ID not required

[saltydawg]

If you check some of yoru records, a lot of the fossil heads that were found turned out to be simply monkeys. Also some other bit of news for you. There was a measurement of the dust that settles on the surface of the moon. It's thickness was measured over time and at the rate of collection that the moon aquired, the moon was aged at thousands of years, not millions. Also some scientist did their carbon dating on the Hawaii islands, teh ones that have been here long enough for man to see form. These islands aged at millions of years using the technique, when the men knew that the island was only a few hudred years old. That same technique was used on a baby seal that died, and it's age came out in millions of years. Which was ludicrous because the thing just died.

I teach World History in high school and the first chapter deals with the evolution of man. I stand up in front of my class and tell them that I think this is all crap and to learn teh vocabulary words for a quiz so you will know the names of things that idiots try and pass on to you as truth. on to chapter 2!!!

Bulldog, today I had some insight into why Christians do not want to accept evolution. In fact, why they are totally opposed to the concept. It has everything to do with their religious beliefs. People who are not Christians or Islamic have no problem with evolution.

I wonder how many of your students accept what you say?

[saltydawg]

We all know that nothing intelligent designed you, so just drop the charade O' Salty one.

What's the matter, Churchlady, did the batteries in your dildo go dead on you again?

[duckbillplatty]

Oh, so you saying that you are a scientist?

You're in Fantasyland with your assumptions about AI and modeling. Next, you will be telling me that if we get 1 milllion monkeys typing that sooner or later one of them would type "Gone With The Wind."

I'm a PhD student in Computer Science at Lousiana State University. So yes, I am saying that I am a scientist.

[arkansasbob]

The point being is that they have found other primate fossils which shows the evolutionary process over the past 6 million years for hominids. I think that you better go take a second look at the fossil record, how the size of the cranium of the hominids has gradually increased over the past 2 million years.

i think you need to read some literature that was written in the last 20 years, instead of that 1940's 6th-grade biology textbook. the "descent of man" image with which we are so familiar contains images of several species that have been completely discredited as human anscestors by the evolutionists themselves. the four remaining non-human hominids are australopithisomething afarensis, a. africanus, homo habilis, and homo erectus. now many evolutionists doubt that the two australosomethings were even separate species, and it was shown many years ago that they most likely did not walk any more upright than a chimpanzee. a good number of experts are saying that there never was such a species as homo habilis. the fairly recent "mitochondrial eve" theory asserts that the first humans emerged from africa less than 200,000 years ago, which places homo erectus outside the anscestral chain. of course piltdown man and nebraska man were frauds, and neanderthal and cro-magnon man are homo-sapiens. so what fossil evidence were you referring to?

[arkansasbob]

Bulldog, today I had some insight into why Christians do not want to accept evolution. In fact, why they are totally opposed to the concept. It has everything to do with their religious beliefs. People who are not Christians or Islamic have no problem with evolution.

I wonder how many of your students accept what you say?

wow, i just typed a long reply to this, but was bumped off when i clicked "send." i will try it again, perhaps the condensed version:

the whole debate stems from primary assumptions. an atheist HAS to believe evolution because there has never been another even remotely plausible explanation for how we got here that does not involve some type of deity. therefore, he cannot view the evidence objectively. a creationist determined to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis is similarly handicapped. a person who believes that there is a creator, but willing to entertain the idea that creation may have occurred differently than the modern traditional interpretation of Genisis, can probably be most objective of anyone (though i know it is impossible to be completely free of subjectivity). as a member of that third category, i find that most of the evidence for evolution is only convincing if you are already convinced. in fact most of it seems to point more toward "creation in kind" than to evolution. of course, to evolutionists, this is referred to as "the appearance of design." but they know that there was no designer, so there must be another explanation. after they look and meditate long enough, they come up with that explanation. it may have a few holes, but hey, the only other possiblility is design, and that's not science.:icon_wink

[Bulldog44]

i think you need to read some literature that was written in the last 20 years, instead of that 1940's 6th-grade biology textbook. the "descent of man" image with which we are so familiar contains images of several species that have been completely discredited as human anscestors by the evolutionists themselves. the four remaining non-human hominids are australopithisomething afarensis, a. africanus, homo habilis, and homo erectus. now many evolutionists doubt that the two australosomethings were even separate species, and it was shown many years ago that they most likely did not walk any more upright than a chimpanzee. a good number of experts are saying that there never was such a species as homo habilis. the fairly recent "mitochondrial eve" theory asserts that the first humans emerged from africa less than 200,000 years ago, which places homo erectus outside the anscestral chain. of course piltdown man and nebraska man were frauds, and neanderthal and cro-magnon man are homo-sapiens. so what fossil evidence were you referring to?

australopithecines

[arkansasbob]

I can prove scientifically intelligent design based on one assumption.

That artificial intelligence equal to human intelligence is possible.

Given that assumption, it is very likely that you could create multiple intelligences inside of a simulation with programmed senses, etc... and you could create an exact copy of Earth with detailed physcs modeling, object creation and chaos. Therefore the Earth coule be simulated.

Extended, those intelligences could create new artificial intelligencies inside of that simuulation. This keeps snowballing until there are, in fact, an infinite number of similations.

Therefore, if there is one reality and infinite simulations of reality, then the chances of us not being designed by an intelligence are infinitely small. (1/infinity)

There you go. No "God" in there, but it is intelligent design. And most scientists will tell you AI is possible. Sorry. Intelligent Design should be in textbooks.

duck, i'd love to back you up on this, but even if your initial assumption is true, i don't think you've proved anything. however, evolution scientists themselves admit that the odds of evolution occuring are very, very slim. of course, this poses no problem to them because it happenned, no matter how unlikely. this is just one example of their absurd refusal to even consider the possibility of a creator.

[arkansasbob]

australopithecines

thanks, i didn't feel like typing the whole thing out.

[saltydawg]

I'm a PhD student in Computer Science at Lousiana State University. So yes, I am saying that I am a scientist.

Then you must be interested in computer programs that function via Darwinian evolution to create inventions that are novel and useful enough to be patented. It is called genetic programming.

[saltydawg]

i think you need to read some literature that was written in the last 20 years, instead of that 1940's 6th-grade biology textbook. the "descent of man" image with which we are so familiar contains images of several species that have been completely discredited as human anscestors by the evolutionists themselves. the four remaining non-human hominids are australopithisomething afarensis, a. africanus, homo habilis, and homo erectus. now many evolutionists doubt that the two australosomethings were even separate species, and it was shown many years ago that they most likely did not walk any more upright than a chimpanzee. a good number of experts are saying that there never was such a species as homo habilis. the fairly recent "mitochondrial eve" theory asserts that the first humans emerged from africa less than 200,000 years ago, which places homo erectus outside the anscestral chain. of course piltdown man and nebraska man were frauds, and neanderthal and cro-magnon man are homo-sapiens. so what fossil evidence were you referring to?

Don't think I have any of those 1940's textbooks lying around. LOL

First of all, hominids are by definition "human." Homo sapiens are just the most successful of the hominids. The little Homo floresiensis that was recently discovered in Indonesia is just as "human" as you, and evolved after Homo sapiens were walking around.

Homo erectus showed up around 1.9 million years ago and disappeared about about 25,000 years ago. So, he was around for a long, long time. Homo sapiens (that's us) evolved from Homo erectus about 200,000 years ago. ArkBob, evolutionary forcing can produce quick changes, say over 10,000 years. Hence, the so-called missing link is a very rare item and it is not surprising that one has not yet been found given the small initial population that evolved.

BTW, Homo neaderthalensis evolved from Homo erectus about 230,000 years ago and disappeared about the same time that Homo erectus disappear, about 30,000 years ago.

[Just My Opinion]

Just My Opinion - No need to argue about the "theory" of Evolution vs "theory" of Intelligent Design. Those who accept Intelligent Design as "fact" are not likely to be persuaded to believe in Evolution. Likewise, those who accept the theory of Evolution as "fact" are not likely to believe in Intelligent Design.

Neither side can prove their theory. Therefore, both theories should be presented for what they are - theories. Neither theory should be taught as fact. It takes faith to believe in Intelligent Design but it also takes faith to believe in Evolution. Both theories should be presented as "theories" and not "fact" to students.

[saltydawg]

Just My Opinion - No need to argue about the "theory" of Evolution vs "theory" of Intelligent Design. Those who accept Intelligent Design as "fact" are not likely to be persuaded to believe in Evolution. Likewise, those who accept the theory of Evolution as "fact" are not likely to believe in Intelligent Design.

Neither side can prove their theory. Therefore, both theories should be presented for what they are - theories. Neither theory should be taught as fact. It takes faith to believe in Intelligent Design but it also takes faith to believe in Evolution. Both theories should be presented as "theories" and not "fact" to students.

That Homo sapiens was developed by the process of evolution is NO theory. It is fact.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...1_idaltu.shtml

[Just My Opinion]

That Homo sapiens was developed by the process of evolution is NO theory. It is fact.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...1_idaltu.shtml

Salty, you believe in the "theory" of evolution. You cannot understand how anyone could believe in ID.

You accept the "theory" of evolution as fact. To do this, you must have "faith" in the validity of carbon dating and into the "research" and "opinion" of scientists predisposed to a belief in evolution. Following is a quote from the article you cited: "The fossil evidence, said Asfaw, "clearly shows what molecular anthropologists have been saying for a long time - that modern Homo sapiens evolved out of Africa."

In other words, the evidence found supported what the "scientist" already believed to be true. Hmm, interesting.

On the other side, the "theory" of ID requires a person to accept by "faith" that there is a being with higher intelligence. Most ID believers accept by "faith" that a Supreme Being known to most as "God" created the world. The ID believer has no doubt in the validity of his belief. The ID believer can point to evidence which supports what he/she already knows to be true. The devout ID believer cannot understand how anyone could believe in evolution.

I repeat: There is no use in trying to prove either "theory". Both remain theories. Both "theories" should be taught in school. It comes down to "faith" as to which "theory" you believe.

[saltydawg]

Salty, you believe in the "theory" of evolution. You cannot understand how anyone could believe in ID.

You accept the "theory" of evolution as fact. To do this, you must have "faith" in the validity of carbon dating and into the "research" and "opinion" of scientists predisposed to a belief in evolution. Following is a quote from the article you cited: "The fossil evidence, said Asfaw, "clearly shows what molecular anthropologists have been saying for a long time - that modern Homo sapiens evolved out of Africa."

In other words, the evidence found supported what the "scientist" already believed to be true. Hmm, interesting.

On the other side, the "theory" of ID requires a person to accept by "faith" that there is a being with higher intelligence. Most ID believers accept by "faith" that a Supreme Being known to most as "God" created the world. The ID believer has no doubt in the validity of his belief. The ID believer can point to evidence which supports what he/she already knows to be true. The devout ID believer cannot understand how anyone could believe in evolution.

I repeat: There is no use in trying to prove either "theory". Both remain theories. Both "theories" should be taught in school. It comes down to "faith" as to which "theory" you believe.

The problem, JMO, is that ID is not science and therefore cannot be a theory. ID is a religious belief which has as its main focal point the existence of a supernatural designer. Consequently, it should not be taught in the public schools.

At one time the common belief (both secular and religious) was that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it. Somebody came forward and stated the theory that the Earth was a globe and that it travelled around the Sun. Eventually, enough evidence was produced to show that the theory was 100% true. Today, it is very difficult to find anyone who believes the Earth is still flat. So, please don't try to tell me that it is a "theory" that the Earth is round and is in orbit around the Sun. because it isn't a "theory" anymore.

The same is true for the origin of Homo sapiens. It was a theory 130 years ago that Man evolved from lesser life forms. At that time, everybody and his uncle believed that Man was created by a supernatural being and was separate and apart from the other animals. However, in the past 130 years enough evidence has been assembled to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that Homo sapiens is a creature of evolution and did not suddenly appear on the face of the Earth due to a supernatural event. However, many people still do not accept that fact because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

[daybreaker2]

I can prove scientifically intelligent design based on one assumption.

That artificial intelligence equal to human intelligence is possible.

Are you trying to hijack this thread by turning it into a Weak AI vs Strong AI debate?

Because if we get to start saying "Well, if this assumption is true, THEN I can prove ID" then I can just say "I can prove evolution exists using one assumption: That cells, when prevented with adversity, can mutate to overcome it."

Except, the idea that cells can mutate is a fact, whereas Strong AI isnt.

Therefore your theory doesnt have any actual scientific backing aside from being an amusing CS Theory anecdote.

Besides, Darwinism is a theory derived from years and years of scientific observation. It wasnt created to fit an agenda, it's just a theory that was arrived at when all the facts and data were looked at. ID is a "theory" that was constructed to serve an agenda. The people who created it went in search of data to build this theory. It wasnt a naturally arrived at conclusion, it was a constructed idea of the beginnings of life so as to not conflict with a certain segment's religious beliefs.

ID serves the agenda of the conservative christians. You can claim it is real science all you want, but we all know how and why it was built. It is nothing more than a fanciful story for christians who feel threatened that Darwinism as anti-christian. But Darwinsim is just science at work. It's not like Darwinism was created to anger christians or to disprove god. Thats the difference between it and ID. Darwinism is based on observation and fact, where as ID is based on religion, and creates its own observation and fact.

Anyways, if you guys (in general, not aimed at duckbillplatty) believe in an all-powerful God, why is it so hard to believe that he created a natural order and set of laws that everything has to follow, and thus in order to get to humanity, we first had to evolve from single celled organisms onward? Or do you think you know god well enough that you're pretty sure that's not how he rolls? The Catholic church doesnt have any beef with evolution.

Anyways, I'm glad it got voted down. Shouldnt you guys be off trying to burn some more books that you dont think kids should be reading?