Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court? Doh, and all these years I thought the world is flat and was created 6000 years ago. You mean my maw been preachin' me wrong?
Hi nikkie, (1) Get the Yellow Pages and look for your Local Library; (2) Walk over to your Local Library; (3) As a good introduction, start reading the works of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov - BTW both Nobel Prize winners - garanteed free of cheap crap; (4) Given your obvious lack of savviness in the ways of the world, this will keep you going for quite some time; (5) If you want to seriously further pursue this study, the reading of both these authors will have provided you with the necessary leads, much better than nononsense. In fact these giants changed the world. Hope this helps, nononsense
Clearly, you will not be one of those very few. noo noo, To suggest knowledge gained from the outcome of practical scientic demonstrable evidence is simply a question of epistemological discussion, is akin to pissing in your pants and talking about whether or not you can actually know there is such a thing as pee (or your pants, or you!). Getting yourself shot in the ass to then strike up a discussion on the non provable existence of bullets from the epistemological standpoint may be your idea of a good time, but will do nothing to enhance the practical scientific knowledge and procedures required to safely remove the "non-existent" shell from your butt and ensure against infection and in your case- brain damage. Evolution is demonstrable in the lab. That fact has nothing to do with with demonstrating God any more than it has to do with demonstrating Elves and Santa. It is about demonstrating the fact of Evolution, nothing else. Evolution is a scientific fact. God is a philosophical concept. To consider what to believe, IDists require no scientific proof or evidence. However, to consider what not to believe (ie: ID), cast-iron, gold-plated, copper-bottomed scientific evidence and proof is required before any possibility to change position can be considered . Even then with all that knowledge, for the IDist, it all still "makes as much sense" as the permanent wet patch in the crotch of some old wee stained jeans.
Evolution is absolutely not demonstrable in the lab. Show a child who knows nothing whatsoever of the theory or concept of evolution what happens in the lab. Does he see evolution? Nope. He observes biological species changing, or not changing. That is all he observes. Now pre-Darwin, did an educated scientist in a lab setting observe evolution? No, he did not. He may have observed species changing or not changing. No one observes a theory, they project a theory onto their observations! If in our "definitions" we want to define "evolution" exclusively as the changes that take place in a biological organism or species, that is one thing (though adaptation is probably more accurate). The word evolution though, has taken on much more meaning than just adaptation of a species to its environment. Does anyone look at this image and the first word they think of is adaptation? <img src=http://princesspink7864.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/ape-man-line-up.jpg.w300h182.jpg> No, they think evolution as in Darwinism. That is really the problem as I view it. In public school, they really don't teach just biological species as they adapt to the environment, they teach a very speculative theory that this adaptation process is the origin of all species....and they teach that this process is unguided and not by design. They don't know if it is unguided or not by design or programming of some intelligence, but that is how it is taught. A very different conclusion than just the observable process of micro organisms adapting to stress, or lower species adapting to their environment as a result of their survival instinct. Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag, and it is impossible practically speaking to talk about "The fact of evolution" as distinct and separate from Darwinism. I think if they only taught adaptation of species, which is the nature of biological organisms that would not be a problem. It is this absolutely speculative and unfalsifiable theory that this adaptive nature of biological organism is by random chance without a designer involved in the process. Teach the facts of biological organisms, i.e. that they respond to the environment, that they attempt to survive....that they are born, have a lifespan, then they die. But to teach that there is some "force" of evolution (leading people to believe this so called "force of evolution" is like the force of gravity), and that species necessarily evolve into higher species, or that higher species did in fact evolve from lower species, as in a force of gravity is absurd. We need to change the language to make is much more specific, that the evolution that is a fact, i.e. that adaptation does take place, is not same as evolution as people think of it as Darwinism.
Hey nono Thanks for the info. I might try that. However, we have this new thing that's just as good as walking down to the local library; in fact, it's kind of the 21st century equivalent. It's called the internet. There is tons of stuff available on the internet about every conceivable subject. I did a Google search on "materialistic atheistic communism" and here are the results http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&h...q="materialistic+atheistic+communism"&spell=1 Wow!! Just about what one would expect from a search on such a well known socio-political philosophy as this. Are you a 'Nazarene Essene', nono? Anyway, I tried to relate the content of the text by the brother Nazariah to the debate here, but of course it was hard, because there really is no relation. You're maybe a little out of your element here, nono. Porn sites and beer, I mean. And by the way, nono... 'lack of savviness in the ways of the world' should be 'lack of savvy in the ways of the world'. "Savviness" isn't a word, junior. No, man, don't thank me. If you need any further help talking or composing legible sentences, just let me know.
Unless you (or someone on your side of the issue) precisely state a hypothesis that expresses the amount of observed adaptive change that is necessary and sufficient so as to declare such change "speciation," your comments above are interesting, but they are not supported by anything other than your personal belief system. So, to restate the question for the 7th time in this thread: What is the precise instant at which a "micro" "adaptation" in a biological organism becomes "macro" "evolution?" Until you can state a hypothesis for the above question, that can be subjected to a scientific test, your statement that Evolution cannot be proved in the lab is just your unsupported conclusion, and the currently available scientific evidence contradicts that conclusion.
Great response noo noo. You messed up mistaking the science of evolution with a completely separate question of what the philosophical theory of knowledge might or might not be, and you run off to Gilbert for shelter. You seem to get a little more f'd up each time.
Then he would need a science lesson to explain how the sequence of biological events he observes is in fact Evolution. Nothing else proves the fact of Evolution to be so. Let's do so then. Evolution is a scientifically proven fact. Darwin scientifically explains effects, results and facts along with mechanisms and expected effects and results, all from and based upon and supported by the scientific fact of Evolution. Nowhere does Evolution and or Darwin suggest or state what did or did not create or intelligently design or unintelligently design any of those things. Only IDers say that Evolution and Darwin do.
Theists and IDers did not draw or teach this: <img src=http://princesspink7864.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/ape-man-line-up.jpg.w300h182.jpg> Yet nearly everyone who looks at this image assoicates it with the term "evolution." This is not by accident that people look at that drawing and think "evolution." It is very much by design of the atheistic scientists who have their own agenda, which is not really the advancement of science, but rather the advancement of their own belief systems. That biological organisms try to survive through adapation is a fact. Evolution of species is not a fact, i.e. Darwinism is not a fact. Darwin doesn't scientifically explain what happened, he speculated on what happened....quite a difference. You buy his story, others do not, but it is still a story lacking sufficient data and observation to make it fact. Still waiting for the precise calculation of exactly when an organism is going to "evolve." Just stop the BS, and show me the math.... Come on man, show me the mathematical forumla of evolution of species that applies as a constant to every species and can be measured in the way that we can measure gravity, electromagnetism, molecular change, chemistry, etc.