Which one are you?

[Nepenthe]

shin said:

Why would Rolling Stone do a recent article about Warren from There's Something About Mary?

RS didn't do an article about him. A famous person (which will remain anonymous) mentioned him. He isn't anyone famous....at least not amongst the mainstream religious faction. So give it up.

My lips are

Just wanted to spark your curriousity.

[shin]

Frankths an beanth

[kmc]

Remember louee? This is kinda like that. Let's summarize:

Scientific theory, by definition, can be disproven. Evolution is thus, by definition, scientific theory, the best scientific theory we have to explain how beings have come to be. When Behe, or Dee, or any other person pokes holes in the theory of eveolution, they only thing they are doing is ascertaining that evolution is, indeed, a scientific theory, with holes. I would love it if anyone could name a scientific theory without holes.

The bulk of Dee's argument, thus, can be easily summarized in the following: because evolution is a scientific theory with holes, it is without any more merit that her brand of creationism. This is, of course, a fallacy betrayed by her incomplete knowledge of current evolutionary concepts. At best, we can say that she has argued that evolution is poorly taught, and that there are questions as to How that justifies ID or any other branch of creationism and puts it on par with evolution remains to be explained.

So we can restate the question that Dee has yet to answer. Dee, how do the holes in evolutionary theory discount the theory and elevate Intelligent Design, a theory that can neither be proven nor disproven, into an equivalent realm of discussion?

[phil]

I would love it if anyone could name a scientific theory without holes.


How'bout the Law of Archimedes which states
that "any body plunged in water will be wet when retrived" ...

And... there are no holes in water !!

[Galactus]

Ken, the answer is simple. We should plug the holes with Jesus.

[shin]

The Bible IS a historical document, after all. And if you don't believe that, you're too stupid to comment.

[RocDoc]

FWIW 'Law' does not equal 'Theory'....regarding Phil's Archimedes example.

The Laws of Equilibrium go the same way. It is incontrovertible that gases mixed or liquids mixed will eventually attain a homogeneous mixture (ie nature doesn't allow concentrated material whose movement within other materials is not restricted, to remain concentrated for very long)

[strat-0]

nymphofantasia said:

admin said:

I was about to say that this discussion is pointless, since De refuses to read or cannot understand the information provided here:

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html

But I won't, because that info was very edifying for me - thank, Luke. However, trying to argue the shifting sands of De's meandering statements is pointless. This is clear because highly qualified and eminent scholars there have utterly discredited Well's entire book, point by point and as a whole, yet she still refers to the "misleading textbooks" and the same examples (horses, peppered moths, embryo drawings, etc.) which were debunked in plain and simple terms there (OK, the moth stuff gets pretty technical, but the points are easy enough to get).

De, if you can actually read that and still cling to your "horse evolution" crap, etc., you may really have a comprehension problem. I'm not trying to shake your faith or knock your beliefs, here - believe what you want to believe. You'd be better served to just come out and say that you don't care about facts; faith trumps facts every time.

First of all, you need not insult me strato, I think I have a good grasp on the whole "reading" thing.

I have never read Well's book. As a matter of fact, up until Luke posted this site and you keep bringing up the name, I never even knew who the man was. One does not need to read his book to see the magnitude of the flaws in the textbooks concerning the teaching of evolution. I saw it immediately when reading my own textbooks. I had an extreme amount of curriosity about this and did some of my own research. NO not searches for creationists or ID proponents, or Bible sites. S research for archeology sites and evidence that IS REAL and IS OUT THERE. I did however run across a few articles concerning the stuff in the textbooks, none that surprised me all that much, they are only stating the obvious.

If you can't grasp that I strongly disagree with the supposed "scientific methods" used in textbooks to teach evolution, then that is your problem. When studying any form of origins to our past, one must use all available information out there. This is the entire concept behind my major/s. This includes Archeology, Biological, history and culture, and Linguistics. It is a multi-disciplinary study.

There is no insult to you contained in my post.

So, you came up with all of the same "icons" that Wells addresses in his book independently? That's quite remarkable.

Not that this is important, because independent study can be just as rewarding as formal study, but you needn't list all the disciplines that are included in a standard curriculum for a history major (which linguistics and biology are of course not a part of, but I don't know what other majors you may have declared). For my bachelor's of science in education, I majored in history and English (and education).

[Nepenthe]

strato, you insinuated that I either refused to face what you call "facts" off some stupid website that takes tidbits of quotes from a book and picks the entire book apart, many possibly being taken out of context, when I know full well you have probably not read the book yourself. Or that I had comprehension problems.

I can kind of remember a very big discussion concerning the Civil War not too very long ago. And I have to say, I am very glad I stuck to my guns given some of the more recent primary documents I have come across concerning that whole discussion we had. Given the recent family history of my own with many primary documents and letters from the beginning of our American history on up through the Indian Wars and Civil War, along with primary documents written by others I was pretty much on track I think. Those written by my own relatives ( one that worked directly under Lincoln, abolitionists and workers on the underground railroad, a few representatives of Indian tribes appointed by Grant, a Govenor in Kansas, a few archeologists, many Theologists, and Pioneers of the states of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, and Colorado) I realized I was very much correct in what I already believed to be true from the studying I had done on my own.

The only reason I bring this up is because when I do research I try to stick with abundant sources, and as many primary documents as I can possibly find.

At the same time, we all have our own opinions and there are two sides to every story.....

My Bachelor Major is History with a minor in Folklore, I will continue on to a PhD and will probably work toward Historical Archeology, Folklore and Theology. But being that there is not really a major in Historical Archeology, the actual field of study would run under the title of Anthropology. And yes it is a multi-disciplinary field of study, that indeed includes Biology.

As far as coming to the conclusions about what is taught in the textbooks, that was really not that hard at all. I know the difference between real research and real Scientific Methods and Laws to be able to discern when I am being duped. The evidence is in the ground left behind by our ancestors and cultures, our written records, our art, our languages, our folklore, our Bible, as well as in our DNA. All you have to do is find it and put it in perspective. There is a lot out there, if I hadn't been studying these things previously I would have probably never even blinked an eye at these misconceptions.

[shin]

Dear God, we're doomed.

[Nepenthe]

Well OK I will confess to this one, I actually did see an article about the "faked" embryos awhile back. And being that I have had 4 children with ultrasounds of 3 of them, I bet I could have figured that one out on my own as well. LOL

But the moths and the horses I figured out on my own right from the start, I just did some research on bone beds and archeology digs for the horses, and the moth story I suspected for the simple fact that I never see moths outside in the daytime I was always under the assumption they were almost exclusively nocturnal. THEN I found the articles about the moths being "staged". Not too mention the fact that one of the text books I have states that this was not the case in other areas of England, only in this supposed industrial area, and that after the pollution cleared the moths returned to their normal. At any rate this proves absolutely nothing really. The moth genes can't change because birds eat one color of moth over another. So what real change is there? Actually it only proves what little and temporary impact so called "natural selection" had on a population.

Lets say that the moth experiment was 100% true to form, its like saying that if you have a group of soldiers fighting a war at night and some are wearing white and some are wearing black the white clothed soldiers are of course going to be picked off much quicker than the black clothed ones.....common sense? Or in the case of a genocide...


btw there is a book out about that whole moth thing its called Of Moths and Men, just found that out today.

Honestly, I had no clue that there was a book written about all of this by a man named Wells.

I suppose my biggest beef with the entire idea of evolution and common ancestry is our inexplicable individual unique genetic code within our DNA. NO two are the same, just like our fingerprints.

[Rit]

I suppose my biggest beef with the entire idea of evolution and common ancestry is our inexplicable individual unique genetic code within our DNA. NO two are the same, just like our fingerprints.

that's a highly speculative concern. you are, first of all, assuming that every copy ought to be a perfect replica, not accounting for any rate of fluctuation on the microscopic level, even between a straightforward direct copy of something. which leads to the next point...

secondly, you're betraying a tendency to abstract your information in ways unconnected to the visible and obtained evidence at hand, with no appreciation for real world dynamics... which you account for by inserting "cosmological principles" like Intelligent Design.. evidence of terribly bad faith in the scientific process.

and thirdly, this bodes very poorly for the type of PhD candidate you are likely to become, if as you say, that's something you would like to pursue. You might pass through on the modicum of intelligence you do seem to have, but the grey areas of higher research will go entirely unmissed by you (and any prof that passes you through the PhD lineage).

you're not a bad sort, you're just pursuing the wrong tree.

[phil]

I suppose my biggest beef with the entire idea of evolution and common ancestry is our inexplicable individual unique genetic code within our DNA. NO two are the same, just like our fingerprints.

"Holy genome sequencing comparison Batman !!
Another inexplicable fact ??

I guess the Evolution theory isn't worth
Wooly Mammoth frozen dung after all !!"

You hate so much the fact that
humans and primates share the same ancestors
that you've become real pig-headed about the subject ...
And I'm afraid no amount of study will ever changed that !!

I know you don't want to hear this but
the chimpanzee is the animal that is closest to people genetically;
people and chimps have very similar DNA
(between 93 % to 98% of human and chimpanzee DNA is identical).

The difference between scientists and Creationists is fundamental ...

When confronted with the UNexplained,
the first study it and try to understand

When stumbling upon some "inexplicable"(??) facts,
the second falls on her knees and says one of 2 things :
"Hallelujah ! God did it again !!"
Or ... "See ... Evolution is impossible !!"

[Galactus]

I've been reading quite abit about gap theory lately and practicly everyone of them said the same thing in the opening paragraph "We're trying to mold science to fit the description of creation in the Bible" some in those exact words. I'm sure that if you look hard enough you can find evidence to match any theory...when you've already determined the outcome all you have to do is figure out how to make the facts bend that way. There are many mysteries in science but unlike a scientist, creationists already know the answers and they're more then comfortable allowing these questions to remain unanswered as a tribute to the glory of God. There people who believe in God and then there are people who believe in the Bible. The later will try to mold everything to this one book, this single source. They'll read tons and tons of documents and they fact check every one of them with Bible. If it fits it can stay, if it doesn't it must not be possible...must've been God back during the ultimate good ole days..."Why, back in my day we didn't have sin..."

[kmc]

Dee, you said that your own research has proven to you the certainty of your beliefs. Do you mind sharing any of this research with us? I would love to know what we're working with.

Oh, and I am still waiting for the answer to this:

Dee, how do the holes in evolutionary theory discount the theory and elevate Intelligent Design, a fantasy that can neither be proven nor disproven, into an equivalent realm of discussion?