How does Complexity demonstrate Design

That hardly means that they're able to bring something to the table that science cannot. Moreover just because religion takes a position on the origin of life hardly means that their position is worth considering. My mechanic may take a position on the use of Prozac to treat depression but that hardly means I'm going to weigh his opinion the same as my doctor's. I wouldn't accept religious models about motion or chemical stoichiometry, because scientific theories subsume religious ones as a method for the empirical examination of the universe.The scientific epistemology is the superior method for finding out what happened in the physical universe. Religious epistemology is inferior to the scientific epsitemology within science's purview. I would presume that would be the obvious conclusion from 400 years of scientific investigation. Not so - science is able to answer those questions exactly the same way it answers any other question it can answer - through investigation, hypothesis, experimentation/observation, and publication. Because the mechanisms of evolution - natural selection and random mutation - cannot, and were never meant to, account for life's origin, only it's development. You're criticizing a theory for failing to explain something it never claimed to be able to.Evolution is not a theory that has ever been intended to explain the origin of life, only the origin of species. The origin of life is a problem for biochemistry, not biology. Clearly false, as science is able to confirm historical events with stunning regularity. Unless you don't believe that forensic science is valid? Open the prisons, then - there's a lot of folks there as a result of science telling us what happened in the past. No, of course not. We had this conversation, remember? The conclusions of science are tentative, not definitive. In fact you were the one who felt we were all being too definitive in our statements so it's very odd to see you suddenly reverse course and attack science for a lack of definition. This very post, post 105 that you linked to, and every subsequent post. That's been your position all along - that the "right" or "open-minded" thinker considers evolution to be incomplete without including the religious positions, as well.Pardon me if my mind is not so open that I'll weigh disconfirmed theories to the same degree as evidentially-supported ones. My freshman year of college. Ah, my bad. I keep forgetting you have such trouble with English

DARKSTAR, COULD YOU PLEASE MAKE YOUR SIGNATURE FONT BIGGER? I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY SEEING IT.

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

That was your last post for awhile.I have left you with rights in Suggestions and Questions and the FFA.You have not been responding in a manner conducive to good debating. A large number of resonable requests have been made to you and you show no signs of being willing to pay attention.{Added by edit footnote - To DarkStar: This seems to be a good place to ask you the question "Why do you go through the extra trouble to add extra formatting to your messages, such that they are more dificult to read?" Might I suggest to adopt the standard format. No reply needed. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-28-2004 10:28 PM

Do you believe that those terms are synonymous with the scientific method? Perhaps a dictionary would behoove you.Those terms might be synonymous with "hypothesis", but that's hardly the only step in the scientific method. If you believe that the process of evaluating hypotheses through evidentiary investigation is equivalent to "speculation, assumption, and conjecture", you speak English even more poorly than I had feared. It's not clear to me how I much farther I can restrict my vocabulary and still communicate what needs to be said. The language barrier might just be too steep. It explains the origin of all species who themselves are the decendants of other species. Both are examples of science doing what you consistently claim it cannot - examine and develop theories about events impossible to replicate.It's impossible to replicate Earth's history of life in laboratory conditions. It's impossible to replicate a person's murder under laboratory conditions. Since that's not an issue for the second case - nobody on CSI argues that what they do isn't valid, for instance - why would it be an issue for the first? Oh, I haven't claimed that they have, yet. But there's nothing about the problem that renders it out of science's purview. It's simply false to claim that science will never have the ability to fully address this question. It happened in the phsyical universe; one day we'll know how. Well, I've read it over and over again, and the meaning is clear. You believe that no theory about the origin of life can be complete or accurate without being informed by both science and religion. Ergo, scientific theories about the origin of life are incomplete because they do not include the religious position.The meaning of your words are very clear, DS, and I understand them. Apparently it's you who has such a problem with statements in plain english. It does, of course. But none of those limitations include events in the past. Any claim that it does is immediately disproved by the regular and standard use of science to acuurately determine the nature of events that happened in the past.You're telling me that there's something that science can't do, but I see science do it every day. You're clearly mistaken - the origin of life is well within science's purview, and well outside of religion's. Therefore the religious position on the matter need not be considered. To make a statement that some freshmen philosophy students develop your view but abandon it for a more mature one? I hardly claimed that all such students do that - you, for instance, have obviously failed to do so - so my own experience is more than sufficient to confirm my statement.

But not enough to convince anyone else.However, DS, this is not an example of anything that should need backing up. It is not directly germane to the discussion. In this case you might have to take the word of someone who has actually been through such courses. Picking up silly nits like this is an example of annoying behaviour and something which just shows you have very limited experience with this and so many other things.

True enough. I suggest that everyone take a philosophy course with freshmen.

quote:

---

Hypothetical creationist: Continued observation of a specific species, hypothesizing that the species will reproduce itself but will not evolve into a different form of life. Microevolutionary changes may occur, and even reverse themselves again, but macroevolution will not happen.

---

But yet the observations within the fossil record show large changes in morphology over time. By limiting your observations to a limited time (say last 100 years) you are not going to see the major changes that you are looking for, which is strange since many creationists rely on super-evolution to explain species diversity given a crowded ark. 10 million terrestrial species are kind of tough to fit on an ark afterall.How about this.Hypothetical creationist: I believe that skyscrapers are built by God. Sure, humans can make small changes to the building, but God does the majority of the building. Observation: I stood by a construction site for 10 minutes and they weren't able to build even a fraction of one floor. Therefore, God must have built all skyscrapers across the world.You are demanding evidence that even evolutionists don't expect to observe over 10 lifetimes. I might as well claim that there isn't a God because he hasn't appeared in the last 30 seconds.So what are we left with. We are left with two things, fossils and DNA. According to the theory of evolution, mutations build up over time. Also, the more time that passes since a speciation event the more time there is for mutations to build up. Within the fossil record we can approximate when a speciation event happened, and therefore evolutionary theory should be able to predict which organisms should have similar DNA and which should have dissimilar DNA. Guess what? It works. The predictions born out of the fossil record, an observation independent of DNA, is able to predict comparisons in DNA between living organisms. If evolution was wrong, that is common ancestory and mutation over time are incorrect, then this prediction should not have been born out. Sorry pal, observation and evidence support macroevolution over extended periods of time, spans of time much longer than humans have been observing the changing morphology of living organisms.

A bad analogy, but I get your point. Sorry, LM, but observation and evidence do not support macroevolution in any way, shape, or form. Observation over extended periods of time has not been possible to date due to the extreme lengths of time necessary, and evidence in support of macroevolution is non-existant, a fact that an extremely large number of pro-evolution scientists willingly, albeit some reluctantly, acknowledge and confirm.The manner in which neo-evo's choose to interpret the available evidence in order to offer support for their belief in the myth of macroevolution does not negate the fact that the evidence actually gives greater support to the creationists, and an enormous amount of support to microevolutionists, such as myself, than it does to the neo-evolutionists/macroevolutionists, The evidence clearly gives a great amount of support to the concept of design, so prevalent throughout the universe.I have just been made aware of a decision on whether or not to move my discussion concerning the myth of macroevolution in Professionalism or Prejudice? to a new topic. I welcome all to discuss this issue regarding the myth of macroevolution, and the quotes from scientists that support my opinion, though not necessarily my entire position, in that thread.I will have to follow the suggested guidelines in order for it to be accepted so I will be forced to change the format somewhat from what it was in that thread. If and when my new proposed topic is accepted, you should be able to find it's new location with little difficulty.

---

That observation is possible due to the fossil record, which is a record of the remains of living organisms over time.It's as valid a method of observation as having written it down yourself. To the contrary:29 Evidences for Macroevolution Simply not true, unless you're taking statements out of their original context, and that's hardly an honest thing to do, now is it? Certainly, but it also gives a great amount of support to the idea that nothing more than random mutation and natural selection are responsible for that design.There is no evidence for a designer being the source of that design.

crashfrog offers..... 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentDarkStar offers link for link..... http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

---

Ok, both of you. Link wars aren't what this is about.How about you each take one of the 29 and the rebutal and discuss that. That'll give you each a choice of one you like most and will supply lots of stuff to discuss for endless posts I'm sure.

quote:

---

Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

​

1. Straw man arguments
2. Red herrings
3. Self-contradictions
4. Equivocation
5. Two wrongs make a right
6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident
7. Ignoratio elenchi
8. Naive theological assumptions
9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics
10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method
11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses"
12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory
13. Misleading mis-quotes
14. Fallacies of accent
15. Distortion of scientific controversies
16. Arguments from authority
17. False analogies

---

"29 evidences" stands as evidence for macroevolution.AbE: Forgot to add the link: A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-09-2004 10:07 PM

Well, both Camp and Theobald are smarter than DS and I, almost certainly; it's difficult to imagine what the two of us could bring to the table that they haven't already. Such a discussion would be nothing more than me quoting Theobald and DS quoting Camp, and me quoting Theobald again in response.Is that what you want us to do?