Creationist Mumbo Jumbo Is Back

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 9:48:59 AM12/21/07
to

Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories

December 15, 2007
Indianapolis Star

In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and
continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most
interesting as well as important subjects being taught.

Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged,
the biggest lie in education -- the theory of evolution. Not
that the theory shouldn't be taught -- it should, simply because
it is believed to be true by so many scientists. But the latest
research with modern tools such as the electron microscope,
have ruled out any possibility of life on our planet occurring
by accident. Modern, competent scientists can show that the
unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for example,
demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence far
higher than anything we can imagine.

Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only
the theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the
explanation for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do
this by demanding a "natural" explanation for the evidence before
us, rather than the most "logical" explanation of the evidence.
That is the only way they can keep the pseudo-science of evolution
going and being unchallenged in the classroom. Critical examination
of the theory itself is not found in high school textbooks, and
therefore not discussed as part of the course study. Why not?

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20071215/LOCAL/712150321/1015/LOCAL01

---------------------------------------------


David Hartung

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 10:22:20 AM12/21/07
to

This link might be easier to follow: http://tinyurl.com/2fr6ed

Phlip

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 12:19:24 PM12/21/07
to
>> In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and continual
>> advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most interesting as
>> well as important subjects being taught. Strangely enough, it is
>> here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest lie in education
>> -- the theory of evolution. Not that the theory shouldn't be taught --
>> it should, simply because it is believed to be true by so many
>> scientists. But the latest research with modern tools such as the
>> electron microscope, have ruled out any possibility of life on our
>> planet occurring by accident.

Uh, wasn't the electron microscope invented in the 1960s? Hardly "modern" for
what's essentially a cathode ray tube that focuses on a pinpoint instead of a
wide fluorescent screen...

The more science learns about Nature, the more glory religionists can ascribe to
their God. They should be rooting for the most subtle, complex process possible,
including all of the wonderful findings of science. They should not be backing a
God with skills hardly greater than a watchmakers'!

Simpson

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 12:31:21 PM12/21/07
to
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories
>
> December 15, 2007
> Indianapolis Star
>
> In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and
> continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most
> interesting as well as important subjects being taught.
>
> Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged,
> the biggest lie in education -- the theory of evolution. Not
> that the theory shouldn't be taught -- it should, simply because
> it is believed to be true by so many scientists. But the latest
> research with modern tools such as the electron microscope,
> have ruled out any possibility of life on our planet occurring
> by accident. Modern, competent scientists can show that the
> unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for example,
> demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence far
> higher than anything we can imagine.
>
> Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
> curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only
> the theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the
> explanation for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do
> this by demanding a "natural" explanation for the evidence before
> us, rather than the most "logical" explanation of the evidence.

No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.

Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth rather than the result of
*observable* chemical and biological processes in which more complex
life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to say that life
does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the realm of
science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as such,
should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the study of
*observable* phenomena.

TomS

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 12:41:04 PM12/21/07
to
"On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:19:24 -0800, in article
<wASaj.18399$3J5....@newsfe20.lga>, Phlip stated..."

>
>>> In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and continual
>>> advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most interesting as
>>> well as important subjects being taught. Strangely enough, it is
>>> here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest lie in education
>>> -- the theory of evolution. Not that the theory shouldn't be taught --
>>> it should, simply because it is believed to be true by so many
>>> scientists. But the latest research with modern tools such as the
>>> electron microscope, have ruled out any possibility of life on our
>>> planet occurring by accident.
>
>Uh, wasn't the electron microscope invented in the 1960s? Hardly "modern" for
>what's essentially a cathode ray tube that focuses on a pinpoint instead of a
>wide fluorescent screen...

Wikipedia says that it dates from the 1930s.

>
>The more science learns about Nature, the more glory religionists can ascribe to
>their God. They should be rooting for the most subtle, complex process possible,
>including all of the wonderful findings of science. They should not be backing a
>God with skills hardly greater than a watchmakers'!
>


--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings

David Hartung

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 3:16:17 PM12/21/07
to

When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more complex life form?

Salad

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 4:18:31 PM12/21/07
to
David Hartung wrote:

I've watched America evolve from short to tall people and from thin to
obese in my lifetime.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 4:31:32 PM12/21/07
to
David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote in
news:XaidnTJJBpCUgvHa...@comcast.com:


When have we observed your Intelligent Designer
design something?


David Hartung

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 4:58:45 PM12/21/07
to

Which is not the same as a simple life form "evolving" into a complex life form.

David Hartung

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 5:00:21 PM12/21/07
to

Why is that an issue? You can't provide a single observed example of a simple
life form evolving into a complex life form. It seems to me that you don't have
much business demanding any sort of observation from others.

Ernest Major

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 5:24:03 PM12/21/07
to
In message <eb2dnYH_S_DwqvHa...@comcast.com>, David Hartung
<dhar...@quixnetnone.net> writes

>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote in
>> news:XaidnTJJBpCUgvHa...@comcast.com:
>>> Simpson wrote:
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories
>>>>>
>>>>> December 15, 2007
>>>>> Indianapolis Star
>>>>> In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and
>>>>>continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most
>>>>>interesting as well as important subjects being taught. Strangely
>>>>>enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest
>>>>>lie in education -- the theory of evolution. Not that the theory
>>>>>
>>>>> it should, simply because it is believed to be true by so many
>>>>>scientists. But the latest research with modern tools such as the
>>>>>electron microscope, have ruled out any possibility of life on our
>>>>>planet occurring by accident. Modern, competent scientists can show
>>>>>that the unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for
>>>>>example, demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence
>>>>> far higher than anything we can imagine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
>>>>>curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only the
>>>>>theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the explanation for
>>>>> all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do this by demanding a
>>>>>"natural" explanation for the evidence before us, rather than the
>>>>>
>>>>> "logical" explanation of the evidence.
>>>> No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support
>>>>the contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us
>>>>was created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth rather than the result of
>>>> *observable* chemical and biological processes in which more
>>>>complex life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to
>>>>say that
>>>> life does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the
>>>> realm of science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as
>>>> such, should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the
>>>> study of *observable* phenomena.
>>> When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more complex
>>> life form?
>> When have we observed your Intelligent Designer
>> design something?
>
>Why is that an issue? You can't provide a single observed example of a
>simple life form evolving into a complex life form. It seems to me that
>you don't have much business demanding any sort of observation from
>others.
>
I see the goalposts have grown legs. The challenge has changed from a
"more complex life form" to "complex life form".

Anyway, without an objective and measurable definition of complexity the
challenge lacks substance.
--
alias Ernest Major

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 5:55:20 PM12/21/07
to
David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote in
news:eb2dnYH_S_DwqvHa...@comcast.com:


You believe it, so post some proof of it.


> You can't provide a single observed example of a
> simple life form evolving into a complex life form.


And you can't provide a single observed example
of your Creator creating anything.

But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?

Why?

Genaro

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 7:03:09 PM12/21/07
to

-------
Well stated.
-------

Jeffrey Turner

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 10:44:48 PM12/21/07
to

You can't even define complexity. But we have seen evolution in action.

--Jeff

--
Ignorance, allied with power, is the
most ferocious enemy justice can have.
-James Baldwin

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 11:10:46 PM12/21/07
to
Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in news:13mp218q6qnmdd2
@corp.supernews.com:


Hartung demands "observable proof" for evolution but
runs away when the same demand is made about his Creationism.

At least he is consistent................

Simpson

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 11:24:51 PM12/21/07
to

Thank you

Simpson

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 11:34:03 PM12/21/07
to

The fossils of living beings gets less and less complex the farther back
in time the beings lived from which said fossils were created.

That is an observable phenomenon.

Now I realize that the first sentence is somewhat complex and may need
more than one perusal to grasp its intended meaning, but I assure you it
is correct.

Phlip

unread,
Dec 21, 2007, 11:37:41 PM12/21/07
to
> Hartung demands "observable proof" for evolution

Okay. Darwin found evidence for evolution in finches, on the Galapagos
Islands. (Finches are normally harmless passerines, but Galapagos's
isolation allowed Darwin to encounter birds in a half-evolved state. The
finches were halfway evolved into other common bird morphs, such as crows,
parrots, and hawks.)

But that's not the direct observation. This comes from the researchers who
have tracked those finch populations for the past hundred years. They have
observed fluctuations in the birds' sizes, and in the proportions of their
body parts. The finches are continuing to evolve towards their specialized
niches.

This means evolution has been observed in real-time - in the very
populations where Darwin first recognized it. The birds' accelerated
evolution exactly confirms Darwin's theory that Galapagos's isolation, with
no other birds competing for those niches, put evolutionary pressure on
these finches.

But feel free to move the goalpost back to abiogenis. Darwin wasn't there!


Simpson

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 1:04:04 AM12/22/07
to


Thank you

Some of us take a long term view

David Hartung

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 5:23:42 AM12/22/07
to

As I understand it, one of the basic premises of evolution is that life began as
a single cell and evolved into what we have today. To my knowledge we have no
evidence showing this process. What this means is that there is no more proof
supporting evolution than there is supporting creation.

David Hartung

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 5:26:55 AM12/22/07
to

My position has always been that creation must be taken on faith. What I have
attempted to show these last few days is that when you get right down to the
basics, any theory of the origin of the universe, or of life, advanced by the
scientific community must also be taken on faith.

Robert Grumbine

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:10:39 AM12/22/07
to
In article <V5mdnbS1fKb7e_Ha...@comcast.com>,

David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote:
>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in news:13mp218q6qnmdd2
>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> David Hartung wrote:

[trim]

>>>> When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more complex
>>>> life form?
>
>>> You can't even define complexity. But we have seen evolution in action.
>>
>> Hartung demands "observable proof" for evolution but
>> runs away when the same demand is made about his Creationism.
>
>My position has always been that creation must be taken on faith. What I have
>attempted to show these last few days is that when you get right down to the
>basics, any theory of the origin of the universe, or of life, advanced by the
>scientific community must also be taken on faith.

What temperature does creationism predict for the universe?
What temperature does big bang predict for the universe?
What temperature is observed?

Still waiting for your definition of 'complexity'.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

TomS

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:26:52 AM12/22/07
to
"On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:23:42 -0600, in article
<Or-dnVX-Dog-ePHa...@comcast.com>, David Hartung stated..."
[...snip...]

>As I understand it, one of the basic premises of evolution is that life began as
>a single cell and evolved into what we have today. To my knowledge we have no
>evidence showing this process. What this means is that there is no more proof
>supporting evolution than there is supporting creation.
>

Evolution is something that happens in the world of life. This process
happens whenever there is life which reproduces with change. There
is no need for any assumption about first life - in the extreme, we
need not even assume that there was a first life - life, and the
universe, could be infinitely old, and still evolution in the world of
life would happen.

Our present knowledge that evolution happens is based on many
observations, not the least of which being direct observations, often
with measurements, of life evolving in nature, as well as under
controlled conditions in the laboratory. Other bases for accepting
this reality are from biogeography (the distribution of various forms
of life over the earth) and from taxonomy (the "tree of life"). Also,
we know from paleontology that there were forms of life in the past
which were different from those of the present. There also is a rather
well-developed theoretical framework tying much of this evidence
together.

So, I don't understand what you're getting at when you say that


one of the basic premises of evolution is that life began as a single

cell and evolved. It does seem to be a rather plausible conclusion,
that there was a beginning to life, and that the beginning was with
a relatively few forms (maybe even one), and that the earliest
forms were single-celled (or even with no cells at all).

I wouldn't say that one of the premises of chemical reactions is that
the first atoms were simple atoms of hydrogen and helium formed
in the Big Bang. I wouldn't say that one of the premises for
etymology of words was something-or-other about the first
languages.

Mr Tompkinson

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:40:18 AM12/22/07
to
David Hartung wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> [much snippage]

>>>
>>> When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more
>>> complex life form?
>>
>> You can't even define complexity. But we have seen evolution in action.
>
> As I understand it, one of the basic premises of evolution is that life
> began as a single cell and evolved into what we have today. [snip]

Ah - I see the source of your confusion - this isn't a premise. The
premises (as I understand them) are:

1. Because populations grow and resources are limited, there is an
inevitable competition between members of the population for the
resources needed to survive.

2. There is variation amongst the offspring of each generation and
that variation is passed on down the generations, if the offspring
survive.

3. Inevitably, the variation in (2) means that some of each generation
are better equipped to compete for the limited resources of (1) and
consequently will be more likely to survive to breed and pass on
their successful variation.

While it's true that the fossil evidence indicates all known species
alive today are leaves on the same family tree, this isn't necessary
for the theory of evolution by natural selection to be a good
explanation of the fact of evolution. Even if there were multiple
trees of life, the theory would still explain what we see around us.

Of course, I'm not a biologist and so I welcome correction and
education from those who are.

Mr Tompkinson

Ernest Major

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:40:28 AM12/22/07
to
In message <Or-dnVX-Dog-ePHa...@comcast.com>, David Hartung
<dhar...@quixnetnone.net> writes
Your ignorance notwithstanding we have voluminous evidence showing this
process. (It's better to avoid the word "proof" in this context due to
the opportunities for misunderstanding and equivocation.)

It is also possible to dispute that life begin as a single cell is a
basic premise of evolution.
--
alias Ernest Major

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:49:37 AM12/22/07
to
David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote in
news:V5mdnbS1fKb7e_Ha...@comcast.com:


That is where you are wrong. By its very definition
scientific progress is based on trial and error and testing
the known against the unknown. Evolution IS observable,
from microbes that mutate to species that change to the
fossil record replete with transitional forms to artificial
selection. We don't a "Intelligent Designer" to explain
where drug-resistant germs come from or why Dachshunds look
the way they do.

Primitive people have always invoked the supernatural
to explain the unknown. We - at least most of us - have
moved beyond that.


Message has been deleted

Steven L.

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 10:59:26 AM12/22/07
to

No. The gold standard of any theory is its ability to make accurate
predictions--predictions which can be tested and verified.

Scientists who accept the theory of the Big Bang can make numerous
predictions about what the Big Bang implies for the expansion and size
of the Universe, the matter and energy contained within in it, the
cosmic background radiation, etc. Those predictions can be tested, and
many have been.

It is creationism that refuses to make a single prediction as a logical
consequence of the theory, a prediction that could be put to the test to
verify or refute creationism. Instead, creationists seem to spend 99%
of their time trying to pick flaws in natural selection, as if their own
theory is the null hypothesis for natural selection. It never was.

If creationists want to be taken seriously, they should just stop
talking about natural selection, and go out and try to find evidence to
support their own theory without regard to competing theories.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L.

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 11:11:07 AM12/22/07
to

Not quite true. What the original precursor of life was--a strand of
RNA or some even simpler molecule--is hotly debated. But you're right,
whatever it was multiplied and its progeny evolved.


> To my
> knowledge we have no evidence showing this process.

Which process? The abiogenic process, billions of years ago, which led
to the very first life form from nonlife, or the process of evolution
since then?

We have a huge amount of evidence for the process of evolution. Heck,
I'm fighting one right now: I'm fighting a chronic sinusitis infection
in my head, that has become resistant to most common antibiotics. In
the 1940s, most staph infections could be cured with a penicillin shot.
Today, most strains of staph are resistant to penicillin. How would
the creationists explain this phenomenon?

The deadly HIV virus did not exist before the 20th century. How would
the creationists explain its emergence to epidemic levels only in the
last 100 years?

There is far less evidence to explain abiogenesis of the first life
form(s) billions of years ago. There are theories that can be tested
with chemical analysis, computer simulation, etc. But so far, there are
a number of competing hypotheses and none has become anywhere as widely
accepted as natural selection has for evolution.

Dwayne Hoobler

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 11:22:03 AM12/22/07
to
Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > As I understand it, one of the basic premises of evolution is that life
> > began as a single cell and evolved into what we have today.
>
> Not quite true. What the original precursor of life was--a strand of
> RNA or some even simpler molecule--is hotly debated. But you're right,
> whatever it was multiplied and its progeny evolved.
>
I know mumbo jumbo!

Here come old flattop, he come grooving up slowly
He got joo-joo eyeball, he one holy roller
He got hair down to his knee
Got to be a joker he just do what he please

He wear no shoeshine, he got toe-jam football
He got monkey finger, he shoot coca-cola
He say "I know you, you know me"
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me

He bag production, he got walrus gumboot
He got Ono sideboard, he one spinal cracker
He got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease
Come together right now over me

Steven L.

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 11:25:13 AM12/22/07
to

Whether Mr. Hartung wants to talk about abiogenesis or not, for the
creationists that just won't do.

Personally, I think a creationist theory of abiogenesis of the first
life form(s) would make a bit more sense than the stuff they usually
peddle. But a theory that claimed that God made the very first life
form, and then sat back and waited 4 billion years for humans to evolve,
wouldn't save the Genesis myth.

The creationists are trying to save the Genesis myth of humans falling
from a near-angelic state of grace in the Garden of Eden, rather than
evolving from primates. So abiogenesis is a moot point; it's not what
they care about and notice they don't focus on it. Keeping the myth of
humans as fallen from grace is what they care about.

B1ackwater

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 3:32:56 PM12/22/07
to
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:48:59 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<Noe...@comcast.com> wrote:

>
>
>Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories
>
>December 15, 2007
>Indianapolis Star
>
>In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and
>continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most
>interesting as well as important subjects being taught.
>
>Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged,


Yea, and they teach 2+2=4 "unchallenged" too ... how DARE they !!!


David Johnston

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 3:43:26 PM12/22/07
to
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:48:59 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<Noe...@comcast.com> wrote:

>
>
>Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories
>
>December 15, 2007
>Indianapolis Star
>
>In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and
>continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most
>interesting as well as important subjects being taught.
>
>Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged,

>the biggest lie in education -- the theory of evolution. Not
>that the theory shouldn't be taught -- it should, simply because
>it is believed to be true by so many scientists. But the latest
>research with modern tools such as the electron microscope,
>have ruled out any possibility of life on our planet occurring
>by accident. Modern, competent scientists can show that the
>unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for example,
>demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence far
>higher than anything we can imagine.
>
>Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
>curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only
>the theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the
>explanation for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do
>this by demanding a "natural" explanation for the evidence before
>us, rather than the most "logical" explanation of the evidence.

Logic is worthless without valid premises.

B1ackwater

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 3:54:32 PM12/22/07
to


"ID" is doomed from the start by its core assertion - that
complex organisms simply cannot evolve on their own and
require an intelligent 'designer'. This should immediately
beg the question of "Well, how did this 'designer' get
itself designed, being a complex intelligent thing and
all that ?".

The issue then plunges into a bottomless pit where you
can never find an undesigned designer.

"ID" framed in different, less universal, language MAY
have some merit. COULD have been that the early earth
really wasn't a good environment for the initial
evolution of life. One of the little grey alien dudes
could have seeded it with something engineered TO
survive the conditions and evolve on its own from
there ... or maybe he just parked his saucer for
a minute while he took a dump behind a rock.

From this more panspermic perspective, absolute origins
of ANY life become irrelevant, only the origins of life
HERE. Indeed it COULD have been intelligently engineered,
maybe even tweaked from time to time since the initial
seeding. Hard to tell, but maybe not *impossible*.

COULD be that intelligently designed bits of DNA are
statistically different from the more random 'naturally
evolved' bits. Now that we're sequencing whole genomes ...
well ... the raw data IS out there. It just requires
a good look.

After all, we ourselves have now become "intelligent
designers", creating novel genetic sequences for bacteria,
plants and animals to achieve certain ends. There's gonna
be BIG money in this stuff. How would YOU determine whether
someone had stolen your patented idea for a gene ? The
thieves might claim they searched around and found a
naturally-occuring gene that produced coveted substance 'X'
or whatever.

How could you PROVE their gene wasn't "natural" and was
instead designed ... with just a few tweaks to disguise
its origins ? A billion-dollar (er, better make that a
billion-euro) bill might ride on being able to prove a
genetic sequence was 'designed' rather than the result
of natural mutation and selection.

The techniques invented to solve THIS problem will also
be applicable to the question of whether all or some
earthly life was designed or at least tweaked by outside
entities at some point.

Oh yea ... if you want a good example of suspiciously
weird DNA, compare anythings genome with mitochondrial
DNA.

Gary Bohn

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 6:27:30 PM12/22/07
to
David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote in
news:XaidnTJJBpCUgvHa...@comcast.com:

> Simpson wrote:

>> No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.
>>
>> Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support
>> the contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us

>> was created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth rather than the


>> result of *observable* chemical and biological processes in which
>> more complex life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not
>> to say that life does not contain an unobservable component. But that
>> is not the realm of science, it is more the realm of religious
>> philosophy and, as such, should not be taught as science, which
>> confines itself to the study of *observable* phenomena.
>
> When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more
> complex life form?
>

Why is a change from simple to complex necessary? Do you believe that
evolution is necessarily directional?

While you are answering my question, could you please define
'complexity'? Thanks.


--
Gary Bohn

NOW COMPLETELY SIG FREE AND WRY!

Gary Bohn

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 6:39:50 PM12/22/07
to
David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote in
news:Or-dnVX-Dog-ePHa...@comcast.com:

Except that the logical consequences of the theories, taking into
account the known physical properties and processes, deny the
possibility for creationism but do not deny the possibility for
abiogenesis and evolution. There is a difference between the acceptance
of processes which run counter to our hard won knowledge base and those
which are well within the bounds that knowledge provides.

Your faith is based on a vast supply of ... nothing, while evolution and
the rest of the materialistic 'Methodological Naturalistic" systems of
inquiry, are based on a vast amount of accumulating positive evidence.

Your faith and our own 'trust' in consistant and repeatable results are
two very different things.

Salad

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 7:07:54 PM12/22/07
to
David Hartung wrote:

>> I've watched America evolve from short to tall people and from thin to
>> obese in my lifetime.
>
>
> Which is not the same as a simple life form "evolving" into a complex
> life form.
>
OK. Here's one. I've evolved from the Hartung knuckledraggers to a
modern day human.

Many of us have seen you in museums that show the ascent of man.
http://wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolutionPictures.htm

Most of us would admit you are simple but I am complex with modern day
thought patterns. Does that suit you?

Genaro

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:41:31 PM12/22/07
to

-------
But not necessarily mutually exclusive. The people of faith that I know
are very interested in science, astronomy, the origins of life. They seek
out the answers scientifically while maintaining a belief in a power
greater than themselves.
-------


-------

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 9:51:57 PM12/22/07
to

TomS wrote:
>
> "On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:19:24 -0800, in article
> <wASaj.18399$3J5....@newsfe20.lga>, Phlip stated..."


> >
> >>> In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and continual
> >>> advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most interesting as
> >>> well as important subjects being taught. Strangely enough, it is
> >>> here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest lie in education
> >>> -- the theory of evolution. Not that the theory shouldn't be taught --
> >>> it should, simply because it is believed to be true by so many
> >>> scientists. But the latest research with modern tools such as the
> >>> electron microscope, have ruled out any possibility of life on our
> >>> planet occurring by accident.
> >

> >Uh, wasn't the electron microscope invented in the 1960s? Hardly "modern" for
> >what's essentially a cathode ray tube that focuses on a pinpoint instead of a
> >wide fluorescent screen...
>
> Wikipedia says that it dates from the 1930s.
>
Phlip is a good source of accurate scientific information.

--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 9:54:09 PM12/22/07
to

Simpson wrote:
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:


> > Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
> > curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only
> > the theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the
> > explanation for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do
> > this by demanding a "natural" explanation for the evidence before
> > us, rather than the most "logical" explanation of the evidence.
>
> No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.
>

That's why they spent decades looking for neutrinos even though the
numbers of so-called neutrinos didn't add up to what was predicted.


> Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
> contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
> created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>

How do you know?

> rather than the result of
> *observable* chemical and biological processes in which more complex
> life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to say that life
> does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the realm of
> science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as such,
> should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the study of
> *observable* phenomena.
>

So let's dump string theory right now.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 9:57:45 PM12/22/07
to

Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote in

> news:eb2dnYH_S_DwqvHa...@comcast.com:


>
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >> David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote in

> >> news:XaidnTJJBpCUgvHa...@comcast.com:


> >>
> >>> Simpson wrote:
> >>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:

> >>>>> Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories
> >>>>>
> >>>>> December 15, 2007
> >>>>> Indianapolis Star

> >>>>> In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and
> >>>>> continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most
> >>>>> interesting as well as important subjects being taught. Strangely
> >>>>> enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest
> >>>>> lie in education -- the theory of evolution. Not that the theory
> >>>>> shouldn't be taught -- it should, simply because it is believed to
> >>>>> be true by so many scientists. But the latest research with modern
> >>>>> tools such as the electron microscope, have ruled out any

> >>>>> possibility of life on our planet occurring by accident. Modern,


> >>>>> competent scientists can show that the unbelievable complexity of
> >>>>> design of the human cell, for example, demands the acknowledgement
> >>>>> of a designer, or an intelligence far higher than anything we can
> >>>>> imagine.
> >>>>>

> >>>>> Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
> >>>>> curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only the
> >>>>> theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the explanation
> >>>>> for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do this by demanding
> >>>>> a "natural" explanation for the evidence before us, rather than the
> >>>>> most "logical" explanation of the evidence.
> >>>> No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.
> >>>>

> >>>> Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support
> >>>> the contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us

> >>>> was created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth rather than the


> >>>> result of *observable* chemical and biological processes in which
> >>>> more complex life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not
> >>>> to say that life does not contain an unobservable component. But that
> >>>> is not the realm of science, it is more the realm of religious
> >>>> philosophy and, as such, should not be taught as science, which
> >>>> confines itself to the study of *observable* phenomena.

> >>> When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more
> >>> complex life form?
> >>
> >>

> >> When have we observed your Intelligent Designer
> >> design something?
> >
> > Why is that an issue?
>
> You believe it, so post some proof of it.
>
> > You can't provide a single observed example of a
> > simple life form evolving into a complex life form.
>
> And you can't provide a single observed example
> of your Creator creating anything.
>
> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>
> Why?
>
Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
science, you can't even prove evolution using science.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 9:55:23 PM12/22/07
to

Salad wrote:
>
> David Hartung wrote:
>

> >
> > When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more complex
> > life form?
> >

> I've watched America evolve from short to tall people and from thin to
> obese in my lifetime.
>

That's evidence against evolution.

Jeffrey Turner

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 10:20:27 PM12/22/07
to
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Salad wrote:
>>David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more complex
>>>life form?
>>>
>>
>>I've watched America evolve from short to tall people and from thin to
>>obese in my lifetime.
>
> That's evidence against evolution.

It really has nothing to do with evolution.

--Jeff

--
Ignorance, allied with power, is the
most ferocious enemy justice can have.
-James Baldwin

Jeffrey Turner

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 10:28:04 PM12/22/07
to
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Simpson wrote:
>
>>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
>>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
>>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>
> How do you know?

Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
because there is no physical evidence.

>>rather than the result of
>>*observable* chemical and biological processes in which more complex
>>life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to say that life
>>does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the realm of
>>science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as such,
>>should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the study of
>>*observable* phenomena.
>
> So let's dump string theory right now.

No loss. But it's not taught in high school.

Jeffrey Turner

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 10:24:26 PM12/22/07
to
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>> And you can't provide a single observed example
>>of your Creator creating anything.
>>
>> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
> know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
> science, you can't even prove evolution using science.

Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
shouldn't be done in public school.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 12:21:05 AM12/23/07
to

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> And you can't provide a single observed example
> >>of your Creator creating anything.
> >>
> >> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
> > know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
> > science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
>
> Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
> shouldn't be done in public school.
>

Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 12:21:45 AM12/23/07
to

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Simpson wrote:
> >
> >>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
> >>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
> >>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
> >
> > How do you know?
>
> Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
> because there is no physical evidence.
>

There's no physical evidence for string theory.

> >>rather than the result of
> >>*observable* chemical and biological processes in which more complex
> >>life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to say that life
> >>does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the realm of
> >>science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as such,
> >>should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the study of
> >>*observable* phenomena.
> >
> > So let's dump string theory right now.
>
> No loss. But it's not taught in high school.
>

How do you know?

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 12:20:37 AM12/23/07
to

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Salad wrote:
> >>David Hartung wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more complex
> >>>life form?
> >>>
> >>
> >>I've watched America evolve from short to tall people and from thin to
> >>obese in my lifetime.
> >
> > That's evidence against evolution.
>
> It really has nothing to do with evolution.
>

Obviously.

eerok

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:00:25 AM12/23/07
to
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:


>> >> And you can't provide a single observed example
>> >> of your Creator creating anything.
>> >>
>> >> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>> >>
>> >> Why?

>> > Because it's their religion and their parents want them
>> > taught that. I know you want to dismiss this "Creator"
>> > idea, but you can't do it using science, you can't even
>> > prove evolution using science.

>> Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them
>> that. But it shouldn't be done in public school.

> Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.

Ridiculous. Kids should be prepared for a higher education.
It may be that some of them will end up getting mail-order
degrees from bible colleges and make a career barking about
creationism, but we can't assume the worse for everyone.

Maybe you don't care if the US becomes a third world country
with respect to science, but others do.

--
"It is not enough to conquer; one must learn to seduce."
-- Voltaire

Rupert Morrish

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 3:06:31 AM12/23/07
to
Phlip wrote:
>> Hartung demands "observable proof" for evolution
>
> Okay. Darwin found evidence for evolution in finches, on the Galapagos
> Islands. (Finches are normally harmless passerines, but Galapagos's
> isolation allowed Darwin to encounter birds in a half-evolved state. The
> finches were halfway evolved into other common bird morphs, such as crows,
> parrots, and hawks.)

This is really misleading. The finches are not evolving into crows,
parrots and hawks. Nor are they half-evolved. They are probably
intermediate in form between what their ancestors looked like and what
their descendants will look like, but so are we all.

>
> But that's not the direct observation. This comes from the researchers who
> have tracked those finch populations for the past hundred years. They have
> observed fluctuations in the birds' sizes, and in the proportions of their
> body parts. The finches are continuing to evolve towards their specialized
> niches.
>
> This means evolution has been observed in real-time - in the very
> populations where Darwin first recognized it. The birds' accelerated
> evolution exactly confirms Darwin's theory that Galapagos's isolation, with
> no other birds competing for those niches, put evolutionary pressure on
> these finches.
>
> But feel free to move the goalpost back to abiogenis. Darwin wasn't there!
>
>

-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Adam West

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 6:33:32 AM12/23/07
to

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:476DF069...@yahoo.co.uk...

>
>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> > Simpson wrote:
>> >
>> >>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
>> >>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
>> >>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>> >
>> > How do you know?
>>
>> Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
>> because there is no physical evidence.
>>
> There's no physical evidence for string theory.
>

So the fuck what, dumbass? String theory isn't being taught as a valid
alternative to evolution! God, you're a fucking idiot.

TomS

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 6:39:59 AM12/23/07
to
"On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:28:04 -0500, in article
<13mrldr...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner stated..."

>
>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> Simpson wrote:
>>
>>>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
>>>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
>>>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>>
>> How do you know?
>
>Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
>because there is no physical evidence.
[...snip...]

Not merely is there no physical evidence, there is no description
of what a design process is like. And there is no interest in ever
giving a description. For example, what sort of thing is the
product of a design event? Is it, just to suggest how unknown
the range of possibilities:

* An adult giving birth to an infant of a new kind
* An adult growing a new bodily organ
* A population of animals appearing out of nothing
* A whole, functioning, mature ecological system of new plants, animals,
predators, prey, and physical environment

When something is so indeterminate as this, how is it possible even to
think of what might be evidence?


--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings

Jeffrey Turner

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 11:51:11 AM12/23/07
to
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you can't provide a single observed example
>>>>of your Creator creating anything.
>>>>
>>>> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>>Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
>>>know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
>>>science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
>>
>>Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
>>shouldn't be done in public school.
>
> Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.

Only if the parents are the ones attending class. Otherwise the
students have a right to be given knowledge that will help them in life.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:17:14 PM12/23/07
to

TomS wrote:
>
> "On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:28:04 -0500, in article
> <13mrldr...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner stated..."
> >
> >Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >> Simpson wrote:
> >>
> >>>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
> >>>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
> >>>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
> >>
> >> How do you know?
> >
> >Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
> >because there is no physical evidence.
> [...snip...]
>
> Not merely is there no physical evidence, there is no description
> of what a design process is like. And there is no interest in ever
> giving a description. For example, what sort of thing is the
> product of a design event?
>

Don't you think that human efforts *today* to create life from non-life
are design events?


> Is it, just to suggest how unknown
> the range of possibilities:
>
> * An adult giving birth to an infant of a new kind
> * An adult growing a new bodily organ
> * A population of animals appearing out of nothing
> * A whole, functioning, mature ecological system of new plants, animals,
> predators, prey, and physical environment
>
> When something is so indeterminate as this, how is it possible even to
> think of what might be evidence?
>

So perhaps we aren't at that point in our search for answers. We can
seek what might be evidence though.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:15:32 PM12/23/07
to

Adam West wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:476DF069...@yahoo.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >> > Simpson wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
> >> >>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
> >> >>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
> >> >
> >> > How do you know?
> >>
> >> Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
> >> because there is no physical evidence.
> >>
> > There's no physical evidence for string theory.
> >
>
> So the fuck what, dumbass? String theory isn't being taught as a valid
> alternative to evolution! God, you're a fucking idiot.
>

I'm not sure you have me saying that it was a valid alternative to
evolution.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:19:47 PM12/23/07
to

eerok wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> >> >> And you can't provide a single observed example
> >> >> of your Creator creating anything.
> >> >>
> >> >> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why?
>
> >> > Because it's their religion and their parents want them
> >> > taught that. I know you want to dismiss this "Creator"
> >> > idea, but you can't do it using science, you can't even
> >> > prove evolution using science.
>
> >> Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them
> >> that. But it shouldn't be done in public school.
>
> > Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
>
> Ridiculous.
>

Anything divergent from teaching what the parents want taught can lead
to indoctrination by the society against the wishes of parents. I think
that's a danger.


> Kids should be prepared for a higher education.
>

I'm confused why that should be in conflict with what parents want for
their child. Think about it, parents generally wish the best for their
offspring. A little trust here is in order.


> It may be that some of them will end up getting mail-order
> degrees from bible colleges and make a career barking about
> creationism, but we can't assume the worse for everyone.
>
> Maybe you don't care if the US becomes a third world country
> with respect to science, but others do.
>

So if schools teach children what the parents of those children want
taught, that will happen? What proof or even what evidence of that do
you have?

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:20:14 PM12/23/07
to

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> >
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >
> >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And you can't provide a single observed example
> >>>>of your Creator creating anything.
> >>>>
> >>>> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
> >>>>
> >>>> Why?
> >>>
> >>>Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
> >>>know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
> >>>science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
> >>
> >>Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
> >>shouldn't be done in public school.
> >
> > Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
>
> Only if the parents are the ones attending class. Otherwise the
> students have a right to be given knowledge that will help them in life.
>

Who decides what that is? YOU want to decide, don't you?

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:24:39 PM12/23/07
to

Phlip wrote:
>
> > Hartung demands "observable proof" for evolution
>
> Okay. Darwin found evidence for evolution in finches, on the Galapagos
> Islands. (Finches are normally harmless passerines, but Galapagos's
> isolation allowed Darwin to encounter birds in a half-evolved state. The
> finches were halfway evolved into other common bird morphs, such as crows,
> parrots, and hawks.)
>

Darwin found birds that were halfway evolved? What is "half way
evolved"? Halfway evolved into crows, parrots and hawks? Really? That's
amazing. Have you been watching Land of the Lost again?

> But that's not the direct observation. This comes from the researchers who
> have tracked those finch populations for the past hundred years.
>

So the finches are now crows is what you are saying?


> They have
> observed fluctuations in the birds' sizes, and in the proportions of their
> body parts. The finches are continuing to evolve towards their specialized
> niches.
>

Crows?

> This means evolution has been observed in real-time - in the very
> populations where Darwin first recognized it. The birds' accelerated
> evolution exactly confirms Darwin's theory that Galapagos's isolation, with
> no other birds competing for those niches, put evolutionary pressure on
> these finches.
>

So Americans are taller than they were 50 years ago, that proves
evolution!


> But feel free to move the goalpost back to abiogenis. Darwin wasn't there!
>

I don't think his Beagle trip considered that issue.

TomS

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 2:05:30 PM12/23/07
to
"On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:17:14 +0000, in article <476EA62A...@yahoo.co.uk>,
'Hi ho' stated..."

>
>
>
>TomS wrote:
>>
>> "On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:28:04 -0500, in article
>> <13mrldr...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner stated..."
>> >
>> >Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> >> Simpson wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
>> >>>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
>> >>>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>> >>
>> >> How do you know?
>> >
>> >Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
>> >because there is no physical evidence.
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> Not merely is there no physical evidence, there is no description
>> of what a design process is like. And there is no interest in ever
>> giving a description. For example, what sort of thing is the
>> product of a design event?
>>
>Don't you think that human efforts *today* to create life from non-life
>are design events?

Oh, I know something about designs. The problem is, everything that
we know about designs is excluded from being relevant to ID.

Example: Complicated designs are an indication that the designer
was faced with a complicated problem. Not 100% certain, to be sure,
for maybe the designer was just in the mood for doing things in a
complicated way, like Rube Goldberg.

Example: Conflicts between designs are an indication of a conflict,
perhaps between different designers. Eyes in predators that make
the predators better at predation, and eyes in prey that make the
prey better at avoiding predation - if they are both designed, they
are an indication of conflict in designs.

Example: Is the complex, specified pattern of the relationship of
the human body with the bodies of chimps and other apes due
to chance, natural law, or purposeful design?

Maybe there are answers (such as the "Rube Goldberg" one), but
are we ever going to see a discussion of such things from the ID
advocates?

>
>
>> Is it, just to suggest how unknown
>> the range of possibilities:
>>
>> * An adult giving birth to an infant of a new kind
>> * An adult growing a new bodily organ
>> * A population of animals appearing out of nothing
>> * A whole, functioning, mature ecological system of new plants, animals,
>> predators, prey, and physical environment
>>
>> When something is so indeterminate as this, how is it possible even to
>> think of what might be evidence?
>>
>So perhaps we aren't at that point in our search for answers. We can
>seek what might be evidence though.
>
>

Evidence for *what*? How will we know that what we find is evidence?
How we will know that it isn't *contrary* evidence?

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 2:58:09 PM12/23/07
to

Why can't they be designed for their purpose?


> Example: Is the complex, specified pattern of the relationship of
> the human body with the bodies of chimps and other apes due
> to chance, natural law, or purposeful design?
>

Most designers like to reuse elements. Go look at a modern subdivision
in the suburbs.

> Maybe there are answers (such as the "Rube Goldberg" one), but
> are we ever going to see a discussion of such things from the ID
> advocates?
>

Where are you posting from? I would think that talk.origins, I'm in
talk.politics.misc, would have plenty of advocacy of various
alternatives to accepted science.

> >> Is it, just to suggest how unknown
> >> the range of possibilities:
> >>
> >> * An adult giving birth to an infant of a new kind
> >> * An adult growing a new bodily organ
> >> * A population of animals appearing out of nothing
> >> * A whole, functioning, mature ecological system of new plants, animals,
> >> predators, prey, and physical environment
> >>
> >> When somethi