It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debate still rages over Darwin

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0



Oh give me a break lord, how much of the ACLU's mentality does this "Judge" have to plagiarize and how long before the trial is over before you admit that the judge may as well have been the damn ACLU.

This judge was even quoting from ACLU's own objections for petes sake.

Yes I have already said in my post it is legal but before this trial, no one had ever anticipated a judge using pages from a book and a month before a trial was even over using the same words and phrases of the opposing plantif or defendant and why their is legislation being looked at because of this so it never happens again.

It was plane wrong and hopefully soon it WILL be against the law.

It certainly doesn't instill confidence in the legal system just like the OJ trial diminished my faith in our justice system, this trial nailed that coffin shut.


Give a break? I'm sorry but the way the courts work in the US is not the Judge deciding things as it would seem from first glance. The judge is more of a mediator between the two sides (plaintiff and defendant). They ensure all laws are met and side at the end with whoever found the most loopholes etc.

If you read dockets (and they are just as exciting as they sound). ALL judges either accept the objections/rebuttals verbattum and read as such, or they accept with some reservations based on minutae of the situation.

This is NOT bias. This is how a neutral party does it. The simple fact is that people didn't like his ruling and thus scream improper. This is how it has always gone. From the left yelling about the BSA being allowed to kick gay kids out, to cases like this.

The judge is bound to look at evidence. That is all. If they do show improper skewing, the appeal tosses it out faster than Limbaugh can sneer 'activist".

The just made the right choice. If they ID people can make a better case later in appeals. Fine it should be redressed.


Oh I am quite familiar with law and law enforcement, you see my entire family are cops, lawyers and my father is a retired united states arbitrator. I have seen the transcripts and this judge was biased up the wazoo and I am not the only person who thinks so. Michael Behe didnt give this Judge anything to sway his opinion the ACLU DID and 5000 words of it this judged used verbatim because he was either too lazy or too incompetent to be in a trial of this magnitude and this scientific for him to think for himself.

It is OBVIOUS the ACLU does all his thinking

You forget this guy was using this DURING the trial and THAT is mighty suspicious



[edit on 8-2-2009 by Aermacchi]




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Excellent! By all means then, ask your family how it all works.
(edit)
That sounded a whole lot more pedantic than I meant it. My apologies.
(/edit)

Here is a quote that seems rather pertinant to this, I did it on the other posting, but shall do here too:


From The Evil Judges Biography


If you look at public polls in the United States, at any given time a significant percentage of Americans believe that it is acceptable to teach creationism in public high schools. And that gives rise to an assumption on the part of the public that judges should 'get with the program' and make decisions according to the popular will.

There's a problem with that....The framers of the Constitution, in their almost infinite wisdom, designed the legislative and executive branches under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public will--in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given time--but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

That distinction, just like the role of precedent, tends to be lost in the analysis of judges' decisions, including my decision.[6]



[edit on 8-2-2009 by lordtyp0]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
The mention of Darwin seems to almost always devolve into a debate of the accuracy of evolution over creation.

The theories of Darwin do not point to an origin of life but to the origin of species. So far it has shown to be an accurate model.

As to the question of the origin life; part of the difficulty of an agreement on these positions is that we have yet to define the basic question - what is life?

Is either evolution or intelligent design the only possibilities?

My question to those that choose to frame this as an either / or proposition is this:

Why are these theories presented as though they are mutually exclusive?

Please consider the possibility that evolution occurs BECAUSE of intelligent design.

I offer these techniques to weigh judgment on both theories:


Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?


www.carlsagan.com...


My biggest doubt concerning the theory of formation of life in the "primordial soup" of amino acids forming proteins; is that we have yet to observe or even able to artificially repeat the theory of amino acids linking to form a protein. We have yet to find evidence of a protein being formed outside of an already living cell - even when we manipulate the environment.

This is to me is the definition of Biogenesis - that life only comes from life; but it does not prove that Abiogenesis -life evolving without life is an impossibility.

However, this does not offer proof that complexity of design means that there must have been intelligence involved in that design.

Where this bogs down is the supposition that the coding contained in RNA and DNA that provides the information to cells that makes life possible occurs by chance. All available evidence indicates that it takes intelligence to devise code and arrange them into patterns of instruction.

Though there are many gaps in the theories of evolution once this life is formed; I find little to cause doubt that humans evolved from less developed earlier life forms.

While there is much scientific evidence to support that evolution has and continues to occur, there is the same evidence [or lack of] that allows the theory that the original formation of life came about as a result of intelligent design.

The theories of evolution and intelligent design both require faith.

Either faith in a deity or at least an intelligence that either in capacity or knowledge far surpasses our own; or faith in the infallibility of a scientific model that is a creation of our own imagination.


Either way, what we are left with is that which we can only define for ourselves individually and that which we can observe and form our own conclusions.


I offer one last observation - absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerontehe

The theories of evolution and intelligent design both require faith.


Yeah you got that right but "faith" is a bad word to these people and not because of its definition but its association to religion which indicates their motivation to use science to advance their atheism and public policy.


This argument that evolution doesn't try to answer origin is because they have failed at that one miserably and goes to a place they fear to tread. That doesn't stop them from going as far back as they can making up as many fables as they say the bible is full of.

Chuck Darwin didn't call it the ORIGIN of species for nothing but they don't seem to make that connection.
All they have done in Dover is prove they can persuade a jury AND a judge by giving them pertinent data far enough in advance to not only prejudice a jury but a judge also. this judge is a clown and didn't even try to hide the fact that he used the ACLU's arguments against ID until AFTER it was discovered he did. He is just another activist liberal posing as a conservative just like Arnold Swarzenegger proved he is a middle of the road democrat.

They can use that same ever evolving theory which is so elastic they can make it fit any additional new fangeled idea they wish. So far we have seen them redefine words like species and merge meanings like macro and micro to mean one and the same. This sophistry is a tactic they have used for years. The idea evolution is the best model we have is bunk.

It is OBVIOUSLY the ONLY model

allowed

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   


I offer one last observation - absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.


This is hysterical. Try that one in a court of law someday and see how much sense it makes

Unless this is a case about proving absence exists

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
You keep saying 'sophistry'. Please show where I have been disingenuous.

Otherwise, faith is faith. Has nothing to do with science. And yeah, with science there is only one way-the correct way. And unfortuneatly 'correct' requires proof.

I sense a pattern here of ignoring everything thats said, even points that the argument against failed.

Also, FYI Basic definition of 'species' "In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of .."

Origin of Species... separation of animals that would otherwise be seen as the same into other classifications based on traits..

So yeah, anyway. I will just finish with what Ive said in every post "Give some evidence.".

Since the Official ID people have failed repeatedly, I dont expect much from a forum post.

But it's been fun.

Enjoy.



Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by kerontehe

The theories of evolution and intelligent design both require faith.


Yeah you got that right but "faith" is a bad word to these people and not because of its definition but its association to religion which indicates their motivation to use science to advance their atheism and public policy.


This argument that evolution doesn't try to answer origin is because they have failed at that one miserably and goes to a place they fear to tread. That doesn't stop them from going as far back as they can making up as many fables as they say the bible is full of.

Chuck Darwin didn't call it the ORIGIN of species for nothing but they don't seem to make that connection.
All they have done in Dover is prove they can persuade a jury AND a judge by giving them pertinent data far enough in advance to not only prejudice a jury but a judge also. this judge is a clown and didn't even try to hide the fact that he used the ACLU's arguments against ID until AFTER it was discovered he did. He is just another activist liberal posing as a conservative just like Arnold Swarzenegger proved he is a middle of the road democrat.

They can use that same ever evolving theory which is so elastic they can make it fit any additional new fangeled idea they wish. So far we have seen them redefine words like species and merge meanings like macro and micro to mean one and the same. This sophistry is a tactic they have used for years. The idea evolution is the best model we have is bunk.

It is OBVIOUSLY the ONLY model

allowed

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by yogi9969
 


yogi....as the OP....herein you just defeated yourself. YOU wrote it was the 150th anniversary of the birth of Darwin, when, in fact, it is the 200th anniversary of his birth.

OK....minor error, on your part....but, HOW CAN WE continue to take any of your following posts seriously, given this serious factual error at the outset???



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


No problem - sense in a court relies on a "ruling" which is an "opinion" enforced by agreed upon rules. No facts have to be involved - just a convincing argument.

How can you prove a negative?

Not finding evidence to support a hypothesis does not prove it is invalid - only that it is not yet a theory.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
There have been some wonderful people who have come in and tried to educate...nay, even DENY IGNORANCE!!!!

Well, to no avail, in some cases. Seems religious piety will prevail over common sense, in certain instances.

I will stand proudly and state that there is NO 'Debate' about Darwin!!!

Unless you wish to also dismiss the obvious....I submit the 'Washington Post' newspaper, date Sunday 8 February 2009, Front page, article titled "The Work In Darwin's Shadow"

'Evolution History Lives In a D.C. Dining Room'

AND, then 'google' Alfred Russel Wallace.

Whilst you're at it, please also 'google' DNA, and how DNA and RNA combine. Might open your eyes......
DNA can replicate, and can mutate....not all mutations work, but some might, and that's one way that evolution works.....not the only way, just one example.

.



[edit on 2/8/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
The debate still rages because The Origin of Species does not address the origin of life. Of course Darwin himself acknowledges this very fact.


I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came from and how it arose.

-Charles Darwin

source


[edit on 8-2-2009 by dbates]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


dbates, you are extremely correct, in your quote from Charles Darwin, himself.

We must remember, of course, that Mr. Darwin was, after all, a product of the 19th Century. What I mean is, he was stilll bound by his foibles, his previous pre-conceptions.....and likely his trying to reconcile older religious beliefs with his scientific discoveries.

This would rock anyone's World, you must agree.

However, fabulous theories must be presented, even in the face of disdain and riducule.....see "Einstein", "Tycho Brahe", and "Galileo", just as three examples.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


We must also remember weedwhacker that darwin's Origin of Species (in otherwords evolution through the mechanism of natural seletion) isn't supposed to explain how life arose, only how it has diversified into the many species that have called this planet home, no matter how much those who don't believe in it think otherwise.

I think it would be great if those who don't agree with evolution would remember that. But it seems no matter how hard we try, they never do. Instead they try to link the origin of life to the diversification of life. apples and oranges.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Yah....optimus.

Problem is, Humans tend to think in terms of their short lifetimes. Instead of understanding the vastness of millions or even billions of years.

Billions of years ago, on Earth....mostly single-celled organisms thrived. These evolved, over the millenia...because life tends to thrive, when appropriate.

The PLANET we call Earth, our 'home', is roughly four Billion years old.

OUR species is about 500,000 years old. DO THE MATH!!

(AND, I'm being VERY generous on the 500,000 years. More likely, our species is closer to 100,000 years old....)

Point is....think about how long this PLANET has been in existence, then consider how a short time WE have lived, as a species, on this PLANET.

TRY doing the Math again.....and you will realize that IF WE HAD evolved faster, we'd be ahead of where we are today. AND, by comparison, IF another PLANET evolved similarly to ours, then THAT species might be either behind, or ahead of us....technologically.

Look up the 'Drake's Equation' if you want to do the Math....should be on Google, it's there for all to see, and hopefully understand.....



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I agree with what you're saying here.
i wasn't arguing against you.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Yah, optimus....

I went off on a tirade.....but back to YOUR original point....I think I tried to make myself clear.

Your point about 'Darwin'??? Well, see....a scientist can look at what exists, then infer what might cause such a mechanism.

The 'mechanism' that Darwin found was, simply, what we today call
'natural selection'.

As a Human Being, you don't see this, even though it is occurring around you every day.

The cells in your skin are constantly dying, and being reborn....you just don't know this. Your entire body is dying, cell-by-cell, but then is continually reborn, as new cells are created. This is the 'aging' process...

The cells reproduce, but can't always be as fresh as the previous ones....hence, we 'age'....

This is what happens to organisms....be they Human, Feline or Canine....or any other species you wish to consider, it is the nature of being alive!!!

Here's the weird part.....millions of years ago, some protoplasm gradually worked its way form the 'goo'....and by recombinant DNA, and millions and billions of 'trial and error', eventually life evolved....and that led to US, after more trials and errors....

So, before you get all high and mighty, remember that we came about from that 'goo'....through a long line of ancestors, of course....

We're fortunate to live in the 'Suburbs' of this Galaxy, inasmuch as we are not near any energetic Stars that would irradiate us with fatal radiation.

Of course, we are likely NOT ALONE.....except that OUR development might not be the same as other species'......just sayin'

EDIT to focus on topic.....I may have said too much. But, it is always understood that a little knowledge can be dangerous....and too much can be catastrophic. SO, everything I said is pure speculation, only.....

[edit on 2/9/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
One cannot disprove god any more than they can disprove "Santa Claus".

Now, in the debate between Evolution and Intelligent Design, only one holds evidence... and can be messed with in a laboratory. Evolution.


As for claims that Macro evolution has no evidence, those who think this have clearly never set foot in a museum of natural history.
We have very obvious patterns dating through many species evolutionary path.
Macro evolution is the long term result if micro evolution.

Yes, some species have gaps in their time-lines because, quite frankly, not everything survives to be fossilized. But the assumption that we can't find the intermediates for all species is absurd.

We have fossil records showing quite clearly the evolution of the human species. All the way back to linking us with primates. People keep saying missing link this, missing link that... pardon me, but, what freaking missing link?! It all fits together well enough you could make a movie out of it.

Arguing that those fossils don't exist when I've looked at many of them myself on dozens of occasions is just plain ignorance. Get out of your house, go visit a museum.


... and learn what the theory of evolution is.
Evolution itself is a fact... the theory is us asking "Why?"


Whatever though, the religious will always continue to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to science.
I don't expect that will ever change.

... but they don't seem to have any quarrels with using the fruits of our labor though.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerontehe

My biggest doubt concerning the theory of formation of life in the "primordial soup" of amino acids forming proteins; is that we have yet to observe or even able to artificially repeat the theory of amino acids linking to form a protein. We have yet to find evidence of a protein being formed outside of an already living cell - even when we manipulate the environment.


the question i why are you starting with complex proteins? far to advanced for early life thats like asking for precmbrain bunnies as evidence, we have seen monomers spontaneously combine to form nucleotide polymers(essentially short proteins) that can and do function as enzymes and self replicate, Rna i esentialy a big polymer



Where this bogs down is the supposition that the coding contained in RNA and DNA that provides the information to cells that makes life possible occurs by chance. All available evidence indicates that it takes intelligence to devise code and arrange them into patterns of instruction.


it does? ummm...



maybe not,


The theories of evolution and intelligent design both require faith.


evolution require and uses evidence Id doent ..not sure where the faith comes into evolution?


or faith in the infallibility of a scientific model that is a creation of our own imagination.
faith in the infallibility of science? umm no got none of that either they make mistakes, they admit it and correct it and move on

but each time they do they get closer to the answer


I offer one last observation - absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.


but the absence of evidence dose preculde a lack of need to believe anything it has to say until such time it presents evidence to the contruary

and that doesnt make it a 50/50 deal the lack of evidence weights the probability in favour of where the evidence leads, and so far none of it leads towards ID in way

[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Ok ID believers, riddle me this. Why don't you have sex with 11 year olds? 2,000 years ago 11 was middle age, you would have been married and had children by then. But as the human life span gets longer, the longer it takes for us to reach physical maturity. When you hear stories of kids hitting puberty at 8 or 9, they are not developing early, they are devolping on time, if it was 2,000 years ago. So ID believers, have sex with an 11 year old OR you agree that humans have evolved. One or the other. Either have sex with an 11 year old or burn in hell for following evolution.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Afrosamurai
 


Ummm afro?

bit confused here?

kid hitting puberty slightly earlier then was the norm becasue of medical and dietry improvments allowing thier body to be in a better condition to peak earlier and hit puberty ....

again dietry and medical advancments that keep us alive longer then we would in a more ferral enviroment .....

both of these while you could argue are a byproduct of our evolution (incread brain complexity and tool use) im not sure why that means what was almost essential(breeding as young as possible) 2000 years ago should be practiced today? or how either of these show human evolution to have occured? (with the exception of the menstral cycle comparrison to other mammals)

thats before you get into the issue of it bieng illegal, and as beliefs have nothing to do with pedophilic tendancies (as far as im aware) its quite probable that at least some of the ID proponents are pedophiles, but then again so are some evolutionists too

i just kind of dont understand what your argument is or how/why it should apply ... maybe have a rethink and restate it more clearly?

[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


They say evolution doesn't happen. But the reason we aren't having sex with 11 year olds is because of evolution. Before humans hit puberty as early as possible because they didn't live long. But as we EVOLVED things like immunities and our brain evolved we lived longer. Our body didn't need to hit full maturity by the age of 11 any more. So if they believe that evolution is, "just a theory" then they should have sex with little kids. After all 2000 years ago we did, and the only reason we don't now... evolution. Of course I don't mean like, 40 year old with an 11 year old I mean at the age of 11 get married and have kids. Of course, if you lived to be 40 2000 years ago you were so old and decrepid you couldn't take care of yourself let alone have a wife and kids.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join