University of Kansas to Teach 'Intelligent Design' as Myth

[darin]

Humans shared a common ancestor with apes. It's a fact Jack.

Yet it's a fact which you cannot prove. You can't test for it. You can't observe it. All 'your camp' has is rudimentary bone fragments and a hope there is no God.

[Hagbard Celine]

Yet it's a fact which you cannot prove. You can't test for it. You can't observe it. All 'your camp' has is rudimentary bone fragments and a hope there is no God.

Nope, actually evolution is supported at the genetic level. Apes have 24 chromosomes. Humans have 23. And number 2 in humans is fused. It has twice the number of telomeres (end pieces). It has a set in the center, when all other chromosomes have telomeres at their ends. Every discovery that's ever been made has supported Darwin's theory.http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articl...hromosome.html
And there are much more than "bone fragments" as you called them. The fossil record is quite extent. Fossils from hundreds, if not thousands of now-extinct species have been discovered. Many of them are so-called developmental bridge or "link" species that show the links between land and sea animals for instance. Denial of the facts will get you nowhere dmp.
This isn't an issue of "camps" dmp. It's an issue of fact and inexplicable denial.

[darin]

Nope, actually evolution is supported at the genetic level. Apes have 24 chromosomes. Humans have 23. And number 2 in humans is fused. It has twice the number of telomeres (end pieces). It has a set in the center, when all other chromosomes have telomeres at their ends. Every discovery that's ever been made has supported Darwin's theory.http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articl...hromosome.html
And there are much more than "bone fragments" as you called them. The fossil record is quite extent. Fossils from hundreds, if not thousands of now-extinct species have been discovered. Many of them are so-called developmental bridge or "link" species that show the links between land and sea animals for instance. Denial of the facts will get you nowhere dmp.
This isn't an issue of "camps" dmp. It's an issue of fact and inexplicable denial.

I'm sorry for your loss. My condolences to your 'reason'.

[Hobbit]

Nope, actually evolution is supported at the genetic level. Apes have 24 chromosomes. Humans have 23. And number 2 in humans is fused. It has twice the number of telomeres (end pieces). It has a set in the center, when all other chromosomes have telomeres at their ends. Every discovery that's ever been made has supported Darwin's theory.http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articl...hromosome.html
And there are much more than "bone fragments" as you called them. The fossil record is quite extent. Fossils from hundreds, if not thousands of now-extinct species have been discovered. Many of them are so-called developmental bridge or "link" species that show the links between land and sea animals for instance. Denial of the facts will get you nowhere dmp.
This isn't an issue of "camps" dmp. It's an issue of fact and inexplicable denial.

So you're saying that because things look similar, they must have randomly evolved into each other? I thought science was about approaching evidence without first forming a conclusion. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. A DVD and a CD look exactly alike on the surface. One is a natural extension of the other. They operate in identical ways. By the logic of evolutionists, this means that the DVD must, beyond question, have evolved naturally from the CD through a slow process of natural selection and any attempts to credit the progress to some 'designer' is nothing but dogmatic mysticism.

You also mentioned that ID isn't testable. Is evolution? Can you produce for me one scientific test where scientists have observed selective breeding (natural or otherwise) cause the emergence of a distinct species or the spontaneous appearance of an additional features previously unseen in the species? Or is the best evidence you have a dinosaur with wings?

As a side note, I'm open to the idea of evolution. If it's proven true, that no more affects my belief in God than the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. I don't reject it because I somehow 'have to' in order to cling onto my beliefs. I reject it because it makes little sense. The biological complexities that supposed sprang into existence through totally random chance make even the most advanced piece of technology look primitive and simple, and it seems entirely implausible that such things simply 'fell into place.'

[darin]

So you're saying that because things look similar, they must have randomly evolved into each other? I thought science was about approaching evidence without first forming a conclusion. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. A DVD and a CD look exactly alike on the surface. One is a natural extension of the other. They operate in identical ways. By the logic of evolutionists, this means that the DVD must, beyond question, have evolved naturally from the CD through a slow process of natural selection and any attempts to credit the progress to some 'designer' is nothing but dogmatic mysticism.

You also mentioned that ID isn't testable. Is evolution? Can you produce for me one scientific test where scientists have observed selective breeding (natural or otherwise) cause the emergence of a distinct species or the spontaneous appearance of an additional features previously unseen in the species? Or is the best evidence you have a dinosaur with wings?

As a side note, I'm open to the idea of evolution. If it's proven true, that no more affects my belief in God than the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. I don't reject it because I somehow 'have to' in order to cling onto my beliefs. I reject it because it makes little sense. The biological complexities that supposed sprang into existence through totally random chance make even the most advanced piece of technology look primitive and simple, and it seems entirely implausible that such things simply 'fell into place.'

[Hagbard Celine]

So you're saying that because things look similar, they must have randomly evolved into each other? I thought science was about approaching evidence without first forming a conclusion. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. A DVD and a CD look exactly alike on the surface. One is a natural extension of the other. They operate in identical ways. By the logic of evolutionists, this means that the DVD must, beyond question, have evolved naturally from the CD through a slow process of natural selection and any attempts to credit the progress to some 'designer' is nothing but dogmatic mysticism.

You also mentioned that ID isn't testable. Is evolution? Can you produce for me one scientific test where scientists have observed selective breeding (natural or otherwise) cause the emergence of a distinct species or the spontaneous appearance of an additional features previously unseen in the species? Or is the best evidence you have a dinosaur with wings?

As a side note, I'm open to the idea of evolution. If it's proven true, that no more affects my belief in God than the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. I don't reject it because I somehow 'have to' in order to cling onto my beliefs. I reject it because it makes little sense. The biological complexities that supposed sprang into existence through totally random chance make even the most advanced piece of technology look primitive and simple, and it seems entirely implausible that such things simply 'fell into place.'

Well, DVDs DID evolve from CDs so you'd be correct to assume things that look similar are related. The technology that gave us CDs advanced into a way to transfer video as well as sound onto a compact disc! However, science is about making a hypothesis based on observable data (in this case that things look similar) and then testing that hypothesis. Darwin's hypothesis keeps withstanding test after test after test. Nothing that has been discovered has refuted Darwin's hypothesis. Nothing. That's why I gave the genetic example. Darwin's theory posits that Humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor. The fields of genetics and chemistry back this up as well as the fossil record. Not the least of which is archyopteryx, the dino-bird you mentioned. Horse evolution is particularly well documented. As is the evolution of the large sea mammals. I really wish some of you would watch this doc on the Dover I.D. trial. It's particularly instructive about the theory of evolution and I think it would dispell many of the myths that are currently propagated by the I.D. crowd these days such as the myth that animals appear in the fossil record spontaneously or that bio-structures are too complex to function missing any of their parts as well as clearing things up for you all about what evolution really is. I'm pretty sure most of you are still confused on most parts of the theory. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
Yes, evolution is testable. We can test genetic codes to look for similarities. We can compare fossils. We can see in reproduction that spontaneous mutation can cause physical transformations. It's even plausible to reproduce the same strain of bacteria over and over again for generations to determine if it ever changes. I don't know if that test has ever been done, but the point is that it CAN be tested. Your "creator" isn't testable. He hasn't shown up to any lab and plopped down on the examination table as far as I know anyway.
It seems somewhat more implausible that an all-powerful creator who left no trace of its existence and no way to prove its existence created everything than it does to attribute the existence of life to natural processes. Yes, biological systems are complex, but they didn't spring into being in their complete form. They built on themselves over time to become complex. It isn't rocket science. Human technology didn't spring into being. It began as sticks and stones. Why would biological systems be any different? I wish you'd explain which part of the theory "makes little sense" to you. Because quite frankly, coming from someone who believes in supernatural forces that are supported by absolutely zero quantifiable evidence, it sounds pretty damn silly.

[Hagbard Celine]

This is sad.

[darin]

Hag - you have more Faith than anyone I know. Your Faith in your theories is commendable.

[Hagbard Celine]

Hag - you have more Faith than anyone I know. Your Faith in your theories is commendable.

"Faith?" Does it take faith to know that sky is blue? Hey, when something makes perfect sense and is supported with mountains of physically observable data, it's pretty difficult for most people to dismiss it. Kudos for being in the 1 percentile!

[glockmail]

....
As a side note, I'm open to the idea of evolution. If it's proven true, that no more affects my belief in God than the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. I don't reject it because I somehow 'have to' in order to cling onto my beliefs. I reject it because it makes little sense. ....

Well said.

[Hagbard Celine]

Well said.

Christ. It's like the blind leading the blind around here. None of you even understand the most basic parts of evolution theory yet you're slapping each other on the back for making the most mundane "observations" possible.

[April15]

And who do you blow? Mike Moore?

I would hate to put you out of work! Now back to some substance or funnys.

[glockmail]

Christ. It's like the blind leading the blind around here. None of you even understand the most basic parts of evolution theory yet you're slapping each other on the back for making the most mundane "observations" possible.

What's so hard to understand? Your faith that there is no God is clouding your judgement.

[glockmail]

I would hate to put you out of work! Now back to some substance or funnys.

Your's was neither.

[diuretic]

There I was thinking that I was creating subtle humor.

Indeed you were. Don't mind me, I can be very dense at times