Evolution Framing

Evolution is verifiable science?Please, elaborate.

I caught that too, Rorbacher made those 2 look like fools.

Well um…there’s this, for on thing.

Here’s all the elaboration you’ll need:http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.htmlWhat Matthews and the rest of us should do is stop indulging the flatearthers of the world. Just pat them on the head and give them some candy.

*one thing.I know, good timing on the typo right?

Verifiable Science?”Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity. However, the mechanisms of evolution are less well understood, and it is these mechanisms that are described by several theories of evolution.”You all, just like Matthews, have no idea what your talking about, can;t use your brains, or decipher logic. Just rhetoric, and say “all scientists agree”….

I love how that quote alone makes you look like an idiot….

Rob, there’s a lot we still don’t know about gravity, not the least of which is we still don’t know how to resolve general realivity’s description of gravity as warped spacetime with quantum theory.That doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist.Likewise, just because evolutionary biologists haven’t nailed down every mechanism that goes into how evolution works doesn’t it doesn’t work. We literally have millions of pages of published, peer-reviewed literature discussing the fact of evolution through the fossil record and advances in molecular biology/genetics.It is overly simplistic to say, “most scientists agree”, because there is a reason they agree: The evidence in favor of evolution, compared to that for young earth creationism, is simply overwhelming.

What I really loved was: Dana Rohrbacher, amateur astronomer!!!If solar activity is to blame for global warming, then the Earth ought to be COOKING. Anyone who’s ever sat around a campfire knows the principle: the farther away you sit, the less heat you feel.From WikiAnswers:Mars has an elliptical orbit around the Sun, so sometimes it’s closer to the Sun, and sometimes it’s farther. When it’s closest, it is approximately 206,600,000 km (128,400,000 miles) away from the Sun. When it’s farthest, it’s approximately 249,200,000 km (154,900,000 miles) away.At its farthest: 249,209,300 km or 1.665861 AUAt its closest:206,669,000 km or 1.381497 AUsource: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_far_is_Mars_from_the_SunThe Earth is much closer, about 149,476,000 kilometers, and Mars has a bit more orbital variance compared to Earth.Source: http://solargeometry.com/Variance.htmSo we’re closer, and we stay in roughly the same variation of orbit. My thermodynamics is a little weak, but I’d venture that a one-degree difference on Mars would be magnified quite a bit on Earth.On top of that, the sun is actually chilling out right now:http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/04/the_solar_cycle_and_global_war.php

Last week I found that someone I know (or thought I knew) quite well doesn’t believe in evolution. I’ve read that a substantial percentage of Americans don’t, but I guess I didn’t think I really knew any ofthem. (Yeah, guess I’m prone to good old American exceptionalism on what I hope is a limited scale.) It was an odd feeling. This person is a fairly hidebound Republican, so I guess I ought not be surprised. Still….

Evidence for Evolution: Abundant, gathered over 150 years of scientific study and never disproven or seriously challenged by any peer-reviewed experiment or conflicting theory even as it is applied to scientific and practical pursuits on a daily basis and represents the central pillar in modern science.Evidence for Creationism: Fuck Nothing. Fuck. Nothing.Next?

Ugh. I should know better than type when I’ll keyed up.Rob, there’s a lot we still don’t know about gravity, not the least of which is we still don’t know how to resolve general realivity’s description of gravity as warped spacetime with quantum theory.That doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist.Likewise, just because evolutionary biologists haven’t nailed down every mechanism that goes into how evolution works doesn’t mean it isn’t real. We literally have millions of pages of published, peer-reviewed literature discussing the fact of evolution through the fossil record and advances in molecular biology/genetics.It is overly simplistic to say, “most scientists agree”, because there is a reason they agree: The evidence in favor of evolution, compared to that for young earth creationism, is simply overwhelming.

Simliar to Mr. Dingeldein’s statement, and this is not proof of evolution’s facticity, but it certainly helps me sleep better at night knowing evolution is true: with all of these scientists just slavering over the idea of making a cedible name for themselves within the scientific community (they’re just humans with human desires–according to The Flaming Lips. Go FLIPS) by disproving a theory, wouldn’t you think by now someone, somewhere would’ve or could’ve put forth a verifiable scientific counter proposal to evolution? Not one. Certainly not Creationism. Creationism as science cannot prove God created. Science can only look at the physical, chemical processes, empirical data, and infer only a chain of such processes, but it cannot infer God from that. Religion does that, so keep creationism in the Sunday schools, and out of science classes. Please.

While I agree it’s far to early to tell – Remember Piltdown Man? – this could possibly add some more evidence to the theory.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-ida-primate-fossil-link.html

mmmmmmm Isaac Newton is my wet dream. deeelish!A 45 million year old fossil with opposable thumbs! I wish we hadn’t lost our tails. A prehensile tail would come in so handy sometimes! And think of all the tail product lines Proctor & Gamble, as well as Dolce & Gabbana, would make for our tails!

Creationism as science cannot prove God created. Creationism is not science. As soon as you have to create a magic pixie or God to explain something you are not doing science, you are doing religion. Science is not religion. Religion is not science.I’m tired of arguing with anti-science cretins. If the creationist Gumbies want to insist that the earth is only six thousand years old and deny science then they should give up all technology developed by science including computers, telecommunications, and the internet so that I don’t have to listen to their tiresome ignorant blatherings.

jonah, you sound like nick kroll doing standup. i love nick kroll.

GIT: You’re right, I was merely couching the terms in the language many creationists deploy such as calling it creation science or creationism as science, which is a more accurate term for what they are trying to do. Creation science is an oxymoron. The two concepts are completely incompatible.

There are many chemical reactions out there that we don’t know the precise mechanisms for. There are conflicting theories as to the exact steps, and massive heated arguments about them, but that doesn’t mean that the reaction doesn’t occur. We can run the reaction and get the same product, regardless of which mechanism is right.

Similarly, arguments over the speed and smoothness of evolutionary paths doesn’t mean that evolution doesn’t happen. Antibiotic-resistant strains spit in the face of that idea.Granted, the evidence there is so overwhelming that many critics have fallen back to the origin idea: sure, life can evolve, but it couldn’t have been created in the first place without God! Of course, this line of argument has been more or less defunct since 1953, but that doesn’t stop them from trying.

Evolution theory is Speculation.It’s not anymore verifiable science anymore than seeing that a plantedseed grows into a plant that bears red peppers. This mutated ape knowsthere’s something more to it, a purpose behind life, and intelligentdesign, a force to survive, grow an learn, and build. Humans standapart from all other creatures. I’m quite certain I won’t be passinga slow driving squirrel on my way to the airport to catch a flight.And yeah, the first bird grew wings to flee a ferocious tyrannosaur?Scientists have written many a paper observing the natural world,trying to uncover it’s mysteries. Trying to pattern match it’s progression.Unfortuantely the jury’s still out. You’re denial of this is purelyout of frustration, and unwillingness to realize that there just maybe something more to it. That image of your father stored in yourbrain, how it that encoded? How is it that you can access it nanoseconds?His voice too? You seem to be stuck on the one dimensial aspect ofscientific observation, the fact that anti-biotics mutate to adaptto a harsher environment, well, so do many things. That doesn’tprove evolution exists. Take a look at what scientists have doneto try to cover their religion from the fact that most engineers,those of us that build things, and encode instrustions, and deriveprocesses believe:Salem HypohesisIsn’t that basically a typical way to stifle the discussion? Scientists observe things. Engineersbuild things using scientific ingenuity andmathematical prowess.How do some cells tranform into the material makeup needed to form mybicuspid tooth?Think alittle deeper people, you’ll gain more insite and may evenobtain some feelings of accomplishment and independence.

God exists, and no science can prove or disprove this. God creates, and no science can prove this. Science can provide answers for our material existence, and it is up to us to make spiritual sense of what science demonstrates. Religionists provide ample and valuable skepticism to scientific claims, and help define ethical limits on the reach of science… but science evolves religion. In the realm of ideas, the religion that cannot adapt to scientific knowledge breeds to extinction.QT

Wow rob, that brainwashing is pretty thick in that head of yours huh?

Hi Alex, what brainwashing? You’re irrefutable inability to answer my questions?

Oh Rob, you’re adorable! You’ve completely solved the Mysteries of Life™ by reminding us just how Spectacularly Unique and Precious your bicuspids are! Rob’s Teeth = Indisputable Proof of Teh God™!Car-driving squirrels notwithstanding, the human phenomenon is no more or less dazzling than marching penguins or the fact that water’s wet; you’re just so enamored of your own smartypantshood that you can’t imagine anything as Precious and Special as you — and your teeth, Oh! Your teeth! — existing without a Master Plan.Believe me when I tell you that you’re just not that special.Your toothy conundrum represents one of the great fallacies of thinking coming from the Flat Earth Society: That those cells somehow knew, in advance of coalescing into your Precious Bicuspid, what it was they were trying to accomplish. Those cells did what they did over generations of selection and specialization with no greater purpose than whatever basic nutrient-processing abilities were needed at that time. Yeah, if Rob The Wonder Tooth were suddenly spun up out of whole cloth from Dust and Dryer Lint with a fully-functioning set of bicuspids, that would be miraculous, and suggest a guiding hand. But no fully-realized organism in the history of the world has ever spontaneously appeared without first evolving from some lesser form, so OOPS! Your teeth are just teeth, and you’re not special.And congratulations on the Salem Hypothesis. Engineers are more inclined to being fucking morons, huzzah!

rob, a hypothesis is no where NEAR the stage of scientific theory. “Theory”, as defined scientifically, is the ultimate scientific goal and is as close to a fact as can be found. Each piece of factual evidence in gravitational theory, electrical theory, germ theory, evolutional theory, et al, points to the conclusion termed “theory”. Once it reaches that stage, it is considered well-supported enough to be a fact for the simple reason it is all disprovable and indeed CAN be disproven by a single piece of evidence. Darwin noted this one spoiler in “The Origin of Species”. Unfortunately for you, there has not been that piece of evidence (or lack of evidence) that would disprove or even call into question any of the above-mentioned theories. Not one. Lots of red-herrings thrown by creationists, but nothing more. In fact, IDists/creationists have yet to produce any evidence at all that supports their hypothesis. Their whole goal is to redefine “scientific theory” so that their nonsense will snuggle neatly within it. Google: “Wedge Document”.QT, I have to disagree with you here. Scientific discovery has pushed back on the notion of creation and supernatural interference, little-by-little, over the millenia. Religion has responded by telling scientists that god is off-limits, or untestable, or unknowable. Whereas sciencists gather facts and follow where the experiments lead them. There is never a foregone conclusion in science. Just because scientists don’t know something, doesn’t mean it is unknowable, and certainly doesn’t by default mean only god could have done it. If religion can insert itself into informing science about “morals” and “ethical limits” (neither of which are absolutes), then science has every right and responsibilty to poke and prod and test the hypothesis that is god.Here is a blog post by Jerry Coyne that speaks to this far more eloquently and convincingly than I can.http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/can-the-supernatural-be-studied-kiri-kin-thas-first-law-of-metaphysics/

“Evolution theory is Speculation”…and this statement proves without a doubt you have no idea what you are talking about.”Evolution is a fact, not a theory. It REALLY happened.” – Carl Sagan in CosmosThe evidence is all there in tomes, and volumes, and labs, and experiements. All available for you to read and learn and perform for yourself. Evolution can be disproven and you would be famous for finding and submitting that proof. Smarter people than you have tried and failed. Your only supporting evidence is a verifiable work of fiction: goddidit.

Wow@rob, how did we end up with a fundie science-hater in our midst? Our trolls usually tend to at least be reasonable enough to accept what almost every scientist (with a real degree from a real university) accepts. Sure, there are arguments about the specifics of evolution, but there are arguments about the specifics of many areas of science, it doesn’t mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater.Also, to echo Elvis:Believe me when I tell you that you’re just not that special.

I hate science? How do you logically deduce this?I work with science on a daily basis, and again, thanks for ignoring my questions.Apparently you defer your knowledge to these Ivory Tower scientists. You do realize, they are human too.

Also, rob, a few more questions.

Where do I get insite? Is that anything like insight? Do you think the rain is God’s tears? Is our planet round or flat? Does the earth go around the sun or the other way around? Do germs make us sick, or is divine retribution? Are nightmares a product of our subconscious or the result of demons perched on our chest as we sleep? If a person displays signs of dementia, do you seek an expert on mental illness or do you call the exorcist?

Before science came along, religion was devoted entirely to the metaphysical we-know-we-can’t-prove-it bullshit, like the number of times an angel flaps its wings per second. I’d say your side needs to stick to the theological bullshit instead of trying to come down on the wrong side of fact yet again. I don’t think science is infallible—in fact, it’s admitted infallibility is what draws me to it.

Yes, Evolution is speculation. Sorry if this fact eludes your ability to see it for what it is.According to Carl Sagan, we evolved from primitive nutrient pumps in the sea. Apparently the brain and extremities branched out, you’re reaching…Check out his speculations on youtube.

Do we look like a research department? If you want your questions answered, use Google. I promise you, the answers are there (I checked).Even if you can produce questions without answers, saying “GOD DID IT” does not solve your personal dilemma of how (I, personally, accept that stem cells, an important feature, came about through natural means a long time ago).

Rob The Wonder Tooth ….Your ‘insight’ in now way explains how the material needed was generated to build and form the bicuspid, and pass the information to the next generation.

Some of the specifics of evolution are speculation. In science, we develop our ideas and perfect them, rather than pulling them out of some archaic book and swearing by them.

You’re talking about abiogenesis, anyway, which illustrates how very fucking little you know about this subject.

Or the lens in your eyeballs. Just ‘evolved’ materials…pre-regenerated to us all, simple.That’s what ‘evolution’ is, a simple speculated explanation.

kyle says”how very fucking little you know about this subject.”yeah, okay…

You’re using quotes about abiogenesis to disprove evolution. That makes you an even bigger idiot than the creationists I devour for lunch almost daily.

And you can take your argument from authority (I work with science every day) and stuff it neatly up your intelligently designed turd-cutter.

Yeah kyle, you’re the expert. What do you do for a living? Blog?

I told you, I eat creationists. Marinate on that (or in that, if your prefer).

Apparently you’re toothless.

Try some orange juice, that may go down easier, and taste better.

Nothing goes down easier than a Creationist, and if they taste bad, I just use a Republican chaser.

And your toothy question has already been answered, but you apparently can’t handle the tooth.

what a dope.

Rob, you are so far off-base in this it’s unbelieveable. Where in the hell do you get the idea it is mere “speculation”? Seriously, speculation is based on nothing more than heresay and passing observance and frankly has precious little to do with ANYthing scientific.I have read Carl Sagan’s books, and he is not a speculative scientist. Dawkins, Coyne, Shubin? Not a speculator in the bunch.The evolution of the eye has been very thorughly documented through EVIDENCE. Not to mention the fact that it is such a desirable evolutionary function that is has evolved INDEPENDENTLY many times over.Genetics proves evolution independently. When genetics was discovered, it was quickly noted that it supported, informed, and expanded evolutionary theory. Through genetics, you can disprove evolution: Find one gene that cannot be shown to have evolved. It has to have been placed there and not show one bit of evidence of having been passed down.And why do you creationists try so dishonestly to refute evolution anyway? Why not gravitational theory? Why not electrical theory? Why not germ theory? My guess is because it removes your “special” relationship with some imagined creator and you are frightned at having that challenged. I gave it up at age 9 because I found no truth in any of it.

Substance, rob. Put some into your argument and you will get better results.

Rob, I don’t understand your hang-up about Teh Materials Needed, as if — again, Flat Earth Fallacy Factoid Alert! — The Evolution gives two shits about the specific materials needed to make your precious bicuspid. It uses what it’s got, no more, no less. Matter and Energy got their Bang On and shat out an entire universe of elementary particles; some had natural affinities, some didn’t. Some stuck together; some didn’t. Give it enough Sun Juice and a couple billion years and the most basic proteins and nucleic acids do some amazing shit. Read a fucking book, you dunce.

Why not gravitational theory?

Not so fast!

“The evolution of the eye has been very thorughly documented through EVIDENCE. Not to mention the fact that it is such a desirable evolutionary function that is has evolved INDEPENDENTLY many times over.”This is clearly incorrect. The signal transmissions between the eye and the brain are highly complex and the involuntary muscle control is quite interesting.Apparently the eye evolved independent of the brain? Can you guys actually think for yourselves?

*frowning*Thanks, Kyle. I had no idea anyone questioned gravity any more. We are surrounded by such MAGIC! I wish we could disprove ignorance, stupidity and anti-intellectualism so maybe it would go away.

You can wish evolution was true and that ends that discussion.

Evolution is an ongoing discussion, rob. I’ve been trying to explain to you that science may be working out the details (and will be for a LONG time), and if your brain can’t handle time-frames in the millions of years and the idea that once conceived, scientific theories EVOLVE, then that’s your problem.And no, to answer your question: no, we can’t think for ourselves, so we appreciate that you have come to share your uninformed, amateur opinion with us simpletons.

@jm that site is a parody. The last sentence of that post has double meaning.

Adding: Second Law of Thermodynamics… POOF! Evolution is false.

So you admit evolution isn’t a verifiable science.Unless you have a million years to spare, it will remain that way.Call me whatever you wish, punk ass blogger.uninformed and amateur my ass. If I was I’d be agreeing with you.

I didn’t say it wasn’t verifiable. The discovery of genetics (well after Darwin’s initial ideas) have confirmed evolution. The aspects of how each species and its features evolved are being determined, slowly (as you would expect, given the number of different species and features).

You are uninformed. You put this on vivid display by equating abiogenesis and evolution. You could have a videotape of The God™ creating the first living organism, and it wouldn’t put a fucking dent in the argument for evolution.

Step up your insult game, also. Punk-ass? Are you 12?

Rob, you are dishonestly misrepresenting what I said. I said “the eye evolved independently”, meaning it evolved in many different species apart from one another, apart from time, and apart geographically. The eye is a sensory organ and has to be a part of a functioning brain on some level as the sensory input must be received and interpreted. The input informs the involuntary muscules for focus and filtration. If the eye is designed, your creator did a shit job since so may of us need glasses.In fact, there are lots of bad “designs”: the human back is poorly “designed”, vestigial organs are a really bad idea for such a smart “designer”, swallowing food through the same place we breath is just plain stupid.

I don’t think he’s dishonestly misrepresenting. I think the phrase is foolishly misunderstanding.

Thanks again, Kyle. I didn’t catch that it was parody. *WHEW*

punk ass equates to a young and dumb follower.

rob, please address why you don’t know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Once you’ve done that, explain why anyone should take your thoughts on evolution seriously, given your lack of even basic knowledge in this area.

“You can wish evolution was true and that ends that discussion.”So denying the evidence and crediting everything to an untestable, unverifiable, supernatural control-freak is a better alternative, right? You are making a circular argument based entirely on your belief in theology.I don’t ‘wish’ anything about evolution. It is what it is and has ended up there by following the evidence. AND it does not end any discussion. It is an ongoing conversation as new evidence is provided…like Ida.

Oh, I soooooo wish evolution were true! If it were not true, it would mean my holy book, Teh Bible, isn’t factually correct! I mean, germ theory and heliocentrism almost made fools of us, can’t we have this one little bit of pseudoscience?Oh wait, that would be the case if I were a creationist (or ‘cdesign proponentist’, for the Dover fans). Yes, evolution could be false for all I care. But, unless a more verifiable theory presents itself, I choose to accept the authority of those who dedicate their lives in pursuit of truth, rather than waste it trying to vindicate their ancient dogma.

How can anyone conflate “abiogenesis” and “evolution”? They are two totally different things!I guess it’s a common deflection for creationists, like the 2nd Law deflection, or the eye deflection.

Don’t forget the bacterial flagellum motor!I’ll leave this topic alone now, lest rob actually offer a defense of his ignorance.

I believe we’ll just have to agree to disagree about the conclusions we can come to, with the current level of evidence we have.I used to believe in evolution, but after years and years of engineering, I’m led to believe that it just doesn’t add up. The complexity and regulation, levels of distinct constructed coordination, feedback, and co-existent dependence and complimentary sublevels are just too coincidental to just be without someother intelligent force that drives nature not to be involved.Abiogenesis refers to how life began, evolution tries to explain how it has developed into the myriad of differing forms in existence.I can understand the negatives forces driving you from contemplating that field.

You answered a question, rob, but not the question I asked you.Why did you confuse evolution with abiogenesis? I didn’t ask what the difference is–I damn well know. You were either (a) making an intentionally dishonest and misleading argument or (b) you are ignorant and just looked it up before this latest response. If there is a third option, please elaborate.I have “contemplated that field,” rob, as I was born and raised in a fundamentalist Christian household and reared on Creationism. The idea of a deity is not foreign to me, but it is also not reasonable to me.You seem to be, in this latest post, admitting to evolution but insisting it is driven by unseen forces. Pick an argument and stick with it.

Adding: until you’ve sifted through the entire fossil record and every related study, please do not claim to have examined the evidence.I, on the other hand, have taken a very in depth at the evidence available for intelligent design. But, as it is all conjecture, there is not any actual evidence to be examined.

YES! I forgot about Behe’s bacterial flagellum. Did you know he apparently still uses that as evidence of irreducible complexity, even though it was torn to shreds at the Dover trial?Rob, go read 40 Days and 40 Nights by Chapman and see how evidence works. Then go read Darwin, Sagan, Shubin, Dawkins, and Coyne. I hope you’ll find them irrefutable, but my guess it you won’t.Over-and-out!

What does abiogenesis have to do with religion?You all have hangups with Teh Bible and God.I deal in science and intelligent forces.Deny it all you wish, deflect to bibles gods and republicans all you want.

You still didn’t answer my question, rob, so I will keep asking it.

Why did you confuse evolution with abiogenesis? I didn’t ask what the difference is–I damn well know. You were either (a) making an intentionally dishonest and misleading argument or (b) you are ignorant and just looked it up before this latest response. If there is a third option, please elaborate.

Intelligent design is creationism, rebranded for the purpose of sneaking into classrooms (creationism is already relegated to Sunday School classrooms, where it belongs). Every major proponent of ID is a religious person, and those who aren’t have no problem being paraded around by religious persons. The book, Of Pandas and People, a pro-ID book and the focus of the Dover litigation, is a book about creationism that has merely had the words changed (cdesign proponentists, I referenced it earlier).

Don’t claim ID isn’t a religious theory.

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.

source

Their speculation is not irrefutable jm. You contradict yourself all over the place.

Yeah kyle, I don;t know the difference. Good angle you have there, stick with it.

Just to be clear, this is the question I am asking you:If you deal in science and know so much about it, then why did you try to disprove evolution (by calling it speculation) with comments about abiogenesis?If you knew the two were unrelated, you were being dishonest, which doesn’t speak much for your credibility on any subject. If you didn’t know, then you are ignorant of the subject and should not embarrassingly demonstrate that fact.

They’re UNRELATED? And you call me ignorant?Stick to blogging.

Yes, I am calling you ignorant. As I said before, IF YOU PRODUCE A VIDEOTAPE OF AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER CAUSING THE FIRST CELL TO BE “ALIVE”, IT DOES NOTHING TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Sorry for the caps, but you are really, really thick.

Okay, rob, another question, since you won’t answer the one I’m actually asking you.You obviously do not believe in the theory of evolution. Do you believe in the fact of evolution?

I was as thick as you when I was your age.

Yeah what fact is that?

Oh, come on, Rob. You know damn well ID=god, regardless of how you want to define it. Again, Google “Wedge Document”.I don’t understand how being an engineer can possibly inform your belief that life was somehow designed. If it was designed, it was a very poor job. notwithstanding the fact there is not one credible bit of tangible evidence to support “design”. ID takes belief without evidence, which is the definition of faith.You ignore scientific evidence FOR evolution, yet you provide no evidence AGAINST evolution or FOR ID.

My god, you really are stupid. You also don’t know the terms “theory of evolution” and “fact of evolution”. And abiogenesis is equal evolution in your world. Try reading a book or, for fuck’s sake, even Googling something once in a while.

There was no first “cell” that was alive. If you’ve ever seen particle physics, you know that everything in this universe is alive and filled with energy. Case closed.

He also seems to still think that abiogenesis is the same thing as evolution, because he refuses to address what I’m actually saying to him on that subject. How many times I have asked for an explanation, now? And how many I have gotten?

jm, maybe you could design a better model.What a ludicrous statement. If evolution were the answer wouldn’t we have developed into a better adapted creature?

Did I say cell? I meant organism, and pooper, don’t get in the conversation and conflate it with physics semantics.

Kyle,But physics semantics is SEXXXXXXY!

“He also seems to still think that abiogenesis is the same thing as evolution…”Really? even after I pointed out the difference?Wow, great observation.Whats that fact you speak of so eloguently?

Kyle,Do you still love me?

rob, you’re still not answering my question, but let me answer yours.”If evolution were the answer wouldn’t we have developed into a better adapted creature?”Answer: on-going process. Keep in mind that the organisms aren’t the only thing that change, so it’s not an evolution taking place in a constant environment. The surroundings change more frequently than the organisms themselves.And, my question, rob, YET AGAIN, is this. You tried to say evolution was “speculation” because Sagan “speculated” on the origin of life (abiogenesis). You were obviously trying to conflate the two. FOR WHAT REASON?The fact of evolution = evolution has occured, as evidenced by the fossil record and other observations and measurementsThe theory of evolution = the specifics of how this occurredYou don’t accept the theory, obviously, but how about the fact? How old do you think the planet is? I’m just curious.

“Their speculation is not irrefutable jm. You contradict yourself all over the place.”Evidence, please. “All over the place” is very general, so I trust you’ll have several examples. I’ve tried very hard to avoid an accusation such as that, so I will be glad to clarify.

@pooper, of course, you’re my favorite party-hater.

Sagan “speculated” on the origin of life (abiogenesis).”Really? He theorizes we evolved from nutrient pumps deep on the ocean floor. That’s not abiogenesis. Sorry.

The fossil record is pattern matching speculation, it’s not fact. Sorry.

rob -Your belief in medieval superstitious fairy tales does not sway me in the least. I have no interest whatsoever in your demonstrably ill informed position on evolution. If you work in a scientific job I would be amazed since I can’t see how you could have possibly earned a degree while suffering from your amazing ability to ignore and deny reality.The positions you have stated are similar to showing up at a gathering of mathematicians and declaring the Dirac delta function a worthless work of the devil since no function can integrate to unity while having a duration of zero.I issue a citation for wrong wing trolling. In particular the following infractions have occured:1. Always act superior, even when your opponent clearly outclasses you intellectually (this will happen frequently).3. Lie about all scientific and historical facts when they can’t be ignored; facts often get in the way of right-wing ideology. And don’t forget: No lie is too outrageous. Repeat the same lies loudly and often.10. Secretly accept that you’re a minority and let yourself be consumed by your deep and abiding hatred of everyone and everything that doesn’t conform to your worldview (currently 99.99% of reality).But you can be content in your knowledge that you are special and we are all going to hell (with the exception of QT, hell would never take her).Do you also deny AGW or is your ignorance specifically based on the denial of evolution?How about Maxwell’s equations? Why don’t those piss you off? Gauss, Ampere, and Faraday employed the same methods as Darwin. Doesn’t that make Gauss’s Law a mere speculation?You can’t see electric charge, currents, or fields. You can’t see magnetic flux or fields. Doesn’t that make them mere speculation?Your irrational belief in medieval superstitious fairy tales gives you incredible blind spots in your thinking.Adapt or die.

“jm, maybe you could design a better model.What a ludicrous statement. If evolution were the answer wouldn’t we have developed into a better adapted creature?”Yes, I think I could. We can already do many things in medicine god cannot take credit for or duplicate, so yes, I can make several improvements.No, if evolution were somehow directed, I could envision better adapted creatures. But, since it’s guided by the unflinching and uncaring hand of nature, bad and useless adaptations abound.How is that ludicrous?

“The fossil record is pattern matching speculation, it’s not fact. Sorry.”Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin details the fallacy of your statement.

Hi Git! Thanks for that reminder!

rob -Your belief in medieval superstitious fairy tales ..Buzz off hater…

I deal with electrical signals and their useful feedback, which is integral to the function of living organisms, bio-electrically.

But physics semantics is SEXXXXXXY!

I’m glad it’s not just me.

“I deal with electrical signals and their useful feedback, which is integral to the function of living organisms, bio-electrically.”Exactly how does this inform your faith in ID?…repeating…”Their speculation is not irrefutable jm. You contradict yourself all over the place.”Evidence, please. “All over the place” is very general, so I trust you’ll have several examples. I’ve tried very hard to avoid an accusation such as that, so I will be glad to clarify.

Probably your references to how much more that needs to be learned/discovered, while also using the word ‘irrefutable’.

“Buzz off hater…”…and the last drop of rob’s remaining credibility drains away…

rob, why do you expect your experiences, on a small time scale, to have any relevance to biological processes that have evolved on a time scale measured in millions of years? Self-centeredness.

So you want to deny his post was not hateful too?

“Probably”? That’s it?”Irrefutable” refers to the body of evidence currently collected and gathered under the theory under discussion.And more and more is discovered and added to that body of evidence every day. There IS more to be learned, but there is no concern at this point that any new discovery is going to change the fact of evolution as it is understood today.I fail to see my contradiction, so I’ve clarified.”Probably”?”All over the place”?

By rob’s logic, I know more about “design” than he, since I work in “graphic design”. Therefore, I find the designs supposedly created by an “intelligent agent” to be poorly designed and, thus, I can not accept the theory of an intelligent designer.I’m not actually using that argument, but if I were more like rob, I may be tempted.

“So you want to deny his post was not hateful too?”I’ve re-read it, and while it is direct and to-the-point, it doesn’t appear hateful by any definition.

Buzz off hater…

Fuck you too. That earns you another infraction.5. Take many, many cheap shots at prominent Democrats and your opponents, then decry the lack of civility in political discourse.No comment on Maxwell’s equations or the Dirac delta?BTW, I have a B.S.E.E. so don’t try to con me about engineering. It’s what I’ve done for thirty years.I’m curious why you are willing to accept science that can’t be seen without instruments and unwilling to accept science that can be seen with your evolved visual apparatus.I second the notion that the human being as a system is a miserable design. In particular if some designer is responsible for our endocrine system then they had to have flunked a control system theory course.So how man angels can dance on the head of a pin?

“By rob’s logic, I know more about “design” than he, since I work in “graphic design”. Therefore, I find the designs supposedly created by an “intelligent agent” to be poorly designed and, thus, I can not accept the theory of an intelligent designer.”Actually, that’s quite a brilliant statement, I think.

“I second the notion that the human being as a system is a miserable design. “Name anything, anything that is superior.

rob:Have you seen the episode of South Park where Mr. Garrison invents the gyroscope-powered monowheel, which he calls “IT”. An incredible device, it allows for super-high-speed travel, unmatched by any other mode of transportation. However, when you operate it, the problem is that it is operated using four “flexi-grip handles” which are basically penis-shaped controls; two used by the hands, one in the mouth, and a fourth handle which is inserted in the asshole.Just because something functions incredibly well does not mean it is well-designed.

“Name anything, anything that is superior.”Better eyesightBetter immune systemsBetter backsBetter skinBetter hygeneBetter relationshipsBetter body-configuration…are all available to other creatures.Bad backsBad eyesWeak bodiesIntelligent brainsVestigial organsEasily compromised immune systemPoor reproductive performance…are all part of being human.We design and build things for reliability, longevity, ease-of-use, and specific functions all the time and without extraneous functions or useless parts.

@rob: I think your arguments might be more effective if you threw in some quotes from Leviticus. Or at least more honest to where you’re getting your information.@ Everyone except rob: You guys are arguing with somebody who is either 1) a regular at jesus-camp, or 2) a very committed troll. There’s no sense in wasting your time engaging such a person in any meaningful fashion. Don’t waste your breath.

Kyle,

Just because something functions incredibly well does not mean it is well-designed.

Now who’s using semantics, Kyle?Do you want it to work, or look good?Pontiac tried the “look good” thing for decades. Where are they now?

“We design and build things for reliability, longevity, ease-of-use, and specific functions all the time and without extraneous functions or useless parts.”Do they outlast the typically self-reliant normal human being, and operate at the same level of complexity?Hardly.

Name anything, anything that is superior.

As designs, the following are all far superior:The Sears Tower.The Golden Gate Bridge.The Opteron microprocessor.The original Cray Supercomputer.These were all carefully designed systems. None has unnecessary cruft and all are elegant as solutions to a stated goal. They are pleasing as well as functional.If you wanted me to compare to another living organism, sorry, I can’t. They were not designed and instead are haphazard collections of barely adequate functionalities enclosed in bodies with ridiculous arrangements of support and protection for the internals which appears to me to be the haphazard result of billions of years of random chance mutations and ensuing survival of the fittest.If you are an engineer and see any elegance in the design of most living organisms remind me not to be anywhere near any of your designs.The only living organism the exhibit elegance to me are slime molds, fungus, yeasts, and other single celled organisms. Most multicellular organism are atrocious designs. If there was a designer, he was retarded not intelligent.

“@ Everyone except rob: You guys are arguing with somebody who is either 1) a regular at jesus-camp, or 2) a very committed troll. There’s no sense in wasting your time engaging such a person in any meaningful fashion. Don’t waste your breath.”Obey your orders, troops.

The Sears Tower.The Golden Gate Bridge.The Opteron microprocessor.The original Cray SupercomputeWow, what an idiot.

Those were designed and built by humans.Any other creatures provide their intelligent expertise? Any of these items have the ability to reproduce, or create anything else externally on their own?Superior? What a superficial idiot.

SillyGit,

see any elegance in the design of most living organisms remind me not to be anywhere near any of your designs.

There is one bit of elegance, Git. Our energy efficiency is flat out like nothing we can even conceive of. We eat renewable energy sources. Our waste feeds the renewable energy sources we eat. Even our exhaust feeds something. Try getting that out of a car, a building, or a computer chip.It’s pretty sexy, git, you have to admit.

Cambrian ExplosionRead upThe Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection

As I explained to you, rob, superior functionality does not indicate superior design. “Design” is an idea that requires imagination–any sufficiently imaginative human can come up with ways to make the human design better. The question is, why was your “intelligent agent” not even as imaginative as his/her/its creation?

Personally, I believe their may be balancing purpose to imperfections, but that is only my opinion.

Don’t argue Darwin’s authority, either. The man died in 1882 and would be as uninformed as any layman on the current state of evolutionary theory and its explanations for the Cambrian explosion.

@rogect8: I’m bored at work, and he’s willing to play, so I’m just having a little fun.

politicalpartypooper said,

Now who’s using semantics, Kyle?Do you want it to work, or look good?Pontiac tried the “look good” thing for decades. Where are they now?

If he’s going not going to be specific about his designer, I’m not going to be specific about the definition of “design”.

Damn, I hate to spam, but I totally screwed up that last bit.”If he’s not going to be specific about his designer, I’m not going to be specific about the definition of “design”.”

Rob,One major problem you’re going to run into stems from the fact that you’re trying to usurp another scientific field’s prerogative. (Mind you, this is just one hitch.) Scientists hone in on a specific field because of the nuance and subtlety of the particular discipline. Evolutionary science certainly falls under this category. I received a degree in English, but focused on modern literature. If I claim critical authority in Victorian literature because I feel I have a grasp of the modern dialect, then I’ll be in no position to claim any legitimate authority concerning antiquated works. It takes a wholehearted immersion in the genre to claim any kind of real prowess. But, if you believe that an engineering degree stokes your inner god so much that you consumed every science with Kobeyashi-like aplomb, then you will be ignored. Otherwise, I’ve got the specs for the most badass floating arcade you’ve ever seen.

QT, I have to disagree with you here. Scientific discovery has pushed back on the notion of creation and supernatural interference, little-by-little, over the millenia. Religion has responded by telling scientists that god is off-limits, or untestable, or unknowable. Whereas sciencists gather facts and follow where the experiments lead them. There is never a foregone conclusion in science. Just because scientists don’t know something, doesn’t mean it is unknowable, and certainly doesn’t by default mean only god could have done it. If religion can insert itself into informing science about “morals” and “ethical limits” (neither of which are absolutes), then science has every right and responsibilty to poke and prod and test the hypothesis that is god.

I believe I’ve articulated a fair balance – you’re free to disagree. Science is about facts, religion is about how to behave. I don’t say that religion is the only way to dictate that – there are people who are philosophers, and ethicists, who address themselves to the question of moral and ethical limits as well. Freedom of conscience demands that religion be allowed as a voice in this sphere, because that’s what we’re talking about – conscience. When we talk about what should and should not be done about a set of facts, we are talking about conscience.On the other hand – what precisely does science hope to test in the sphere of religion? Which claims? Just the Christian concept of God? How about the Baha’i concept? How about concepts of reincarnation or karma? All of them? And – what observable phenomena will be tested, when many religions assert that God isn’t observable?QT

drew that’s all fine and dandy, does that mean I can’t discuss and offer valid insights that may unravel a theory, especially when some unscientific person claims that ‘Evolution is verifiable science.’ ?Many buy these things wholesale. I don’t.Questioning Authority not applicable here?

Evolution is crap. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has informed me that he appointed a Retarded Designer to take over after he exhausted himself creating the midget.The Retarded Designer is responsible for the horrendous design of the human body. In particular he designed the immune system before he designed anything else. Since it was his first design and the FSM was napping and unavailable for consultation, he made the immune system susceptible to being tricked into thinking that portions of the body it is protecting are invading organisms. This leads to vast array of chronic illnesses called collectively autoimmune diseases. Examples are some forms of arthritis, lupus, fibromyalgia, and type I diabetes.Having proven his incompetence at system design on the immune system, he proceeded to make it very clear just how hideous his command of control system theory really was by working on the endocrine system next. As a designed system the endocrine system is a calculated study on how not to design a proper control system.I will use type I diabetes as an example. Your immune system suddenly decides that your beta cells in the pancreatic islets are alien invaders and generates antibodies matched to the beta cells so that the beta cells are destroyed. Unfortunately, beta cells produce insulin, a hormone necessary for sugar metabolism. Muscle cells have insulin receptor sites that insulin attaches to allowing the cell to intake gucose from the blood stream. No insulin, no glucose fuel. No beta cell, no insulin. Muscle cells now having no access to the glucose, start burning themselves as fuel producing toxic ketones as byproducts.As if this wasn’t bad enough, glucose is now building up in the blood making the blood more viscous because the muscle cells aren’t burning it up as they should. Our retarded designer put a lovely feature into the liver. When there is plenty of glucose in the blood the liver converts it to glycogen, a simple fat, and stores it. When there is not enough glucose in the blood the liver converts glycogen back to glucose.Now this sounds like a really good idea, and it is, except for the way the liver determines how much glucose is in the blood stream. The retarded designer, too lazy to set up a system to respond directly to blood glucose levels, which beta cells can do as individual cells, he set up the control for glucose to glycogen, glycogen to glucose conversion on the presence of insulin.If insulin present, then convert glucose to glycogenelse convert glycogen to glucose.Great. No beta cells no insulin. No insulin and the muscles can’t burn the glucose so glucose levels in blood become very high AND the liver makes it higher still by converting glycongen to glucose as fast as it can because insulin level equals zero.This is a total failure as a design. An epic fail. If this was designed the designer was retarded.There are hundreds of stories, if not thousands, just like this one that show how poorly designed the human being is. The design of our knee joint is anther epic fail.

so you can’t come up with a self-regulating system designed that is superior?

We eat renewable energy sources. Our waste feeds the renewable energy sources we eat. Even our exhaust feeds something.

Very excellent point PPP. I can’t deny the truth in that statement. Reminds me of why I like your comments, even when I disagree. I always appreciate food for thought.

Questioning is the cornerstone of science, rob. It’s more than welcome. My problem has always been with those who refuse to listen to the answers when they conflict with a religious belief.

Evolution occurred, there is a general consensus on this (with everyone who is not a young-earth creationist). Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution as having occurred. But if you want to insist that evolution occurred under the guiding hand of an intelligent agent, QT is right–I can not disprove that. But you can’t disprove a concept like Russell’s Teapot, and that does not increase the likelihood of its existence. There is a mountain of evidence in favor of evolution (whether you choose to see it or not), but even you must admit there is no evidence of an intelligent designer.

In fact, the core argument of intelligent design is self-nullifying. A design implies an architect–that’s the general idea, right? Well, a being capable of designing such grandeur must surely be a product of design–right?

Where have a stated a religious belief?

Shut up with the ID-isn’t-Creationism argument. The United States officially declared it as such. See> Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv268 for details.

Apparently you’ve failed to be in tune with nature,and it’s natural harmony. Many are, which makes this world so chaotic.May I bid you farewell. Take care.

And ponder:The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid evolution; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.

QT, I willingly apologize if you felt my comment was belittling and exclusionary. It was not meant to be, particularly toward you.I feel that religions are by their very nature controlling and exclusive and frequently even morally suspect. Most all of them claim to be divine, or the only way, yet they rarely agree even among themselves. Therefore, I find that none can honestly claim any moral or ethical guidance outside of their own believers. They can offer it, but they must be able to make a sustainable argument if they wish to apply those values to anyone outside their sphere of influence.Science should be able and encouraged to test all religious claims, yes. Karma, miracles, re-incarnation, virgin births, resurrection. My reasoning is that if those things are manifested in this world, this physical world, then they are subject to natural law and are testable and. But, that would then disprove the supernatural which holds itself to be untestable and unknowable. I’ve never seen any credible evidence of anything supernatural, in any aspect.If there is a Christian God, or Buddha, or Yahweh, and they are all that is claimed for them, I should not be an atheist. It would not be hard to convice me I am wrong, and believe me, I have asked.

My appreciation of nature is enhanced by the fact that I appreciate it for what it is, not the fairy tales my parents passed down to me. What could be more splendid than the universe as it is?

Also, rob, stop copying and pasting your arguments from Wikipedia in the future, if you wish to have your points taken seriously. Take the extra effort to demonstrate that you actually know what you’re talking about by rewording the statements. Your inability to do so reflects poorly on your understanding.

Well excuse me, boss.

Some people look at chaos and see things that are not there. White noise on TVs, inkblots, clouds are all things that people see things that are not there.I look at most life forms and admire their beauty and elegance because even the slug is beautiful in its own little environmental niche.When one looks deeply at these same life forms one discovers numerous fatal flaws in their ‘design’. When looking with a completely open and unprejudiced mind, these seemingly elegant creatures are really composed of haphazard arrangements of sub-systems that mostly only just barely work. It really looks like the results of billions of years of random mutations and natural selection.When one confuses beauty and elegance as evidence of an intelligent designer, then one is only fooling oneself and it is unrealistic to expect others to share in the delusion.What you believe is what you see.

“The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere”"Abruptly and nowhere” in geologic terms does not mean the same as “overnight and out-of-the-blue”. The Cambrian Explosion happened over 50 to 80 million years. Any supernatural creator would certainly need less time than that.*sigh* And there is no puzzlement about it. It’s well-documented and well-established in the geologic and genetic records.The only puzzlement is your stubbornness against the facts.

“Any supernatural creator would certainly need less time than that. “That is your assumption.

“That is your assumption.”Not an assumption at all. Completely evidence-based. It’s in the geologic and genetic records.

Aw, c’mon rob, you’ll come back to play with jmrunning3 but you won’t answer my question? Who designed the designer?

what? a ‘supernatural creator’ certainly needs less time than that is in the geologic and genetic record?Ever read Carl Sagan’s Contact?

“The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid evolution; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.”Dimwit. If you knew the first thing about Ediacaran paleogeography, you’d see your problem here. Learn more about mass extinctions, Cambrian paleoclimate, and the really unusual taphonomy characteristic of places like the Burgess Shale, and the Cambrian Explosion is really, honestly, not that big of a mystery.Here’s something to keep in mind: Using petroleum-type products without accepting evolution is like eating a hamburger without accepting the existence of cows.

According to most holy books and scriptures, deities are not subject to the natural world. In fact, I recall just seven days and only 6000 years ago is the attribution in the case of the Christian god. The geologic and genetic records completey refute both attributes.And no, I have not read Contact, although I’ve seen the movie. Since it a work of fiction, as is Atlas Shrugged, it has no bearing on a fact-based conversation.

And to bring this back a little to the original topic and Bob’s post, the real issue here is that because evolution is so well-studied, and sufficiently well-understood that anyone who actually learned about it would accept it as fact, that it’s not a question of belief. I don’t “believe” in evolution any more than I “believe” in gravity. Faith is for things that you believe without proof – if you had proof of a god, you wouldn’t need faith, because you’d actually know.My point is that if you don’t accept evolution, you have to believe in something else – but you don’t have to believe in evolution. Our knowledge has evolved well beyond that point.

Contact explores the realm of time relativity.Apparently that’s fiction.No answers to how the image of your father is encoded on the brain, and accessible in nanoseconds, along with his voice, amongst other things.

rob, who designed the designer?Simple question. Give a straight answer. I will keep asking it every time you say something to point out that you are ignoring it.

Rob,You can question it all you want, but the “authority” you speak of is in fact the culmination of over a century of evidential studies, which includes the rebuttals of skeptics like yourself. Furthermore, how are your claims valid when they are completely unsubstantiated? You’re reaching for the correlation implies causation aspect, and that doesn’t fly without rigorous experimentation. Again, your argument is predicated on questioning authority, but this isn’t a moral argument or a policy argument, this is the scientific realm which requires evidence. To boot, I’m not quite sure what valid insight it was that you offered. Evolution is wrong because a regular contributor to Usenet (and engineer) conjectured that it is false? My next question is: are you trying to use science to subvert science?

Don’t twist my words, rob. I said the book is a work of fiction. Time relativity is still a natural law and we are subject to it and will likely one day utilize it. When and if we do, will we then be like your god or will you push him back even further?Why would you even ask about brain function when you’ve already made statements about our electrical system?

jm, the book is tons better than the movie, a recommendable read.

“No answers to how the image of your father is encoded on the brain…”Yes yes, who can fathom the depths of the human soul, blah blah blah. NOTHING you have said in any way disproves, or even casts the faintest shadow of a doubt upon, evolution.NOTHING.And if you can’t come up with something that does, then go away.I’ll give you a consolation prize: If not evolution, then what? You talk of design – who or what is the designer? You say that you’re not invoking any religious teaching, and that’s OK. But what ARE you invoking? Aliens? Time travellers? What?

rob, can you tell me who designed your designer?Any sufficiently complex mechanism requires a designer, according to you. How about your designer? Isn’t it exceedingly complex?

jm: I took no offence. As a Baha’i, my role here is to argue for the harmony of science and religion. In these arguments we often begin from the viewpoint of warring camps, and most atheists argue against a god I don’t believe in either. My understanding of God is absolutely untestable by scientific standards – I can offer scriptural proof to that effect (on the other hand, that’s my interpretation – not an authoritative one, and conceivably contested by one famous Baha’i quote oft-cited).On the assertion that claims of divinity should produce agreement, I have two opposite thoughts: on the one hand, these are competing claims of divinity – why should you expect agreement? On the other, the expectation of agreement stands in confirmation (to me) of the Baha’i argument of the oneness of religion. It suggests to me that there is an intuitive expectation that precedes dogmatic claims.QT

Ah, yes. Rob describing brain function:”I deal with electrical signals and their useful feedback, which is integral to the function of living organisms, bio-electrically.”

and jm, the normal functioning of the brain, using bio-electic chemical signals, it a fascinatingly complex organ, capable of incredible things.From embryo to adult, and all stages in between.

rob believes in an intelligent agent, sufficiently intelligent to design the world around us (and even us!).Why is he exempt from your perceived-design-implies-an-architect logic?

Or “IT” I would hate to inappropriately classify this non-entity.

kyle, I am in search of an ‘intelligent force’ behind the design of life. Forces are different than mortal life.

So, please present us with the evidence that intelligence can exist outside of mortal life.

rob, please describe this force. Is it sentient? Do you have any evidence at all that it exists?

Oh wait, here’s the zinger, I bet it exists outside of nature and is, thus, undetectable!

QT, since as your definition of God is personal and governs you life, I have nothing to argue with.To my understanding, if divinity were true, there ought not to be competing claims. Otherwise, we are merely pawns and board-pieces, completely invaluable as living things, and nothing more than toys fighting a proxy war between deities.I think the problem is that religions know the object of their faith and worship is impotent, and may even suspect they are non-existent, which leads them to defend every perceived affront. This completely ignores the attribute that their deity is supposed to be powerful enough for them to not need to feel threatened and defensive.

jm: you make a lot of assertions… has anything I said seemed defensive to you? I am not feeling defensive nor attacked. My understanding of God is personal, yes, but that doesn’t seem to be quite what you are saying… A Baha’i understanding of God is that human understanding doesn’t even come close – which makes all understandings of God personal – including the ones people argue against.I’m curious as to why you suppose divinity cannot have competing claims? I suspect we agree, but I need more information.QT

I can’t speak for the religions of which I have never been an adherent, but Christianity makes a very exclusive claim, without mincing words.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

@Kyle – True. I myself have partaken in young-earth-creationist-belittling to kill some time at work. Very well done on the wikipedia-burn by the way. It’s always hilarious when someone gets caught in the act.I love that this has turned into a pseudo-religious discussion, since jesus-campy’s comments on this issue are so transparently based in evangelicism.

QT, I simply meant that since your faith is deeply personal, I wouldn’t deign to argue with you about that aspect, especially with some misguided goal of changing your mind. Looking back, I worded it badly.Competing claims of divinity would hold more weight if they weren’t so violently divisive and vitrolic. My view is that if claims of divinity were true, there would be some overall unifying factor that would PRECLUDE the division, offense, violence, and vitriol. For instance, if there is one Abrahamic god that is shared between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, even with their differing viewpoints, why do they not only dislike each other so intensely but apparently everyone else as well? Why is this divinity used for division rather than inclusion? If divinity were real, the adherants should be able to know in their hearts and minds via faith, that other viewpoints are not a threat…just different. Because of this, my view is that division, power, and control are the only goals of the religions.

@rogect: we agree. rob’s refusal to deal with the facts of evolution are rooted in a religious outlook. I’m not going to apologize for interjecting; I think its important to point out that there are religious outlooks unthreatened by evolution.@ I: Right. And yet, it requires a particular christian interpretation to deem that as competing with other divine claims. As a Baha’i, I believe in the truth of Jesus’s claims without believing in th christian interpretation of exclusivity.QT

young-earth-creationist-belittling ?You on life support?How about attacking the messenger rather than addressing the facts? Yeah baby!Cambrian ExplosionRead UpThe Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid evolution; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.

QT where oh where have I mentioned any type of religious outlook?Believing in an Intelligent force means I’m a kook?Well so be it. Apparently you all just gain your internal power through attempted belittlement.

And I’m not dealing with the facts of evolution?What am I dealing with?okaaaay, I’m out of here.

jm: Ok, thx. The Baha’i view is exactly as stated. I’m mangling the quote, but the Baha’i Writings state that if religion be the cause of discord, better there be no religion. Obviously, as a religion, Baha’is think the other faiths are a bit misguided in their discord. Baha’i Faith is also in the abrahamic tradition, and recognizes the oneness of religion – at that, including the hindu and other faiths that precede it. Perhaps then, there is something about the evolution of humanity that brings about this recognition that it *should* be so, thereby bringing about the revelation that, in fact, it *IS* so?QT

rob: If I anywhere implied you were a “kook” I apologize. Such is not my belief.QT

My problem with that idea, QT, is that the only book that details Jesus has the words coming out of his mouth. These aren’t 6th century AD afterthoughts, or modern theological interpretations.

But, I can agree with you that there do exist variants of all religions which do not rule out the acceptance of evolution. I pointed out earlier in this thread that the Catholic Church accepts that evolution happened.

I do, however, disagree with the concept of non-overlapping magisterium. If there exists a deity with the power to circumvent natural law, then its presence ought to be detectable. On the other hand, I do not find religion to be a source of moral fortitude (the two most popular holy books are vile writings) and would prefer to preclude it from any say on the moral impact of scientific advances. Religion has, in my opinion, tried to present stumbling blocks to thoughtful scientific inquiry throughout history.

ROB:

Since you love to copy/paste Wikipedia, how about you read this part:

The explosion may not have been a significant evolutionary event. It may represent a threshold being crossed: for example a threshold in genetic complexity that allowed a vast range of morphological forms to be employed.

Also, Rob, here is your reasoning, spelled out.

1. We have theory A and theory B

2. Theory A is very useful and supported by lots of empirical evidence.

3. Theory B is not useful and supported by no evidence.

4. I can’t understand how theory A might explain a certain phenomenon.

5. Therefore theory B must be correct.

@I: The words coming out of His mouth are the very ones subject to interpretation.Right in this thread, jm & I have been struggling to understand each other, and I’ve inadvertently insulted rob. Text communications happening in real time therefore prove quite subjective.Jesus’s words, spoken to his disciples, had to have one meaning in real time, but also have to survive both His physical prescence and that of the disciples – suggesting there is more to the meaning than what the disciples needed to understand at the time.QT

I have trouble interpreting the words any other way (same goes for the Qur’an and its specific deeming of Christians as “Pagan”), but that’s a moot point in this discussion, I guess.This is Kyle, btw, just turn your head upside down!

QT, I think you made your point about Baha’i well. If you, as a follower, still allow yourself to posess the intellectual honesty of looking at new facts, even though they might conflict with your existing beliefs, then you are free of the intellectual bondage believers like rob suffer. My fear though, wouls be that at some point, you may be presented with a fact you cannot reconcile with your faith. Evolution is not a problem for you, but what if something new presents itself in the future. Would your faith require you to deny it, or even fight against its very acceptance by others?

Oh! Kyle: from my handheld, it just says “I”.Btw: I’m not sure the Qur’an calls Christians “pagan” – most places it refers to Christians as “the people of the Book.” Which is somewhat of a compliment to their belief in Jesus.QT

Ah, yes, a phone is messing up my pretty unicode!

Sura 5:17

“Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, the son of Mary.”

jm: the circumstances already exist to some degree. Homosexual acts are forbidden in the faith… science is inching toward saying that homosexuality is innate. There are some Baha’is who struggle with that.The fact that the faith can’t change the rules doesn’t excuse the believers from wrestling with the facts of science and coming up with a faithful response.QT

thanks, Kyle. The quote provided doesn’t call “Christians” “pagan,” rather it assails the belief in God having a “Son.” The point of the quote is to get Christians to acknowledge the equality of the prophets, and to reject the conflation of Jesus and God.In light of that scripture, you can go back to the Bible and hunt for a quote where Jesus claims equality with God for Himself, and without specific Christian interpretation, you don’t really find it.QT

QT, I agree that those within a faith should be able to look at verifiable facts and have a response that, while it may not completely reconcile, at least does not demonize the facts. But is it homosexual “acts” that are forbidden or is being gay deemed “evil”. Are you allowed to question those aspects of Baha’i and choose your own path, or is that close to heresy?I guess my question here is: Are you allowed to have and experience your faith on your own personal terms, or are you required to follow it for its own sake, even though you might disagree?

QT, it also defines that son as being the son of Mary. Seems pretty specific to Jesus, if you ask me.On your second point: you are correct that Jesus is very light on the claims of equality with his “Heavenly Father” but–and this is important–the very quotes of Jesus’ that we are reading were written by the same authors who made those claims on his behalf. If we are to discard their accounts of Jesus’ metaphysical state, should we not also discard their writings about his life and sayings? We must assume that either (a) he made these claims himself or (b) the author(s) are making them up, along with the rest of the story.I just have trouble with the idea of accepting “certain parts” of a holy book. I guess I’m a fundamentalist in that sense.

Kyle,

If there exists a deity with the power to circumvent natural law, then its presence ought to be detectable.

What about an energy or matter that is able to circumvent natural law. Like dark energy or matter. We can’t prove if it exists, but we think it does. And if it does, it’s going to blow many of our “natural laws” right out of the water.Umm, no pun intended.Quantum mechanics is yet another field where our “natural laws” don’t always apply. Sometimes a particle acts like a particle, and sometimes it acts like a wave. Yet we KNOW this shouldn’t be possible from our physical perspective. Simply put, the atomic world is not at all like our world, and because we know this to be true, we should be very, very careful about limiting what we know to what we see and prove.In other words, what you see isn’t really what is there.

ppp, that is correct. It’s all energy. See Heisenburg’s Uncertainty Principle.

pooper:It is true that dark matter (or dark energy) can not be detected directly, but can be inferred from its effect on the measurable data. Given your comparison to the “intelligent agent” I was speaking of, would the same not hold true for it?Perhaps we are not currently able to verify its existence, but this is to say we will never be able to. Science could not identify microorganisms until the advent of the microscope. Germs may have been outside of the reach at science at some point in our history, but they did not remain so.Same goes for quantum mechanics. We don’t have a unified theory, this is true, but this does not mean that we will never have one.

Pronoun clarification: 2nd paragraph, “it” = “dark matter”.Added some to the first paragraph and screwed things up, yet again.

@jm: Baha’i Faith has never held that homosexuals are evil, and has mixed guidance on the subject of “homosexuality.” But to your larger question…keep in mind that the Faith and its adherents are not quite equal… Baha’i Faith mitigates for independent investigation of truth… that’s a requirement. And, with no clergy, everyone has to work these things out for themselves. The Universal House of Justice does have final authority that believers have to abide, but that abiding that authority doesn’t mean abandoning personal questioning and exploration. I hope that answers the question…if not, let me know.@Kyle: Yes, specifically, the quote is talking about Jesus, and what His followers believe about Him. The Qur’an (and the Baha’i revelation both) assert that time creates degradation of interpretation, and that new revelation is needed to clarify fundamental truths. The difference between the Islamic and the Baha’i Faith is that Muslims see Islam as the final revelation, whereas Baha’is do not believe that God will ever stop revealing – about every 1,000 years or so. Which gets to jm’s point: the biggest test of any faith is the appearance of a new one. Baha’is are assured there won’t be any new revelations before 1,000 years expire, but what then? How will the believers respond? The Baha’i Writings suggest it will be just as much of a test for us as it has been for those before us.QT

Kyle,

Given your comparison to the “intelligent agent” I was speaking of, would the same not hold true for it?

Ever experience something that was completely unexplainable by any other means?I’m 41 years old, and even though I currently do not like God, I have to admit, he is a convenient explanation for a lot of weird crap I’ve seen both in the field and in my life at home. He sort of fills the empty spaces that need SOMETHING to fill them, the questions that can’t be answered.The energy within the universe is so vast and incredible that I often wonder if God is just that; the energy of everything. I don’t know. I won’t try to convince you of anything; I promise. But sometimes I sort of wonder if God, if he is real, isn’t maybe INSIDE of the universe, rather than external to it. I wonder if he isn’t maybe in us, and around us, and totally unthreatened by us or anything we do.This universe has rules; we know that. What we don’t know is why. I think the why is god. You are welcome to think what you want and I hope you’ll respect my right to believe as I choose.The god I believe in isn’t threatened by what we believe. Thus, free choice.I gotta go for the day. It’s been nice talking with you all.

pooper: I find the argument from personal experience to be the least convincing of any of the myriad of arguments.Reason? People will also attest that they have seen Elvis (after his death!), the Loch Ness monster, aliens and the chupacabra.

( and you are welcome to believe what you believe, but perhaps he might just have you thinking now… )People will also attest that they believe in evolution, you know, that we were once little squirrel-like creatures, with tails. And gabazillions of years before that, nutrient pumps.Birds, trees and bees are our very distant cousins.

Big difference, rob: mountains of direct physical evidence.I’m sure even Mr. Pooper will agree with this.

kyle, believe and interpret what you want. It’s not conclusive. It’s speculation. Maybe someday you’re realize this, who knows.

*NEWSFLASH*Cornell scientist says growling fish provide a window into the evolution of human speechby Rebecca JamesThursday July 17, 2008, 2:34 PMA Cornell University neurobiologist on Thursday played videos of fish humming, grunting and growling,and claimed that our ability to talk got its evolutionary start in fish hundreds of millions of years ago.The demonstration was held in conjunction with an article by Cornell’s Andrew Bass that was published today at 2 p.m. in the journal Science.”I think people are going to be really surprised,” he said. “Most are unaware that fish are using sound for social communication.”

Jees, what a mess. I’m tired of repeating this (and I apologize if someone already said it), but positive proofs occur only in mathematics. (And parts of other disciplines such as physics and chemistry that are completely mathematical).The rest of the sciences can only disprove things, so we rely on accumulation of evidence and repeatable experiments to build our body of knowledge. Demanding “proof” of evolution is ridiculous. It’s observable, predictable, and can be replicated in the laboratory, which is all that matters in biology.

If you don’t believe evolution has actually occurred, you are an imbecile to the nth degree. End of discussion.

Birds, trees and bees are our very distant cousins.

Fuck Evolution, I want The Science to start working on a new taxonomic classification for Douchebag. And then list you, Rob, as its sole species. Why on earth anyone on this thread is still arguing with you when EXACTLY as much progress might be made by arguing with the yellow stuff that comes out of my ear at the end of a Q-Tip is beyond me.

So that Tree of Life is fictional speculation?Thank you.

rob, I don’t think you know what “speculation” means. See above – what PPP was saying about how maybe god is the energy of the universe, all that stuff. THAT is speculation. He has no real, physical evidence to support his claim, just an idea. He’s guessing. His speculation is also personal – if you don’t feel the same way, you won’t reach his conclusion.But evolution is NOT speculative. There are mountains and mountains of research already in existence that incontrovertibly show that it has occurred in the past, and is still occurring right now. Anyone with a minimum of education on the subject, such that they can critically assess the data, can (and, so far, unanimously does) reach the same conclusion, based purely on the evidence. There’s no wishing required, no faith, no speculation, no leaps of interpretation. The data are what they are, and lead to one inescapable conclusion – that evolution is, in a word, real. Can you find fault with any of the thousands of published papers or datasets that support evolution? I’d like to see you try.And I’m still waiting on some description of this “intelligent force” you propose as a replacement. Is it sentient? Does it work deliberately? Is it tangible?This “force”, by the way, is ENTIRELY speculative. No evidence for it, no actual reason to believe it exists outside of rob’s brain.

Also: What “Tree of Life”?

MZ confuses adaptation with evolution….Charles Darwin’s Tree of Life.You claim there are mountains and mountains of research in existence that incontrovertibly show that it occurred and you don’t even know about Darwin’s Tree of Life?Whoa.Mountains huh. Right.

Perhaps you’d like to read about the scientific struggles that you so neatly sweep from your mind… Darwin’s Tree of Life

What’s your point with that? The nature of science is not to cling to unuseful ideas, but to test them, refine them, and discard them as they stop being useful…. all that we learned along the way doesn’t get discarded though… That’s precisely the point that Bob was making – evolutionary theory is not an article of faith – its a scientific description of processes we know about. As such, it provides useful predictive models, but as we’ve been learning more, we’ve learned that some of our early musings on the subject were wrong.If by this you mean to say that we will suddenly discover an intelligent designer and have to concede something about evolution – then I have to say – if that happens, science will adapt. Until that happens, science demands that we stick with the working model.QT

Oh, and another question – since adaptation is the driver of evolution – is the fact that darwin’s tree as a model is being challenged suggest that your beef with evolution is the concept of inferior to superior progression? Is the term evolution the problem for you?QT

rob, no scientist researching evolution bothers with “Tree of Life” stuff. Cladograms kind of look like trees, I guess, but you’re a hundred years behind the times.Now answer my questions!

MZ, you didn’t even know what I was referring to.It was used to establish the idea of evolution.And now it’s vertical-ness has been exposed as incorrect. You know, that common ancestor idea.Whatever, you’re on your own from here.

Wow, that kid just had to flaunt his ignorance one last time, eh?

Karma’s on you ǝlʎʞ

Hey Kyle,This is the most important question asked on this this thread yet…How do you get your name to be shown upside-down? Can you imagine what politicalpartypooper would look like? People would pass out trying to figure out what the hell it was.

Here ya go pppFlip It

That just rocks