Uhhhh, what about all those fossils and stuff?
From dictionary.com (emphasis mine):
I think evolution has a bit more evidence than creation “science” does.
No, you are ignoring the evidence presented to you in actual Science classes and available at any decent library, not to mention available in the links cited above.
Because those of us who do not share your religion’s view that the Bible is a 100% correct science textbook just don’t happen to particularly like fools pushing that view on our children in a public school.
I will now say here that this is a highly suspicious statement. If your latest assertion were really true, you would have only used the Bible and not that claptrap by Behe to support it.
That’s a big “no go” on the practical exercise. My convictions abour religion come from my reading of scripture and a few other things. My convictions about scientific matters come from scientists. And I am not talking about those charlatans who created “creationism” as a buzz word.
If you believe that then spare us the BS and go away. BTW, doesn’t that 100% correct science textbook of yours kind of frown on using G’s name in vain, Gman?
There is no proof of evolution. Those links and all the information in the library are based upon theory. If you don’t like my theory that’s ok by me. I don’t have a problem with you having an opinion. 
I find it very interesting that when I post my opinion on something people want to attack me for that.
Yet another “no go” for you. Evolution is not based on a theory. It is a scientific theory.
Just because you have decided not to recognize that does not mean the rest of the planet has not. I’ll type this slowly for you:
(quoted from the glossary of my Environmental Science text (ISBN 0-13-083134-4, Environmental Science The Way the World Works, 7th Edition, Nebel, Wright, c 2000)
You will note that I am talking about numerous related observations. You, on the other hand, are talking about basing something on exactly ZERO observations. That alone disqualifies your story as a scientific theory.
godsend said:
Then perhaps you should open your eyes.
Yes, actually, it is. Because people who share your beliefs often try to force them on others. Maybe you aren’t like that. But if not, why on Earth did you come in here to post about Behe? What was your point? Did you even have one?
godsend1:
Yet, previously you said:
I don’t think anyone here is attacking you; you asked for a debate, people have pointed to the major flaws in what little you have said (in debate, attacking your argument is not the same as attacking you), and we’ve waited for your response. Then, you simply stated:
Pray tell, exactly what proof to you have for creationism? Scientific evidence? Personal revelation?
People who believe evolution is true do not generally come by that conclusion due to “personal beliefs”, nor do we do it to push some heinous atheist agenda on the world, contrary to what you may have been told. No, we examine the evidence. The first thing anyone who is seriously interested in this argument should learn is the difference between the usage of the word “theory” in layman’s terms (WAG) vs the correct usage of the word, which has already been defined for you.
This is a great battle, at least for those of us who prefer not to have hogwash taught to our kids in school, as David has said. It is not simply a matter of “personal opinions and beliefs”.
godsend1:
Did you read article that I linked? That has 29 proofs for evolution. Many do not involve radioactive dating or the interpretation of fossil evidence. There is much evidence in our DNA, itself.
Also, you did not respond to my query about what Behe accepts from mainstream science. Do you agree with Behe that:
The Earth is 4.6 billion years old
Life is hundreds of millions of years old.
All life evolved from a common ancestor.
Some “irreducibly complex” aspects of life were designed.
If you do agree, than just what aspect of evolution do you find “disproved?”
[quick hijack]
Could we turn it back on?
(if this can’t be answered in one post, I’ll repost in GQ)
[/quick hijack]
I don’t really know – IANAMB [molecular biochemist] – but I suspect that we will really need to improve methods of gene therapy.
Fair enough. It’s the weekend though, so if google is unobliging I’ll ask the question in GD on Monday.
Have a good weekend, free from troubling philosophical questions
Fair enough. It’s the weekend though, so if google is unobliging I’ll ask the question in GQ on Monday.
Have a good weekend, free from troubling philosophical questions
**godsend1 wrote:
There is no proof of evolution. Those links and all the information in the library are based upon theory.**
sigh Godsend1, go to your local library and start reading some books on the subject of epistimology; the science of how we know what we know. Then, once you understand that, we’ll be happy to have an intelligent debate on the subject of evolution vs. creationism. Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke and wasting your time and ours.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Monty *
**
By the same argument, someone who does not believe in evolution, for what ever reason, objects to having people they veiw as fools push that view upon THIER children. Since evolution is a theory, not a proven fact.
bdgr:
:sigh: Why is the concept of “theory” in a scientific context so difficult to understand?
There are no “proven facts”. What we take to be “proven facts” are theories. For example, take the “germ theory” of disease. According to this theory, germs are capable of causing infectious disease. Seems like a proven fact, yes? Then why is it still called a ‘theory’? Hint: because ‘theory’, in scientific terms, does not mean ‘guess’. It’s possible that we’ll discover that germs do not cause disease- that the etiology of tuberculosis, influenza, rabies, etc, is completely different than what we now believe. But it’s unlikely.
Evolution is based on science, which is appropriate for teaching in science classes. Creationism is purely religious, and is not appropriate for science classes.
Evolution is based on what some people claim to be very weak evidence…I for one don’t know that much about it, and it is not important an issue to me. I hardly feel I am able to debate the merits of either side. My point is, that some people find the conclusions draw from the evidence to be somewhat weak. And there is a large segment of the population that thinks there is evidence that doesnt jive with evolution. And by teaching it in school as an absolute fact(thats the way it was taught to me in high school), I feel is violating the parents and students rights to freedom of religion just as much as teaching creationism would be. I would never dream of forcing my religious viewpoints on someone elses kid. Its not that big of an issue to me, but I feel that people who dont believe in evolution have a legitimate complaint when evolution is force fed to thier kids. You send your kids to school, and they come back saying that the teacher said our familys beliefs are wrong. I think the whole evolution thing should be an elective at best. I believe in speration of church and state. I just think it should go both ways.
And some people claim the world is flat. Your point is what?
The former point is clear. The latter assertion not so clear, why are you arguing then?
So what? Some people are ignorant sluts. What matters is what folks who honestly address the evidence conclude.
(a) Evolution is not religion. Evolution is science. Science classes teach, as they should, science.
(b) your freedom of religion is relevant to religion, not science.
Eh? See (a).
Actually, most people everywhere (including this country) do not believe in creationism asi t is usually espoused. They are loud, but they are a minority.
Also, creationism is not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of belief, and it is not scientific.
Hmmm…
I’ve never read Behe.
But… The prospect of a life-form spontaneously developing with both an RNA system (to reproduce & maintain itself) and some sort of respiration system (to give it the energy to work) seems much too unlikely to me.
Therefore, I am more or less a theist.
If you can show me great bogs of ATP just waiting to be exploited on lifeless moons in outer space, and those bogs have random chains of nucleic acids strewn through them… Maybe I could change my mind.
But for now, I think the “intelligent design” camp has a point.
>gasp!< The argument from personal incredulity! I’d heard of it, but I’ve never seen one in captivity!
foolsguinea, if you haven’t read Behe, then you probably haven’t read his critics, so how do you know whether or not those questions have been addressed? Also, do you understand the potential gap between “intelligent design” and “theism”?