Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[FIGJAM]

Well duh figgy, that's what science is, a constant analysis and changing of ideas to fit facts.

I don't disagree that that's what contemporary science is, but you need to be very careful about entering the realm of "ideas" because it becomes a subjective enterprise, more often than not based upon a prevailing worldview (in greater evolutionary theory, this worldview is the 'primacy of matter').

If in fact that worldview is incorrect, then all the theorising in the world isn't going to make the presumptions the truth!

 

[Richo83]

I don't disagree that that's what contemporary science is, but you need to be very careful about entering the realm of "ideas" because it becomes a subjective enterprise, more often than not based upon a prevailing worldview (in greater evolutionary theory, this worldview is the 'primacy of matter').

If in fact that worldview is incorrect, then all the theorising in the world isn't going to make the presumptions the truth!

I don't see whats the problem though, evolutionists say matter exists, and it evolved, even you agree with that figgy! As the rabbi has said, even theists agree with evolution at times. Sometimes you paint the evolutionary movement as some sort of materialist atheist club, when it isn't. Most theists agree that matter exists and the smart ones agree that it changes in accordance with environments. Now, atheistic evolution, there you're delving into what you're talking about.

 

[rotto]

Some scientific facts end up proven wrong.

Science is starting to become a religion into itself, and a lot of people who use science in their arguments sound almost word for word the same as creation extremists.

spot on. I totally agree, you get the same level of dogmatic energy on both the creation and evolution fundamentists sides.

 

[rotto]

But it is a contradiction. People who believe in ID believe the earth is 10,000 years old and scientists believe the world is over 4 billion years old. Both answers cant be right.

do all ID people belive in a young Earth?

 

[Phildy]

The double slit experiment is still the unacknowledged elephant in this room.

[YOUTUBE]VfdUrGTSFls[/YOUTUBE]

 

[rotto]

Both are just made up stories.

The boy who cried wolf is both a made up story and true at the same time.

 

[placebo]

The boy who cried wolf is both a made up story and true at the same time.

Really, when did a real boy get eaten by a wolf after lying the first couple of times?

 

[HighettBomber]

spot on. I totally agree, you get the same level of dogmatic energy on both the creation and evolution fundamentists sides.

There is a very big difference between the two. There is a vast amount of evidence supporting evolution, in contrast there is no evidence and not even a need for creationist theory.

 

[Hollow Knight]

spot on. I totally agree, you get the same level of dogmatic energy on both the creation and evolution fundamentists sides.

I am as much an evolution fundamentalist as I am a gravity fundamentalist.

 

[TheBloods]

Some creationists!

There appears to be a tremendous misconception that 'creationists' are all 'Young Earth' creationists.

This is not true for all people who consider that there is a creative force to manifestation.

The term 'creationist' normally applies to people who believe in the literal truth of religious scripture that God created all living creatures.

A belief that a higher force created the first signs of life which eventually evolved would not be termed 'creationism'.

 

[J_Moore]

lol ok then.

How did we evolve the capacity to explore the universe, to seek out it's answers, and to search for a spiritual understanding of it all?

By having a highly developed capacity to understand cause and effect, a highly developed capacity for language which allows us to record and pass on this understanding.

What's difficult to grasp about that?

And don't think either of these things are unique to humans - plenty of other animals can understand cause and effect, and have a language of sorts - they're just far less developed and adaptable than ours.

 

[FIGJAM]

The term 'creationist' normally applies to people who believe in the literal truth of religious scripture that God created all living creatures.

A belief that a higher force created the first signs of life which eventually evolved would not be termed 'creationism'.

So even though I 'believe' in the primacy of consciousness over the primacy of matter, and consider that the rapid tempo changes following extended stasis / minor change observed within species are aided by what I would term 'downward causation' at a sub (or rather non!)-atomic level, then I am not a 'creationist'?

I reckon some evolutionist fundies will disagree vehemently!

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

So even though I 'believe' in the primacy of consciousness over the primacy of matter, and consider that the rapid tempo changes following extended stasis / minor change observed within species are aided by what I would term 'downward causation' at a sub (or rather non!)-atomic level, then I am not a 'creationist'?

I reckon some evolutionist fundies will disagree vehemently!

The Bloods is spot on in that creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are a specific political/social organization, which ultimately desires to undermine the scientific discipline. A belief in a creator or a creative force does not mean that one is a 'creationist'. Do you sympathise with the views of Gish, Morris, Ham, Johnson etc.? If you do then you are most probably a 'creationist,' but based on your posting I would suggest that you are far more enlightened than them. You (and others, such as H2F) seem to be promoting a legitimate alternative cosmology.

 

[Chief]

So even though I 'believe' in the primacy of consciousness over the primacy of matter, and consider that the rapid tempo changes following extended stasis / minor change observed within species are aided by what I would term 'downward causation' at a sub (or rather non!)-atomic level, then I am not a 'creationist'?

I reckon some evolutionist fundies will disagree vehemently!

This punctuated equilibrium idea? It ain't that amazing you know.

After Darwin it wasn't long before people realised that there was no steady, even increase in 'fitness' to a pinnacle.

But then again, some of the examples of rapid change are not even that. Sometimes populations split and evolved slightly differently in different geographic locations, then reunited. Anyone finding two of these fossils in the one place, a thousand years apart, with no intervening fossils might think "oh my god they changed almost overnight! Punctuated equilibrium!"

The complete fossil record will never be found simply because only a tiny number of examples of a tiny proportion of all species were ever fossilised. We don't even have full skeletons of some of the more widely recognised dinosaurs!

So using punctuated equilibrium as proof of some supernatural guiding hand is an erroneous use of the available evidence. Try again.

 

[FIGJAM]

So using punctuated equilibrium as proof of some supernatural guiding hand is an erroneous use of the available evidence. Try again.

I never use punctuated equilibrium as "proof" of anything other than an example of extended stasis within the fossil record.

I feel the need to keep reminding people that species (not sub-species) arrive not in a gradual manner in the fossil record, but rather appear suddenly. The 'tree of life" is replaced by a 'grove of poles' if you like!

You won't get any argument from me that micro-evolution is a direct result of natural selection. This is easily observable without relying on fossil records.

Out of interest, are you disputing Gould and Eldredge's observations??

 

[DockersMad]

I feel the need to keep reminding people that species (not sub-species) arrive not in a gradual manner in the fossil record, but rather appear suddenly.

Why do you feel the need to do this? The point is irrelevant as the fossil record is not complete and never will be because of its very nature. It has no particular relevance other than the fact that some of the data is unavailable.

People who rely on this as a basis of an argument against the science aren't facing up to reality, and are merely demonstrating that they don't have the capacity to adequately conceptualise the time periods involved.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Compelling evidence for creationism.

[YOUTUBE]1Bs8GSPYV5M[/YOUTUBE]



*I use the term creationism to refer to the movement that seeks to undermine metaphysical materialism as detailed in the Wedge Document.

 

[DockersMad]

That bromeliad video is so full of holes in its logic it beggars belief that they would even bother taking the time to make it.

Yeah, they produce their own kind as they always have done. Except the ones we crossbred to give us all those new different varieties, they produce the different kind. And that couldn't have possibly happened in nature to give us some of those original varieties in the first place. Oh no, that would never happen.

Evolution. If I can't see it happening its not real.

I prefer this kind of research:

The Bromeliflorae, as here treated, are a group of monocots comprising two families: the Bromeliaceae with 45 genera and about 2000 species, and the Rapateaceae with 16 genera and 80-100 species. Both the Rapateaceae and Bromeliaceae are perennial herbs native entirely to the New World, but each with a single species in West Africa (Maschalocephalus sp. and Pitcairnia feliciana, respectively). This distribution suggests that the two families appeared at about the time when Africa and South America were drifting apart.

Now when the creator made the earth did they have in mind the drifting type of continents or the ones we have in place now?

This is also interesting, although possibly out of date.

Fossil bromeliads are rare, and though a Late Cretaceous fossil from Kansas, and several Tertiary fossils from central and eastern Europe have been described as bromeliads, this interpretation has not been well-supported (see Smith 1974). Additionally, the spiny-leaved Karatophyllum bromelioides, recovered from 30 million year old deposits in Costa Rica, has also been compared to the bromeliads, but the preservation is insufficient to make a definitive identification. There are no known Rapateaceae fossils.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Just for you, DockersMed.

[YOUTUBE]dGopFxZg6N8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[FIGJAM]

Why do you feel the need to do this? The point is irrelevant as the fossil record is not complete and never will be because of its very nature. It has no particular relevance other than the fact that some of the data is unavailable.

There is a perpetual misconception that gradualism works linearly, slowly morphing into something better.

As for the fossil record being "incomplete", there are places that have continuous local records of millions of years (long enough to "adequately conceptualise" at least one example of a species changing).

One Gould (remembering he is a Darwinist!) often references is the Bighorn Basin which has continuous records of around 5 million years. And the record shows species that were once meant to have evolved from each other overlap in time and the record shows sudden appearance, stasis and sudden disappearance.

This is why Gould and Eldridge had to come up with the term "punctuated equilibrium", because phyletic gradualism, Darwinism in its purest form, has been evidenced to be incorrect.

What the "impulse" is for the rapid change in species is the source of much conjecture. Just as the "impulse" for millions of atoms becoming life is much debated.

People who rely on this as a basis of an argument against the science aren't facing up to reality, and are merely demonstrating that they don't have the capacity to adequately conceptualise the time periods involved.

I'm not arguing against any science. I am citing the science!

 

[DockersMad]

Just for you, DockersMed.

Gee thanks.

What a hoot, they go from a string of facts or near-facts and jump to a totally unrelated conclusion and dress it up as proof.

Where can I get the whole set of DVDs for my comedy section?

 

[Mario the Lothario]

"Creation research rain forest"?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

There is a perpetual misconception that gradualism works linearly, slowly morphing into something better.

As for the fossil record being "incomplete", there are places that have continuous local records of millions of years (long enough to "adequately conceptualise" at least one example of a species changing).

One Gould (remembering he is a Darwinist!) often references is the Bighorn Basin which has continuous records of around 5 million years. And the record shows species that were once meant to have evolved from each other overlap in time and the record shows sudden appearance, stasis and sudden disappearance.

This is why Gould and Eldridge had to come up with the term "punctuated equilibrium", because phyletic gradualism, Darwinism in its purest form, has been evidenced to be incorrect.

What the "impulse" is for the rapid change in species is the source of much conjecture. Just as the "impulse" for millions of atoms becoming life is much debated.


I'm not arguing against any science. I am citing the science!

While all of this may be true it is not evidence against the fact that evolution has occurred (and is occurring), but rather is evidence against particular theories relating to the mechanisms responsible for evolution. Whether or not evolution occurred is not debated among scientists, but the mechanisms driving evolution are hotly debated.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Gee thanks.

What a hoot, they go from a string of facts or near-facts and jump to a totally unrelated conclusion and dress it up as proof.

Where can I get the whole set of DVDs for my comedy section?

I thought you would never ask.

http://www.creationresearch.net/secure/store/home.php?cat=254

This is my favourite.

http://www.creationresearch.net/secure/store/product.php?productid=16169&cat=254&page=1

 

[FIGJAM]

While all of this may be true it is not evidence against the fact that evolution has occurred (and is occurring), but rather is evidence against particular theories relating to the mechanisms responsible for evolution. Whether or not evolution occurred is not debated among scientists, but the mechanisms driving evolution are hotly debated.

Agreed.

The existence of evolution, both micro and macro, hasn't been denied by those who would be construed as 'mystics' either. Indeed micro-evolution via natural selection is fully embraced. It's just the mechanism in relation to macro advancements that is in dispute.

Many metaphysicians (or mystics or whatever) also talk of devolution as well. Ever wondered what the root cause of Jews / Muslims not eating pork is?