Intelligent Design Retardation

Hi Snood, the fossil record doesn't begin with complex creatures. What makes you think it does?

But that is wrong. A theory must have some proof, mathematival or observational, towards it. Evolution can have "proof" for it that is both observatinal and inferrential. Evolution is also plausible with scientific knowledge (of DNA and genetics etc..). Creationism is nothing. Its based on belief and "anti-proof"; attempting to disprove a conflicting theory.

Creationists seem to ascribe to the philosophy "If I believe it then it is. If I do not belive it then it is not."

The ID position is defeatist in that it states, "God created everything, and that is that."

Evolution, at least, tries to explain a orderly process through the scientific method.

The ID position doesn't even approach the scientific method.

Calling into questions some of the shortcomings of the theory of evolution is one thing, but philosophy already covers that ground without trying to substitute a position that is even less capable of explaining a process than the theory of evolution itself.

How many intelligent designers were there?
Six? Two Thousand? Twenty-three?


Joe (No, really. How many?) Nation

You're jumping ahead Joe. First the creationists have to get their religion wormed into kids classes, then[/b] they let everyone know which intelligence(s) did it all (want to take bets on which one the majority of creationists think did it?)

its good to rehash the science (or repackaging thereof) by iD proponents. It must be remembered that this case in Dover, although it shall reargue the methodology that the "haughty' scientists have applied in the last 150 years to foist this heresy of evolution upon the world , thhere are NO batches of real evidence EVER proposed by iD proponents, the arguments they use are really mere attempts at negating all thhe scientific evidence. Behe has been successfully discussed and dismissed within his own faculty colleagues at Lehigh.

The entire case proposed by ID is elegantly simple. reemove the topic of a god , accept the basis of most all of the support sciences , and then claim that you have a "theory" equal in merit to Darwins
"Descent with modification".
The ID crowd is trying, with any convenient aavailable case , to overturn Edwards v Aguillard which was handed down to reinforce the "etablishment" clause of the Constitution.

in yesterdays nYT there was a good a quote from Jeff Brown, one of the Dover schoolboard who resigned
"This isnt a dispute among Christians v non Christians, or non beelievers. Its an argumeent between Christians who are comfortable with the Constitution and those who want special treatment"
That summarizes the entire case so well that Im adaoptting it for my own use as well.

ARguing the merits of the foundation sciences in evolution is available and is readily 'checked out" of your libraries. Most people eithher "get it" or elsee they wish to deny the facts and evidence with mistatments and misunderstandings (Im being kind here)

The decoding of the genome has, instead of posing serious questions to evolutionary theory, has backed up Darwin in ways he never imagined. Genetics gives the ID fans the most problems cause, by tracing a genomes structure we can follow the development and migrations of a species, and can actually provide visible proof of speciation in a number of extant species.

The fossil record, doesnt just "appear" from nowheere, it goes back to about 3.8 by in the Isua Formation and increases from simple life forms to complex forms that pre date the "Cambrian Explosion" by a half billion yeears. The counter-science crap that is spewed out by the ICS is based upon debate, not science. They do no individual research in any of the support sciences except to publish rehashed versions of already published data tthat was honestly and carefully obtained.

This will, ultimately go tto the USSC and be argued on a simple section of the Constitution.
To demand that, in science classes we co-teach a myth based set of "beliefs" without any support science is ludicrous. ID violates , not only the Constitution, it viol;ates good common sense and the scientiific method.
thhe journal of science education has decried that, due to the national "dumming down' of most science curricula, we , are slowly slipping back to a time ruled by "old time religion" .
I get po'd to have a bunch of new grad students come into a methods of research course and present a thesis topic that wouldnt eeven make a decent science fair project.
we have to demand more out of our kids and ourselves. We have to be more critical of how we review technical material, especially that provided on the web. To read a, sponsored link on the wonder of Intelligent Design, or a USGS link on fossil finds needs careful digesting not an immdiaate acceptance or rejection.
The very arguments used by IDers has just been a way to validate clasic Creationism and try to cruise around the "establishment clause"
I resent beeing classified as a smug 'evolutionist' . Theres been a lot of research and experience in the intervening years. aNytime we get into a debate about "evidence" ive yet tto see any real evidence on iD "theory" based upon actual science. iv got threads aved from many of abuzzers and a2k eers who have sequentially argued

Theres not been enough time to accomplish all this evolution by genetic mutation

thhe fosil record has undieniaable gaps that are fatal to the theory

there is verified evidence that dinosaurs and hominids were contemporaries

the statistical impossibility for evolution is staggering

evrything requires a clockmaker

time has been a significant variable in the progress of life

All these points have been successfully argued down by pople at both pbbs.With all due respect to new meembers (alll welcome- go to the light0 We are rehashing old arguments anew. the only thing worth concentrating upon at present is the case in Dover. I predict that its gonna take at least 3 years to reach some denoument in PA alone.

im sattisfied with the Constitution as its written. I can guarentee that thhis entire issue is gonna get in the way of the reelection of Rick Santorum in 06.

Farmer(open minded as long as you show some good peer reviewed evidence) man

snood, much hhas been writtten that counters your opinion that sscince is 'baffled" by thhe Cambrian xplosion. maybe tthe creation "scintists" want you to believe this becausee they feel that you wont do reading on your own http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/mistaken.html

Also, look up EDIACARA ASSEMBLAGE in googlee, youll see ssome pretty complex pre-cambrian life


Its a typicaal argument used by Creationists. if somethhing hasnmt been discovered yet, tthey say it never existed.

Well, we have lots of ssoft bodied lifeforms from pre-cambrian sediments that have undergone metamorphism so theyve been schhmeared a bit. Also, we are finding more stuff in place
the argument aboutt a Cambrian explosion was actually Darwin, whos stated that hee felt certain that an abundant fossil rcord of life in tthe Precambrian wILL be found.
weell, hhis understanding was a bit flawed beecause his understanding of the base of thhe Cambrian was actually the SIlurian. Since tthat timee the precambrian end hhas been agred based on strat and tectonics and a Fossil assemlage that was
'Complex, and hard shelled"
It was neever in doubt that pre cambrian life would be found, and it has. Mostt all of it is soft bodied, single clled , or alage and now extinctt orders
of multicelled "plasms". Life had tto begin somewhere, all thhe time from 3.8 byears ago and ending att 600 Million years ago, life was experimenting . Thre is speculation that is was a world of RNA not DNA. Evidence from precambrian rocks show examples of chemical signatures of such tthings as chitin or amino compounds.
The storys not perfect , but its not to be dismissed when the alternative has no evidnce at all. You seem like a reasonable guy, If I was your target of being "snotty' I apologize, its just that I get short when someone not in my field criticizs findings and dismisses them without consideering many altrnatives

A few weeeks ago gunganake posted some pics of a dinosaur fossil eating a hominid fossil. It was an obvious fakewith whhich, Im sure gunga will wish to distance himself . but the implication was, if thhis was real it would cripplee evoluttionary thought. scientistts actually gave it time and considered it until it was discovered that thhe whgle thing was a series of rubber casts that were put together.
MAyb, as an arth scientist, I get preachy and assume that you guys read the same journals i do. BUT, I can assure you, with thhe exception of a few notorious fossil dealeers in China, thee world of Paleontology is brutally boring , composed of anal stick-to-it, hard working years of almost hopeless digging until a little piece of fossil evidence connects some heretofore unconnected dots. there is absolutely no agenda driven means that drive these expeditions. Did you ever wonder why all these scientists traipse off to the wastelands of the Gobi or Sahara or montana and the cold shores of Newfoundland? Whhat gives them reason to believe that thyed find something at those spots ? Its all based upon stratigraphic history and earlier works of others. A rcent fossiil discovered in Heeiner Pa, shows the intermediate structure of fish to amphibians, and it wass at a sitte that had been hunted over for a century of fossil research. (Luck helps too)

The ICS, on the other hand, waits until someone else finds something real and then tries to criticize based upon a pre-formed creation myth model. (unless they themselves are busy trying to perp a couple of fakes every so often)

Please do not criticize scientists of being diligentt in their pursuit of datta but, on the otthher hand, you turn a blind ye to thhe laack of data and tthe actual deceipt practiicd by tthe creationistt/iDers

Here is the real deal, a dinosaur eating mammal

Newsday 1/12/05
One of the 130 million-year-old skeletons, unearthed by fossil hunters from New York and China, represents an opossum-sized mammal that died with chunks of a young dinosaur still in its stomach, they conclude.

Nynewsday

yep, I saw that one also. Thats believable but its like having tuna in your mercury.
Acquiunk, could you PM me , I have a question about pottery typology . a student wants to do a thermo project by comparing xray diffraction patterns of some Munsee and some other types. we have no other information about these types and their "cone numbers"