Intelligent debate

God lives outside our four dimensional world. I am sure he is capable of designing complex adaptive systems in a "hands off way".

Please supply some supporting evidence for this statement.

It's a philosophical speculation. Based on the logic of the "Big Bang" theory.

What's your God theory?

It's a philosophical speculation. Based on the logic of the "Big Bang" theory.

Then you are guessing.

The theory of evolution is not a belief; it is a scientifically useful model.

For what? LOL! Atheism?

The theory of evolution is not a belief; it is a scientifically useful model.

For what? LOL! Atheism?

No, for explaining facts. That is what a theory does.

The theory of evolution explains millions of facts (including the fossil record, geology, biology, dating, the various genomes that have been deciphered, etc.). A powerful theory, such as the theory of evolution, also allows predictions to be successfully made.

The theory of evolution is currently the only theory in science explaining these facts. This is common in science. Many fields started with competing hypotheses, and the evidence finally supported one while contradicting the others. That theory is still subject to modification as new data arise, but don't look for it to be overturned any time soon.

Many world religions have no problem reconciling belief and science. One example is the late Pope. He was hardly an atheist.

Then you are guessing..

That's not what I said. Please reread my reply.

So you agree with the Theory of Evolution then, good.

That depends on whether you mean "microevolution" or ASBE (All Species By Evolution) -- Remember, there are two kinds of evolution - that which I have seen and that which I have not seen. As an honest scientist, I have to stop and say "Wait, I'm not going to posit and argue as fact that which I have not seen and do not in fact know to be true."

Why do you think that small changes over a long period of time can't add up to large changes?

Remember, just because something could be doesn't mean that it is be! It's faulty logic to argue that something must be simply because it could be. And I have yet to find any proof that it could be and certainly none that it did! From what I can tell, the fossil record is severely lacking compared to the millions of generations it'd take to reach our current stage. Furthermore, I find the evidence lacking for the event of life from none life, and the same goes for the idea of matter from nothing. The "missing link" fossils we do have don't look to me to be anything that couldn't be caused by genetic drift within kinds. Think of even the size ranges of dogs from the pouch pooch (pocket pooch) to the great dane. Look at the size ranges from the tiny miniature horse to the draft horse. Based on skull size, you could argue that the biggest dog was the granddaddy of the smallest horse. I realize there are more dimensions to the equation then size, but I'm hoping you get my point -- within any kind there is enough variation in size and shape that with careful sorting, ordering, and maybe a few deformed freak of nature specimens, one could make a skull lineup not unlike our "Chimps to humans" lineup (Remember - those 17 or so skull fragments stuck onto fixall?) even if there was absolutely no relation between the different species. Remember, if I gave you a bucket full of randomly sized and colored marbles, you could sort subsets of them to show any relationship between size and color you liked, even though as a whole there was no relationship.

So you believe in evolution within a species.

As I said, I grew up watching generation after generation of livestock. The new generation rarely even looked identical (since we weren't into purebreeds) to their parents!

How about evolution within a Genus or Family? Would you agree that is possible?

Our current understanding of DNA tells us that with different configurations of DNA, any strange creature could be created. So if there were the correct bits of information added to the DNA then evolution to a more advanced creature sure would be possible. But remember, just because something is possible does not make it true, and secondly, I don't know that nature causes the right kind of new information to be added to the DNA, so I'm not even sure that in reality such a thing (evolution from one family to another) is even possible to begin with. I should also point out that the Family and Genus classification system is based upon and oriented towards ASBE (All Species By Evolution) and it already has a built in answer to the question - like the old joke "Have you stopped beating your wife?" - I prefer to work in a different classification system which says that God created the different kinds, and what we have today are descendants of those, and so if two animals both descended from the same original kind, then they are the same kind. This too has a built in assumption - that there were distinct kinds. And I do realize that it may be hard to tell now if two species are the same kind (based on my definition of kind.) Furthermore, this is based on my faith (like your classification is based on yours, except I'm honest about there being a distinct element of faith involved.) Except that my experience and observation is that today only distinct kinds exist so in that sense, if I just talk about the observed fact that a finite number of distinct kinds exist today then I can discuss it purely scientifically without inferring a faith.

Where do you draw the line?

If I've seen a certain degree or kind of evolution, then I say it's true. If I haven't seen it and it makes claims which I find far out and unsupported, then I say it probably aint true and it hasn't been proven.

So you do believe in evolution? Why the debate?

"Evolution" just means change. As I said, I believe in that which I have seen. Why the debate? Because you (and all ASBE'rs) draw a conclusion that goes far beyond the evidence in hand.

It's like the scientists which took a bullfrog and said "Jump, frog, Jump!" and the frog jumped 4 feet. So they hypothesized that its legs were how it jumped, so they cut one off and said "Jump, frog, Jump!" and it jumped 3 feet. So they cut off another leg and said "Jump frog jump" and it jumped 2 feet. Then they cut off another leg and said "Jump frog Jump" and the poor thing jumped 1 foot. Then they cut off the last one, and said "Jump frog Jump!" and it just sat their. Then they wrote up their conclusion: "We found that the frog's number of legs does relate to how far he can jump, but that a frog with no legs goes deaf."

The debate is because it looks to me as if the conclusion being drawn goes faaaaaar beyond the supporting data and extrapolates dreadfully, and makes claims which I do not find supported, like the millions of missing links. It's not missing links, the whole chain is missing! And many things I observe around me just do not line up with the ASBE theory. Furthermore, I well know that many people accept ASBE on pure faith: Just talk to the average person on the street who believes in ASBE. I think you will find that they aren't at all well learned on all the facts of the topic, but none the less they believe it with all their heart, and they take it by faith. Again furthermore, the theory of BigBang+Abiogenesis+ASBE provides a freedom from morality.

So what I see are masses of people believing in a theory that works towards giving them freedom to do whatever they think they can get away with - all the while accepting the theory by faith without proof. How do I know that the scientists don't also take it by faith and preach it as true? Oh, I should trust them? I've already had Soliton saying basically that it's okay to lie in order to keep our society from collapsing. (Go look. He said he didn't like about DNA and stuff. I said "I hope you don't lie about other things" and he said "Our society would collapse if we never lied.") and then he says "... our society, little lies make it work." Examples were given of the likes of "What if your wife asks 'does this dress make me look fat'" - in which case the lie's goal is to get one out of a bind by lying. So what's the difference between a big and bad lie and a little and OK lie? Whether one can get away with it! In other words the need to lie is because one is in a bind and the truth would cause some misery, and it's okay to lie because it can be gotten away with!

Now let's tie this all together. Back to my point as to whether I ought to just blindly trust the "scientists" as the masses due regarding the validity of ASBE. I already know that many people are overly willing to believe in ASBE without knowing any evidence for it. I also already know that at least some people supporting this idea believe it's okay to lie as long as they can get away with it. How can I know that the scientists and professors are telling the truth? What if they know they can get away with less then the truth? I have heard of several professors who feel it is their duty in life to shatter any remaining belief in God from the minds of their students.

How can I come to any conclusion other then that believing in ASBE because somebody - even a large number of somebodies - say so, is an act of faith in somebody I have no reason to trust about something I've never seen?

And even in our own conversations you made the claim that the gravitational(which is the actual) angle of the sun in the sky is about 2.1 degrees ahead of its optical apparent position due to the fact that the earth rotates about 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes the suns light to reach the earth, for an observer on the earth. But then you refuse to admit that you're wrong, and you refuse to provide a single supporting document or link, and you refuse to answer the same question about Pluto, which at part of its orbit will be so far away that the earth will turn about 102 degrees in the time it takes light from Pluto to reach the earth. According to your theory of 2.1 for the sun, Pluto wouldn't even be in the night sky by the time one cold see it overhead! So I have personally observed people believing in ASBE by faith alone, in people saying that lying is okay in some situations (which from what I can tell, are the situations where they can get away with it), and then I've seen people who pass themselves off as scientifically learned supporting crazy ideas and refusing to admit it when they must know that they are wrong. Imagine how much more a wrong idea could be argued for if one knew that there were thousands of other professors all arguing for the same thing!, I have to realize that things are in a bad state in the science classroom.

So genetic drift within a kind is not proof of ASBE, and so most creationists and IDer's do not claim that genetic drift does not happen, and your argument is a strawman.

-Jesse

Based on skull size, you could argue that the biggest dog was the granddaddy of the smallest horse. I realize there are more dimensions to the equation then size, but I'm hoping you get my point

Just a short point (not a lot of time tonight):

The statistical software that the paleontologists often use to study fossils is multiple discriminant function analysis. I used it a lot in grad school to study skeletons, so I am familiar with it.

That software is able to work with shapes, and ignore such variables as size. It also does a great deal toward taking the subjectivity out of the analyses.

The size issue that you keep bringing up is not nearly as important as you believe.

Why do you think that small changes over a long period of time can't add up to large changes?

You can believe it. As long as you have faith.

Just a short point (not a lot of time tonight):

The statistical software that the paleontologists often use to study fossils is multiple discriminant function analysis. I used it a lot in grad school to study skeletons, so I am familiar with it.

That software is able to work with shapes, and ignore such variables as size. It also does a great deal toward taking the subjectivity out of the analyses.

The size issue that you keep bringing up is not nearly as important as you believe.

Glad to hear. Sounds like some paleontologists don't use the software, though. By the way, what's you're take on the lying issue - are little lies okay, and what's the defining criteria between an okay lie and a not okay lie?

The software sounds interesting. But the integrity of the operator is still an important question - data can be selected carefully before being fed into the software, for example.

I bring up the size issue to demonstrate that even vastly different species, due to in-species variation and grotesque deformations can cause the two species to appear closely related on at least some axis or criteria types.

Regarding the 17 or so blobs of fixall with chimp and human skull fragments stuck on, obviously a lot more human and chimp skulls were found then just those few, I'd say hundreds maybe thousands had to have been found. But I have no idea whether the ones shown are average or whether there really was quite a gap between humans and chips by and large that were bridged just barely by a few grotesque deformations in each group, allowing the line to be drawn.

For example, the below diagram shows just two axis ( for example cranial capacity and jaw length, or whatever) for two different species:(I don't have any two in mind; this is just to demonstrate the principle. I just randomly placed the dots by hand.)

Now if the two species were not related at all, and yet due to genetic drift and grotesque deformation, there were some far-out specimens which brought them close to eachother, then a person could, by picking and choosing just the right ones, form an apparent line of progression, as the red line depicts. And if all you were allowed to see of the above diagram was the dots through which the red line passes, you'd have no way of knowing about all the others - but it sure isn't a fair representation of them, is it!

So I'm not saying here and now specifically that this is the case of the chimp-human fixall lineup, but that I have no way of knowing, and the integrity of the folks who did the said fixall lineup does matter.

By the way, did you work any with the chip to human lineup specimens? I would be delighted to hear some first-hand report about those. Were some of the intermediate pieces the only one? Obviously the modern chimp and modern humans are plentiful, but just how sparse were the intermediates? What was the distribution like?

Thanks,

-Jesse

Regarding your groups of dots in the above post--that is very much what the output from discriminant analysis looks like, but there is no line attempting to connect the dots. Rather what you have are the many dots (cases) separated by their measurements (variables) into one or more groups. If the many cases you input are indeed distinct, the program will group them separately; the distance between the groups shows just how different they are. The outliers can be interesting too. If you have evolution between one group and the next, the outliers should tend to be between the group centroids, not spread about at random. If the cases you input are all members of the same group you will not get two different groups, as your dots illustrate.

By the way, did you work any with the chip to human lineup specimens? I would be delighted to hear some first-hand report about those. Were some of the intermediate pieces the only one? Obviously the modern chimp and modern humans are plentiful, but just how sparse were the intermediates? What was the distribution like?

I did not do any statistics with the fossil man specimens. I did that only on human skeletons.

But the bone lab had hundreds and hundreds of casts. It had all of the famous ones that you see in the photos, such as the one photo you mention. But it had a lot of the bits and pieces as well. It was easy to see why the various fossils were grouped the way they were. You could take an early Australopithecus skull and then see where the various small parts belonging to other individuals of that group fit.

For comparison there were gorilla and various primate bones. What was particularly fascinating was the initial human osteology class. Once you had been through the bones of the skull, during the first few weeks of the class, you could pick up any primate skull and you knew all of the bones! They were of different shapes, and generally smaller, but once you knew the bones from a human skull you know all of the primate cranial bones as well. It was quite a surprise to see how similar they really were.

Hmm, would it be fair to say that you agree that genes can and do change within species and that your basic problem with TOE is that it doesn’t have much proof to demonstrate massive changes, like say between a fly and an elephant? And that TOE (theory of evolution) does not explain the origin of life? I will assume that is a correct assessment of your position.

First of all you are correct, TOE proponents cannot prove their theory. No theory can be proven, they can only be falsified. All you have to do to disprove TOE is provide some evidence that disproves common ancestry or shows that mutations don’t occur. Simple : )

Second, TOE simply does not explain how life was created. It merely provides clues, much like the expanding universe provides clues of how the universe was born. Similarly, the theory of relativity doesn’t provide answers to the creation of the universe but it does provide clues.

Now on to your real problem. You want proof that little genetic changes add up to big changes over time. There is no proof. You are correct that even fossil records that show dramatic differences (like between a bull dog and a whippet) don’t necessarily demonstrate a species change.

So what does evolution have, it has clues and evidence and some of the evidence is lack of evidence (much like the dogs not barking in the Hounds of the Baskervilles).

We now accept that spontaneous generation doesn’t have much evidence to support it, even though TOE requires it for the creation of life. We do know that offspring require parents and that we are made of of cells and that cells multiply by division. By inference that means that all living things should go back to a single common ancestor. Right now the evidence is good that all life goes back to at least three common ancestors, Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, and Viruses.

Genetically tracing everything back to those three basic precursors is relatively easy. Also genetic comparison testing is easy and genetic testing shows our close relatives from our immediate family to our cousins the primates to monkeys etc. all the way down the taxonomic ranks. The genes show where the separations occurred between species, genus, families etc. That fact directly contradicts the Bible, in essence it falsifies it.

Genetic tracing was entirely unknown at the time the TOE was being created and yet it supports TOE without exception. Now it is relatively easy to compare genes and see how closely related any living thing is. As techniques improve, accurate dating of when classes diverged will also become easy.

The real interesting thing is that the genetic record is accurate and it shows how small changes over time become big differences. There is less than a 2% difference between our DNA and a Chimpanzee’s. That indicates that we had a common ancestor in the not too distant past. Even now scientists are comparing DNA from the quagga, horse and zebra to see when the lines diverged. There is a very small genetic difference between those three species who clearly had a common ancestor, probably the quagga.

My question to you is this. Do you have any evidence at all that small changes don’t over time add up to large differences? That should actually be easier to show than the reverse.

You can believe it. As long as you have faith.

Why do I need faith? I prefer to believe my eyes and reason.

I can't see the speed of light, but I can measure it. Does that require a leap of faith to trust my measurements? No. Knowledge is not faith.

I haven't much time right now so this'll be short.

The real interesting thing is that the genetic record is accurate and it shows how small changes over time become big differences. There is less than a 2% difference between our DNA and a Chimpanzee’s.

Assuming of course the people doing the research are being honest. But I must remember that I've already seen all sorts of skulduggery things here even in my short existence on FR, you making and holding onto the absurd claim about the sun's gravity and light are displaced by 2.1 degrees, then we have Soliton and I think one other saying that lying is sometimes okay, probably when he can get away with it I'm guessing, and we have professors and scientists who take the issue personally and fight with a religious ferver for evolution, and we have tons of people who believe it by faith without knowing the facts, so I must realize that things may not be exactly as they are being taught.

We now accept that spontaneous generation doesn’t have much evidence to support it, even though TOE requires it for the creation of life.

A case in my above point! Even though spontaneous generation of life has zero proof for it (except that life exists) and lots of proof against it, it is still what is being taught! And is it being taught in the context of an idea which hasn't been proven even possible and doesn't have much supporting evidence, as you say? Go look - I'm betting whatever textbook you pick up for any grade or highschool and many college textbooks will say that it's how life began and present it as a nice tidy theory that is well known to be accepted and true. And thus my concern about being sold a bill of goods in order to support the cause of evolution is a valid concern!

Even now scientists are comparing DNA from the quagga, horse and zebra to see when the lines diverged. There is a very small genetic difference between those three species who clearly had a common ancestor, probably the quagga.

Yeah and by my classification system (which I explained before, perhaps to Coyoteman, which says there were created distinct kinds) those three species are all the same kind. Just look at them! All leather upholstery, four wheel drive, etc. They (at least the still living ones) still interbreed to form generally sterile offspring. Those are the same kind, and prove nothing beyond that.

My question to you is this. Do you have any evidence at all that small changes don’t over time add up to large differences? That should actually be easier to show than the reverse.

I think you're asking me to prove the negative! You're the one claiming that it did happen, so prove it - don't ask me to prove that it didn't happen! I wasn't there watching it for a billion years.

But since you asked, I do see things in nature that sure don't make sense to me to have happened by Evolution -- for example, the vulnerable placement of the jugulars. I mean the spinal cord and the lungs and the brain are all set inside bone armor plating. And the eye balls just peer out on most mammals anyway just enough and because they have to see out, but are set in deep sockets. And speaking of balls, there's something else that is in a must vulnerable place. Imagine primitive man, running through the forest, either in pursuite of another man or an animal, or perhaps running for his life, and a sharp stick catches him just so, and no more kids for him! Or a sharp stick could slash his neck. Then there is the bilateral symmetry theme of external and some features: If there are two, they are right and left.If there is one, it's in the middle. I see no reason why evolution wouldn't have created odd-numbered legged creatures. As a matter of fact, there's a lot that just doesn't make sense to me. Of course my faith doesn't demand that I believe ASBE either, so I can see why these things wouldn't bother you but they bother me. My faith says that God created the universe and that doesn't bother me because my faith says that God exists. So I know what it's like to have a faith. By the way, I do find my observation of the universe consistent with my faith. Anyway, I can understand why you would accept evolution, even though some of it doesn't quite make sense, since your faith requires it to be true.

Thanks,

-Jesse

Assuming of course the people doing the research are being honest.

They are.

you making and holding onto the absurd claim about the sun's gravity and light are displaced by 2.1 degrees,

That is simply proof that you don't believe it takes light 8.3 minutes to get to the earth and that you don't think the earth is rotating. If you want to believe those two things be my guest : )

Even though spontaneous generation of life has zero proof for it (except that life exists) and lots of proof against it, it is still what is being taught!

What you are forgetting is that it is also being freely disclosed that we don't understand how it happened. That is called truth in advertising. Science has a lot more questions than answers to just about everything. It does have one thing though, it is much more accurate than the Bible : ) those three species are all the same kind. Just look at them! All leather upholstery, four wheel drive, etc. They (at least the still living ones) still interbreed to form generally sterile offspring.

That simply puts them in the same Genus, that is one step removed from being the same species. The same with us and the Great Apes. So now you are claiming Genus rather than specie, see how your line blurs?

I think you're asking me to prove the negative! You're the one claiming that it did happen, so prove it - don't ask me to prove that it didn't happen! I wasn't there watching it for a billion years.

You have it backwards. Science is not about proof it is about falsification. Because it is based on inductive logic all that is necessary to disprove it is a counter example. If you can show that the offspring are identical to the parents, genetically, then you would disprove TOE. Simple : )

As a matter of fact, there's a lot that just doesn't make sense to me.

That is why I am here, to teach you if you are willing to learn : ) Testicles are external because to produce sperm properly temperature control is very important. The jugulars and windpipe are in a vulnerable positions because mobility is sometimes more important than protection. Most everything in nature seems to be a compromise.

By the way, I do find my observation of the universe consistent with my faith.

Do you observe the earth floating in a sea of water? That would be an observation consistent with your faith wouldn't it?

Again, I'm super short on time.

That is simply proof that you don't believe it takes light 8.3 minutes to get to the earth and that you don't think the earth is rotating. If you want to believe those two things be my guest : )

I have no doubt that light takes about 8.3 minute from sun to earth, and I have no doubt that the earth rotates about 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes in relation to the sun. Now if the sun orbited the earth, you'd be right. But it doesn't - at least not much. So why won't you answer about Pluto? With Pluto at a distance which allows the world to rotate 102 degrees in the time it takes light to go from Pluto to Earth, to an observer on the earth at an instant in time, do you believe that Pluto's gravitational angle will really be about 102 degrees ahead of its optical apparent angle? Please answer that one. It's a simple yes or no question.

What you are forgetting is that it is also being freely disclosed that we don't understand how it happened.

I think you'll find that most highschool science textbooks are along the lines of "Here's how it happened" rather then "We don't know how it could have happened"

That simply puts them in the same Genus, that is one step removed from being the same species. The same with us and the Great Apes. So now you are claiming Genus rather than specie, see how your line blurs?

It looks to you like my line blurs, but that's because our two classification systems are incompatible. Both have a dogmatic assumption (yours is ASBE and mine is distinct kinds)

You have it backwards. Science is not about proof it is about falsification.

Ahh haha! You make it sound as if in science there needn't be any proof for an idea all there needs to be is lack of proof against it, which the purporter accepts as proof against it! If I say "God created everything" you say "Show me proof." but you say "It all happened from nothing" and I say "Show me proof" you say "Oh it's not about proof (in other words, proof is not needed) it's about lack of evidence against!"

That's even funny :-) So what's your best proof that God didn't make distinct kinds?

That is why I am here, to teach you if you are willing to learn : ) Testicles are external because to produce sperm properly temperature control is very important. The jugulars and windpipe are in a vulnerable positions because mobility is sometimes more important than protection.

Not all mammals testicles are hanging out in such a way to keep significantly cooled dangerously. Some, like horses I believe, are one of those - they are just under the skin to be sure, but not dangling. But in any case, considering the great risk to having such an important thing lost in battle I think would be a much greater force then just needing to keep cool. The force of evolutionary process which produced the eye and the brain I think well could have found a way to cause testicles to be able to handle the heat in order to be in were it's safe. Same with the jugulars - your unproven assumptions that "Oh it must have been better that way" doesn't convince me. You have no way of knowing that it would have not been better another way.

But see that's what happens when something about evolution doesn't make sense - you (and all evolutionary scientists) say "Oh well it must have some advantage" and you proceed to attribute it to some thing or another. And besides, when you say "It obviously is best that way or it wouldn't be that way" you're assuming ASBE is true in an almost circular way!

I would still love to hear your answer on the Pluto issue. If we can't agree on simple geometry, there's no wonder we can't figure other things out. It looks to me like you made a claim which you now know is absurd, but you don't want to admit it. But on the other hand, you can see that your claim when applied to Pluto, would be obviously wrong - who would believe that Pluto was not even in the night sky by the time it appeared overhead? Your refusal to answer the question along with your refusal to provide collaborating reports from anyone else and your refusal to provide any evidence against my claim (that the displacement is only about 20 arcseconds which is mostly due to stellar aberration) -- all this leads me to believe that you just won't admit that you are wrong. I wonder what else you're not admitting.

Thanks,

-Jesse

Now if the sun orbited the earth, you'd be right.

From your perspective, doesn't the sun appear to move 180 degrees in a day? In the morning don't you see the sun to the East and in the evening don't you see the sun to the West? I guess you really prefer to live on faith, rather than your lying eyes.

It looks to you like my line blurs, but that's because our two classification systems are incompatible. Both have a dogmatic assumption (yours is ASBE and mine is distinct kinds)

What is your definition of distinct kinds? Are ponies and horses distinct kinds?

But see that's what happens when something about evolution doesn't make sense - you (and all evolutionary scientists) say "Oh well it must have some advantage" and you proceed to attribute it to some thing or another.

You do realize that your argument demonstrates serious flaws in the Intelligent Design theory? Evolution doesn't have anything to say about what may appear to our intelligence to be stupid or not, that is what design theory is all about.

Your refusal to answer the question along with your refusal to provide collaborating reports from anyone else and your refusal to provide any evidence against my claim (that the displacement is only about 20 arcseconds which is mostly due to stellar aberration) -- all this leads me to believe that you just won't admit that you are wrong. I wonder what else you're not admitting.

You are lying when you say that I have refused to answer your question about Pluto. I answered it several times. Simply because you don't understand simple ideas like the speed of light, frame of reference, etc. and don't accept my answer doesn't make my answer a non answer. It does make you a reprobate and a serial liar though. I think you owe Soliton an apology. Almost every posting you have made contains a lie or at least an error (which is much the same thing). Your posts are proof that Soliton is correct when he says that you can't go through the day without lying.

If you want to keep your head from exploding, you need to keep a do not respond list. There are many people here who are dishonest debaters. You can be polite and provide links and sources all you want and they just ignore it. I have about 10 on mine.

Aside from giving you peace of mind, it drives them crazy.

Aside from giving you peace of mind, it drives them crazy.

I have an ulterior motive : ) I am writing a book and I use their thought process or lack thereof for my antagonists. It seems to add an extra dimension to their characters that I am not able to add on my own. They seem much more 'real'. The internet is a wonderful research tool : )

I have no illusions about actually swaying anyone's opinions. These discussions merely harden stances. They are wonderful though for bouncing ideas off of antagonistic people and seeing the responses. My failing as a writer is that I am too logical, people as a general rule are unthinking and emotional.

These discussions merely harden stances. They are wonderful though for bouncing ideas off of antagonistic people and seeing the responses.

I'm always on the lookout for a new, original or thoughtful argument against mainstream science.

I haven't seen any, but I have, over the past five years, encountered several dozen arguments that I was unaware of. Researching them has improved my knowledge of science. Arguing back has forced me to clarify my thoughts.

Evolution is true because it is assumed to be true. Since evolution is true, we can dispense with all that silly nonsense about “falsification”. Because it's just, you know, true.

Evolution is a fact like gravity. For the last thing there is something called “Gravitational Theory” or “General Relativity” to describe it; for the first “Theory of Evolution” is used.

There is no ultimate truth within science. No scientific theory is true even the ones called “laws”.

You can only use ID to prove the existence of a certain type of deity. There is no other use.