Hey! stop bickering like grade 1 kids people and get back on topic yeesh.

Don't make me sit you in the corner....

All right ... all right. Don't want to sit in the corner.



I certainly hope that ID is kept where it belongs--Sunday school. ID is not science, it is faith.

Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050922_ID_main.html

Kindly,

Sean

I agree Sean it is a faith and one that should stay out of schools with the exception of religious schools and organizations.

Religion and spirituality should never be allowed to enter public school systems.

I will freely admit I usually do not read articles completely. I use a techinique I learned in both military science and in critical reading and writing. I scan an article from start to finish, looking for words or phrases that repeat or that I do not recognize or that seem important for other reasons, (including if they are the heading of a section), I then skim through particular paragraphs trying to understand what the main idea of the paragraph is. Then, I go back and highlight (if I'm reading on-screen then, I write down the paragraph number or heading, and then the sentence number). I then read the beginning and ending paragraph/sentence of each section and/or article. Usually this gives me a good "feel" for what the article is about. Sometimes this is all I do, but if I think that the article is presenting information I have not run into or I do not understand, and if I have the time I do read the whole thing.

Do I understand everything in each of those articles? No, I do not. I think I understand enough to have a grasp of what is being said, but having a degree in math, I know that even highly educated people do not have a grasp, or interest, in the topic as someone who has studied it, so I know I do not have the same grasp of this subject as someone who has studied it more thoroughly or even specialized in it.

Teaching things like ID undermines the entire point of school. You to school to learn. If you teach ID, you would also have to teach Magic, a cryptozoology class, a Ghost photography class, an Alien astronomy class, etc.

These thing's don't belong in grade schools or highschools because grade/high
school is there to teach the basics. Everything else is for college or your own studies(you don't need a teacher to learn).

Public schoools are already a mess, my school was barely equiped to teach me Math, history, english, and science when i was in highschool. If you want to learn about ID go to church.

Specific areas of study are for college.

If religion is allowed into the public classroom then science/evolution should be allowed into the church classroom.....and all of the other religious creation myths.

That much is obvious.



If you understood the topic this technique (self taught here) it would work.....but if you are not versed in what you are reading how do you really expect to comprehend? (< no sarcasm intended)

Thank you, Z, for getting him to admit what he would not admit to me.

Alright now, everyone, and I truly understand that this is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black, but people need to take a step back and calm down. Everyone, on both sides, is being antagonistic, whether passively or actively. My recent 24 hour break, courtesy of my ISP switching and forgetting to re-connect me, gave me a chance to calm down a bit, and I am asking that everyone else take a bit of a break before starting over again, and then taking the time to re-read your posts and see if, maybe, they came off as a bit more harsh than you meant.

I gave you the answer to that question in the same post you are quoting. I do read many articles completely, not all, since I do have a life away from UM and interests other than evolution.

As I tried to explain, not being a paleontologist, biologist, geologist, anthropologist, etc. I am well aware that there are topics within these fields that I will not get a full grasp of simply from reading the latest articles.

I was indoctrinated into military thinking since I was a Freshman in high school and went on to get more than enough credits in college for military science to be one of my double majors and then served as an officer in the army. When I read an article on a particular mission or battle in the current war on terrorism, I do so with a much greater degree of understanding of what is required to conduct an operation than the normal reader will, I understand the type of training, logistics, intelligence, etc. that had to go into preparing for it.

In the same way, I know I do not get the full picture or have as full an understanding of what someone in one of those fields (paleontology, biology, etc) I previously mentioned will have reading the same article in one of those fields.

If anyone here claims they fully understand these articles and is not fully immersed in that field, I would seriously doubt what they are saying.

I have a question for the Intelligent Design folks:

Could random chance have created God?

If Yes: then random chance could easily have created life in all its many forms.

If No: then God must have been created by something else, like a higher intelligence. So why don't you worship this higher intelligence?


--DJS

"A fully owned and operated subsidiary of Jesus Christ"

I always knew religion was a profit-making business.

--DJS

Here is a question for the Intelligent Design faction:

How does one determine if a given biological device was intelligently designed or not?

Excellent questions, gents.

Just look at the human body. We are hardly a master work. And if any omnipotent, omniscient entity did create humans, IT must of failed "Biological Architecture 101"! Our bodies succumb so easily to wear and tear, illness, injury etc., that it's not even funny. And I speak from personal experience. Having sustained a spinal cord injury, I can readily testify to the body's frailties. Amazing how a minor bruise to the SC can leave one paralyzed and trapped within the confines of the body.

In that case evolution is not science, unless we consider that what a scientist personally believes is science.

Religion may be, but the benefits of a true spiritual walk can't be measured simply or at all in financial riches. The retirement plan itself is amazing!

Well, given that anyone taking on this subject seriously is immediately dubbed to be a crackpot by the scientific community we may never have a well considered answer to this very good question.

I've been called worse things in my time so I don't mind answering this one.

Ruling out faith as unprovable and given that there will ALWAYS be some chance, no matter how remote, of a biological 'device' being created by random chance. I would suppose the only way you could categorically prove Intelligent Design was behind the creation of said device would be if that Intelligence left it's 'makers mark' on the device.

To the best of my knowledge we haven't found any microscopic ' Copyright GOD - Made in Heaven' registration marks on any organism yet.

BTW - how do you add the name/time stamp into quotes? I haven't played around with the quote system yet but wondered if someone could give me a pointer?

If you hit the small "reply" button under the post you want to quote it will open a new window with the whole of that message already in quotes. (I suggest that you edit out the irrelevant part of the message though as too many people quote an entire, long post and then only give a one word answer).

If you wish to quote more than one message click on the " +quote" button under each message you wish to quote (it will turn orange and say "-quote" to show you have done it. The when you hit the main "Add reply" button at the end of the thread it will quote each of the posts in their entirety. Obviously the above suggestion of editing still stands (even more so) in this case.

Another advantage of doing quotes this way is that if ou click on the little orange arrow in the quote it will take you to that original post.

The difference is that what the scientist believes in is called facts . Facts that can be reproduced and proven through use of the scientific method. Anyone can do it. You dont have to believe in a fact to be able to test and reproduce its effects.
Give ANY form of proof other than "I read it in a book that someone wrote a long time ago" and maybe those "beliefs" might also be considered fact.

If the purpose of Intelligent Design is to claim that some biological devices were intelligently designed, however it does not give any method to determine if an organic device is intelligently designed, then what is the purpose of Intelligent Design? What is its reason for existance?

Well, what should they be dubbed when they go against biology, chemistry AND physics with no supporting evidence?

Not necessarily "crackpots". But certainly not "science".

So if a person came and said "Nope. The Earth is FLAT!" you would not consider them a crackpot?

Look, i agree that the earth is round. I believe that evolution is more likely than ID. I believe more in science than in faith. All I meant was that its unfair to label someone a kook or a crackpot just for believing something different.

Now if they try to debate with me over how their beliefs are more valid than mine, and cant state ANY logical proof or evidence (outside of a book that someone else made up a long time ago), THATS when I have a problem.

It is unfair to a certain point but in reality the ones feeding the unsubstantiated beleifs to the masses are kooks and crackpots. Gullible however is not unfair since thats what you have to be to beleive in ID among other things.



Likewise with me as well...

Fact is no one who beleives or supports ID can show any physical proof or evidence at all. They cannot support their claims with anything other then i 'beleive' thats how it happened.

Indeed, they shouldnt be dubbed a crackpot for just believing something different... however, when they get into vocally challenging every single domain of science, saying every bit of evidence is wrong and such, they themselves having no supporting evidence, they stoop to the level of the average conspiracy theorist, and I will treat them as such up until the point when they either accept that their belief is simply a belief and not fact, or until they present evidence.

But if you (by your own admission) do not know very much about a topic.....then how do you know if you are over looking something?

As I said: If you understood the topic this technique it would work, but if you don't then......

This debate IMO is over due to the lack of evidence to support ID. Evolution is only called a theory by those who question it. Everyone else calls it fact including myself as it has been prooven factual over the last century of observation.

Nobody has tried to rebut this, yet. Come on you ID folks. Grab your courage and have a go at it. Could random chance have created God? Quit trying to dodge the question.
--DJS

The answer was right there, zan. I read articles completely if I find that I do not understand the article by simply scanning and skimming. I do not read every article. Some of these articles are too technical, and I can usually see that from a good scan and skim. Usually these articles require that you have significant formal knowledge which I know I do not have in those fields, so I do not read them.

There is no question to dodge as most people who believes in God also believes He created all things including time itself. So therefore He would exist outside of the dimension of time and would not be subject to it. God has always been and will always be, hard to fathom, but that is the answer to your question.

As for the evidence. Any good lawyer will tell you that the same evidence can often and does support both concepts. One can only use reasoning based on known evidence to support a pre-conceived hypotheses and the only real proof was to actually witness the events, since no one today was around when these events took place both sides have no solid proof only conjecture.
So unless you were a personal witness to evolution or creation it would be arrogant to suggest that only fools would believe opposite to what you believe.

Irish

Well, I believe in Evolution, and that it is more plausible than ID, but I am hesitant to call it a fact. It is more factual than ID, but I still believe it is a theory.

Fact: Apples and oranges are round.

Theory: Oranges roll faster than apples because oranges are more round.

Belief: God said: "Let oranges be faster than apples," and it was so.

Shadamaun...

...

...

That has to be the most neat and concise description of Fact, Theory, and Belief that I have seen in a long time.

In regards to Intelligent Design, can we agree that the only reason it exists is as an attempt to by-pass the Supreme Court decision to not allow creationism to be taught in public schools because of its religious nature?

I am not hesitant to call it fact because evolution has been prooven. As I had mentioned earlier you may not look any further then the Influenza virus which has evolved several times within the last hundred years.

No one from the ID side of the arguement has yet to present any evidence that life as we know it came from an omnipotent being.

We can observe that apples and oranges are round. We can also however observe and track evolutionary patterns in lifeforms thus evolution is fact.

First, IAS, let me apologize for my rather terse reply to you earlier. My bad. Second, here are some terrific articles on evolution for Christians written by a Christian entitled ESSAY V: EVOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS by Robert J. Schneider.

SOURCE
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp

AND:

I: WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT CREATION by Robert J. Schneider
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay01.asp

AND:

Religion and Science (video)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/index.html

...Instead of reading the chapter as a triumphant affirmation of the power and wisdom of God and the wonder of his creation, we have been too often bogged down in attempting to squeeze Scripture into the mold of the latest scientific hypothesis or distorting scientific facts to fit a particular interpretation. When allowed to speak for itself, Gen. 1 looks beyond such minutiae. Its proclamation of the God of grace and power who undergirds the world and gives it purpose justifies the scientific approach to nature (40).--Evangelical Bible scholar Gordon Wenham

Kindly,

Sean

Revised theory after experimentation: Apples and oranges travel at the same speed.

Belief found wrong. Must be adapted or discarded. Arguements ensue on UM forums.

The Gene That Made Us Human
Scientists decode a critical gene that may have led to the evolution of our big brains
By Zach Zorich
March 04, 2004 | Mind & Brain

Scientists have long suspected that humans evolved large brains because our hominid ancestors had to outwit and elude predators, learn to use fire, and develop complex social structures. The smart hominids survived, while the stupid ones were more likely to get eaten or freeze to death. Over millions of years, the result of this game of survival of the fittest was the appearance of big-brained, peculiarly intelligent modern humans. Now Bruce Lahn, a biomedical researcher at the University of Chicago, has found the first clear indication of the genetic changes that led to the rapid expansion of our brain.

Lahn and his colleagues looked at the abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated (ASPM) gene, which scientists had previously identified as a key player in brain development. He grew intrigued by ASPM after other researchers discovered that serious defects in the gene cause microcephaly—a drastic reduction in the size of the brain’s cerebral cortex, the region responsible for such higher brain functions as abstract thought and planning. Lahn wondered: Could changes in this gene, favored by the pressures of natural selection, have directed the development of the big, modern human brain?

To find out, Lahn compared the sequence of the human ASPM gene with the equivalent gene sequences of various primates—including chimpanzees, gorillas, and gibbons—and with the sequences of nonprimate species such as mice, cows, and dogs. He isolated genetic mutations that altered the structure of the ASPM protein and thus could have affected brain size, while weeding out the random mutations that had no structural effect and hence would have been unaffected by evolutionary pressures. Lahn found that the ASPM gene in humans has undergone 15 important mutations since we last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, about 5 million years ago. Significantly, compared with the other animals studied, humans have experienced the fastest overall rate of change in the gene since our evolutionary line parted ways with chimpanzees and other primates. Evidently, ASPM responded to natural selection, and the resulting changes contributed to our large brains.

How exactly the ASPM gene produced these changes is not yet entirely clear. It seems to control how many times cells in the cerebral cortex can divide, which controls how much space there is for neurons. A variant of the gene that allowed additional cell divisions, Lahn surmises, gave some hominids the additional neural infrastructure that eventually let them develop abstract reasoning and language skills. The exact environmental pressures that pushed humans toward higher intelligence also remain a matter of speculation. “Humans are very social, and coming down from the trees to live on the African plains could have triggered a situation where higher cognitive abilities were highly favored,” Lahn says. The need for hominids to work cooperatively to find food and to combat the increased threat of large predators could have fostered the development of a larger brain capable of processing language and anticipating danger.

In future experiments, Lahn will insert the human ASPM gene into mice to see what affect it has on brain development. He hopes to reconstruct the detailed story of how the human brain grew and changed as the result of natural selection, thereby creating the thing that makes us each unique—the human mind.

SOURCE
http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives-arc...e-us-human0304/

Sean

Belief cannot be incorrect: new Theory of Gravity postulated

Very good. Thanks, Irish.

That's somewhat parallel to my own thinking on the subject.

What came before the beginning? God?

There was no "before the beginning." If anything at all preceded the point under consideration, even God, then it wasn't the beginning because something had come before. Thus, God and time came into existence at the same zero-point. Sounds like the Big Bang.

Another similar question would be "What's north of the north pole?" The question is meaningless because all longitudunal lines meet at the pole; thus, at that one point, the direction of "north" does not exist.

Cosmologists are telling us that the universe has no edge and no middle. In any sense that we're used to dealing with, it is infinite. Questions about beginnings, endings and evolutions make no sense in that context.

Maybe that's the answer to Inteligent Design: it's a meaningless question.

--DJS

Excellent response gents. If we require a creator ... then mustn't god have a creator? So who was is that created god ad infinitum?



I think this has changed, Doug. I believe the current thinking revolves around M-Theory--that we are apart of a multi-verse and 11 dimensions. The Big Bang was a result of two parallel universes actually colliding, turning energy into mass and ... whallah! Very interesting.

M-Theory: The Mother of all SuperStrings (Dr. M. Kaku)
http://www.mkaku.org/article_mtheory.htm

Kindly,

Sean

Who found that apples and oranges travel at the same speed? Was it tested by multiple, independant sources? And if so, no problem; theories are meant to be tested and retested. Thats why they are theories, not facts.

But youd be hard pressed to get anyone to rewrite the Gospel of Valencia, as spoken by Saint Granny of Smith. If you do that, who is to say that the Psalm of Dayo isn't incorrect that the Tallyman is coming back to tally me banana? Belief, my friend, will never change.

Or perhaps one that doesn't wish to be know.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Intelligent Design is not a theological theory.

Intelligent Design is nothing more than a political maneuver intentionally designed to deceive government officials into accepting creationism into public schools.

?????????????

I see a answer but......

Hey Shada theories ARE based on facts.

My profile quote: Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism is neither.

A theory is something so highly probable as to not be denied. A fact[s] ties a theory together.

A theory stands until disproven.

Correct. And rectangles are BASED on squares. Doesnt mean one is the other. Just means its closer than a circle.