Evolution? How?

Forget about the god spot, what about the wet spot?

No, that's a load of horse poop. You're trying to obscure his meaning, which is that it does not matter whether a fundamentalist were raised a Presbyterian or a Catholic, or was raised in what can be described as a fundamentalist sect. What matters is their extraordinary and dangerous fervor.

It is perfectly understandable, though, why you would not wish to consider that aspect.

Perhaps there's a bit less to "The Controversy" than some might have you believe. It would appear, by the evidence shown on GoogleTrends, that far more folks are interested in learning about evolution than in pursuing ID-iocy. Of note is that the frequency of Google-linked news articles pertaining to evolution has been steady to slightly up-trending, while ID-iocy-centric news articles run a poor second both overall and by trend, showing only mometary spikes centered on headline events (none of which have turned out well for the ID-iocy camp) befiore returning to essentially baseline frequency, a graph performance mirrored in the overall search requests graph.



While The US appears to be the focal point of ID-iocy searches, the UK is the leader in Evolution searches, with Australia, India, Canada, Belgium, the and The USA in that order making up the top 6.

I would appear that ID is only interesting to the lunatic fringe.

I wonder if Charles Darwin gave the Brits the head start on evolution that reflects on timber's graph.

Ah, dang -- ci posted before I could correct "I" to "It."


The controversy is in the eye of the beholder -- they would barely be holding onto their wits.

LW wrote:
I would appear that ID is only interesting to the lunatic fringe.

It would also appear that the majority of those are also fundamentalist christians. It's interesting that only one religion suffers from this malady.

Just put two and two together on that one!

ID is interesting only to the eye of the beholder -- they would barely be holding onto their wits.

Interesting that so many of those who enter the fray on ID-iocy's side come to the war of wits so poorly armed.

In part it's because they see evolution/science as unfounded, faith-based, and anti-Christian.

I'd say not in part, but in large measure. Especially the contention that it is faith-based and anti-christian. At this site and at many others, the religiously devout assume a priori that science is atheistical and intends to deny the existence of god.

Hwang Woo-Suk on science and ethics...

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200605/kt2006051217400611950.htm

I should have said in large measure.

Your constant insults only show how base you really are... Again, you are certain of something you know nothing about...

Rex wrote:
Again, you are certain of something you know nothing about...


However, the balls have been in your court to prove your invisible friend that answers prayers, is kind and generous, and knows all.

We're just waiting for evidence you can show us that humans can relate to.

Timber, I know more about the spirit than you do...

Gience = Science trying to be God... (I will be using this word Gience whenever you use the oxymoron ID-iot. I believe the word ID-iot is both tasteless and against forum policy. You are not supposed to take names and arrange the letters to insult people. I am not proselytizing but I did read the rules way back.)

Science is not objective...

Science is made up of flawed human beings.

Their calculations are subject to their own opinion and limited perspective.

Science takes measurements and draws private personal conclusions.

Science has only one form of evidence. Physical. Not to say that physical evidence is not valid but it is only one form of verification. So the entire body of science is based upon a sole and only form of verification and identification.

Do you believe everything you see, that has only one from of checking as to the validity of "truth".

Would science exist if there were no humans? No...

Science is not a thinking thing on it's own but it is a consciousness that is dependant on "intelligence"...

You know what intelligence is? The most learned of the scientists spell the word, "intelligence" as, id-iot... They need to go back and learn how to spell.

Intelligence is first a language that can be universally understood within the species.

Science is intelligence or rather a collection of intelligence.

BUT!

Science does not embody all knowledge.

Why?

Because science has a premise that it must have measurable observable evidence.

Here is the rub...

Where is science's evidence?

It has none if any at all...

It does not know how the world began? It does not know where matter and energy came from... It doesn't even know what light is...
It doesn't know what gravity is...

It doesn't know what electrons really are and science has never traveled to the center of the earth nor have they been to the center of our sun to "observe" what is within.

Science has never "seen" a black hole thought they have seen the "effects" of many of them... Science does not know how our earth was set into such balance as to have created life. The odds are staggering.

Science does not know what life is... They see the results of it but once the life passes from a body no scientist nor doctor can bring them back.

Science does not know if there is a God. Science does not know what this God would be like. Science does not know what was before our universe. Science does not know if God is here on the earth. Science does not know what made DNA. Science does not know how viruses and bacteria came to exist.(although they theorize they have never made this happen in a laboratory. Remember, evidence?)

Science does not know where all of the "missing fossil" records have gone.

Every species is missing them just when they began to change to another species the records are mysteriously in most all cases "gone".

Science does not know how unique our earth is. They have no evidence to speculate that the earth may actually out of the entire universe be the only place capable of evolving life.

Science does not know...

Does God "prove" himself to every form of life? Where do we prove ourselves to God?

Rex wrote:
Science does not know where all of the "missing fossil" records have gone.

Do you understand anything about degradation and erosion?

What, selective degradation?

Rex, You're the one that asked the question about why scientists cannot produce all those fossils. Are you that forgetful?