Schnazz

There are a lot of theories, but explanations and theories are not the same. The goal of my previous post was to point out that evolution is being taught as more of an explanation rather than as the theory it really is. There are many "theories" being taught in school, should we stop teaching them all? You may be aware, there's actually a few little wrinkles in Newtons laws of gravity, should those be removed as well?

While it is admirable to seek to exhaust every theory, the process can be interminable and who or at what point is someone to say that all research into these various theories has been exhausted? The approach doesn't take all possibilities into account. Sure, it doesn't take into account the possability that the universe is on a turtles back. That's because we have no way to prove that one way or another. We have no way to prove one way or another that the fossils we've found are all the animals there have ever been, but it seems likely that there have been more. We have not yet been able to prove what circumstances the first self replicating organism came into existance and what it's make up is. However, there are a lot of reasonable ideas, and the knowledge of that situation is growing. As for interminable, it's only been, what, 150 years or so? That's a long way from how long it took to figure out things like the orbit of the earth. I would say we're no where close exausting all ideas. And it's not just "admirsable" to exaust every theory, that's how science works. You keep looking for a valid explanation until you find one.

While it is admirable to seek to exhaust every theory, the process can be interminable and who or at what point is someone to say that all research into these various theories has been exhausted? The approach doesn't take all possibilities into account. The Theory of Evolution was at its high point when Darwin proposed it. It was quickly embraced by the science community as viable, but the more we found out about the world, the less our model became viable. We found things that seems to be consistent with the model, and we found things that were inconsistent. Scientists won't say that what we know now doesn't point to the possibility of an intelligent designer... they'll say that we don't know everything, so lets not jump to conclusions... Those are two different things, but the latter takes predominance. You are seriously over estimating the amount of unexplained phenomenon and under estimating the amount of explained phenomenon. Other than our planet? Are you referring to the existence of amino acids found at meteorite impact sites? I was joking about the "some" proof of life, I was referring to life on earth. Last I read about the impact sites they where not conclusive.

Occam's Razor is used by a lot of atheist who argue against the existence of God, assuming that we can explain everything without adding the existence of an intellegent designer as such can't be observed by the senses or through empirical evidence. The point of intelligent design is that though science may not be able to solely prove the existence of an intelligent designer, it certainly doesn't prohibit nature from pointing to the existence of an intelligent designer. Yes, Occam's Razor does get used frequently in that regard, often inaccurately. The point of bringing up Occam's razor is that it's a pretty good idea to exaust our ideas on some given topic before throwing up our hands and saying "the creator(s) did it." Evolution is far from exausting it's ideas. Most of the planets we have found in other solar systems are giant gas planets revolving around stars in close and speedy orbits. That's not to say that there aren't any planets like ours in the univerese. However, it is not that we have any evidence to back up the theory that there may be other earthlike planets with an atmosphere capable of sustaining life... we're confident based on probability... Isn't it ironic that we're basing scientific theory on probability... Yes, the irony is very entertaining. Though, while there's no proof of another earth like planet, there's at least some proof of the existance of life. Also, the probability of the two cases is rather different.

While it is true that the odds do get better over millions and millions of years, we're talking about development from scratch without predisposition or specification. Even the millions of years don't put much of a dent in the odds. And when you add all the earthlike planets, you have the same problem with specification that we do on this planet. The odds may be even better yet, but still insignificant in the scheme of things. That's a bold statement, considering that it isn't even known how many stars there are, let alone how many earth like planets there are. 70 sextillion and counting...

Lol, I'm not accusing you of anything, but for the sake of argument, irreducible complexity hasn't been refuted. As in the example of the bird lung... we are talking about crucial systems that would have been unable to evolve through evolution. Ah, I believe I have used the wrong word, refuted is no the proper way to describe it. It is unknown how, specifically, each instance of the watchmaker scenario came about. However, there have been many logic arguments against it (including Darwin himself, I believe). Even further, there are several theories that can explain how these systems come about, including the hijacking of parts I mentioned earlier. The point being, ID states that "some level of intelligence needed to be applied." However, there are other theories that can be applied that don't require some level of intelligence. Occam's razor was a pretty good idea, I think it should be followed when possible. :)

Yes, but not impressive when you consider that the conditions were ideal. Conditions on earth would have to have been as ideal as these experiments, and we know that things weren't close to ideal on earth. Also, remember that these yeilds, even in a most ideal earth would be destroyed with heat and water and the processes would have to start and restart repeatedly. Granted, as a whole, the conditions where not as ideal (how ideal they where is still unknown). However, they don't have to be ideal, just doable. And not doable on the entire planet, just in areas. And also granted, the process would have to start and restart repeatedly. However, when you're talking about millions and millions of years, the odds get a lot better. And if the odds are one in a thousand, that doesn't mean it takes a thousand tries to do it, it still could happen on the first try. When you throw in the idea that there are, very likely, many, many earth like planets in the universe, the odds get even better that it occurs on one of them. Lucky us, we happen to live on the one that it happened on. Oh wait, somethings backwards there... ;)

I would agree that the current model of evolution is doesn't answer some questions. However, the thing to keep in mind is that if you try to examine every species that has ever lived in the history of the earth, it takes a bit to understand it all. That is, this is a very complex subject. Considering the complexity, evolution does remarkable well at explaining a whole lot of what's observed. The lack of completeness in recovered fossils tends to be a major problem in understanding evolution fully. Another issue, which you have pointed out, if not entirely accurately, is that it is not fully understood how initial life was created. This isn't a problem with evolution itself, this is a problem of 1 - lack of information about the time and circumstances of the initial spark and 2 - it's hard to create a good test that simulates a few million years of time in chemical reactions spread across the globe. That stated, evolution does answer a LOT of questions, as well as makes solid predictions. And some of the things that it doesn't answer aren't "proofs" that all of evolution is wrong, it's evidence that we're still working on it. This is opposed to ID which doesn't make any predictions and doesn't answer any questions. (unless you count the age old "cuz that's how god made it" answer as a scientific answer)

Lol, I like your more "accurate" version. You added that the login program stores the correct character, but in saying this, you're alluding to the fact that nature has some level of specification... that it's disposed to producing life as the program would be disposed to producing the proper characters in order. To make your scenario even more accurate, we would need to have the program wipe out all the work the cat has done at random intervals and start all over again... including the characters it has gotten right... Lol, good point, it would need to reset every now and then. The thing I was alluding to in the saving of characters was that stuff dies if it's not mutated in the correct way.

Really? How do you know that? As far as I know, we've only discovered a few dozen of the billions and billions of planets.

No. Potassium-Argon dating which is used to date mineral deposits has issues as well... When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980 it transformed the surrounding terrain dramatically in a short period of time. The lava that was spewed from this volcanic event was dated twenty years after the fact, using Potassium-Argon dating. Mount St. Helens should have tested out to 20 years plus or minus a year or two for a margin of error. Instead, sample results came back ranging from 1/3 to 3 million years... I'm not sure what you're saying no to. That potassium-argon dating can date significant longer periods of time? Or that it doesn't rely on the make up of the atmosphere? The Mount St. Helens dating is a great example of creationists (I think it was creationists then, not ID folks) trying to disprove the evolution by running experiments that are less then up and up. Potassium-argon dating is not used to date things that are 20 years old, it has a half life of 1 1/4 billion years! That's like timing a drag race with a calender. This, as well as all, dating methods, are used specific to different needs and time periods. Potassium-argon can't be used to pinpoint times to the day, month, year, decade, century, millennium, etc... Depending on the methods, history of the specimen, etc, it's accurate to 100,000 years to 1,000,000 years. There have been a vast number of studies supporting this. Additionally, true dating tests (as opposed to the St. Helens test) aren't carried in isolation. There's question of where the rock was found, what was around it, what layer was it in, possibly other dating tests, what's the known history of these types of rocks, etc... Fine, we'll up it to 20,000 (which, incendentally, is why I said my numbers weren't accurate), that way we'll be above the 11,000 personal donation. Why do you want to argue a minor detail that's irrelevant to the general discussion? The numbers don't matter, if 10,000 or 20,000or 500,00 is the cut off. My core argument is that churches receive tax breaks. And yes, they do receive tax breaks. And yes, I've already agreed that I'd have to pay for charities as well, I never, not once, denied that. Why do you keep bringing it up? It's not relevant to the discussion. And finally, the complexity is not needed. Let me be as simple as possible. Churches do god stuff, the god stuff they do takes money. They may do many other things, but they spend money on god stuff. The money to do the god stuff was donated, and that donated money was tax deductible. Therefore, less taxes where collected. That's it, that's all there is. It's not complex. Now, you want to argue about them actually being charities. In order for that argument to stand, the church would have to spend all of its money on charitable stuff. Since it spends money on god stuff, some of the donated money is donated to do the god stuff. If it didn't do any of the god stuff, then it wouldn't be a church anymore, it'd be a charity. If all the tax deductions applied only to charitable things, not to religious activities of churches, less money would be tax deductible. My original statement was: "they get special tax breaks that means my taxes are higher" To which replied, in part: "you are not paying for churches" My statement is accurate. I actually do understand the premise of ID. Let's take your quote: "The processes to create life and to sustain it are so complex and specified, and so much information is needed, and has to be applied correctly that some level of intelligence needed to be applied." and make it more accurate: "The processes to create life and to sustain it", as we currently understand it," are so complex and specified, and so much information is needed, and has to be applied correctly that some level of intelligence needed to be applied." and now let's rephrase it the way a scientist would: "The processes to create life and to sustain it, as we currently understand it, are so complex and specified, that it seems as though our current explanations of certain aspects of certain stages of life don't properly describe the real world. We must refined our concepts in these areas to properly reflect the new data." So, yes, I was mocking ID with the way I described it, but my way of describing it wasn't that far off from the reality, despite how it's prettied up. Now, as for your example: "For example... Lets say my screen name at some point during my time on JJFP.com posts the preamble for the Constitution of the United States. What would you think? What would you say if I told you that I didn't do it... that it must have been my cat at home, he jumps on my keyboard all the time. What would your argument be what it couldn't possibly be my cat?" Let's make it a little more accurate. It'd be more like this: "Day 1: The screen name was a single character, it was not the first character of the preamble, so the login program deleted it. Day 2, same deal. Day 100, it got the character right, so it stored it. Day 101, the cat hit another key, so now you have a two character login, but the second character was wrong, so the program deleted that, but kept the first one. Day 102, repeat of day 101. Repeat this for hundreds of millions of years."

You argue here that the "reactions necessary to create life" couldn't take place in extreme cold, but the argument in other places is that it's not known what reactions are necessary. Which is it? You seem to be thinking that the earth is static, it isn't. Ice freezes, melts, migrates, etc... Additionally, there are volcanic vents (talk about a heat source) that can/are involved. Even further, the concept of what environmental settings constrain life has been changed recently. The findings of organisms living in both extreme heat and cold, among other situations, has changed the old notion of life not being able to exist in extremes. A 2% yield is very significant, especially when it's on a planetary scale over hundreds of millions of years. These constraints have been greatly revised as of late. Ok, I see the validity of your argument now: "It's this way, really" Right... Actually, his theory hasn't been refuted and whichever website you got that from needs to update that. Here is a viable example of "irreducible complexity." The avian lung is different from other lungs, such as the reptilian lung (which evolutionists believe it evolved from). Proponents of irreducible complexity argue that the transition from a reptilian lung to a bird lung (avian lung) is unlikely since intermediate stages would be a detriment to the organism. Recently, conventional wisdom has held that birds are direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs. However, the apparently steadfast maintenance of hepatic-piston diaphragmatic lung ventilation in theropods throughout the Mesozoic poses a fundamental problem for such a relationship. The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal airsac system from a diaphragmatic-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia [i.e. hole] in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage. (Michael Denton) What are you accusing me of lifting from a website? His quote? The fact that his theories are just a rehash of the watchmaker idea? Or that the watchmaker idea has been refuted? His quote was pulled from ~his~ website at the university where ~he~ works. That is a very legitimate place to get information from him. As for the rest, now this may surprise you, but I actually can think for myself. And I have a strong science background. And myself, the watchmaker scenario, the argument against the watchmaker scenario, and my learning of these things, predates the internet by some time. Irreducible complexity, even how it's explained in the quote, is a remake of the watchmaker scenario. As far as I can tell, the watchmaker scenario dates back to 1802 (slightly before the internet) from William Paley, who, incidentally, trained for the priesthood. The refutation of the argument comes both through logical arguments and theories on evolution. Evolution isn't just "survival of the fittest." It's who can propagate the best. There is nothing to say that a cluttered biology is worse, as long as that biology can produce a lot of offspring that survive to produce their own offspring, it's in good shape. That clutter can then become a breeding ground for evolutionary experimentation. Traits can be linked, so that some traits that cause better reproduction (and youth time survival) can be linked to other traits that are unneeded. A simplified example would be a very strong, dominant dog born with two tails. Those two tails do nothing to help the dog, but the dogs other traits allow it to reproduce anyway. Eventually those two tails could lead to something more complex, and ID folks would be scratching there head, saying "that couldn't happen." Again you, like most ID enthusiasts, miss the point on these "scientists". Evolution is a broad field, an examination of any single, small aspect of it does not refute the entire field. I never said you don't use mathematics in the study of evolution (or DNA in your case). What I'm saying is that the mathematician doesn't have the broad and subtle expertise, in chemistry and biology for example, to fully understand the ins and outs of what's going on. His study may be based on A, B, C, but he wouldn't even know about D-Z. Let me use your rational on the other side. I'm a "computer scientist" (well, I think I'm a programmer, but it makes me sound more important) I've done a lot of work in artificial intelligence, including some stuff with evolutionary code. So, by your rational, me supporting evolution should be very valid. ~My~ work has shown evolution can work, so all of evolutionary theory must be correct. But that's a ridiculous statement, I'm not an expert on evolutionary theory, I just know the concept can work in a very limited, digital environment. Meaningful work must come experts in the major fields, perhaps with the aid of people in other fields. More importantly, that work must pass through the peer review process, by other experts in the major fields. Just because I'm a respected computer expert, it doesn't mean my theories on how to properly grill a steak are perfect. I should revise that. Any scientist that is honest. If you know the questions to ask and the points to make, they'll either stop talking to you, or simply admit that not only are there may holes in the theory, but direct contradictions that can't be worked around. Again you keep with the broad, sweeping statements. And again, good luck with that.

Yea, those are all good questions. However, those questions belong in the realm of philosophy and religion, not science (at least not at our current knowledge level). I'm more of a science person then a philosophy person, however this is my take on that stuff: If we did take a planet and set it in motion just like earth, with the same characteristics that earth had at it's very beginning (prior life, prior oceans, prior everything), got everything just right, set it off, and came back 4.5 billion years later and found us, that'd be a pretty good evidence of evolution. (there's the question of how quantum physics would play into it all, but I'm pretty sure I can't really fathom quantum physics on a planetary scale...) However, if we took a planet, set it up like earth was just at the creation of life and seeded it with life, that would be intelligent design on our part. However, that would neither prove nor reject the concept of intelligent design in the universe. If some alien designed us, then who designed them, etc... All it would prove is that we're capable of design. (sorry if I'm making obvious points :) Beyond the strong support for evolution, there's a more fundamental question. Where did life in the universe come from? Is the universe a closed system, did something spring it into motion at the big bang and let it run, or did that something spring it into motion, then billions of years later plant life? Or did that something just create the entire universe in some state and let it loose? If that something set it up in some state and let it loose, or something threw out the big bang and then planted life, how would we know? There's a lot of indicators that the history of the universe goes all the way back, but perhaps the creator just placed those indicators there for us to find. Well, if the creator did that, then how do we know the creator didn't just put us all here yesterday and gave us a bunch of memories? How do we know this experiment isn't just a day long, and tomorrow we're all gone? If that's the case, then both evolution and ID are pointless, there's no way to verify them at that level. It's kinda like this forum. Sure, Hero claims he's a guy, has a guys name, put up a picture of a guy claiming it's him, shoot, he even seems like a guy most of the time, but he really could be a girl. :lolsign: At some point, the evidence, though doesn't prove it, is good enough. I got a bit side tracked. Anyway, I would suspect that, in either "test earth" situation you put out, the inhabitents would likely be pondering the same stuff that we are. If it was the first situation, and they came to the conclusion of evolution, they'd be right. If it was the second situation, and they came to ID, they'd be right, but it wouldn't answer where we came from (or our designers, or their designers, or the first inhabitants of the universe). It isn't absurd to ponder these questions, they're good questions and should be taught at least in phylosophy classes, if not church, but they're not science questions. At least at this stage, science isn't capable of answering those questions. But science has a pretty good track record, so I'm optimistic on what it can do in the future. :) Speaking of pondering if earlier creatures have pondered, I have a particular favorite thing I like to ponder along those lines. Let's say the big bang theory is correct, let's also say that the universe will collapse back on itself (I don't think that's the current notion, but I'm gonna use it for my pondering, since it's not firmly established :), so if it collapses on itself, crunches down, super heats (or however you'd describe it) and then explodes into another big bang, and if it was in the same layout, wouldn't that create the same universe all over again? Wouldn't that then create the same earth, and the same JJFP forum, and the same schnazz, and this same topic. That idea just blows my mind :) * *I make no claim of being the first to consider that notion, I just like it is all :)

What is the "myriad amounts of scientific evidence" that point to intelligent manipulation? The support for ID that I've seen is that things are too complex to be ascribed to chance. Be it the complexity of the first life forms or the complex structures of higher life forms. That there's no way for minor changes to lead to a certain complex system. This isn't evidence to support an intelligent design, all this is is showing that our current understanding of things is limited. And as much as folks say that ID isn't religously oriented, I'm not buying it. ID means that some some "thing" that is beyond this universe set things up for us. This "thing" would be the one who created everything. How is that not God? How is that not super natural? That's a religion or possibly philosophy, but not science.

well I think both cases should have to be proved ..not disproved.. :pony: Evolution hasn't been proven either. Theories don't need to be proven to useful. There's a key difference between evolution and ID, evolution is an actual theory, ID is not. ID is simply a hypothesis at this point, with out much hope of moving on the the theory state. A hypothesis must be used to make predictions and those predictions must come true. Once the predictions made by a hypothesis and the results in the world are the same, then it can be considered a theory. Since ID can't be used to make meaningful predictions, let alone test the accuracy of those predictions, it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. There's not a whole lot of difference between an idea and a hypothesis.

Haha, someone actually did the math. As rawad_m has shown, there is actually a level of scientific logic behind intelligent design. A lot of people want to make it out as "Oh well, life is too hard to explain so we'll just attribute it to an Intelligent Designer for the time being..." That's not the case at all. What rawad_m has presented, though already compelling, is just the beginning of the argument. Let's say by a pure miracle all the proteins necessary for a cell to function are made. The probability that they would be properly configured in a cell to create the necessary organelles, all working to sustain the cell... it's hard to imagine... the numbers are that big... And then you have to incorporate DNA that actually has viable code... This is why some scientists are saying that scientifically, it is a viable theory that there was intelligence ordering and manipulating the creation of life. At the very least, if scientists want to be honest concerning the teaching of evolution, they should cover the probabilities and the evidence that contradicts evolution as well as the things they believe point to it. Even if people do not want to acknowledge intelligent design, they should acknowledge the pitfalls and shotcomings of the evolutionary theory. It sounds as if the equation is Sir Fred Hoyle's as well (who is not a chemist, biologist, or mathmatician). While that's some impressive looking numbers and even more impressive looking equations, it's flawed. Those equations look at things happinging sequentially. That is, at any given moment on the planet, there is only one combination taking place. That's not the case though, think of all of the molucules in the ocean, all intermixing all of the time. There's a vast, vast, vast number of chemical reactions taking place at any given second. Also, those equations base off of creating a modern protein. There's no reason why there couldn't be other precurors which have a greater likelyhood of occuring. And finally, they discount that there can be self replication occuring prior to the advance stages of simple life.

As far as I can tell, it wasn't a single experiment in 1980, but experiments from 1980 on. And they did not say that there was none of those gases at all on the Earth or in the atmosphere, but that there weren't significant amounts. For that experiment to work, the entire atmosphere does not needs to be composed of those gases, but the merely need to exist in a localized area, perhaps in the ocean. I haven't researched possible sources for all of those molecules, however methane could have come from methane hydrate, which could have been formed on the primitive earth and has been found on other planets. However, an even more recent experiment, a simulation done in 2005 by University of Waterloo and University of Colorado, suggest that the NASA experiments where flawed. Which ever the case, currently there is no "accepted" atmosphere combination for primitive earth. Additionally, the methane-methane-hydrogen combination is not the only combination that can reproduce these effects. In 1961, Juan Oro created amino acids and adenine from hydrogen cyanide and ammonia. There is also the iron-sulfur-hypothesis, which roughly states that life could have developed in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. In ID terms, there are separations between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. In science, it's not a clear break. With most current theories on evolution, it doesn't need to take millions of years. Some examples of evolution can take millions of years, many do not. Logically, it makes sense. Considering the diversity of life spans, time until maturity, rate of reproduction, etc, you would expect that different species would change at different rates. Moreover, in many circumstances, it is believed that evolution is triggered by an outside force. If that outside force doesn't occur for millions of years, then yes, it could take millions of years. However, if that outside force occurs quickly, then the evolution will occur quicker. Additionally, this "explosion of diverse life" that occurred is not as wild as you or others make it sound. Since the late 80's and early 90's, many more fossils from that era have been found. These new fossils showed that the original understanding of that era was inaccurate. Some of the fossils that where thought to be "new" where actually partial fossils of older creatures. Some where improperly catorized. Etc... "biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University" Here's what he had to say about his work: " My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them." Note the fact that most of his colleagues strongly disagree with him. His reason for believing in ID is based on what he calls "irreducible complexity" which is basically a rehash of the watchmaker concept. This concept has been refuted many times over the years using many different arguments. For example, there's the theory that individual parts can be hijacked and used for new purposes. "microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho " This "scientist" seems to spend more time in courts and on tv than doing research, I can't find any actual experiments he carried out. However, in addition to his "work" on ID, he also has done "work" on Shroud of Turin. I would suspect that he is a religously motivated scientist. Walter Bradley, PH.D at Texas A&M University He's a material scientist! That has NO bearing on evolution. chemist Charles B. Thaxton His field of work is on crystal structures, yet another prime example of a scientist talking about evolution who doesn't have the authority to do so. biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco University of San Francisco is a religous school, another exellent example of religously motivated "scientists." emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University Other then the fact that his colleagues strongly dissagree with him and he hasn't made a significant contribution in 30+ years, and it's been 20 years since he's come out as a pro ID person (there has been significant advancement in evolutionary theory in the past 20 years), he was once strongly in support of evolution. His rational for changing his stance was that researchers haven't been able to reproduce the creation in a lab. So, by his thinking, if someone hasn't done something yet, it must not be doable. There is a serious problem with that logic. mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University A mathematician? Please. That has no bearing on this discussion. I'd add though that he's currently a professor of science and theology at a seminary. quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia This is a brilliant man, however his brilliance is in the field of quantum chemistry. While it does apply to a very narrow field of evolution, it is not enough to overturn all of evolution. Additionally, this man is not only a devout Christian, he also has written at length about it. No, not at all correct. Evolution does touch many fields, but there are two things hampering this. Number one is that evolution is a very large subject, just because you find inconsistancies in one small area of it, that does not qualify you to overturn the entire concept. Secondly, just because there's a place for chemistry in evolution, that does not qualify every chemist to make intelligent remarks about evolution. Everything that you said is not correct is actually true. There is no possible way that you can argue that "any scientist" will adming to a "great deal" of "evidence refuting". Many, many, many scientists subscribe to evolution. However, I would only need to find one to back up my claim, you would have to find them all to back up yours. Good luck with that. I was not referring to religious or biblical accounts of the earth, nor was I arguing that since the earth was old that evolution must occur. You implied that you subscribed to the young earth theory, so I asked if you where stating that the young earth theory was proven. What you are referring to is carbon dating, however there are more methods of radioactive dating. Carbon dating does depend on the makeup of the atmosphere, but more importantly, it's limited to roughly 50,000 years in the past. Hardly useful for a detailed study of evolution. Another radioactive dating method, potassium-argon dating, can date significantly longer periods and does not rely on the make up of the atmosphere at any given time. Many ID people make the mistake to differentiate macro evolution from micro evlution, scientist, however, do not. What? So that means that if I don't have a job, but I buy something, I don't have to pay taxes? Right... Here's an example of a church causing less taxes to be collected. My friend recently got married in a new, extravagent church. For arguments sake, lets say that church cost about 1,000,000 to build. Now lets say that Bob donated 10,000 to the church to help pay for that. (I know, random numbers, they're here to illustrate the point, not to be exact) Bob makes 100,000 a year, paying 25% tax, would have payed $25,000 in taxes that year. However, since he made that donation, which is tax deductable, he only had to pay taxes on 90,000 of that, which would be $22,500. That donation, which did not affect any charity the government would have taken care of, caused $2,500 to not be collected, which means my tax bill must be a few thousandths of a cent higher to cover it. While arguement you make about the charity work of churches is true, you're adding complexity that isn't needed. The charity work of churches does cause offsets, however building churches, paying ministers salaries, and sponsering trips to "spread the word" cost money and would not and could not be payed for by the US government. Just because one aspect of churches financing offsets government spending, it doesn't follow that all aspects would do the same. The concept of intelligent design is to basically say "Hey, some of this stuff is too complicated for our current understanding, so all of our ideas must all be wrong and a superior being set it all up." That's not any different then when people would look at the stars and say "I can't imagine any way that those lights would be there, it must be a superior being that put them there." That's not science. Science is looking at the theory of evolution, seeing pieces of it that need refining, and refining them. There are still things that aren't understood about gravity, should we throw out Newtons ideas on gravity? No, we should try to figure out the stuff we haven't figured out yet.

:lolsign: :lolsign: :lolsign:

Intelligent design has nothing to do with science, it has everything to do with religion. Show me some sound scientific evidence for intelligent design. Show me reputable scientists who study evolution that claim that intelligent design is scientifically sound. Show me ANY strong evidence for intelligent design. Show me this large number of non-religious scientists that have arrived at intelligent design, scientists that are in the appropriate fields. (I don't care what a physicist has to say on the matter) Show me theories that "lack any evidence at all and are still being taught." The support for this is from scientists not in the appropriate field or studies carried out 50+ years ago. How do you quantify this "large number of scientists"? How many? What percentage of scientists? What are their fields of study? Are they respected in their field? Has their work been published? Has it been successfully peer-reviewed? There are decades of scientific evidence supporting evolution, it takes more than a spare botinist to overturn it. "any scientist" "will admit that there is a great deal of evidence refuting" ? No, not at all correct. There are still mysteries, such as there are still mysteries on how light works. But a great deal of evidence flat refuting it? No. "not nearly enough evidence to support its viability." ? Again, not true. Are you claiming that the "young earth" theory is proven? There's significant evidence against that. The current estimate of the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Carbon dating, potasium dating, and uranium dating are proven effective methods for dating objects and along with other methods, such as glacier analysis, have show a very clear timeline of evolution. Reliably dated fossils exist throught history that show a clear change in life over time. Macro evolution is very visable even in the past 500-1000 years. Through selective breeding, dogs have diversified greatly over time. There is much, much, much more evidence supporting evolution. Ah, ok, I see, if you're confident then it must be so. However, ministers are afforded extra housing allowences and tax breaks on their income. Property tax is lighter (or non existant) for chuches then for individuals. You can give money to a church (to buy it whatever) and receive a tax break. Etc... All this means is that churches pay less taxes then the would if they where a different type of orginization or those laws weren't in place. However, the government still needs to collect the same amount of tax, so if the churches pay less, then everyone (myself included) have to pay more.

I disagree, ID has no place in schools. Evolution is a scientifically sound theory with a lot of evidence supporting it. Intelligent Design doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory, let alone a sound one. It's purely a cover for religious beliefs. As such, it should be preached in churches, not in taught schools. While I don't like the idea that churches preach anti-scientific notions (especially since, in the US, they get special tax breaks that means my taxes are higher, which in effect means that I'm helping to pay for churches), I strongly believe in religous freedom, so I have to take the bad with the good.

Are you sure you have a virus? If so, and you don't have a virus scanner, you can get a free one here: http://www.avast.com/eng/down_home.html Have you tried to move your mouse over it? Do you get a pop-up hint telling you what it is? Also, have you tried to reboot your computer? If you have Windows XP, it may be telling you that your firewall is currently disabled. You can check that from going to your Control Panel (there should be a link in your start menu) and clicking on the Windows Firewall icon.

I disagree with ya on that. I've talked to many people who think homosexuality is wrong, the reason why they think it's wrong is because "The Bible says so." The way they know that the Bible says so? Their pastor told them. Why is it that evolution is wrong? "The Bible says so." Why is pre-marital sex wrong? "The Bible says so." Many, many times I've asked them for logical reasoning to back up their opinions on a variety of subjects, they can't provide it. They don't want to provide it. They simply claim that they have a relationship with God, so they trust what's in the bible and what their pastor tells them. That's their religion dictating how they think, and I'd say that's a pretty good description of mind control. Now, the above doesn't cover all religious people, and I'm definately not claiming that it describes anyone on this board. However, I've been fortunate enough to meet a lot of different people from a lot of different regions of the US, from a lot of different walks of life, and the above describes many, many of the people I've met.

Happy Birthday!!!! :party: :party:

No no no, you guys got it all mixed up. Infamous simply means that you're so famous, you're IN famous! (though most folks here are probably too young to recognize the Three Amigos reference : )

The ironic thing is that, I'm willing to bet, the majority of modern rappers live "better" lives than they rap about. Kids probably would be better off seeing those rappers real lives rather then listening to their music.