiracal evidence that would support the idea of an intelligent creator / designer or even a separate logical argument for one.
Well here's some evidence against natural selection. http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=1855617#post1855617
Ha, ha, …. ha. You can’t really be this dense … can you? This has to be a joke. But just in case you’re not joking … Go back and read the thread, and then quote what people have actually said is the evidence for ID. Once you bring the quotes back to prove you’ve actually read the thread then I’ll clarify whatever is confusing you. Clearly you’re joking, but lest anybody be fooled by this… Micro and macro (the vertical component of macroevolution) are very very different processes. Micro evolution involves a change in the frequency of certain genes in a certain species through natural selection. It is a process that involves genes that are already present in the species. Dogs can be interbred to enhance or diminish certain characteristics, for example, but all of these characteristics already existed in the dog species. They all exist in the two dogs being bred at any one time. There are tons of examples of this in the real world. It is a common, well known, and well understood, phenomenon. Vertical evolution, otoh, would involve the mutation of a gene in such a way that the organism would take on attributes that are not only not part of the species that it comes from, but that are that of a more complex organism. They do not exist in the two animals being bred. We are asked to believe that through a process that goes against all empirical evidence and knowledge of how cells mutate that these advanced genes somehow appear. This has essentially never been witnessed in the real world. Lots and lots and lots of mutations have been witnessed, but all of them have been destructive. Essentially all available empirical evidence suggests that vertical evolution does not happen. It’s a theory that looks plausible from a distance, but on closer examination there is little to no evidence for it and it really ceases to even be a reasonable hypothesis. So why does the scientific community by and large still support the theory of vertical evolution? Read Kuhn.
Grizz, Your great great grandmama was a monkey And your a monkeyboy! monkeyboy monkeyboy godless godless monkeyboy monkeyboy monkeyboy godless monkeyboy!
WOW miss a few days and you miss all the fun around here. So much to cover. 1. Predictions- Yes Definately ID theory clearly predicts that no species on earth could or would or currently is evolving. That all mutation in macro evolution will create damage to the species and will not produce a new species. That no intelligence is currently evolving. (That's what they predict) There is much scientific research concerning mutation and experiments to find ways to alter the genetic DNA code in a way that does not required highly intelligent structured environments that would replicate the state of random chance. A book could be written on this and several ID scientists have. Alterations to the genetic code have been scientifically and exerimentally failures as far as doing anything but destroying a species. 2. Testibility- Yes- Hundreds maybe thousands of experiments have already tested the fact that it takes high INTELLIGENCE just to run an experiment on the formation of proteins, living cells and intelligence, much less get anywhere without INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION. Every experiment INTELLIGENT scientists are running serve as tests of ID. Several very INTELLIGENT NASA scientists recently published an experiment in Nature magazine where they set up a very DESIGNED experiment of using ultraviolet radiation on space ice and formed synthetically three amino acids; glycine, alanine and serine; these amino acids have been found on carbon rich meteorites before. From this they said MAYBE (if you already believe in evolution) ALL amino acids were formed this way??? (MAYBE and a BILLION YEARS proves evolution) And MAYBE then somehow proteins were also formed, and the whole protein synthesis chemistry formed by chance and MAYBE the first protein was so special it could synthesize without the other proteins that science has proven are necessary for any protein to synthesize. And MAYBE, MAYBE, MAYBE --- Man is born! Why didn't they just take hydrogen and oxygen and form water and since water is the source of all life we could say we now know how water first came into being (origins) and the rest if evolutionary history. Scientists that believe in evolution would never open their closed minds for a second to see if there may be another answer or conclusion as to why there are basic amino acids on meteorites. This is no test of evolution it is a test of ID. What we find here is a question? Where did all of the amino acids come from? How did they find there way into complex proteins, how did proteins originally synthesize and what caused the proteins to build living cells. How did living cells form multicell organisms, how did the DNA code develope and how did the DNA change to produce more complex and intelligent organisms. Take your time giving me the facts on those questions. Answer those questions absolutely and then we take THEORY from behind evolution. 3. Falsifiability- Yes ID can be shown to be false. All we have to do is find a way to replicate a random chance change in any DNA code that produces a new species. We have a billion years to get this done. LOL No there are other ways to prove it is wrong. First prove that the complexity of DNA in simple life forms is far less complex than the code of higher life forms (that evolution was taking place). It is NOT far less complex. It is coded very differently, but it is not less complex. By the way this is a ridiculous point for an evolutionist to argue (falsifiability), especially a scientist that stands lofty and tall on the belief that ones whole life's work has shown ID to be falsifiable. This Creation vs. Evolution subject is a pointless arguement because evolutionary scientists must make everything fit their model of origins (no designer) And creationists will make everything fit their model of origins. All the holes in each theory will be used as ammunition in the debate. Traditional Darwinian science has prevailed over the last 100 yrs. Probably in the next few years ID as science may prevail purely for scientific reasons. But I am sure there will be a way to leave God out of that equation. Don't be disappointed if evolutionary science is replaced at some point with another Godless theory that admits the obvious evidences of intelligence, complexity and design in the living sphere. Jesus said, "In the beginning God created..." enough for me, I'm a Christian. (I believe Jesus was telling the truth- that's what makes Him a good person) But proving that is as futile as proving evolution. Both require either a faith that there is a God or a faith that there is not a God. People BELIEVE evolution because the teaching of science has been biased that way for a good while. (That is another subject to research) You can't prove there is not a God (or can you?) so you must BELIEVE there is not a God. So both theories are faith-based. We don't know enough about the universe to conclude scientifically that no God is out there. And if there is a God, tell me how we know if he created or not or how do we know anything else about this God. When we die, in the sweet by and by, we will know more about our own personal beliefs. At least we will have experienced something profoundly more important. What lies beyond life on earth. I would add Intelligent Design is not something I feel is important or necessary as science, because for me- I will go with "In the beginning God created..."
Hey, I wouldn’t be at all offended if that was true. Monkeys are noble creatures, but the problem is this. Scientifically speaking, it doesn’t look like this is true. The theory of evolution even served a purpose in encouraging people to look at the nature of organisms and to look for facts and seek the truth that exists in the world around us. The problems started, however, when the facts started to tell a different story and people were too committed to, or beholden to, the old story to let it go. But this is, unfortunately, how paradigm shifts work so there is nothing unexpected happening here. Btw dubious, where’s your healthy scepticism of evolution? Are you changing your stripes and getting comfortable with the establishment people? Are you becoming one of the old boys?
We have a lot in common with chimps, wouldn’t you say? Just looking at us you can tell we have a lot more in common with chimps than say a fish or a mosquito. Why would it be surprising that that we have similar DNA? Saying that humans and chimps have a lot in common and saying that humans, chimps, fish and mosquitos all evolved from a common ancestor are very different things, however. It is an interesting theory no doubt, but is it borne out by the evidence? There are lots of interesting theories that don’t turn out to be true, of course. What does the evidence say?
Hmmm… I’m presenting evidence and making a solid case, and you’ve got … nothing. Yes, I think I see some denial here alright. But again, this is how a paradigm shift works. Change is very threatening to some people.
Just because the designer was intelligent doesn't mean he has to reinvent the wheel for every creature. If you've got a good working model you can just tweak it here and there. One tweak man another tweak monkey. Don't lob him softballs. You've got a full tilt zealot here capable of obfuscation on the level of "Hegel’s dialectic" that is willing to argue for 9 pages that scientific opinion is shifting opposed only by anti-religionist. These are the same people that brought you the inquisition and burning at the stake. They have levels of self-righteousness and insanity that you have never dreamed of. They are The Borg of irrational thought. We are all doomed! By the way Grizz, "monkeys are noble creatures"? I wish I could send you the e-mail movie file I got this week of a monkey drinking his own piss.
wait a second...let's not call someone out personally, like that. especially someone like Grizz. i realize this seems very self-serving since we share the same faith...but Grizz has proven himself to be an extraordinarily nice guy here. there's a debate going on, for sure, here. but Grizz as an ambassador of the Inquisition?? hardly!
Don’t worry about it Max, but thanks for the kind words. A post like that is essentially a declaration of defeat. He’s got nothing to say other than to call names. That speaks volumes.
Agree or disagree with him, no need to call Grizz out like that. This is after all just a basketball fan website.
Nothing left to say because it pointless. By any outside observer your arguments would be deemed ridiculous yet you persist in your circular logic claiming point after point. Let's just ask the people out there if any of them give your arguments any credence. Does anyone think Grizzeld is making any sense? Or is he just assuming he is correct because of his religious agenda and justifying his point of view? People?
Well, at least I can not see how Grizz have proved there exists any evidence for ID other than pure circular logic.
