Originally posted by ubermunche
A statement is not evidence certainly but what troubles me is evidence for evolution is given, evidence for chemical reactions bringing forth the first rudimentary life forms is given but what created the gas, or the atoms that make up that gas or the... so on and so on ad infinitum. At some point in the process something came from nothing which in itself smacks of the metaphysical or else something was put in place to start the ball rolling so who or what put this in place, at present science is unable to address this adequately and therefore the onus is on philisophical speculation to provide theories or at the very least challenge the dogma of scientism, that is those who believe science knows everything and what it doesn't know isn't important anyway. It may be that the answers to life and the universe are and always will be beyond our comprehension so therefore philosophy becomes the only means of dealing with these questions. ID is not science it is philosophy and that's no bad thing, why philosophy is treated as the poor relation is beyond me IMO it's the mentor to scientific enquiry.

I have a soft spot for philosophy but am a scientist, and I prefer science. Mainly because we can sit around all day speculating and making unsupported arguments - until we actually test, it will always be guesswork. Science certainly does not have the answers to everything and will likely never be able to answer some questions. Just assessing the advancement of knowledge since the application of the scientific method illustrates it's success. But if we have no way of testing then we can't apply science, and that is its limit.

I don't see science as dogmatic, even if it is, it's very unsucessful dogma - religious dogma seems much more successful.

Only evidence of microevolution.

No evidence has been presented of marcoevolution and of a direct link between apes and humankind. The assumption of a direct link without evidence is pure supposition.

Incorrect. There's plenty of evidence for macroevolution. Even with humans from just the past few hundred years, let alone the past 50,000. Again, ignorance is not evidence.

Yes...the who or what in this case referred to as a higher power.

Your statement hold's no evidence. The underlying physics is well understood to the point where it has shown exactly how life could have emerged without a creator and how the universe could exist without a creator. What such evidence exists for creationism? Ignorance is not evidence.

Much of the scientific establishment has become as dogmatic in their thinking as the inquisitors of the Roman Catholic Church who hunted down and silenced "heretics."

Incorrect. The underlying physics are unchangable. Not dogmatic. Gravity is gravity. Weak nuclear force is still weak nuclear force. I see no religous implication's within any of the scientific theories. There is evidence to back those claim's up. We don't believe in them upon blind faith alone. Ignorance is not evidence.

The scientific community wishes to remain in control and they feel threatened by ideas that they perceive as lessning their power in society, sociologically and educationally.

Come again? The scientific community wishes to broaden it's knowledge of the universe, not control anything. The scientific community stands to loose nothing at all. Religion on the other hand does. Religion throughout history has violently tried to remain in control of it's views. Religion can only exist upon the unquestioning blind faith in a creator. Ignorance is not evidence.

But a hypothesis that is based on reason and oberservation is a theory nonetheless. The irony being that many scientific theories in their formative stages were based solely on reason and observation -- without laboratory experimentation.

And then those predicted aspect's of those theories were tested and proven and built upon, all the qualities ID/creationism lacks. Ignorance is not evidence.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
The scientific community wishes to remain in control and they feel threatened by ideas that they perceive as lessning their power in society, sociologically and educationally.

But a hypothesis that is based on reason and oberservation is a theory nonetheless. The irony being that many scientific theories in their formative stages were based solely on reason and observation -- without laboratory experimentation.

poppycock...

you think science wants to control english classes, history, government etc

The scientific community is only interested in science education. Science has little 'power', in fact the scientific community is generally ignored (or even silenced) when it makes claims that could effect the global community (e.g. climate change). ToE wasn't even taught in some parts of the US until 1968, I wonder why...

What you say seems to apply to organised religion rather than science....but I guess that's another thread.

Yes, all theories start in someone's mind using observation and inference, then, if they are a scientist, they go and test their hypothesis. We await the ID crowd to provide such experimental evidence....

[edit on 9-2-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 9-2-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 9-2-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by mattison0922
...what is an example of the 'solid evidence that supports the notion that macroevolution exists and that apes have evolved into Homo sapiens....?

The missing link that is better than Lucy was

Originally posted by bigdanprice
Right so no evidence:

I am afraid you cant just forget about 'chemistry, physics and stuff'.
They are an integral part of the world and evolution.

There is evidence that we have evolved and that everything around us has. Its in our DNA, archeological evidence, the list is endless.

The original point of this thread is that ID is a valid scientific theory!
Show me one piece of science that says life was created by a higher being!!!

You cant, its faith on your part:
Faith is belief without reason or evidence
This is not a science.
Please stop dancing around in circles and back up your claims.
Dan

I am guessing your not because you cant.

Oh... you mean like the faith that many scientists have that microevolution automatically entails marcoevolution?

Nope...I don't buy the supposition as there is no evidence to support it.

My head hurts from banging it against a brick wall.

No evidence for ID.
Whatsoever.
Please untwist your knickers and find some

Originally posted by melatonin
ToE wasn't even taught in some parts of the US until 1968, I wonder why...

Because there was no substantial evidence to support the notion of macroevolution, only supposition. The scientific establishment wanted to separate itself from Christian Creationism, so they put their eggs in the basket of Darwinism.

Originally posted by melatonin
Yes, all theories start in someone's mind using observation and inference, then, if they are a scientist, they go and test their hypothesis. We await the ID crowd to provide such experimental evidence....

Not all scientific theories were initially tested in the laboratory. Some were simply contrived through observation and analysis. Mathematical probability also plays a role.

So it is with Intelligent Design.

What evidence do you have, even a strong logical argument, that the Universe sprang from pure chance into an organized creation with corporeal life?

How does Evolutionism explain The Big Bang?

I ask these questions rhetorically as I know that there are no sound answers from those representative of the scientific community.

If there were, there would be no need for and no controversy surrounding the theory of Intelligent Design.

Originally posted by supercheetah
Sure, the scientific community has its share of stubbornness, but that's only because it asks people to present evidence of their claims.

If you really believe that, you need to read up on the subject of Forbidden Archeology, as there are many examples of scientific dogmatism preventing the expression of innovation and discovery.

Originally posted by supercheetah
However, I could even cite very real, every day examples of evolution. Supergerms are very real and very much a danger to all of us. Take antibiotics, for example. A person is supposed to take them on a regular basis (typically everyday), and take all of them.

Again with the micro and not macro examples.

Everyone...

It's been a good debate, hasn't it?

We seem to be in the point of discussion whereby we are going in circles.

So I will bow out for now unless some macroevolution evidence is presented and/or a cogent argument as to how Evolutionism was responsible for The Big Bang.

Paul,

Seriously people have been posting evidence that you have been ignoring and in a cocky mannerism, dismissing.

You continually claim IDism as fact, yet when directly asked to provide evidence for it, you ignore those question's. Why is it that you'll deny and brush off the evidence put forth and fail to provide evidence to back up your own claims, while everyone else has provided evidence, weather you follow that evidence or not.

[EDIT: ignorance factor]

So I will bow out for now unless some macroevolution evidence is presented and/or a cogent argument as to how Evolutionism was responsible for The Big Bang.

It's already been shown by me and other's that evolution and big bang are two seperated and unrelated events. One explains how the universe came to be, the other explains how life came to be. Your failure to discern the two only show's your complete ignorance of the two theories and the evidence supporting those theories.

Perhaps the correct statement by you would have been, "Let me go learn more about your theories so as I can properly discuss them and defend my theory against them without sounding completly ignorant."

[edit on 9-2-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by melatonin
ToE wasn't even taught in some parts of the US until 1968, I wonder why...

Because there was no substantial evidence to support the notion of macroevolution, only supposition. The scientific establishment wanted to separate itself from Christian Creationism, so they put their eggs in the basket of Darwinism.

define macroevolution?

Originally posted by melatonin
Yes, all theories start in someone's mind using observation and inference, then, if they are a scientist, they go and test their hypothesis. We await the ID crowd to provide such experimental evidence....

Not all scientific theories were initially tested in the laboratory. Some were simply contrived through observation and analysis. Mathematical probability also plays a role.

So it is with Intelligent Design.

What evidence do you have, even a strong logical argument, that the Universe sprang from pure chance into an organized creation with corporeal life?

How does Evolutionism explain The Big Bang?

I ask these questions rhetorically as I know that there are no sound answers from those representative of the scientific community.

If there were, there would be no need for and no controversy surrounding the theory of Intelligent Design.

mathmatical probability? Like what? Dembski? Don't make me laugh.

ToE does not speak to the beginning of the universe, just the diversity of species. You really need to grasp basic definitions.

The only controversy surrounding ID is the theologically-motivated political shenanigans of a gang of charlatans. We still await any real science or evidence to your argument....

Originally posted by Produkt
Paul,

Seriously people have been posting evidence that you have been ignoring and in a cocky mannerism, dismissing.

You continually claim IDism as fact, yet when directly asked to provide evidence for it, you ignore those question's. Why is it that you'll deny and brush off the evidence put forth and fail to provide evidence to back up your own claims, while everyone else has provided evidence, weather you follow that evidence or not.

Seriously, I claim that Intelligent Design is a valid theory and that the evidence presented by those that oppose ID as a theory does not prove that apes on this planet directly evolved into Homo sapiens -- at least not without a substantial outside influence, i.e., Interventionism. I also see a number of people pushing the microevolution evidence envelope but without anything to support their supposition of macroevolution.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
So I will bow out for now unless some macroevolution evidence is presented and/or a cogent argument as to how Evolutionism was responsible for The Big Bang.

Originally posted by Produkt
It's already been shown by me and other's that evolution and big bang are two seperated and unrelated events.

Let's suppose that you are right in that appraisal; that they are two separate and unrelated events. Then Evolutionism alone is an incomplete cosmological perspective and Intelligent Design fits nicely in the holes that evolutionary theory can't fill.

However, there is some question as to whether they are in fact totally unrelated, as that which initiated The Big Bang apparently had an evolutionary facet incorporated into the program. A facet which has yet to be proven in the macroevolutionary sense, at least for this planet and for the emergence of Homo sapiens

Anyone want to take a shot at presenting missing link evidence for the evolution of apes to Terran human?

Seriously, I claim that Intelligent Design is a valid theory and that the evidence presented by those that oppose ID as a theory does not prove that apes on this planet directly evolved into Homo sapiens -- at least not without a substantial outside influence, i.e., Interventionism. I also see a number of people pushing the microevolution evidence envelope but without anything to support their supposition of macroevolution.

On the contrary, the theory evolution is a very solid field of science. Weather you accept that evidence or not is ultimatly up to you, but to do so and not bother to discuss why you feel those evidence's are wrong is just to remain clueless and ignorant of the theories. Your continual claim of ID as a theory is false if you can not back up that claim. It's just a statement. Not a theory. And in one of the post's above this, I have posted link's that *should* take you quiet some time to read before you can come back and discuss those evidence's put forth in an intelligent manner, and tell us why they are wrong and provide the evidence of ID that show's why they are wrong.

Let's suppose that you are right in that appraisal; that they are two separate and unrelated events. Then Evolutionism alone is an incomplete cosmological perspective and Intelligent Design fits nicely in the holes that evolutionary theory can't fill.

Your still confusing the two. Please take the time to learn what the big bang is and what evolution is.

However, there is some question as to whether they are in fact totally unrelated, as that which initiated The Big Bang apparently had an evolutionary facet incorporated into the program. A facet which has yet to be proven in the macroevolutionary sense, at least for this planet and for the emergence of Homo sapiens

Again, your confusing the two event's. Stay in school.

Anyone want to take a shot at presenting missing link evidence for the evolution of apes to Terran human?

While we may not have found the so called missing link we are able to show how geneticaly we've evolved from lower primates. I do have to caution you, your failure to learn anything about these evidence's and your willingness to remain ignorant will not change the fact's discovered.

This has been brought up many times in this forum, evolutionary theory does NOT say that men evolved from apes, there is no Missing Link.

Both humans and apes exist at the ends of different branches on the evolutionary tree. The theory does state that apes and man share a common ancestor, but this ancestor is NOT a half-man/half-ape, this ancestor is a being from which men and apes both eventually evolved.

An egg can become either a chicken or an omlette depending on the outside forces applied to it. Both chicken and omlette share a common ancestor - the egg. There is no half-omlette/half-chicken 'missing link' between the two.

Intelligent Design fits nicely in the holes that evolutionary theory can't fill.

and that's all ID will ever be "ID of the gaps" until we see real science.

mattison

BTW... if you'd take the time to read anything I've ever posted... you'd realized that I could potentially be the best ally you've got in this debate.

He just doesn't appreciate you like I do. Long time no see, BTW, how ya' been?

Paul

The pressure on ID is ongoing. If it were a totally unfounded theory, then it would not be receiving so much press coverage, be so controversial and threatening to the scientific community at large, and we would not be debating it now.

I disagree. I think using press coverage as a barometer of a thing's scientific merit is foolish. There's a lot of press coverage concerning Paris Hilton, despite the fact that sane individuals see her for what she is, hollow, vain, useless, presumptious, an anachronistic throw-back - quite a lot like ID in all ways.

The ID debate is framed in religious terms, and is discussed using language more suited to theology than biology. There is no scientific pressure on ID, because most scientists know where not to tread. Their realm is well defined, and it doesn't encompass the invisible man who may or may not live in the clouds.

Suffice to state that miracles do occur and those who choose to ignore them points to close-minded and dogmatic personalities that are inflexible to progressive ideas and learning new paradigms.

Miracles do not occur universally, that is to say, what is a miracle to an uneducated peasant, is a perfectly logical sequence of action-reaction to a learned man with some experience in the world.

The rain was, for a long time a miracle. It no longer is, right? What changed? Understanding of the processes involved. Miracles are contextual, they derive their importance by reflection, from observance and inference. Science doesn't presume to know everything, and I think that's what you're missing. Science doesn't suffer from the same vanity as religion, it doesn't seem to presume to have all the answers.

Rather, it makes a promise to continue the search for understanding in a neutral environment, free from the pressures of the religious groups who want to retain as much mystery in life as possible (to vindicate their own position).

Religion serves a purpose, science serves a separate one. Trying to hammer the round peg Religion into the square hole of science does not work. It just doesn't. It just makes a mess and leads to a lot of frustration.

Just because something can't be proven in a laboratory does not mean that it does not exist, only that the methods of examination are antiquated and not up to the task of accurate analysis.

That goes without saying, and indeed, is completely irrelevant to the debate about whether ID is a valid theory. Science asks only that you give it time to work things out, rather than jumping to conclusions based on pre-medieval fables and parables.

Originally posted by Donner
This has been brought up many times in this forum, evolutionary theory does NOT say that men evolved from apes, there is no Missing Link.

The theory surrounding the idea that apes evolved into humans is the whole crux of Evolutionism. If it were not, then it would not be such a heated issue in churches, schools, in the press, etc. Since there is no direct and concrete evidence that apes did in fact evolve into humans is why it is still referred to as evolutionary theory and not evolutionary fact. Comparing and providing evidence of small evolutionary changes in microscopic life doesn't hold up, which is why there are so many ongoing debates on this issue. If there was solid evidence that apes evolved into Homo sapiens it would be a done deal.

So the debate continues.

The theory surrounding the idea that apes evolved into humans is the whole crux of Evolutionism. If it were not, then it would not be such a heated issue in churches, schools, in the press, etc. Since there is no direct and concrete evidence that apes did in fact evolve into humans is why it is still referred to as evolutionary theory and not evolutionary fact. Comparing and providing evidence of small evolutionary changes in microscopic life doesn't hold up, which is why there are so many ongoing debates on this issue. If there was solid evidence that apes evolved into Homo sapiens it would be a done deal.

So the debate continues.

The debate continues two fold. Your continual ignorance of the evidence put forth and your lack of evidence for any of your claims. And he is correct about evolution, there is no actually missing link, but we do see transitional fossil's between modern man and his ancestors. The solid evidence for all of this is not only the fossil record, but also the genetic evidence of a common ancestor. Your complete ignorance on the subject isn't helping your case at all and your total lack of initiative to bother looking into any of the evidence and discussing it in an intelligent manner show's the magnitude of your ignorance.

And for the upteenth time, could you please for the love of your god, post some damn evidence.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by Donner
This has been brought up many times in this forum, evolutionary theory does NOT say that men evolved from apes, there is no Missing Link.

The theory surrounding the idea that apes evolved into humans is the whole crux of Evolutionism. If it were not, then it would not be such a heated issue in churches, schools, in the press, etc. Since there is no direct and concrete evidence that apes did in fact evolve into humans is why it is still referred to as evolutionary theory and not evolutionary fact. Comparing and providing evidence of small evolutionary changes in microscopic life doesn't hold up, which is why there are so many ongoing debates on this issue. If there was solid evidence that apes evolved into Homo sapiens it would be a done deal.

So the debate continues.

only the misinformed say apes evolved into humans. They have a common ancestor...

Please read and learn about ToE, otherwise the only result of any debate is an illustration of your ignorance about it...