Debate still rages over Darwin

Mel and noob thank you for the comments. But I'm still waiting on the ID evidence to be presented. Surely these believers have studies that support their theories, right? Again all I'm asking is for creationists and ID supporters to give me some evidence aquired from testing and observation so that I can compare the data to that supplied by evolutionists.

I don't think that's a difficult question to understand. I can't figger out where the issue of seperation of church and state came in. (OK actually I can but I digress.....)

reply to post by griffinrl


might want to grab a fresh coffee and a snack or two there grif, i fear you may be waiting a while


so they have the cash ..... they have ... some people with real qualifications ....... and a whole bunch of doctors that arnt ...... and the equipment ....... fingers crossed it only a matter of time

if only they can manage it before operation teapot goes into action ...

Just a question : isn'it true that Darwin, having titled his book "the origin of the SPECIES" had in fact one big problem : not a single NEW specy has been prooved coming from another specy.
NO ONE.
An he himself aknowledged this issue.

To be absolutely clear, let me explain you something : one of the definitions of a specy is that a male and a female of the same specy MAY have an offspring, AND this offspring is itself fertile. Which means that the specy may reproduce itself.

A male and a female of two different species may sometimes have an offspring, but this offspring is NOT fertile.
It is impossible to create a new SPECY from two different species. (As we know, so far).

So, how could a NEW specy could come out of another ?

Somewhere, if Darwins's theory is real, there must have been ONE FIRST individual beeing, coming out of the belly (or the egg ...) of another individual which was of ANOTHER specy (Which is biologicaly talking, a nonsense).
Then this INDIVIDUAL had to mix with ANOTHER individual of the very same specy as his own ... or die without offspring.

It's a logical dead-end (like the answer to the question : "the HEN first, or the EGG first"?)

I don't think neither that an old birdy man upthere in the sky, designed every living beeing on earth ... and elsewhere.

So ... I have no solution.

I think that this solution is beyond our actual human understanding.

reply to post by noobfun

If Mr. Behe's University is open-minded about free-research, why issue this disclaimer, it goes so far as to call ID unscientific;
Just sayin. I can't see them giving him grants or free reign over labs!
Lehigh University

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

reply to post by Clearskies


I think the last sentence of that disclaimer sums it all up rather nicely. The point is that nothing concerning ID can be tested or challenged. ID is nothing more than another word(s) for religion.

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by noobfun

 

If Mr. Behe's University is open-minded about free-research, why issue this disclaimer, it goes so far as to call ID unscientific;
Just sayin. I can't see them giving him grants or free reign over labs!

lol

Because it isn't science?

I'm sure Lehigh is a fine university and was worried about its scientific respectability. Behe haz tenure, he haz lab (he published a naff paper in 2004 with Snokes), he can do science. Like any other researcher, it's up to him to attract funding.

Again I don't want to hear reasons or excuses as to why there is no scientific ID evidence. All I'm asking for is to be able to view such evidence and compare the data to that of evolutionary evidence. Surely there is some available...not excuses as to why there is not.

reply to post by melatonin


Yeah, I'm sure Lehigh didn't want to come off as a religious school!
Who would he get funding from? Dupont? Monsanto?

Kent Hovind had tons of money left from not paying his taxes. Other ID believers make money selling books, DVD's, lectures, etc. How hard would it be for these people to give a little of God's money to do some straightforward research.

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by melatonin

 

Yeah, I'm sure Lehigh didn't want to come off as a religious school!
Who would he get funding from? Dupont? Monsanto?

The Discovery Institute?

Answers in Genesis?

They have had millions of dollars off the rubes. If they are so sure of the notion of creation and design, put their (others) money where their mouths are. It's easy enough.

People/agencies fund research that would appear to have real value to science and society. And any agency with nous at the top is going to think twice about funding vacuous apologetics.

reply to post by Clearskies


well as ID is unsceintific ...hance why no one can figure out how to observe or test it ... then well it makes the university look bad to student who want to study real biological science when one of thier proffessors is one of the best known members of an anti-science brigade

he gets a website through his job, they cant take it away from him or order him what he can and cant put on it ... so they do the senseibe thing and say hey what he says is what he says and not the opinion of the university

and grants usually dont come from the university your at they come from external source of industry, goverment science budgets etc etc

so if the DI actually spent some of those millions they receice each year for research on ..well ya know research, and funded Behe in his reearch project if he could think of one then the university would let them do it .. because its costs are still met by the grant so it doesnt care

so again, they have the funding, some qualified people, the equipment and the place to do the research ....

so why arnt they?

Behe after all is a fellow of the DI, wih access to thier labs at the biology institute im sure they would be happy to fund his research into ID ... so .... why oh why ... is nothing happeneing?

its like claiming Ikea are supressing you, youve got ther flat pack stuff laid out, the tools and instruction are there but then you simply cant be bothered to put some effort in and so claim ikea are victimising you becasue it wont store your tv and dvd player safely as it is in bits on the floor

reply to post by noobfun


But, don't those ministries have to fund their own stuff?
Faculty, overhead, other things?
I wish I knew some of these people and I would ask them!
I know Hovind had a LOT of money in the Museum and park, he oversaw.
I didn't see him driving a rolls royce.......

reply to post by Clearskies


Sure they have to fund their own stuff....and not driving a Rolls doesn't prove anything. The man went to prison for tax fraud.

He created his "park" to generate money..simple as that. That same money could have been spent on research. You would think that logically to prove ID as fact the people that generate income from this belief would put that income towards proving the theory, right? Why doesn't this happen? I'm not trying to be antagonistic just trying to get down to the reason that promoters of this idea don't seem to use any income derived from it to actually prove it's true.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by griffinrl]

reply to post by Clearskies


to quote chunk of Mel's earlier post

Its US revenue in 2005 was $13.7M.[18] According to Charity Navigator, in FYE 2006, Answers in Genesis had $13,675,653 in total revenue and $12,257,713 in expenses.

well theres a million .. and some small change to get coffee from the machine during work breaks from the lab

In 2001, the Baptist Press reported, "Discovery Institute ... with its $4 million annual budget ($1.2 million of which is for the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) is heavily funded by evangelical Christians. Maclellan Foundation of Chattanooga, Tenn., for example, awarded $350,000 to the institute with the hope researchers would be able to prove evolution to be a false theory. Fieldstead & Co., owned by Howard and Robert Ahmanson of Irvine, Calif., pledged $2.8 million through 2003 to support the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture."[93]

In 2003, guidestar.org,[92] records showed grants and gifts totaling $4.1 million. Included in the supporter were 22 foundations. At least two-thirds of the foundations stated explicitly religious missions.

hey look people give the discovery institute money to spend on research ... how handy is that?

Biologic Institute

The Biologic Institute is a tax-exempt organization with offices in Redmond, Washington and laboratories in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle, Washington.[1] It is funded by the Discovery Institute[2][3] with the stated purpose of doing biological research

and the even have thier own labs for him to go play in if they dont want some of reearch money to go on hiring the universities labs ...

they have the money (given to them for the expresss purpose of proving ID is right and evoluytion is wrong through research)

they have the facilities

they have some qualified people to wonder around said lab facilities

again ... where is the problem?


[edit on 25/2/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by Clearskies


and no hovind didnt drive a roll's royce

he claims he made no money and owned no property either it was all gods .... although that didnt work as a defence when he and his wife were asked where the 50+ cash withdrawl of $8-9000 in the sapce of 1 year disapeared to from the ministries bank account

also didnt work as a defense a few years earlier when the tax brigade confiscated 2 cars a van and it was either a boat or a caravan for an earlier unpaid tax charge

his ministry make just under a million in net profit, and thats not including the estimated $700,000+ dollars in donations each year

that nearly 2 million that could do toward reseacrh if he wasnt so bust lining his pockets

althoughHovind is back in the news again with an attempted jail breakof all things



[edit on 25/2/09 by noobfun]

And please don't take my comment about Hovind the wrong way. What I was trying to say is that this man made enough money to open up a for profit "theme park". So I know that private individuals have the resources to provide to those able to conduct the research.

My tax fraud comment was to point out credibility. If an evolutionist had these kind of problems (and maybe some do...I don't know) the credibility of said individual would be in question as well.

Edit due to that I accidentally deleted this thread on myATS



[edit on 25-2-2009 by griffinrl]

Accidentally deleted this thread on myATS. Besides I don't want to miss all the fun!

I think one of the best arguments against straight Darwinian evolution - evolution by random mutation and natural selection - is the extreme unlikelihood of life ever evolving in the first place.
Somehow the incredibly complex and seemingly well ordered universe arose from the initial chaos of the big bang. What are the chances that the big bang could lead to atoms, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, solar systems, and Vincent van Gogh.
Think about it, what are the chances of a large explosion in the middle of the void leading to anything but a homegenous, lifeless soup? Scientists believe that life somehow randomly mutated into existence in the middle of the formerly lifeless oceans of earth. Again I ask, what are the chances of this happening? Of just the right combination of chemicals and energy to create the very first amino acids? And what are the chances of these amino acids coming together in just the right combination, under just the right circumstances, to form the dna or the first single celled organism. The more complex life, the more statistically improbable the random mutation theory becomes. The vast majority of random mutations are either harmful or in no way beneficial for surivival and reproductive purposes. Evolution, as seen from a purely materialistic perspective, is like nature winning the lottery again and again and again - dna, cell walls, nervous systems, eyeballs, fins, wings, body armor, venom, brains, and on and on and on.
Nature generally likes to take the easiest way, the path of least resistence. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, objects at rest tend to stay at rest. Evolution, on the other hand, seems to force objects at rest to become objects in motion, and objects in motion to evolve the capability to become an object at rest.
I think scientists need to revisit or reformulate the ideas of LaMarcke (I think thats who I'm thinking of) whose basic idea is that the giraffe developed a long neck because it wanted a long neck, and the giraffes thoughts (consciousness on some level) somehow altered its evolutionary future. I have heard of the possibility of thought affecting DNA, of consciousness guiding our evolutionary future. (if someone has more info on this, I'd love to hear about it)
Of course, most Intelligent Design proponents aren't really arguing for this, they just want to hold on to their religious beliefs while claiming objectivity.
It is my opinion that there is some force which pushes the material of the universe to take on more and more complex forms and acheive greater and greater freedom and consciousness. I don't know if "intelligent" is the correct way to describe this "force;" but their seems to be too much complexity in the universe for me to accept it as the result of pure randomness.

Originally posted by outsider13
I think one of the best arguments against straight Darwinian evolution - evolution by random mutation and natural selection - is the extreme unlikelihood of life ever evolving in the first place.

well yes that wouldbe a great argument against straight Darwinism except it didnt have random mutation

and well darwinism only lasted until mendel discovered genetic inheretence when it became darwinian mendalist evolution

and then much later with the dicovery of DNA and the addition of the two guy responsible to that to form

darwinian mendalist Leveneian watson crickian evolution ..... now thi is where random mutation kicks in ...we just call it evolution for short


...and well thinking about ti even against strict darwiniam evolution of natural seletion its aterrible argument

its like saying you have to know how clay was formed befoire it an baked into bricks

it doesnt matter where it came from its what its doing now that evolution cares about

life came from organic compound foring orgnaic structures etc etc ala abiogenesis ... no problem let me know when its a self reproducing system that is ubject to enviromental presures and evolution kick right in

aliens beamed down for a look around and one of them drooped a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich that had several single celled organim lving in it ... no problem its all ready alive and self replicating so evolution jumps right in

god got bored made some microbial life forms for somthing to do one rainy afternoon and sprinkled them all over the place ...no probelm they are self replicating and evolution jumps right in there

evolution doesnt care where life came from, how it came to be, when it came to be... it only cares and deals with what happens to it once its replicating and subject to enviromental pressure

gravity cant explain where the helium/hydrogen comes from it uses to make stars ... it doesnt have to it only cares about what happens to it once its there ... or are you going to claim that invalidates gravity too?

a speed gun doesnt care where your cars made, when it was made, how it was made it only cars about what its doing at the time its pointed at your car, saying the gun cant account for the origins of your car dont in anyway change the fact you were speeding

in the same way where the life comes from doesnt in anyway change the fact that life is wa and will evoplve as long as copy errors happen in dna, gene recombination happens during breeding, and anything not uited to it enviroment if more liley to die then somthing that is


and well if you think evolution got it right time after time after time .. 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct .. it gets it very wrong most of the time, birth defects just another way to get it wrong

the examples you gave there of getting it right are the few that made it through,

if you get the redsox win record for the last however long the teams been playing take out all the losses and draws so your left only looking at a big line of wins suddenly they are the luckiest team alive and the odds of all those wins are rediculously amazing

well even if the team only won once a year for 100 years and we removed all the losses and just showed a 100 wins in a row without you knowing just how long it took or how much work to get those it looks pretty dam amazing

lamarkism i wrong it so absurdly wrong its unbelievable, as mentioned above neo-neo lamarkism also refered to as evo devo has popped up and is showing some signs of progress, but rather then lamarkism and neo lamarkism they are not an alternative explenation evo devo fits within the frame work of evolution and this time it actually uses evidence for its statements

so soon you may have to be sat there saying how unlikley evolution and evo devo lamarkism is and pick somthing else to be looked at again as a possable hypothesis

[edit on 25/2/09 by noobfun]

Noob et al would have everyone believe that ToE has much evidence, a true and valid scientific theory. Have a read of what the actual scientists believe about the role of Darwinian Theory in the field of Genetics, Chemistry and Bio-chemistry

Impact of forty years of advances in chemistry on evolutionary theory

food for thought.

In fact the whole site of ISCID is fascinating.




[edit on 26-2-2009 by Fundie]