All blatant lies. I think you know the evidence supporting evolution is out there, you are just choosing to ignore it. Thousands of examples of transitional fossils have been found. Many intermediate stages between humans and apelike ancestors have been found that have been well-verified.
The problem is that evolutionists have made their predictions and are working to find evidence to support it and aren't very critical of evidence they find.
No. Not how science works. Nothing is more scrutinizing of new data than the peer review system and the people who work to referee journal submissions.
I have provided many good examples of predictions made by evolutionary theory. You still have have not provided any examples of specific physical examples that ID helps you find.
It's not for little reason that creationists or IDers can't get their ideas into peer-reviewed journals. It's because there is no science there at all. That is why they circumvent the appropriate avenue for debate, which is scientific conferences and paper submission and go straight for the political arena.
Like I said, I'm all for biology teachers being able to talk about ID in school. I'm just telling you that based on their knowledge, educated science teachers would shoot holes through the "theory" of intelligent design, and rightfully so; nothing could stop them from doing so. If someone wishes to ignore the facts supporting evolution or ignore the fact that ID is shoddy science, they are free to do so; they have no business telling biology teachers what to teach, however. If you want to change science, make a submission to a refereed journal. (No promise you'll succeed, though. That's life.)
"All blatant lies. I think you know the evidence supporting evolution is out there, you are just choosing to ignore it."
Yes there is evidence supporting evolution within a species.
"Thousands of examples of transitional fossils have been found. Many intermediate stages between humans and apelike ancestors have been found that have been well-verified."
Well verified? I've yet to see a single fossil that is compelling. I don't know of a single complete skeleton that has been found that shows an evolutionary step between man and ape.
The evidence tends to be part of a skull in one case, part of a jaw in another case, and in one case one tooth.
If you have more compelling fossils you can direct me towards, I'd beinterested in reading about them.
Personally I don't know if evolution did happen. If it did it won't shatter any of my beliefs. It won't even disprove intelligent design, though it my disport some theories based on intelligent design.
From what I've seen, the evidence supporting human evolution amounts to people theorizing how we might evolve, and then looking for evidence to support that. Nothing wrong with that.
However, when they find evidence they believe supports their theories, they sure don't try very hard to look for other explainations.
Here's the biggest problem. If you happen to find a human fossil with a apelike charistic, you're found evidence of a single mutation, not evidence of evolution. We don't need a fossil record to show us that mutations happen.
To start showing something resembling compelling evidence you would need to show a progression from one form to another.
The problem is that there are a huge number of differencet species of ape out there, and we keep finding evidence of even more species that have become extinct.
Add to that the possibility of single mutations, and the acts of some overzealous people trying to support evolution and you end up with a chain of evidence that keeps being broken by finding out that fossils were either human, or ape, but not something in between.
The parts of the chain that aren't broken are questionable as well, because we're trying to read too much into examining the shpes of a few bones.
The link you sent me on empirical predictions I found to be especially amusing. You see, they didn't teach that we evolved from apes as recently as 100 to 200 million years ago when I was growing up. At that time they pointed to "fossil" evidence that they welt we had evolved int the much more distant past.
When the theory that we had decended from a small number of humans as recently as that in an isolated area, it was discarded as creationists' laughable attempts to try and prove the story of Noah's ark.
As we come to understand DNA better and the evidence points toward mankind decending from a very small pool of people in the last 100 to 200 million years, the theory of evolution itself evolved and people say that the evidence could be predicted by the theory of evolution.
Of course it could predict that evidence, mutation and random chance can be used to predict just about anything.
It also kind of flies in the face of your falsification conditions idea that if an idea based on the theory of evolution were proved false, that it would disprove the theory of evolution.
"No. Not how science works. Nothing is more scrutinizing of new data than the peer review system and the people who work to referee journal submissions."
You're got to be kidding me. The scientific journal business is about as nepotistic and self congradualatory of a busniess as there is.
We're talking about people extrapolating millions of years of history form literally a few bones and some teeth. Peer review of such highly theoretical endevors is somewhat limited at best, and it's not hard to pick your audience to get published. If they didn't publish questionable theories about evolution they wouldn't be publishing much of anything about evolution.
As an example let's use the "hominid" fossil named Piltdown found in 1914. It survived "peer" review for 41 years. Well, actually it was highly criticized from the outset but it was still taken as a factual "hominid" skull for 41 years by much of the scientifice community. It was used as the basis for many theories. It inspired the theory of asymmetric evolution.
It was also a fake. The skull was a human skull, the jaw was a chimp jaw that had been treated with chemicals to give an impression of age.
"I have provided many good examples of predictions made by evolutionary theory. You still have have not provided any examples of specific physical examples that ID helps you find."
No. You absolutely have not done that.
The "predictions" you mention are along the lines of me saying that I predict that because God destroyed the world in a flood we will find evidence that we are all descendents from Noah we will find evidence that we all come from one area and colonized the world from that area.
Hey, look! The dna evidence supports my theory! God does exist! Thankfully he promised to never destroy the world with a flood again.
" It's not for little reason that creationists or IDers can't get their ideas into peer-reviewed journals."
There was many times peer reviewed discussions and writings on forms ID before Darwin was even born that there have been on the topic of evolution.
The level of intellectual tunnel vision it takes to amke a comment like that is appalling.
Theories about ID are still being written about, discussed, and refined. Ideas that may support ID over evolution are being hypothesized and tested. They don't get into you're "scientific" journals, because your beloved journals have defined them as not being science.
"Like I said, I'm all for biology teachers being able to talk about ID in school. I'm just telling you that based on their knowledge, educated science teachers would shoot holes through the "theory" of intelligent design, and rightfully so; nothing could stop them from doing so."
While tere are educated science teachers, the requirements for becoming a science teacher are very sparce in the area of science. Which might explain why they might try and shoot holes in a theory that basically impossible to disprove such as either ID or the theory of evolution.
"If someone wishes to ignore the facts supporting evolution or ignore the fact that ID is shoddy science"
You going to support that statement with some more logical fallicies?
"they have no business telling biology teachers what to teach,"
If they want to teach whatever they pelease regardless of being able to justify it with logic, then they have no business teaching in public schools.
When you start teaching theory as fact you start encroaching on the first ammendment to the constitution, and I'm not talking about freedom of the press.
If you want to complain about other people using shoddy science, maybe you should take a basic course in logic and quit spouting logical falacies.
"If you want to change science, make a submission to a refereed journal. (No promise you'll succeed, though. That's life.)"
So it's now journal referees that decide what is science? That's amusing at best. Dark ages here we come again. How about you come up with an argument that holds up to the rules of logic rather than refer me to what you consider to be scientific journals. Since it's that community that is trying to redefine science.
Don't believe me, take a good look at the history of science, and you'll find that science started with philosophers and theologians. Now "scientists" say those aren't science, and logic is taught in the philosophy department.
I'm an engineer by education and by trade. I deal with provable facts and empiracal, measurable evidence. Even in engineering we have to deal with the fact that there are things we know and things we don't know. It's always important to keep in minds what you don't know, because otherwise you're conclusions aren't worth a thing.
When you take a topic like how life became to be like it is and start excluding possibilities and making a priori assumptioins because you are trying to prove something, not discover something, the chances that your conclusion will be wrong are much higher than it will be right. This is simply because the amount that we do know on the subject is so small compared to what we don't know.
People are treating the theory of evolution as more than it is, and they are making the mistake of trying to prove that theory rather than discover the truth. Evolution may be the truth, but the chances that you will correctly guess the trugh when you know little about the subject is very small.
Open up your mind and start realizing how weak the evidence supporting the theory of evolution really is. I'm not going to disagree with you that the evidence supporting ID isn't as weak. The evidence supporting both are weak enough that trying to say one is more weak than the other is meaningless.