A calm debate

[TMA_1]

Listen, creationism is not exactly taught in school. Creationism has to start over in certain ways. Evolutionists have the upper hand because of their superiority in numbers of scientists. Creationists have to do independant studies because they wont be funded anywhere else. The bias against creationism is rampent. Maybe if evolutionists would actually study creationism with creationists, and see their opposing viewpoint. They would understand creationism better. Till then you have semantics are bickering.

[emprworm]

lol, Ace. Usually you are a fine debator, but this time, I think the emotions got the best of you.

So you're saying you don't believe in evolution?

yes

The evidence is ALL there.

it is not. what proof do you have again?

Whether you like it or not, we DID come from lesser beings, the last of which were primates.

And what proof do you have of this?

I cannot belive you would deny this. It is such common knowledge.

believe it. THere are thousands of scientists world-wide that believe as I do. There is plenty of evidence for Intelligent Design. You just were never taught it in school. What a shame. I seriously think you have never even read one single paper for Intelligent Design. have you? If you were truly objective, you would consider ID by at least looking at its claims. I have done both.

Even a grade three student would say humans come from monkeys.

lol. grade three students say a lot of wierd things, Ace. ha ha.

you're funny

You have dodged my demands. Show me a single thing that disproves evolution.

you have the burden of proof. you are claiming it as fact. so....what proof do you have? note: dont give me proof of adaption- I already believe in it, along with all the other ID proponents. I want proof of cross-special evolution, or macroevolution.

And show me something that proves ID.

ID is a theory...like evolution...there is no proof for it. There is evidence, however.

Would you like to see my list of scientists with PhDs and masters degrees that acknowledge the existence of Planet Vorgon and Zimbu the monkey?

Yes, I would.

They were theist all their lives and they can't let go.

I already explained that many of these scientists were former evolutionists that concluded ID after examining the evidence.

I listen to proof.

not very well, apparently, since you don't really seem to know much about ID at all, nor evolutionary theory. (note the word "theory" - thats important)

You have shown none.

i dont need to. Its theory. I show evidence, not proof

And where was your proof?

I'd like to see the proof that God creates everything.

ID makes no mention of God. I suggest you learn a bit about it.

Here is a link Gob put up a while ago. Start here.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html

(note: if you are truly the objective reasonable person you say you are, you will actually read that, and not just ignore it and post a reply)

There were far more Nazis than there are ID sceintists, emprworm. Does that make them right?

Irrelevant.

Now, let me bring forth just one of these scientists you are summarily dismissing.

Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology

Education:

B.S. Chemistry/Biology, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts

M.A. Biology, Harvard University

Ph.D. Biology (Major in Ecology/Minor in Biochemistry), Harvard University

Honors:

Sigma Xi

Cum laude degree

MBL Ecology Award

Lambert Kingsley Honorary Biology Society

Bausche & Lomb Science Award

Fishery Scientist (American Fishery Society)

Organizations:

American Institute of Biological Sciences

Botanical Society of America

Ecological Society of America

Ken Cumming has concluded, based upon the evidence, in the theory of ID.

What are your credentials, Ace, to tell this man that his conclusions are unscientific?

[SurlyPIG]

Emperor, that statement was made about evolution in general. Not just the example of the Mongolian Man.

The significance of the skull of the Mongolian man is that biologically, Mongolians are the most similar to the primates living in their area. I'm not sure which species of monkey it is, but a comparison between a human skull and the skull of this particular monkey is the most similar example of human-primate crossover.

[Gobalopper]

http://law.gonzaga.edu/people/dewolf/utah.pdf

http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

Here are some links on the legal issues surrounding teaching ID in the classroom. Taken from http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm which I posted earlier.

[SurlyPIG]

Emp, show me this evidence that suggests all life on earth was consciously designed by an outside being...is that not your foundation of arguement? Perhaps I missed it earlier in the thread, I was out of town for a few days.

[Acriku]

I am genuinely interested to see the "proof" those ID-supporting scientists have assembled. I'd like to see the proof that God creates everything.

Interesting ACE, so am I.

Proof of evolution? Let's go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Let's assume there really are thousands of scientists who agree with you Emprworm. How does this make it more believable? Your logic goes against you, because using your logic there are more scientists who accept evolution as fact. But this isn't a popularity contest.

We didn't come from monkeys actually, we came from a common ancestor with monkeys, so we both came from the same ancestor. This isn't proven beyond all doubt, but is the best we have right now.

Proof? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

ID does not suggest a god in its most generic definition. But it was made in all intents to prove creationism, and the goals of ID theory is to get rid of material science, in support of creationism. I can accept if I were to find a watch that someone made it, but I will not accept that it applies to life itself.

[emprworm]

Ace, this argument is not about ID being true.

THis argument is about whether or not ID is simply a scientific theory. Note: that you do not need to believe in a theory, nor does the theory have to be actually true in order to be scientific. I suggest you simply read back a few pages. Click that link I gave you. I am disheartened that you did not even read it.

here it is again:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html

[SurlyPIG]

I agree with Ac 100%. And he just saved me the task of digging up proof on the net. :)

[Acriku]

I cannot accept anything that involves the supernatural as an explanation as scientific. Sorry, the two are mutually exclusive.

[emprworm]

you just wont even read the link will you Ace? Too bad. Because I usually read the links Acriku puts up, or anyone else for that matter. I'd say that not even reading about ID is definately your weakness regarding your qualifications for participating in this debate.

[emprworm]

" cannot accept anything that involves the supernatural as an explanation as scientific. Sorry, the two are mutually exclusive. "

you already have as an atheist.

Or what natural law, again, states that something can come from nothing?

[SurlyPIG]

When did I say it wasn't a theory? There are a lot of stupid theories out there. I just said ID was a bad one and evolution was better, that's all. There's just much, much, much more evidence, as in a lot opposed to none.

[Acriku]

Evolution does not in any way theorize that something can come from nothing. That life can from from non-life. It is a theory of life developing. Why does supernature have to be involved in making something out of nothing? How do you know that the something has been there forever? I personally do not know either way, but science is always progressing.

[Edric O]

Yes, of course, when atheists can't find an answer for something they always say:

"Well, science will explain it in the future!" ::)

[Acriku]

Well, we do not say that God did it and stop questioning it. Look at my sig:

Teach a human religion and they will have all the answers. Teach a human how to think and they will never stop questioning.

If we keep questioning, we keep getting answers. Claiming to have all the answers is rediculous. :)

[Edric O]

Just as long as you admit it when you don't have an answer for something, and not hide behind "we'll figure it out in the future!" ;)

[Acriku]

It isn't hiding behind anything, if we search for the answer, it is bound to come to us, or we are bound to come upon it. Who knows in the future.

[emprworm]

When did I say it wasn't a theory? There are a lot of stupid theories out there. I just said ID was a bad one and evolution was better, that's all. There's just much, much, much more evidence, as in a lot opposed to none.

you said ID is a bad theory? And how are you to know? Its bad according to your subjective reasoning and your complete avoidance to actually research it. Most likely you know very little about ID. And even if you actually knew all of its arguments and still dismissed it...well that is your choice, but it is still a scientific theory until proven true/false...just like evolution.

"Yes, of course, when atheists can't find an answer for something they always say:

"Well, science will explain it in the future!" "

lol, you are right, Edric. They do say that. FUnny thing is that they have no proof upon which to make such a claim to begin with. UPon what basis can an atheist say "All knowledge is attainable through science?" The only way that can make that statement is by having faith in aspects of science that science itself must presuppose before science can even begin.

"Evolution does not in any way theorize that something can come from nothing. "

Yes it does. Please explain to me how all matter and energy in this universe got here.

[Edric O]

It isn't hiding behind anything, if we search for the answer, it is bound to come to us, or we are bound to come upon it.

That is a statement of pure, blind faith in science.

[Acriku]

Edric, you just have no reason to think science will not answer our questions in the future. The future can last a long time, and science will never die unless we go with it. The Last Question is a good example of answering all the questions ;)

[emprworm]

but Acriku, science can only answer the present. History is untouchable by science. You cannot use the scientific method to prove history. NO amount of future science will tell you how the universe got here, only faith and belief can.

[Acriku]

I'm afraid you are wrong Emprworm. Totally wrong.

1) When they study stars, they are studying the past. :)

2) Scientists can use inductive and deductive methods, to prove history. Forensics is a good example. Paleontology is a good example. Archaeology is a good example. You deny these sciences' validity?

[emprworm]

regarding the light of stars....this is a true statement. you are presently observing an event that took place in the past.

regarding forensics...they are not proofs. Finding a fingerprint does not prove that someone comitted a crime. ARchaeology likewise...its evidence, but not proof. with no observation, there is no scientific method.

When proving history (that you have not witnessed)....only the coutroom method of proof is acceptable.

The scientific method cannot be used to prove it.

[Acriku]

When they find a fingerprint, it does not stand alone, but it is proof that they were there. Unless you saw the episode where one guy took a rubber hand with finger prints etched in them ;)

Scientific method cannot be used to prove history? Ok I can't explain it now, but I know you are wrong. Let me go back to my biology book...

[emprworm]

it is not proof they were there, Acriku.

There are a million reasons why a fingerprint could be found on a scene.

#1. It might be someone else's. 1 in 1,000,000 chance (or something like that).

#2. It could be a clone. Who knows...maybe you were cloned?

#3. It could have been planted. Yea, this kind of thing happens, Acriku.

#4. It could have been forged

All i can say is that the scientific method requires observation. Unless you saw it happen, and can repeat it then the scientific method is unable to prove something.

Enter the courtroom method of proof. THe only way to prove history.