[__ Science __ ] All bets are off

[brujaq]

Then I see no point in continuing further if you are just going to insult any evidence shown to you.

No insult bro , what would you say if I'd showed it to you ? That isn't evidence of anything ..

 

[Milk-Drops]

No insult bro ,

You called a chart that showed divisions in lineages coloring book pages. That is an insult.

what would you say if I'd showed it to you ?

I would read the chart and ask for clarification where needed.

That isn't evidence of anything ..

This leads me to ask what you would consider evidence?

 

[LovethroughDove]

There are multiple lineages of flying dinosaurs. Birds today decended from a specific lineage of feathered dinos.

Agreed

Genesis 1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

[brujaq]

This leads me to ask what you would consider evidence?

Soft tissue from dinosaur bones confirmed and filmed does quite well

 

[Milk-Drops]

Soft tissue from dinosaur bones confirmed and filmed does quite well

I'm referring to eat would convince you otherwise.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Agreed

Genesis 1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

So did God create raptors first, then transform them into birds?

 

[brujaq]

I don't get that last post MD , You remember that popular poster showing the progression from monkey to man each one a little less monkey and a little more Elvis ? That is an insult my friend and it only exists on the wall in those posters ..

 

[Milk-Drops]

I don't get that last post MD , You remember that popular poster showing the progression from monkey to man each one a little less monkey and a little more Elvis ? That is an insult my friend and it only exists on the wall in those posters ..

How is it an insult? A poster that shows a sported theory isn't an intended insult, even if you take offense.

 

[brujaq]

How is it an insult? A poster that shows a sported theory isn't an intended insult, even if you take offense.

The insult is that some one would try to pass it off as true and of course to monkeys ..

 

[Milk-Drops]

The insult is that some one would try to pass it off as true and of course to monkeys ..

The thing is the evidence points towards the theory being solid and true. I'd like to also point out that your offence to different stances don't make them wrong. Considering how I had to explain over several posts that The theory of evolution is mechanics and not "Truth" based, I'm not to keen on taking your word about it being made up. If you have something that can disprove the model, feel free mto present it.

 

[brujaq]

What is the missing link, where is it, why is it, when is it and how is it ..

 

[Runner]

Most of the big name people that are against ID aren't against it for what you stated. Its actually pretty simple why most are against it and its just not testable. How do test for "Intelligence" when discussing how things formed? Most arguments I've seen tend to anthropamorphize the situation rather than try to look at it from an objective light.

From what I understand, the actual laboratory "testing" for macro-evolution, involving billions of generations of rapidly producing bacteria (or is it viruses, whatever) has so far been spectacularly unsuccessful. From what I understand, macro-evolution is largely untestable and is instead inferred from the evidence for micro-evolution.

The Intelligent Design proponents present a body of evidence of the sort with which science deals all the time for which they say the most plausible explanation is an external designer rather than no designer at all. It is evidence that certainly appears to throw a monkey wrench into the current paradigm. It seems to me little different to infer from the evidence for ID to a designer than to infer from the evidence for micro-evolution to macro-evolution. The question, it seems to me, should simply be: What is the best inference from the available evidence?

But this is clearly not how things work. The naturalistic paradigm is a religion whose creed rules out an external designer of any sort - God or cosmic whiz-kid. We don't care what the evidence suggests because an external designer IS NOT POSSIBLE. We will entertain the the possibility of multiverses (even though this begs the real question and just pushes the inquiry up one level) but WE WILL NOT CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF A DESIGNER because OUR PARADIGM WILL NOT ALLOW ONE.

I have avoided serious study of any scientific disciplines because, apart from astronomy and physics, I find them all boring as hell. But as a lawyer, I do recognize game-playing when I see it - and I definitely see it on the part of those who flatly refuse to entertain the possibility of Intelligent Design. I am confident that what I am observing is a religious debate, not a debate between "religion" and "science."

 

[Milk-Drops]

What is the missing link, where is it, why is it, when is it and how is it ..

There is "Missing Link'" as creationism and intelligent design have defined it. What we do have are Homo Habulus, homo Ergastur, etc. There are sever hominid species that fit the homology and time frames of where they are expected to be found. There is also tons of DNA evidence that links us to our direct ancestors the Cromagnun man and our cousins the Neanderthal.

 

[Milk-Drops]

From what I understand, the actual laboratory "testing" for macro-evolution, involving billions of generations of rapidly producing bacteria (or is it viruses, whatever) has so far been spectacularly unsuccessful. From what I understand, macro-evolution is largely untestable and is instead inferred from the evidence for micro-evolution.

Far from it. There is also taxanomical and genetic evidence that like all organisms based on lineage.

The Intelligent Design proponents present a body of evidence of the sort with which science deals all the time for which they say the most plausible explanation is an external designer rather than no designer at all.

That is all it is though, an assertion that the universe is too complex to not have a designer, but doesnt have any evidence of a Designer or inteligence. Thier argument is circular, as in a creator exists because existence needs a creator to exist.

It is evidence that certainly appears to throw a monkey wrench into the current paradigm.

There hasn't been any ebidence, mostly just thought experiments.

It seems to me little different to infer from the evidence for ID to a designer than to infer from the evidence for micro-evolution to macro-evolution.

What is this line between micro and Macro evolution ? My interest and study when I was a biology major was phylogony, Macro usually referee to time scale, and I don't recognize the concept of "kind" because it doesn't make sense genetically.

The question, it seems to me, should simply be: What is the best inference from the available evidence?

The theory of evolution since I can demonstrate it'sechanics in an population of organisms.

But this is clearly not how things work. The naturalistic paradigm is a religion whose creed rules out an external designer of any sort - God or cosmic whiz-kid. We don't care what the evidence suggests because an external designer IS NOT POSSIBLE. We will entertain the the possibility of multiverses (even though this begs the real question and just pushes the inquiry up one level) but WE WILL NOT CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF A DESIGNER because OUR PARADIGM WILL NOT ALLOW ONE.

What evidence? What do you have other than assertions that it seems far fetched to not have one?

I have avoided serious study of any scientific disciplines because, apart from astronomy and physics, I find them all boring as hell. But as a lawyer, I do recognize game-playing when I see it - and I definitely see it on the part of those who flatly refuse to entertain the possibility of Intelligent Design. I am confident that what I am observing is a religious debate, not a debate between "religion" and "science."

Considering you were completely unaware of how Evolution is tested, maybe you should look a few things up.

 

[Runner]

Considering you were completely unaware of how Evolution is tested, maybe you should look a few things up.

Thanks to the debate over the past decade, I have actually read substantial material about how evolution is "tested." Point me to a test showing the evolution of a new species from an existing species, and I'll be fascinated. Since you appear to be exceedingly dogmatic, I bid our discussion a fond adieu.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Thanks to the debate over the past decade, I have actually read substantial material about how evolution is "tested."

You literally said that all the macro evidence was based on bacteria. That shows me you have not read much biology on this topic.

Point me to a test showing the evolution of a new species from an existing species, and I'll be fascinated.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

Since you appear to be exceedingly dogmatic, I bid our discussion a fond adieu.

I'm not dogmatic by any means. I welcome evidence of an inteligence designer or creator, but all I ever get is arguments from ignorance fallacies.

 

[Runner]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

Nice try, but that does not concern the evolution of a new species.

I'm not dogmatic by any means. I welcome evidence of an inteligence designer or creator, but all I ever get is arguments from ignorance fallacies.

Scientists of the level of those involved in the Intelligent Design movement, and scientists outside the ID movement who recognize that legitimate scientific questions are being raised by the ID movement, do not traffic in "ignorant fallacies." That you would make this statement tells me that you simply do not know what you are talking about but are merely parroting the lingo of your particular "religion."

Done. Bye.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Nice try, but that does not concern the evolution of a new species.

Yes it does. The completion of the ring leaves the starting group and ending group unable to inter breed. It's the same principle of why Bears, wolves, and Racoons can't inter breed even though they are all canid carnivores.

Scientists of the level of those involved in the Intelligent Design movement, and scientists outside the ID movement who recognize that legitimate scientific questions are being raised by the ID movement, do not traffic in "ignorant fallacies." That you would make this statement tells me that you simply do not know what you are talking about but are merely parroting the lingo of your particular "religion."

Then you should have no problem explaining what inteligence Design theory is. What are the mechanics the theory is based on?

Done. Bye.

Come back when you want to discuss science.

 

[brujaq]

Yes it does. The completion of the ring leaves the starting group and ending group unable to inter breed. It's the same principle of why Bears, wolves, and Racoons can't inter breed even though they are all canid carnivores.

Kinds after their kinds, works every time for six thousand years


Then you should have no problem explaining what inteligence Design theory is. What are the mechanics the theory is based on?

Irreducibly complex mouse trap

Come back when you want to discuss science

You're the one who keeps running to and fro, throw out an anchor dude ..

 

[Milk-Drops]

Kinds after their kinds, works every time for six thousand years

How do you define a kind and what is the barrier between kinds?

Irreducibly complex mouse trap

That isn't an explanation of how the theory works
That is literally an argument of "I don't understand so therefore inteligence"

You're the one who keeps running to and fro, throw out an anchor dude ..

I'm the one who is actually posting demonstrable theories. So far you have only posted testimonials and that you are offended by a poster that states we are related to other apes.