Evolution? How?

that's not going to happen until a time machine's invented. even then, i'd prefer to send a camera rather than go in person.

but chemistry is mainly concerned with atoms combining & recombining to produce new substances, yet no one has actually observed this process (as opposed to the end result), to my knowledge. so, is chemistry not an empirical science by your standard?

Certainly we have empirical evidence of the existence of creatures today which show differences from one another. What we do NOT have is empirical evidence of one creature changing into another (evolution).

Your comparison is not at all valid because you can have empirical evidence of the growth of a redwood tree from seedling and on upwards. Just plant it and watch it grow. If you want continued empirical observation of the redwood's long life span you can pass your research on to someone who can continue to observe it directly (empirical evidence).

Thus revealing the crux of the problem; rl has a flawed concept of what evolution is and how it works.

This is always a humorous fallback position for the evolutionist, noted elsewhere as the Stupid Public argument:

'Well, if folks really understood evolution, THEN they would agree with it.'

This elitist mentality is hilariously condescending, but misses the point entirely.

Evolution is the beginning and end of science instruction in the public schools, for instance. Evolutionists, in their more honest moments, bemoan the poor results of science 'education' in the public schools, but take to the barricades when someone suggests opening education to any variation from it's formula of proven failure.

Were you to come to my city, I could introduce you to several young college students of my acquaintance who were home schooled. Strong emphasis during science instruction was given to the concepts of Intelligent Design/ Creation.

When it came time for these young folks to take the standardized tests for college, they scored in the 95 percentile and above on the science portion.

To understand evolution is not necessarily to agree with it, Timber. Sorry (not really) to bust your bubble.

And if they ever go into any biological field and try to form a new hypothesis, or invent a new process, or do any gene work, using ID instead of evolution, they won't be able to, because ID provides isn't testable or creative. They may not accept evolution, but using it is the only way they're gonna be able to function. What they believe won't work. Evolution will.

Hi Username,

Many scientists who, over the course of several centuries, built the scientific foundation of the modern world we inherited and enjoy today actually did believe God created the world and all that was in it. It didn't seem to hamper them in their exploration of science.

Several other A2Kers have posted lists of such scientists and I won't take the time to repost them, but your argument that scientific principle is indecipherable to an IDer/ creationist just doesn't fit the history of science at all.

There is no question of agreeing or disagreeing with evolution, no bubble to bust. On the one hand are those who see that all the available evidence supports the proposition, none contradicts it, that the schema adequately fulfills the requirements of verifiability and falsfiability, relies on no extraordinary claims, and stands to logic and reason. On the other hand are the luddites of today, who hold superstition and magic to be the driving force of the universe.

The upside of the Creationist/IDer assault on science is that it is doomed, and its inevitable fate will envelop it in fairly short order, as such things go. The more exposure these modern-day luddites achieve for themselves - and that is their key focus, to increase their exposure - the more they discreditmtheir ludicrous proposition in the mind of The Electorate. They - the luddites - chose to take their fight to the polls and the courtrooms. They're leading themselves to their own slaughter. They see the travesty that just occurred in Kansas as a signal victory on the road to triumph, whereas in reality it marks a tipping point, marking the beginning of the transition of their proposition from contrioversy to laughing stock. The fight is far from over, but the luddites are engineering their own defeat. Eagerly - witlessly, but eagerly.

I cannot agree with this, Big Bird. "real life" understands these things--but is here as a propagandist, and cannot admit to them. He understands fully well what we are talking about. But he is here, at a site with a high page rank, which gets many viewers. He is counting on people reading at the most, the last few pages of this thread. Therefore, no matter how many times he gets blown out of the water, he'll trot out the same crapola again. He doesn't care what you or i think--he's only concerned to infect the casual reader with his sophistry.

wait you can get infected with sophistry here

sign me up

No need to even register, Boss, just read on . . .

rl
Among them was Darwin himself. No one has denied theworldview central to a theist "belief system" isnt significant to the Western Mind. However to confuse it with science , or to ascribe scientific validity to this worldview is where most of us peel off with you real life.
You enjoy your abilities to critique the inividual points of scientific discoveries and evidence, even to the point of reminding us all that this evidence is not "Direct" and is circumstantial (although I disagree with your use of that definition) . Your skills are good and we enjoy the give and take. Why? because thats how we do science?
Where we depart is that you erect a similar pedestal for your religionist views and place it coequal with those of the scientific. However, Ive, n.ot heard you once, even discuss the major "gaps, shortcomings and outright impossibiities "inherent with the religios worldview.

You have to provide us with the way you arrive at your logical endpoints by the type of logic that you employ. Im at a loss. Your critiques of any scientific viewpoint are based upon a split in how variopus evidence is used to reach a conclusion. However, your conclusions seem to pop up with no evidence at all.
eg.
You had trouble with the evidence that demonstrated the 21 (and more) key features between Jurassic dinosaurs and late Jurassic birds that these twoclasses and 4 subclasses have in common. That , presents us with a logical conclusion that, at least morphologically these classes "seem" realted and fit an evolutionary model of common ancestry.

Weve gone around with what the data means and , Ive usually been on the defensive to provide some context and interpretation of this evidence.

Your conclusion, different than mine, runs to an Immediate supernatural intervention (if Im wrong here correct me), sans context, sans data, diito evidence , and ditto any research at all.
See where some of us have problems with your way of thinking? I pewrsonally find it illogical and rigidly imposed by your religious beliefs.
Disagreeing with our points of evidence is good and healthy, however , to then jump on to a Creationist bandwagon because of a few problems or gaps in the scientific model, is totally unscientific and a mere yielding up to a divine authority, proof of the existence of which is not even in your backpack.

You critcize ecience for not being "scientific enough" then you immediately throw your support to mythology. See where we have our problems?
Obviously we are never going to satisfy you even though you fail to recognize your self imposed limitations of inquiry( Real life will neve ever critique the Craetionist vie.wpoint-or if he has, we hadnt been around to hear it). In your defense youve stated that both evolution and Creationism are theories worth equal consideration. That is untrue . Evolution was derived from its evidence it was not a pre determined explanation. Research has gone on in a number of unrelated fields and, like Timber said in repeating an evolutionary mantra:
With all the research tahts gone on since Darwin , nothing has refuted evolution, nothing. The model gets stronger, not weaker. Despite your efforts to deny and communicate your denial of this fact, science moves along and old discoveries lead to new questions, the slate keeps getting filled with new hypotheses, laws, and discoveries.

Meanwhile, it appears, Creationism and now its bastard child ID, seem stuck in Neutral.
I believe (this is my personal "belief") that you , and the many other more fundamental Christians need to quickly hold a major doctrinal conference to rectify your "kunderna Trego" like requirements of "...We must have the following in our doctrine..." Because, as you know, your views based upon careful scientific scrutiny, dont hold up, and you dont have any evidence to support any of them.
To remove them from the mainstream of science and to reinsert them into the area of religious studies, where most major religions now stand, would be ideal .
After the Supreme Court knocks down the last vestiges of theID movement, youll have nowhere to go . Remember, all this crap in Dover and now in KAnsas has to do with redefinitions o Creationism by morphing it into "ID" and , in Kansas, elevating a controversy that has ID at its roots.
So, if by removeing ID from the "conroversy" schema, we are left with nothing more than "peer review" of science.
I know, Id love nothing better than to stand up and defend a concept that is being critiqued. It makes my conclusions even sharper (assuming of course that they are right). Its what we do every day, its just that we dont have this buzzer at the back of the room that goes off and "scores one for Creationism or ID" whenever the model shortcomings are openly discussed.

Just a thought, we seem to wobble back and forth between the arcane, the philosophical, and the humorous. This was merely my shot at "the obvious"

I find it noteworthy that "real life" and those who espouse creationism are focused on finding flaws in the science which underpins a theory of evolution, but are completely gun-shy about describing their alternative. In more than 500 pages, i'd warrant there isn't enough material from "real life" to fill a single page in which he describes in detail what he proposes as the best alternative answer to the diversity of life forms to be found on this planet.

Of course, the thesis can be summed up quite simply--god created all life as it is to be found at present. What is lacking entirely is a demonstration of the plausibility of such a contention--let alone of the plausibility of the existence of a deity--which meets standards as rigorous as "real life" attempts to apply to a theory of evolution.

I always like the argument'Well, the Universe is so ordered and complicated, it had to have been created"

Thats it? after all the critique in arcane areas of science, the best argument they can come up with is that?

Course, Im a pastafarian.

Will he be utilizing black helicopters next?

if and when the bird flu mutates into a human pathogen, how are these folks going to explain that, does god have an organizer where he keeps records of the changes he needs to make, or was it all predetermined

<god, talking to self>, now i mustn't forget, i'm mutating that avian flu pathogen on friday november 25 at 3:43 p.m.

SNOOD. Nope, the ID and ICR crew always travel fisrt class and drives Mercedes 500's. They extract lots of cash from the gullible to fund many activities like "media watching" and "scraping".

If you dont know that such stuff goes on snood, Id suggest that you visit some websites that try to post information from audits of many of these "media missions" associated with the Discovery Institute and ICR
No black choppers, black leather checkbooks.

In any case, I see no need to ascribe ulterior motives to real life's expression and defense of his views. The post I facetiously answered made it sound as if real life is going to hypnotize people and cart them away. No more or less influence has he here than the atheists and agnostics. sounded paranoid to me.

Spare me the self-righteousness, 'K?

Yeh, it's like someone starting a debate on how the moon is made of *cheddar* cheese instead of *blue* cheese because the evidence for blue cheese is flawed. Then the guy tells you that you're being condescending when you tell him he's way off base. Where do you start.

while you're being infected with sophistry, why not get some gratuitous pedantry as well? flu, and viral pathogens in general, are rather tangential and may even be irrelevant in discussions of evolution, since viruses are not classified as lifeforms. the distinction seems narrowly academic to me, but i'm not aware of any contrarian interpretations.