Quote:
Or are you among the people who think the world is 6000 [give or take several thousand, depending] years old?
Nah, the religious people actually give dates. For example, the Archbishop Usher said in 1650 that the universe was created 23 October 4004 BC.
As a final note...you ignored everything I stated about ID not being science. Would you care to dispute them? Or do you agree that Intelligent Design bases its existence on combatting evolution rather than trying to prove itself on its ow
Everything you said about ID not being science is simply incorrect, from a scientists point of view. If ID did not have scientifically valid points there wouldn't be such a debate, the fact that "irreduceable complexity" exists, as well as the mathematical proofs that chaos cannot generate order (as is required by evolution theory) give credence to ID as a workable theory.
I won't get into the thermodynamic argument about evolution simply because once again there is only evidence, and evidence is not proof. Think of Thermodynamics as the first law of Alchemy from Full Metal Alchemist
Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's first law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
Except that the laws of thermodynamics are much more involved and deal with disorder as well as free energy, not just matter. Which is really splitting hairs since matter and energy are really the same thing in different states, e=mcc and all that.
I'm not going to ask you to trust me about the validity of ID arguments, but you would not be dissapointed to delve further into the debate, and learning a little chemistry/biology/probability wouldn't hurt, as well as reading "Chaos" by James Gleick, "Information Theory, Evolution, and The Origin of Life" by Hubert Yockey, as well as "A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization" by Dean Overman.
Jimro
You know, new ideas in science always have a hard time being accepted.
The idea that DNA, not protien, carried inheritable traits. Do you realize that while the Manhattan project was splitting the atom, biologists firmly believed that only proteins were complex enough to record heritable traits?
And then the big debate was "Is DNA conservative, semi conservative, or non conservative in replication" and the evidence from the experiments conducted was so messy that it really supported any argument you wanted, until some students in California made an experiment where the evidence was conclusive.
Heliocentric theory, that the Earth, and all other planets, orbit the sun, that the Earth is not the center of the univers. Galileo recieved censure from the Catholic Church for his "heretical Copernican" views of the universe.
Phlogiston theory versus Oxygen...read the play "Oxygen" for more info.
Prions are crystal proteins, not "slow viruses", to this day many serious researchers are still seeking to find a genetic component to the TSE causing prions, and when the theory was put forth that prions were misfolded proteins the scientific community thought the guy was off his rocker. Read "Deadly Feasts" for more info/history.
These are just five historical examples, three two of them occured in the last 60 years, well into the "rational" age.
I guess people sometimes forget is the search for the truth about reality. Science produces answers that fit the model at hand, but when the body of knowlege about the model changes, then the theory must be reworked, or abandoned for a more accurate explanation.
Jimro
I won't get into the thermodynamic argument about evolution simply because once again there is only evidence, and evidence is not proof
How is evidence not proof? Evidence of something is far, far more trustworthy than simply saying "This is the truth, and you'd better accept it."
At least the proof of evolution in general is more grounded in evidence than intelligent design is, after all. See my dinosaur article in my first post.
How is evidence not proof?
Evidence indicates. Proof guarantees.
Cooki, evidence is not proof, but just like in the scientific community a body of evidence will be accepted as proof if the theory supports the evidence and there isn't an equally valid theory that is also supported by the evidence. The was the case for Evolution until microscopy and genetics allowed researchers a clearer picture of how life works at the cellular level. With the facts at the time evolution was the most plausible of all the scientific theories, it no longer enjoys sole ownership of that position.
Footprints are evidence that an animal has passed by, but they are not definative proof on the mass, density, often even sex, of the animal, or even if the footprints are faked to mislead those studying animals. Using this as an analogy, scientists often know "something" passed by, and use all available evidence to explain the event.
Jimro
Lets get back to bowing to Zod. Thats more ontopic than this lackluster display of how much free time you people have to write these novels about how your opinions are write and everyone elses are wrong.
~Rico
Going off topic, but I just thought I'd chime in...
I think liberal means something different in the US than it does in the UK. In the UK, the Liberal Party is the more conservative (rightist) party and the Labor Party is more liberal (leftist)? *confused*
I believe the simplist way to put it is:
Labour - Centre
Conservative - Right
Liberal Democrats - Left
(The Liberals haven't been a major party since the most of them merged with the Democrats making said Liberal Democrats in the late '80s).
Being of course huge generalisations, but all the same. Liberal does mean the same in the UK as it does in the US.
Quote:
You know, new ideas in science always have a hard time being accepted.
Yes, Jimro, but Intelligent Design isn't a new idea. It's a very old idea, and the older it gets, the more proof we find against it.
Whereas the Theory of Evolution is the new idea. Religions burned people for even suggesting it, you know.
Harley,
Get thee to thy studies... The ID arguments are based on genetics, information theory, irreduceable complexity, not any religious text. Creationism and ID are two different models. I will state that again, Creation Theory and Intelligent Design are two different models. Are we clear?
Remember that Darwin wrote "Origin of Species" long before Gregor Mendel first crossed pea plants to demonstrate independant assortment of traits, remember that is wasn't until the 1950's that DNA began to be studied earnestly, and breaking the genetic code took longer still. Remember that the electron microscopes, both transmission and scanning, were not available to researchers until recently.
ID stands on it's own merits, and it does not support or disprove creationist claims of a 6000 year old universe.
Jimro
Remember that Darwin wrote "Origin of Species" long before Gregor Mendel first crossed pea plants to demonstrate independant assortment of traits,
Incorrect. Mendel and Darwin basically worked at the same time. Their final papers were published within seven years of one another.
Cooki, I'm sorry if seven years between publications is not long enough for you, but to paint the picture of Darwin and Mendel as cohorts or fellow researchers is blatantly false.
Here is how I see it.
"Origin of Species" was published in 1859, and "Experiments in Plant Hybridization" in 1866, but Darwin based much of "Origin" on the finches of the Galapagos that he gathered in 1835 when Mendel was all of 13 years of age. Darwin was working on his idea about evolution as early as 1838 from his correspondence and notebooks.
It took Mendel 7 years of pea crossbreads to gather enough data to publish, making the start of his research right about the finish of twenty one years of refinement that went into Origins.
"Origin" immediately hit the public attention because of it's religious connection going through 6 publications in Darwins lifetime, where Mendel's work was ignored for another 34 years, even by Darwin. Had Darwin embraced Mendels work he might have given up his pangenesis hypothesis.
Jimro
Yeah? Well my beliefs are more betterer than all yours are! pbthththhth! 
~Rico
Shouldn't this go in Marble Garden?
If they don't stop with the creation vs evolution crap (My bad 'Intelligent Design' versus 'Darwinism' crap) it will. That or I'll just lock it as we have enough places for these spiritual hoohoo measuring contests in there as it is.
~Rico
LOL, I'm not arguing that either model is correct, only that both are "science". I don't have a problem with evolution theory, it answers the majority of fundamental questions most people have, but when you get more in depth into the sciences it becomes clear that evolution doesn't have all the answers.
And it irks me that generations of teachers with little scientific training/experience have preached Evolution as fact without ever delving into the evidence for such a claim. The scientific process moves a model forward only by continual review and re-evaluation. I once thought chemistry would soon be a "perfected" science, and the more I learn about it, the more wrong that opinion becomes. Groundbreaking research is being conducted even as we speak.
Jimro
Bush just wants to drill it into some more heads that the universe was created only about 6000 years ago by some unknown, intelligent creature.
How is that not saying that God greated the universe?
Cooki, I'm sorry if seven years between publications is not long enough for you, but to paint the picture of Darwin and Mendel as cohorts or fellow researchers is blatantly false.
What the....excuse me, but I was certainly not, in any way, painting them as bosom buddies, though you seem to want to twist my words to make it look like I was. I said they worked "at basically the same time", meaning they were pretty much contemporaries of one another when they published, that they worked at roughly the same time with their final papers.
This is as opposed to you saying "Darwin worked long before Mendel", since seven years in between final writings is really not a long span of time and is in fact about the same time period, in comparison to, say, "Newton was writing his theories of gravity long before Darwin went and found a bunch of turtles." This was about 200 years in between. That's a long time. Seven years, or even 30 years, is really not when it comes to scientific studies and the fact of when their works were actually finalized - which is what I said.
But how you conjectured the word "cohorts" from my saying:
Incorrect. Mendel and Darwin basically worked at the same time. Their final papers were published within seven years of one another.
...is beyond me, as I did not imply it or say that they were working together. So please stop putting words in my mouth.
Harley,
Congrats, you get the last word.
Jimro
liez! I get the last word! o.o
BOOGER!
~Rico
Brain...exploding...from...this...topic...
Look, If something mutates, whether it's a loss of function or gain of function, AS LONG AS IT SURVIVES! Look at humans for example.
NOW: JUST FOR A MOMENT, JUST BELIVE THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE WHILE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH.
Okay, About The time when our anchient ancestors where small primates: A Primate is born with no Tail, due to a LOSS OF FUNCTION MUTATION It can no longer balance well, and therefore is not able to get fruit from trees. It Survives On ground, Eating Bugs. Because it Lives on the ground, and therefore has to worry about faster land predators, His Hind Leg Mucles Grow, because his brain is sending signals to change the Instructions in DNA so more mucle cells are made. Luckly, he survives, and finds a Mate. Against the odds by about 1:4 The offspring have no tails, so that Trait, And the trait for stronger hind-leg mucles survives. Now, Fastforward About a million years, this has become a new breed of primate, But it's population is thinning out because of a mutation that caused the males to lose fur as they got older, Causing them to freeze to death in the winter. A Loss of Function Mutation. Luckly, a mutation in the DNA in a few of the offspring cause a better way to store fat to keep them warm.Gain Of function. Later On, another that enables them to Stand up right, Even Later, Humans come out of what started as a Tailless primate.
I'm not saying that's what happened, But It could have happened that way, and this also shows that A loss of Function Mutation DOES equal Evolution, as long as the offspring survives.
...Sorry about the small essay, but I needed to put in my two bits... or thousand dollars...
Burning a dead, hanged, cooked, eaten, expelled and buried horse.
~Rico
Yes, Rico, Yes I am.
...Wait, Im confused, how does ZOD randomly appear in bush topics?
>.>
Someone silence him. He speaks of he who must not be named.
~Rico
Or there's the other theory of Evolution - a species of ape began living on the ground more. Since they didn't need their tails for balance, over the (thousands of) years it grew weaker and smaller with disuse, and whithered away. We still have a stump of a tail at the bottom of our spines.
As you may or may not know, I'm a Christian... It suddenly dawns on you that I'd be all for this...
But it sounds so... danged... WEIRD. O_O
Down here, in Arkansas, the Science teacher just blatantly states at the beginning of the year, before he gets into this stuff:
"Science is the art of trying to describe the world via facts and examples. It cannot disproove creationism of any sort, nor any other type of religious...blah blah blah. Darwin, God, monkies... blah blah blah..."
That pretty much states it right there. If you've got a problem after the teacher says that, then you're gonna have problems having an intellegent discussion with just about anyone...
So... As long as nobody's preaching to me outright, I don't suppose I have anything productive to say either way. Teach me Creationism? More power to ya. Teach me Evolutionism? Same power to ya.
I already know the beleifs of both sides, and hearing something new, whether I beleive it or not, certainly isn't going to kill me. And I don't think God's gonna smash you with a giant fist, either.
~Nytloc Penumbral Lightkeeper
