Of course. Saying god did it is a wonderful way to dig into the amazing mystery of biological life!
IF the shoe fits. Truth doesn't depend on your view of its accuracy. Unless you're a pluralist (and I wouldn't be surprised at all).
Frankly, nobody cares about your example. The fact is that ID is a religion-based hypothesis, and a science-stopper. You're accepting a conclusion for which there is no testable evidence and no general reason to believe in it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Translation: "I don't want to change what I believe. *crys*. Fallacy, assumption.
If you want testable evidence, go to church. This evangelical movement you despise so much contains a lot of really solid evidence. Like healing and miracles. I have prayed for someone in a wheelchair during a church service who got up and rolled her wheelchair out. I prayed for a lady who had arthritis and back pain for 15 years and while we were praying, she felt a heat in her spine, and then the pain was gone. And it didn't come back.
Maybe they both just went through some evolution though, right?
Plus, everything in science points toward intelligent design. Complexity, the fossil record, the timeline of our earth, and also the fact that you really do have no observational data.
And the more you say you do have some, the less legitimate you become as a debater. Cause you are wrong.. Evolution doesn't create new kingdoms. Sorry. All the scientists who actually try and create new species by exposing creatures to environments that facilitate mutation can only create different kinds of that same species. (Look up the fruit fly experiments).
Also, please don't consider being a science major with this kind of an attitude towards science. Unless you go somewhere like Liberty or Baylor, that kind of approach will get you nowhere, and quite possibly ridiculed.
Please don't consider majoring in biology when you cannot grasp a truth that is right in front of you. It will make your life frustrating and miserable, and your wife/kids will suffer as a result.
My approach is: whatever is true, I believe. OMG, maybe I should be more like you, a stubborn and biased-beyond-belief person unwilling to accept truth.
What I outlined above is the consequence of taking ID seriously as a scientific hypothesis.
Assumption #2. Incredibly false, and definitely not in line with the theory of intelligent design.
Also, note that ID is not even a theory; it is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon; a theory is a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts.
So..... intelligent design is a theory. You can say its not.. but it is... so why even try making something like that up?
Seeing as how ID isn't even testable, contrary to what people like Mike Behe think, there is no possible way it could even transition into a theory at some point in the future until the ID camp comes up with some tangible positive evidence for their "hypothesis".
Theory.
And evolution isn't testable, unless you count fossils, and then it has tested miserably.
The original conversation was about whether or not ID creationism should be taught in schools. You responded to something I posted in another thread, titled TEACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. It's fairly safe to assume you have a problem with me saying it is unconstitutional to teach ID in schools.
NO. THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE A DEBATER.
Never assume ANYTHING. Ever. That is a terrible rationale for anything you claim.
Do you know what the establishment clause is? Of course you do.
ID should not be taught in public schools. Neither should evolution. I think ID is true, but many people (like you) falsely think that if you believe in ID, then you must become religious or something to that effect. While ID must lead to a creator, evolution leads to no creator. Both are world views. Our public school has endorsed one world view over another, which I believe is unconstitutional, especially since the theory of macro evolution lacks real evidence.
Don't generalize or assume. You obviously need some basic logical training.
Do you think before you post?
I barely even use my brain to answer your senseless posts, if that's what you mean.
Your theory just doesn't have anything to back it up.
You're making several mistakes here. The first one being that yes, a religious or pseudo-scientific theory is effected by the fact that it is religious or pseudo-scientific. A quack theory based on religion or non-science is of no value to science whatsoever; it should be obvious to the average person that that is a contradiction in terms. Second of all, your example of Mormons coming up with the theory of evolution doesn't even fit your assertion, since the theory itself isn't religious or pseudo-scientific in this case, but the founders (the Mormons) are.
The average person can't locate Ohio on a map. Also, that was a generalization.
You are labeling ID as a quack theory? Why? Because fossil evidence supports a creator? I could say "evolution is a quack theory" and I have accomplished nothing besides expressing my twisted logic.
ID is based in science. Creation is based on Christianity. It so happens that they fit perfectly together. So... that must mean ID is false right? Stunning logic, btw.
ID is not a religious theory. It is based on scientific evidence. And the more you deny that, the more faulty your conclusions will be.
(Assumption #37).
If you would have said that the founder being religious doesn't necessarily effect the value of his / her theory to science, you would be right. But you didn't say that, you said something completely ridiculous.
... nope..
I never said that it was true because the court ruled that way, I said that there is an entire history of court cases that you can follow if you only were to go Google it and research it yourself.
I definitely know all the major religion court cases in our history. You assume once again that I am not very knowledgeable in this area. Constitutional law is a passion of mine. So please stop assuming everything you want to believe.
And that makes you qualified somehow?
I read my chemistry textbook cover to cover, all 27 chapters and 600-something pages. That doesn't make me qualified to speak out my own opinions and make my own theories, it just makes me more credible and adept in terms of debating.
I could go sign something that says I'm and Animal Science major right now. Who cares?
That proves nothing. Doesn't even evidence anything...
You mean books like this, or this? And you're saying this is reliable material? No wonder you're confused.
Nope. I don't. Look like interesting reads though.
You should read everyone's opinion, even if it is complete trash, just to know what they think. Different worldviews make you more mature as a person. So please read more books.
Assumption #10,000 - That I think those books are reliable material is laughable..
It seems you not only looked at the links I gave you, but you haven't taken my suggestion to research the history of ID yourself. Very well, let's try this again. Maybe this time you'll actually read the links I give you instead of just skipping right to the reply button with more baseless accusations:
I did look at the non-wikipidea links.
The macroevolutionary prediction of a unique, historical universal phylogenetic tree is the most important, powerful, and basic conclusion from the hypothesis of universal common descent. A thorough grasp of this concept is necessary for understanding macroevolutionary deductions.
Circular reasoning. Too easy.
I read through parts of the next three "evidences" and got bored. The writer was teaching science and phylogenetic trees, but none of it evidenced evolution as true. None of evolutions gaping flaws (which I earlier listed) were addressed.
Ok. Some groups don't believe in ID. You are right. And some groups don't believe in Macro evolution.
What was the point of this?
Again... point? Obviously, the scientific community is divided on this issue, which is why your generalizing is so bad.
LOL. You actually googled "intelligent design junk-science?" Desperate. Try googling Obama is the antichrist. You'll get results for that too...
You might have missed it, but that was sarcasm. You've done nothing but make baseless accusations since you started posting in this thread.
I didn't miss it, which was why I responded in kind.
And you're wrong.
Try actually reading the links I give you this time. Saying I have no observational data to back up my claims when I clearly did so on multiple occasions just makes you look foolish.
Claims that: you have fossils? Nope.
That macro-evolution exists? Nope.
Here is a very good FAQ for beginners; you might try getting aquainted with the basics of evolutionary theory before getting into the deeper stuff. It will also clear up a lot of your misconceptions about the roles of science and religion (I.E., intelligent design):
Gee thanks. How thoughtful of you.
Seriously.. get your hands on some published material of legitimate scientists.
There's even a comprehensive OP I found from a religious website defending the existence of macro-evolution:
So what? What about the religious group that protests at soldiers funerals? Are you saying that religious groups (or even this one) are right?
No, not everyone can edit Wikipedia and get away with it. It's actually a fairly moderated site, and they keep records. Which is beside the point, because I told you to check the endlinks if you had some sort of bias against Wikipedia (which you clearly do), but you didn't, and skipped right to the reply button.
Ok. Go to the page on religion, science, barney, and jesus. Check all the sources and come back to me.
No. If you post a link shorter than 10 pages, I'll probably read it. If you don't even take the time to post the link on this site, why should I bother? I already know evolutionary theory anyway..
I'm glad that you still have a sense of humor.
Judging by the content of your posts, you're in no position to accuse anyone here of making baseless assumptions.
Actually, I can give my opinion here in the debate hall. It's what you do, and my opinions are based on fact.
Are you a parrot? Because you're pretty much just repeating back to me what I said when I critiqued your post.
Nope. I didn't say anything that you said.
I am that transitional human that has parrot feathers though. Maybe in a few thousand years I will be a parrot.
Yes, they're called "mutations"; I.E., changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material of an organism. They can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division, by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation.
Good. That was actually true.
As for the first question, there is strong data to suggest that eukaryotic cells actually evolved from groups of prokaryotic cells that became interdependent on each other. Here is a science article published in 2004 that addresses the matter:
That article didn't prove anything you said.
Like I said, it's quite obvious you know next to nothing about evolutionary biology.
And it's quite obvious you know next to nothing about anything.
