The Observation Deck

Doug, I don't know about Russia.

Never been there, its way too cold.

DougHuntingdon wrote:I see another global warming march, this time near Boston, is being heavily disrupted by another winter storm.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... ange_trek/

Doug

The point, Doug? That it's often cold in February and early March in New England? That doesn't change the fact (yes, FACT) that this past winter was the warmest ever on record. That, in and of itself, proves nothing, but hearing talk radio idiots (namely Drudge) try and poke holes in the global warming theory with anecdotal stories about how cold it is outside baffles me. Argue if you want to what extent global warming is caused by man, but you simply cannot argue that we're not in a warming trend.

sorry for the double post...

Bret Callentine wrote:Ivor,

I'll extend the same challenge offered by Michael Behe... Tell me one thing about Evolution that has been proved as true.

Ask your teachers the same thing. If they're honest, they'll tell you the same thing I will. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory.

if you're curious, the book I'm referring to is called "Darwin's Black Box". It's a great read, I highly recommend it.

How about this one, Bret - find me a good example where the theory of evolution fails to explain observable data about the world we live in. Theories generally aren't proven or disproven, they're used as a method of explaining naturally-occurring processes or phenomena. Scientists should continue to doubt that theory, continually testing to see if it holds up under experiment. If it doesn't, the theory generally isn't thrown out wholesale if it can be adapted to account for the new observations and still maintain integrity. Theories about how organisms adapt over millions of years simply cannot be verified in laboratory experiments, so it's a cute little rhetorical trick to ask for verifiable proof. The fact is that predictions about how evolution works has been borne out over and over again by observation. You may as well ask for some tangible proof that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the squares of the other two sides. It's proven because it just WORKS, and nothing's yet been found to disprove it.

I don't believe in evolution, but I must admit that some people in Lakewood do act like monkeys ):

Doug

I don't believe in evolution, but I must admit that some people in Lakewood do act like monkeys ):

Doug

Just like my sociology teacher said friday,

"if you want a pet monkey, just have a kid"

OK the math geek here has a couple comments
(because I hate cleaning carpets and this is just as good an excuse as any to take a break )

Doug:

I don't believe in evolution, but I must admit that some people in Lakewood do act like monkeys ):

Doug

OK - no fair here. You just called me out for getting personal so you shouldn't either!

**pouts**

Grace:

Thank you for the well written explanation of the nature of a theory.

Brian:

Some picky-isms -

Theories about how organisms adapt over millions of years simply cannot be verified in laboratory experiments

Seeing as we have measured nothing over millions of years your statement is technically true; however, there are many many cases of observable evolutionary change in species, including humans (height, facial structures, etc.). Micro-evolution (which you are actually referring to) is rarely, if ever, contested. What is contested is macro-evolution. The key is to find and observe an evolutionary change that concerns something fundamental about a species that would result in a divergent species being created (something growing a leg, or learning to breathe air vs. water).

In other words we accept that species change but the debate is whether they only change to a certain point.

and

tangible proof that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the squares of the other two sides

This is absolutely provable. Actually in a whole plethora of ways, but Pythagoras used squares.

While it is not intuitive, a theorem is not the same as a theory.

OK - back to the carpets (yuk yuk yuk)
Charyn

(who still thinks this would be better on another thread)

Brian,

In "the Origin of Species", Darwin makes the statement that if you can show an organism or any part of an organism that cannot evolve, as such, cannot be created through resulting minor changes over time, then the whole theory falls apart.

What Behe and a multitude of other scientists have discovered is a number of what they have found to be irreducibly complex systems. That is to say, it is a system or function that can not be brought into existence with only minor changes. Examples include the system for blood clotting, the movement of several one celled organisms, etc.

I'm not going to stand here and claim that man hasn't changed over time (we've gotten taller, live longer, etc.) However, to make the claim that we have evolved from a different species or even came from the primordial sludge, Darwin's theory is no where near adequate.

You can call me whatever you want (although I prefer the term "Jesus Freak" as glorified by the song by DC Talk), but I'm here to tell you with a straight, scientifically minded face, that the THEORY of intelligent design is just as viable as anything proposed by Darwin. I can use this theory to extrapolate data just as easily as you.

the point is, until you can PROVE any one theory, ALL theories have a right to be studied without vilification. And just because some people are not comfortable with the prospect that there might be a "creator", doesn't make it any more or less true.

I don't necessarily believe in aliens, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to rule it out. And further, it doesn't mean that people should be prohibited from looking.

The fact is that predictions about how evolution works has been borne out over and over again by observation

could you site your source please?

Bret Callentine wrote:Brian,

In "the Origin of Species", Darwin makes the statement that if you can show an organism or any part of an organism that cannot evolve, as such, cannot be created through resulting minor changes over time, then the whole theory falls apart.
I don't necessarily believe in aliens, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to rule it out. And further, it doesn't mean that people should be prohibited from looking.

Bret

This might be a shock, but the science end of this discussion has evolved since Darwin "guessed" about evolution.

But your post raises more questions than it answers.

Who created these aliens?

Are they made in the image of God?

Evolution is not a theory it is a fact.

The evolution of man is a theory with 90% based in science, and the rest scattered in the bones and dirt of Africa.

Some need the "missing links" other can see past gaps.

To me it matters not, my God is all powerful, she created all. The master of carbon based lifeforms, and the other ones too.

Moved my discussion to Charyn post.


.

OK, all you evolution/intelligent design debaters, here's a research assignment for you.

Look up the anonymous poem that begins:

"Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree..."

Then, look up the 1887 May Kendall poem "Lay of the Trilobite"

Compare and contrast.

And I think that all of your arguments might well be laid to rest.

Signed,

Your banjo-pickin' teacher

I believe the big bang created the universe. I believe a universal intellect, beyond what we can imagine created the big bang.
Universal intellect or the "universal power", in many philosophical studies is known as God. The same goes for evolution, the science is correct but the power behind the science is and was the Universal Intellect aka God.
My belief anyway.

Mark Allan Crnolatas
" No matter what statement you make about anything, there is always someone that is prepared to state that your original statement is erroneous."