And pigs will fly

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Samiam
I assume nothing.

What I can explain and substantiate naturally, I do. I seek to maximize what I can explain naturally. This is science.

I accept intelligent design as one hypothesis for that which we cannot (yet?) explain naturally. I have no criticism of ID other than it is NOT SCIENCE. By definition, it cannot be scientifically substantiated. Teach it in religeous studies. Teach it in philosopy. Teach it at home and in church. Shout it from the mountain tops - you will get no argument from me.

But DO NOT teach the potential future designers of pharmaceuticals on which my life may one day depend that ID is in any way shape or form grounded in science.

Cool.

Do you think that frogs are a result of intelligent design, or do you believe that they came into being after a series of random events?

Maybe a drug that will cure cancer will develope at random some day so you will not have to rely on inteligent design.

[NUKE]

Let's face it, I win.

[Samiam]

Science tells me that frogs are a result of a biological process of natural selection , adaptation, and specialization that started on earth eons ago.

'night NUKE.

[Chairboy]

The intelligence behind the design of the preceding post by Nuke is definitely in question.

If you were a comedian, you'd be laughing at your own jokes.

[Hangtime]

Nuke, yer testimony is proof that yer creator ain't all that damn intelligent.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Samiam
Science tells me that frogs are a result of a biological process of natural selection , adaptation, and specialization that started on earth eons ago.

'night NUKE.

Are you saying that a plastic spoon could not be the result of the same biological process?

Maybe someone as *smart* as hang could argue that point.

[NUKE]

The plastic spoon is a very complex organism.

[Hangtime]

darwin's theories are evidenced by the spork, which clearly evolved from the plastic spoon.























match, game, set.

[ChickenHawk]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Positive proof? What the heck is that? Science only tries to postulate the most likely answer based on the evidence.

 

Samiam was asking for positive proof for ID.  I was just saying that it was impossible to prove ID through scientific resources but also pointed out that he could not provide proof positive that evolution is the reason we are here.  Neither theory can be proven at this point in time.

Macro Evolution -  What is that? A new species? A new genus? A new family? How far does the evidence have to go before you concede?  There is myriad evidence of new species being formed in our lifetime. There is fossil evidence of huge changes to species over time and there is very good evidence of transitional species in almost every phyla. Maybe you just need to rely less on life experience and do more reading.

If your truly interested in the answer, Wikipedia is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Basically what it boils down to is that microevolution is changes in existing DNA while macroevolution requires DNA to be added.  Microevolution can be confirmed though a controlled experiment while macroevolution cannot.  The emergence of completely new species would require macroevolution.

Oh, and don't assume that, just because someone holds a different view on life than you, that they don't do any reading.

[ChickenHawk]

Originally posted by Samiam

Science can and has produced overwhelming evidence that natural selection, adaptation, and mutation have occurred throughout time and are occuring. Science can and has produced convincing evidence to support predominant hypotheses regarding the origins of the universe, as well as for species origins. (Just because your pseudo fringe-scientists claim otherwise, doesn't mean that a preponderance of evendence doesn't exist that the scientific community accepts).

I agree with you that science has proved natural selection, adaptation and mutation within species but IMO it has a long way to go to prove the emergence of new species out of existing ones.  I'm not one to listen to pseudo fringe-scientists either.

But what you have done here, once again, is assert a negative to support your claim. Lack of certain specifics in one theory DO NOT lend support to an alternate hypothesis.

Why is it so hard to understand that a negative statement is not scientific evidence?

If you look in your garage and find that your car is not there, you cannot immediately assert that it is on fire in France.

It is fantastically flawed logic to assert that because science has yet to fill in certain details, God MUST have created man in His image.
[/B]

I don't believe I said any of those things.  I never said that because I think your theiry is wrong that mine is right.  Only a fool would think that was logic.  What I said was is that neither theory can be scientificaly proven at this time.

[moot]

Neither theory can be proven beyond doubt, but only one is a scientific theory.
The other flies as high as the spaghetti monster, or the heavens, arbitrarily.

[Samiam]

Oh, and don't assume that, just because someone holds a different view on life than you, that they don't do any reading.

I'm sure you read plenty. Now try applying critical thought to what you read.

I don't believe I said any of those things. I never said that because I think your theiry is wrong that mine is right. Only a fool would think that was logic. What I said was is that neither theory can be scientificaly proven at this time.

Absolute proof is for mathematicians and logicians.

Science has produced a preponderance of evidence to support its theories. (And that's what makes them scientific theories.)

Intelligent Design is founded on there being a supernatural designer. BY DEFINITION, no positive (natural) evidence will identify this designer or its motives. Therefore BY DEFINITION ID cannot ever be substantiated through science.

You hold the opinion that science has not yet adequately explained how we got here. An overwhelming majority of the credible scientists on the planet dissagree with you.

You seem to expect that somehow calling ID science and exploring it as such will lead to a different understanding of our existence than currently well accepted science will. You are wrong - ID is not a scientific pursuit. There is no explaining with ID, there is only accepting.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Evolution does not need to be protected from other theories.

It should be able to stand on its own, why do you guys fear an alternative being taught next to it?

(I am not a creationist BTW)

It's not fear, it's more like general swhock at thir stupidity.  And this is why - quote from article:

"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Thrawn
I am in awe of you incredible capacity to totally not understand what you are talking about NUKE.

This is true, NUKE consistently has these moments on intensely focused and determined stupidity. Personally I think it's brain damage caused by smoking his fake plastic grass products.

[Samiam]

I'll go so far as to say I'm afraid.

I'm afraid that we will stop teaching our kids to think critically and that as a society we are diluting our ability to excel in the the one discipline that we know has fueled our prosperity as a nation for 150 years and is why we are the one remaining superpower.

We look at the middle east and note that the fundamentalist regimes have resulted in stagnant economies, rampant poverty, questionable human rights practices, and total disillusionment that has lead to hate for the west and terrorism.

Will our grandchildren be the next fundamentalist terrorists? If we stop teaching them how to use actual science to advance our understanding of the universe, they will eventually be pious paupers who are unable to compete in the world economy. They will be the dissillusioned ones. They will be hatefull and jealous of the "infidels" in the superpower China. They will be unable to innovate and capitalize on scientific research.

The smarter of our grandchildren will realize that our educational system is just a fundamentalist indoctrination, and will leave to pursue a quality education overseas. Prosperity will cause them to stay there. The rest of us will wallow in the mess we've made, still arrogant an not understanding why the rest of the world is becoming very wary of us - given our position as a backward fundamentalist nation with nukes.

But more than afraid, I am simply amazed by the fact that at the very same instant we are standing in judgement of Iran (justifiably so), some of us thumping our bibles and can't understand what the harm is in teaching the ten commandments and ID in our public schools. It's mindboggling, really.