Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Tell me why.
Make a logical argument, not a hit and run.

 

Already made this argument but it's a good one!

 

Why, do you not have an answer? Formless means "without shape" and void means "empty". How can the Earth be created as without shape and empty?

Do all insects "creep" upon the ground?

Yes, wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

"The first mammals (in Kemp's sense) appeared in the Late Triassic epoch (about 225 million years ago)..."

Not sure why you linked me to a Wikipedia article about the Cenozoic.

Right. So, why did you bring this up in the first place?

Then why bring it up?

Well, sure, if you consider a solid dome covering the Earth to be the same thing as a sky.

Well, a real quick example: Genesis 1 says that plants were created on the Third day, before man. Genesis 2 says that plants did not exist before someone was there to "work the ground".

"The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe"

 

I hope you're facing Mecca when you say that. Your inability to see matches theirs, and has held them back for a thousand years.

 

I did.

Want to start from the beginning?

People have a 1st Amendment Right to freedom of religion.

You have a 1st Amendment Right to state your bigoted beliefs.

You do not have a right 1st Amendment or otherwise to tell people how they can, may or will believe, what they can believe, or how they may practice their beliefs.

It is none of your business. You may tell them you don't like what they believe, but you have no right to enforce your beliefs on others. Get it?

I think that we can all agree the above is true.

 

The court said not one single word about atheism. The court ruled that ID is religion and not science. And that means it is constitutionally prohibited for agents of the government to present it as truth in public schools.

 

I have no idea what you mean with your reference to Mecca.

Explain to me the difference between what scientists believe and intelligent design. They believe the same exact thing.

 

This sounds good, but it leaves a LOT of room for equivocation because there is no universally accepted concept of what religion is. If I claim that it's my religious belief that the moon is made of green cheese, does the fact that I CLAIM it's religion protect my right to teach it in high school science classes?

Science, as a method of investigation, is pretty solidly defined and circumscribed. Not only that, it works. Claiming that science is just another religion is puerile sophistry, and rational people won't take it seriously.

 

"Tell" and "enforce" aren't the same thing. You seem to be conflating the two, and that's why you're getting challenged on this.

- - - Updated - - -

One easy difference is that ID is "supported" by the debunked idea of irreducible complexity. Evolutionary scientists don't believe irreducible complexity to be true.

 

Where would you like me to start? Science is based on evidence. ID has none. Scientific claims can be falsified. ID claims cannot. Science has strict rules about what's wrong, and scientists whose claims don't stand up to research are wrong. ID people can claim anything they want, because ID has no research, no hypotheses, no scientists, no budget, no peer-reviewed publications. It makes no testable predictions.

I referred to Mecca because the Muslims, too, have decided that science is simply a false faith, and gave up practicing it long ago. They, too, can't tell fact from fiction, understanding from bullshyte.

 

And as we have been over and over and over again, telling you and enforcing it are two different issues.
I told you a post or so ago you can't believe in creationism, that you are forbidden.
I have no power to enforce that, but that has no influence on my right to say it.
No ramifications will befall me for having said it. Nothing restricts my right to say that to you.
You are conflating two unrelated things to construct a strawman you can handle.
You aren't really this dim I'm sure.
Just prideful and embarrassed.

 

Well, actually, no. A biologist named Mueller, back in the 1920s, showed that irreducible complexity is a natural result of evolution, and that there is a constant battle going on in every lineage between eliminating inefficient redundency (which produces irreducible complexity), and mutations that result in new redundencies. Evolutionary biologists recognize that irreducible complexity happens all the time, with respect to some fixed function(s). But no form is irreducibly complex with respect to some new and different lifestyle.

Of course, there is another flavor of "irreducible complexity" which has little or nothing to do with redundency. That flavor is "I believe this structure (pick any) couldn't have evolved, therefore I can't see any pathway by which it could have evolved, therefore it did NOT evolve." And this flavor is really just a subset of ID generally, which is basically "I don't understand how evolution works, therefore it doesn't work, which I knew before I started anyway."

 

Easy Flint. You're on the same side.
He did a typo and meant to say the courts ruled ID isn't science.
I know the guy. Trust me.
He was referring to the Pennsylvania ruling.

 

http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742

Nobody, btw, who is qualified to teach science would ever teach it as "truth" either.

 

While what you say is true, it isn't really what PatriotNews and I are disagreeing about.

 

Actually what she said is that to a goddie, if the court says ID is a religion, then to a goddie,
its science.

 

I guess you learn something every day. I thought Behe had coined the term for his ridiculous idea, which you describe in your second part. Regardless, ID folks believe Behe's abortion of an idea and evolutionary scientists don't.

 

Because as the bible says, " In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
[1:2] the earth was a formless void". I think I pointed this out already, did you not read that part or you just don't get it?

What insects don't creep upon the ground?

No, I am right. You see, there were birds before the age of mammals. This is why I linked to the Cenozoic. It is known as

So while birds were around 150 million years ago, most mammalian creatures did not appear until 66 million years ago. This proves that what I have said is right and so is what the bible says.

I was relaying how the bible accounts and scientific knowledge do not conflict. This is why I brought it up.

Who said solid dome?

I think that they were talking about plants that had not been domesticated, don't you? Prior to that they ate plants that were not tilled of the soil.
"The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe" [/QUOTE]
And the bible also does not say what the conditions of the universe was prior to the big bang. What is your point? That the bible and scientists agree?

 

My bad (in several ways).
You still wind up on the same side of the argument though, right?

 

Or he is conflating the two. I know the difference and am trying to explain it to him. Maybe you should try to explain it to him.

I think your idea is irreducible complex.

 

Last seen, Behe was headed out through the Oort cloud, goalposts firmly in his hands. He now demands fully documented evidence of every mutation that has ever occurred to anything since the beginning of time. And if evidence of all that that meet's his satisfaction isn't produced, he claims he wins.

 

This is a strawman of your construction.

None of my points are rendered void or invalid. It is you who insist you can tell people what they can or cannot believe. But you can't. You may disagree with them, but they are allowed to believe what they will and you have no right to tell them what they can or cannot believe.

I'm sure you still don't see the difference. That is the sad thing.

 

Yes, I should hope they would not. Science is not about truth, and it's not about proof. It's about understanding, about fitting explanations to the evidence, and using those explanations to generate more and better evidence, in an iterative process. It can't produce truth. Truth is a GIVEN, nothing empirical about it. Which is why religions claim to have it, and science does not.

It's interesting to note that it's entirely legal, proper, and appropriate to teach creationism in a comparative religion courts, and creationists are dead set against this. Within the context of comparative religion, creationism comes across as just as bizarre and arbitrary as any other religion.

 

You can tell people how to behave, but with one exception you can't enforce what they believe. That exception is very early childhood, while the brain is still forming. During that development window, you can get people to believe just about anything, permanently, and impervious to any evidence no matter how overwhelming or devastatingly convincing.

The Jesuits definitely know what they're talking about when they say, give me the child until age 6, and I will give you the man.

 

yes, even if that is no fun