All I'm saying is that it is unproven-there are valid alternatives to this theory. Why can't other theories be taught? Where does that energy that you were talking about come from? I have an idea. Just because we can't see God doesn't mean he doesn't exist. There is evidence for a God. For your argument about not being able to see things-I'm not saying that just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You're right atoms exist without us being able to see them. That argument can be used to support God and creationism. I think creationism can be taught as well as evolution because there is evidence on both sides and people deserve to hear both. Peace.
No, IOW your pronouncement of "bad design" for a living creature proves your lack of understanding of the details of its design. I disagree since I would first have to accept that the fossils were purely dolphin, if they were dolphin at all. But we could go back and forth ad nauseum. Would you accept probabilty studies which show that randomness cannot account for that which only the presence of intelligence can bring about? If not, the SETI project would disagree with you. Can I ask you which studies proved evolution to you? Because mechanisms can be confirmed, but the combination of mechanisms occuring in a particular order in conditions we cannot recreate cannot be confirmed. It's bias that makes a correlation where correlations cannot be made. The proof that fuels my bias comes from real life experience and fulfillment of prophecy. I measure them with my watch and with my calendar.
Why do ID supporters want ID to be taught as a science in a science class? Does it matter? Would it chap y'alls hides if it was taught in a different class? It's not science. In order to declare ID as science, you have to redefine what science is. In order to declare ID as a valid theory you have to redefine what evidence is. Cut it out.
OK by me, as long as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster get equal billing with ID. Ya know what is really effing stupid is that evolution is not taught more than a week in the whole of a K-12 education. I can't see what the BFD is.
With our hind sight, we can also see the arrogance of the belief that humans (and earth by implication) were the center of the universe. It is easy to see how humans who were ignorant in astronomy filled that vacuum with an anthropocentric belief. In addition, the I in ID is also an anthropocentric belief. Human gets to decide what intelligence is and then get to project that on God. I guess we have to make God more human in order to have a better understanding of him/her.
Please, I'm not trying to be disrespectful. ID is not about invisible pink unicorns. ID is a valid idea to how we were made-it agrees with science.
Yes, it is a valid idea. I think that's why so many people believe it. No it does not. Cut it out. It is not a science. It is not a science. It is not a science. Actually, it can be. As I already stated before, you can't define ID as a science without changing what 'science' means. If you want to lower the standards of science (or to 'expand it's definition, as was necessary with the Kansas board of education) to just apply creation to "an Intelligence", then that means we could apply it to whatever intelligence we want. In terms of your newly expanded definition of science, therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is every bit as valid as the christian God- as far as ID is concerned, that is.
Is there scientific evidence for pink unicorn or spaghetti monster. Look at the evidence. I have a bias and so do you. What are your beliefs. You look at things through a different lens than I do, but what make yours more true and scientific? Peace
I'm repeating myself again here, but you have to redifine what 'evidence' is in order to make it support ID. 'Evidence' which supports ID falls outside the realm of true science. I want you to think about what you've said here. If something is more scientific, does that make it more true? I think there are lots of thruths out there that cannot be scientifically verified. Evolution is more scientific because it follows the rules of empirical observation of objective reality. ID does not, and therefore, is not a science. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally 'scientific' as ID under your (innacurate) definition of science. Which is the most 'true?' Who knows? I guess we'll find out when we die? Those who look to science for answers will more readily accept evolution as truth, and those who look to faith for answers will more readily accept religion. ID supporters are doing this really wierd dance to try and say that science supports religion or vice versa. This just doesn't mix. One last thought- if a particular religion could be proven, faith would be unnecessary. No more mystery of faith- any fool could just go look at the proof of the truth. Is this what you really want? This is not where religion belongs, in my opinion.
With your bias you make the evidence support evoultion where in reality it can go the other way...your science is based on secular humanism. Science and religion can mix. You say it can't. Why does science have to be separate?
Nolen, Don't you see that you have a bias yourself and that evolutionist make the rules for science. Who said that real science has to be rid of the supernatural? The reason we want ID to be taught is because evolutiuonists force their beliefs on others. You say that ID people force their ideas on others, I can say the same thing about evolutionists. I really want to keep on talking about this, but I have to go soon. Can we email back and forth? I want to this in a peaceful way.
I agree, we're all biased. The point of the scientific process is to remove bias. Okay, I need to do some more reading before I can give a good, solid response here. peace.
It's time to embrace the science of the Flat Earth Society... _____________ Flat Earth Society Mission Statement For centuries, mankind knew all there was to know about the shape of the Earth. It was a flat planet, shaped roughly like a circle... Then, in the year of our Lord fourteen-hundred and ninety-two, it all changed. For decades a small band of self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals had been spouting their heretical nonsense that the Earth was in fact round. Citing "proof" based on nothing more than assumptions, half-truths and blind guesses, they dazzled the populace with their " . . . undeniable mathematical and scientific evidence . . . that the world is shaped not like a pancake, but an orange!" Rightly wishing to dispel notions regarding the alleged citrus-like shape of our planet, the Church was able to either silence or execute nearly all the fanatics. One of their number, who called himself Grigori Efimovich, would later be known to the rest of the world as Christopher Columbus. What Efimovich actually did was sail across the Atlantic Ocean to a previously undiscovered continent, North America, and even then only to a small island off the coast. It took him several years more even to "discover" his blunder and claim it as a " . . . new world". But the damage had already been done, and mankind entered into what we now call its "Dark Ages". Enter the Flat Earth Society. For over five hundred years humanity has believed the "round Earth" teachings of Efimovich and his followers. But all hope is not lost. For through all that time, a small but diligent band of individuals have preserved the knowledge of our planet's true shape. And now, after centuries in the Dark Ages, we believe that mankind as a whole is once again ready to embrace the truth that has forever been the Flat Earth Society. Using whatever means are deemed necessary and relying heavily on a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of our members, we have slowly but steadily been spreading the news. But why? Why do we say the Earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise? Because we know the truth. FES link
You see an evolutionist; I see a scientist. Scientist gives us laws and theories to explain how the world works. Theories are just their consensus best guess on a particular topic, say evolution. No more, no less. BTW, scientist are not *forcing their beliefs* wrt evolution theory; their are providing their best-guess hypothesis. As I mentioned above, religious IDers are approaching evolution from a biblical perspective, which implies a set of *facts* for explanation. Religious IDers are framing the debate in terms of facts, while the scientists mostly are not (since their argument is based on theory, which is a term of art).
After being a part of this long debate I have come to the conclusion that we should all wait and ask God when we stand before Him to settle the dispute.
Yes, but many scientists conclude that evolution is fact. Now when I talk evolution I mean an animal becoming a person or bird becoming a dog. Evolution does occur, but nothing like large scale evolution:slime eventaully becomes a person. That doesn't happen. We oberve small scale evolution-I do not deny that. The finches beak does change depending on the amount of water, but It is still finch or bird. Now, scientists look at the facts and then conclude something came out of nothing. not all scientists, but many. Why, because they believe that their is no supreme being. As a result information points to only evolution-life came from non-life. That is their belief system. I do not believe the earth is flat. People use that argument to make ID people look unscientific.
Again for rocketstrike ---> Theory of Evolution --not-- The Law of Evolution. _______ Please prove to me the earth is not flat. Here is a rare image leaked by a NASA scientist...
ID people look unscientific because they are wilfully ignorant. The evidence that humans have evolved from other mammals (for example) comes from the fossil record, comparative biology, and genetic evidence which shows we have a pattern of similarity with chimps and gorillas, mice etc at the DNA level which is concordant with that expected based on the evolutionary history reconstructed from the fossil record and would be extremely hard to explain according to any other model.
