Intelligent Design stomps all others.

[Cap'n Cat]

The same could be said for darwinian evolution. There is no proof that what is postulated happened. It's a guess. The only empirical data for evolution is the fossil record and that does not help the theory because it is a mess. You should be able to see a gradual change from simple organisms changing to more complex, but as stated, they haven't found that yet.

Was watching the Science channel the other day and some astrobiologist believes that aliens have coded our DNA and that is how we came to be. Funny how people would accept that before believing in God.

My neighbor was born without wisdom teeth. He tells me this is happening more and more. Read a Smithsonian article about a dried up inland sea in Egypt that has complete skeletons of an ancient whale species that had small foot-like appendages that they used to walk on land.

Don't want to sound blasphemous here, but it appears the designer made some mistakes along the way and had to revise his models. Why couldn't he get it right the first time and have us walking upright and eating pudding from the get-go? Can I bill him for my wisdom tooth extraction? It was kind of expensive.

Kalmie's right, as usual. Evolution happens over a long period of time.

Re new species, howzabout we stop killing off the ones remaining...including ourselves?

[Ibanez]

It was aliens.

[SeattleGriz]

The same could be said for darwinian evolution. There is no proof that what is postulated happened. It's a guess. The only empirical data for evolution is the fossil record and that does not help the theory because it is a mess. You should be able to see a gradual change from simple organisms changing to more complex, but as stated, they haven't found that yet.

Was watching the Science channel the other day and some astrobiologist believes that aliens have coded our DNA and that is how we came to be. Funny how people would accept that before believing in God.

My neighbor was born without wisdom teeth. He tells me this is happening more and more. Read a Smithsonian article about a dried up inland sea in Egypt that has complete skeletons of an ancient whale species that had small foot-like appendages that they used to walk on land.

Don't want to sound blasphemous here, but it appears the designer made some mistakes along the way and had to revise his models. Why couldn't he get it right the first time and have us walking upright and eating pudding from the get-go? Can I bill him for my wisdom tooth extraction? It was kind of expensive.

This argument was and still is used when describing our DNA. Only about 2% of our DNA actually codes for an item the body uses. So, the thinking was there is no way there could be an intelligent designer, for if there were, they wouldn't have put 98% junk DNA in us. Further proof of evolution because isn't that what one would expect? A mish mash of junk collected over the eons due to evolving and no longer using old worthless genes?

Well, seems as our science gets better, they have now realized that while only around 2% actually codes for a product, 70-80% of the "junk" DNA is used for regulation and other functions. In the end, I would be willing to bet very little of our DNA is actually junk and has one purpose or another.

My point with all these threads, while being 25% trolling and 75% serious, is how evolution is treated exactly like global warming. This is the way it is and we will shout anyone down (not on this board), even though our science cannot be verified and we have almost zero empirical proof.

I understand the science isn't settled and these are best guesses and that that is the way science works. Hypothesis, test and tweak according to the results. But to INSIST that darwinian evolution is the absolute correct theory is short sighted and poor science. Would you believe there are a lot more grants to be had trying to prove evolution than disproving it?

How is it different for paleontologists, who are notoriously bad guessers when it comes to bones, to postulate that short limbs on a whale meant they were walking versus someone who says, we look created, because we are - too many similarities. Both are looking at what they can physically see and making a best guess.

National Geographic is horrid in the way they sensationalize and distort. Remember Ida, the missing link? She wasn't what NG said she was and that isn't the first time they have pulled that crap. They got busted over whale evolution as well.

[Cap'n Cat]

My neighbor was born without wisdom teeth. He tells me this is happening more and more. Read a Smithsonian article about a dried up inland sea in Egypt that has complete skeletons of an ancient whale species that had small foot-like appendages that they used to walk on land.

Don't want to sound blasphemous here, but it appears the designer made some mistakes along the way and had to revise his models. Why couldn't he get it right the first time and have us walking upright and eating pudding from the get-go? Can I bill him for my wisdom tooth extraction? It was kind of expensive.

This argument was and still is used when describing our DNA. Only about 2% of our DNA actually codes for an item the body uses. So, the thinking was there is no way there could be an intelligent designer, for if there were, they wouldn't have put 98% junk DNA in us. Further proof of evolution because isn't that what one would expect? A mish mash of junk collected over the eons due to evolving and no longer using old worthless genes?

Well, seems as our science gets better, they have now realized that while only around 2% actually codes for a product, 70-80% of the "junk" DNA is used for regulation and other functions. In the end, I would be willing to bet very little of our DNA is actually junk and has one purpose or another.

My point with all these threads, while being 25% trolling and 75% serious, is how evolution is treated exactly like global warming. This is the way it is and we will shout anyone down (not on this board), even though our science cannot be verified and we have almost zero empirical proof.

I understand the science isn't settled and these are best guesses and that that is the way science works. Hypothesis, test and tweak according to the results. But to INSIST that darwinian evolution is the absolute correct theory is short sighted and poor science. Would you believe there are a lot more grants to be had trying to prove evolution than disproving it?

How is it different for paleontologists, who are notoriously bad guessers when it comes to bones, to postulate that short limbs on a whale meant they were walking versus someone who says, we look created, because we are - too many similarities. Both are looking at what they can physically see and making a best guess.

SeaGee,
No one is assuming that evolution is absolutely correct. However, due to its scientific process, we CAN assume that, as facts become more clear every day, it has MUCH more credibility than simply exclaiming, "God did it. End of argument". That kinda shit stunts growth. Think Taliban.

And, yes, they are looking at things and making guesses. The difference - if these paleontologists find out, empirically, that they are wrong, they will pursue the correct answers, some of which may never come to light in their lifetimes - but their field will keep pursuing the truth.

[SeattleGriz]

This argument was and still is used when describing our DNA. Only about 2% of our DNA actually codes for an item the body uses. So, the thinking was there is no way there could be an intelligent designer, for if there were, they wouldn't have put 98% junk DNA in us. Further proof of evolution because isn't that what one would expect? A mish mash of junk collected over the eons due to evolving and no longer using old worthless genes?

Well, seems as our science gets better, they have now realized that while only around 2% actually codes for a product, 70-80% of the "junk" DNA is used for regulation and other functions. In the end, I would be willing to bet very little of our DNA is actually junk and has one purpose or another.

My point with all these threads, while being 25% trolling and 75% serious, is how evolution is treated exactly like global warming. This is the way it is and we will shout anyone down (not on this board), even though our science cannot be verified and we have almost zero empirical proof.

I understand the science isn't settled and these are best guesses and that that is the way science works. Hypothesis, test and tweak according to the results. But to INSIST that darwinian evolution is the absolute correct theory is short sighted and poor science. Would you believe there are a lot more grants to be had trying to prove evolution than disproving it?

How is it different for paleontologists, who are notoriously bad guessers when it comes to bones, to postulate that short limbs on a whale meant they were walking versus someone who says, we look created, because we are - too many similarities. Both are looking at what they can physically see and making a best guess.

SeaGee,
No one is assuming that evolution is absolutely correct. However, due to its scientific process, we CAN assume that, as facts become more clear every day, it has MUCH more credibility than simply exclaiming, "God did it. End of argument". That kinda shit stunts growth. Think Taliban.

And, yes, they are looking at things and making guesses. The difference - if these paleontologists find out, empirically, that they are wrong, they will pursue the correct answers, some of which may never come to light in their lifetimes - but their field will keep pursuing the truth.

I often say this discussion needs to be done at the PhD level because we can only talk generalities. I don't think any of the real scientists are saying, "God willed it and POOF!" we have man. They are saying that due to the way we are constructed, there has to be an intelligent designer. We could have still evolved, but they are having a tough time with some of the "leaps of faith" presented by the evolution field. And yes, I have admitted ID could be a different version of creationism, so I understand why ID doesn't gain a lot of traction in certain circles.

My point, is if a scientist wants to believe in ID, fine, let them and see what they put forth. Don't exclude their ideas just because they don't jive with evolution. They are putting out peer reviewed papers and following the scientific method.

A perfect example of how it should be just happened in the field of physics. They believed that some neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light. Faster than the speed of light is a big wrench in their theories. Well, they all banded together and eventually discovered that neutrinos were not faster than light, but at least they all jumped on it and gave it an effort. Anything that is contrary to evolution is treated with scorn and derision by many of the scientists in the field even though they don't have an answer either.

[D1B]

SeaGee,
No one is assuming that evolution is absolutely correct. However, due to its scientific process, we CAN assume that, as facts become more clear every day, it has MUCH more credibility than simply exclaiming, "God did it. End of argument". That kinda shit stunts growth. Think Taliban.

And, yes, they are looking at things and making guesses. The difference - if these paleontologists find out, empirically, that they are wrong, they will pursue the correct answers, some of which may never come to light in their lifetimes - but their field will keep pursuing the truth.

I often say this discussion needs to be done at the PhD level because we can only talk generalities. I don't think any of the real scientists are saying, "God willed it and POOF!" we have man. They are saying that due to the way we are constructed, there has to be an intelligent designer. We could have still evolved, but they are having a tough time with some of the "leaps of faith" presented by the evolution field. And yes, I have admitted ID could be a different version of creationism, so I understand why ID doesn't gain a lot of traction in certain circles.

My point, is if a scientist wants to believe in ID, fine, let them and see what they put forth. Don't exclude their ideas just because they don't jive with evolution. They are putting out peer reviewed papers and following the scientific method.

A perfect example of how it should be just happened in the field of physics. They believed that some neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light. Faster than the speed of light is a big wrench in their theories. Well, they all banded together and eventually discovered that neutrinos were not faster than light, but at least they all jumped on it and gave it an effort. Anything that is contrary to evolution is treated with scorn and derision by many of the scientists in the field even though they don't have an answer either.

You're a fucking religious bonehead and drunk who is completely incapable of facilitating this discussion.

[Cap'n Cat]

I often say this discussion needs to be done at the PhD level because we can only talk generalities. I don't think any of the real scientists are saying, "God willed it and POOF!" we have man. They are saying that due to the way we are constructed, there has to be an intelligent designer. We could have still evolved, but they are having a tough time with some of the "leaps of faith" presented by the evolution field. And yes, I have admitted ID could be a different version of creationism, so I understand why ID doesn't gain a lot of traction in certain circles.

My point, is if a scientist wants to believe in ID, fine, let them and see what they put forth. Don't exclude their ideas just because they don't jive with evolution. They are putting out peer reviewed papers and following the scientific method.

A perfect example of how it should be just happened in the field of physics. They believed that some neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light. Faster than the speed of light is a big wrench in their theories. Well, they all banded together and eventually discovered that neutrinos were not faster than light, but at least they all jumped on it and gave it an effort. Anything that is contrary to evolution is treated with scorn and derision by many of the scientists in the field even though they don't have an answer either.

You're a fucking religious bonehead and drunk who is completely incapable of facilitating this discussion.

Wel, I wanted to be nice about it.

[D1B]

You're a fucking religious bonehead and drunk who is completely incapable of facilitating this discussion.

Wel, I wanted to be nice about it.

He's a fucking drunk who confuses skepticism and splitting hairs with intelligence. Dipshit can't even troll properly.

Most of the religious world has moved on, decades ago, accepting evolution as fact and reworking their once fiercely defended world views to fit the continuing avalance of scientific discovery and secular humanist values.

[Ibanez]

It was Aliens. For fvcks sake.

[89Hen]

You're a fucking bonehead and drunk who is completely incapable of facilitating this discussion.

Never stopped you.

[Ibanez]

Aliens.

[Vidav]

Aliens.

[Ibanez]

Aliens.

Aliens is the answer. Trust me.

[SeattleGriz]

I often say this discussion needs to be done at the PhD level because we can only talk generalities. I don't think any of the real scientists are saying, "God willed it and POOF!" we have man. They are saying that due to the way we are constructed, there has to be an intelligent designer. We could have still evolved, but they are having a tough time with some of the "leaps of faith" presented by the evolution field. And yes, I have admitted ID could be a different version of creationism, so I understand why ID doesn't gain a lot of traction in certain circles.

My point, is if a scientist wants to believe in ID, fine, let them and see what they put forth. Don't exclude their ideas just because they don't jive with evolution. They are putting out peer reviewed papers and following the scientific method.

A perfect example of how it should be just happened in the field of physics. They believed that some neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light. Faster than the speed of light is a big wrench in their theories. Well, they all banded together and eventually discovered that neutrinos were not faster than light, but at least they all jumped on it and gave it an effort. Anything that is contrary to evolution is treated with scorn and derision by many of the scientists in the field even though they don't have an answer either.

You're a fucking religious bonehead and drunk who is completely incapable of facilitating this discussion.

So sorry to hear your conflict resolution workshop this last week was a bust!

[youngterrier]

We have observed macroevolution.

[youngterrier]

My neighbor was born without wisdom teeth. He tells me this is happening more and more. Read a Smithsonian article about a dried up inland sea in Egypt that has complete skeletons of an ancient whale species that had small foot-like appendages that they used to walk on land.

Don't want to sound blasphemous here, but it appears the designer made some mistakes along the way and had to revise his models. Why couldn't he get it right the first time and have us walking upright and eating pudding from the get-go? Can I bill him for my wisdom tooth extraction? It was kind of expensive.

This argument was and still is used when describing our DNA. Only about 2% of our DNA actually codes for an item the body uses. So, the thinking was there is no way there could be an intelligent designer, for if there were, they wouldn't have put 98% junk DNA in us. Further proof of evolution because isn't that what one would expect? A mish mash of junk collected over the eons due to evolving and no longer using old worthless genes?

Well, seems as our science gets better, they have now realized that while only around 2% actually codes for a product, 70-80% of the "junk" DNA is used for regulation and other functions. In the end, I would be willing to bet very little of our DNA is actually junk and has one purpose or another.

My point with all these threads, while being 25% trolling and 75% serious, is how evolution is treated exactly like global warming. This is the way it is and we will shout anyone down (not on this board), even though our science cannot be verified and we have almost zero empirical proof.

I understand the science isn't settled and these are best guesses and that that is the way science works. Hypothesis, test and tweak according to the results. But to INSIST that darwinian evolution is the absolute correct theory is short sighted and poor science. Would you believe there are a lot more grants to be had trying to prove evolution than disproving it?

How is it different for paleontologists, who are notoriously bad guessers when it comes to bones, to postulate that short limbs on a whale meant they were walking versus someone who says, we look created, because we are - too many similarities. Both are looking at what they can physically see and making a best guess.

National Geographic is horrid in the way they sensationalize and distort. Remember Ida, the missing link? She wasn't what NG said she was and that isn't the first time they have pulled that crap. They got busted over whale evolution as well.

I'm no biologist....but I read a book once

Anyway, I'll take a swing at it.
First of all, from what I've read 98% of our DNA is comparable to other primates and the 2% is what makes us different.

As for the theory, I think it should be understood that it is classified as a theory in the same sense that the sun being at the center of the solar system is a theory. The evidence is falsifiable, as in every theory, but there is really none to falsify it (and if there was, well someone would get a Nobel Prize), so it's pretty much assumed as fact. Additionally, the application of evolution has been proven in its ability on the microscopic scale to fight viruses as well as through other means of artificial selection on the macro-scale like dog breeding.

The evidence for evolution is a lot like the evidence for a murder crime scene. The fossils aren't really necessary to prove it, but it makes it all the more easier to prove. It's like having overwhelmingly sufficient evidence to prove the Butler did it with a gun in the dining room (murder weapon at the scene, fingerprints, gunshot residue, etc), and then finding camera footage of the butler, with gun in hand, walking towards the dining room.

Again, I'm no scientist nor a professional, but in terms of evolution vs ID/creationism there is no debate, simply because there is no scientific evidence supporting ID/creationism whereas there is mounting evidence for Evolution and natural selection. Not to mention there is almost universal consensus for evolution among biologists and scientists alike. I'm currently reading The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, and I recommend it for any of you doubters or those who have questions. It's not an anti-God book. It's just a book about the evidence for evolution. It's quite massive.

[Vidav]

This argument was and still is used when describing our DNA. Only about 2% of our DNA actually codes for an item the body uses. So, the thinking was there is no way there could be an intelligent designer, for if there were, they wouldn't have put 98% junk DNA in us. Further proof of evolution because isn't that what one would expect? A mish mash of junk collected over the eons due to evolving and no longer using old worthless genes?

Well, seems as our science gets better, they have now realized that while only around 2% actually codes for a product, 70-80% of the "junk" DNA is used for regulation and other functions. In the end, I would be willing to bet very little of our DNA is actually junk and has one purpose or another.

My point with all these threads, while being 25% trolling and 75% serious, is how evolution is treated exactly like global warming. This is the way it is and we will shout anyone down (not on this board), even though our science cannot be verified and we have almost zero empirical proof.

I understand the science isn't settled and these are best guesses and that that is the way science works. Hypothesis, test and tweak according to the results. But to INSIST that darwinian evolution is the absolute correct theory is short sighted and poor science. Would you believe there are a lot more grants to be had trying to prove evolution than disproving it?

How is it different for paleontologists, who are notoriously bad guessers when it comes to bones, to postulate that short limbs on a whale meant they were walking versus someone who says, we look created, because we are - too many similarities. Both are looking at what they can physically see and making a best guess.

National Geographic is horrid in the way they sensationalize and distort. Remember Ida, the missing link? She wasn't what NG said she was and that isn't the first time they have pulled that crap. They got busted over whale evolution as well.

I'm no biologist....but I read a book once

Anyway, I'll take a swing at it.
First of all, from what I've read 98% of our DNA is comparable to other primates and the 2% is what makes us different.

As for the theory, I think it should be understood that it is classified as a theory in the same sense that the sun being at the center of the solar system is a theory. The evidence is falsifiable, as in every theory, but there is really none to falsify it (and if there was, well someone would get a Nobel Prize), so it's pretty much assumed as fact. Additionally, the application of evolution has been proven in its ability on the microscopic scale to fight viruses as well as through other means of artificial selection on the macro-scale like dog breeding.

The evidence for evolution is a lot like the evidence for a murder crime scene. The fossils aren't really necessary to prove it, but it makes it all the more easier to prove. It's like having overwhelmingly sufficient evidence to prove the Butler did it with a gun in the dining room (murder weapon at the scene, fingerprints, gunshot residue, etc), and then finding camera footage of the butler, with gun in hand, walking towards the dining room.

Again, I'm no scientist nor a professional, but in terms of evolution vs ID/creationism there is no debate, simply because there is no scientific evidence supporting ID/creationism whereas there is mounting evidence for Evolution and natural selection. Not to mention there is almost universal consensus for evolution among biologists and scientists alike. I'm currently reading The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, and I recommend it for any of you doubters or those who have questions. It's not an anti-God book. It's just a book about the evidence for evolution. It's quite massive.

Great book.

[SeattleGriz]

This argument was and still is used when describing our DNA. Only about 2% of our DNA actually codes for an item the body uses. So, the thinking was there is no way there could be an intelligent designer, for if there were, they wouldn't have put 98% junk DNA in us. Further proof of evolution because isn't that what one would expect? A mish mash of junk collected over the eons due to evolving and no longer using old worthless genes?

Well, seems as our science gets better, they have now realized that while only around 2% actually codes for a product, 70-80% of the "junk" DNA is used for regulation and other functions. In the end, I would be willing to bet very little of our DNA is actually junk and has one purpose or another.

My point with all these threads, while being 25% trolling and 75% serious, is how evolution is treated exactly like global warming. This is the way it is and we will shout anyone down (not on this board), even though our science cannot be verified and we have almost zero empirical proof.

I understand the science isn't settled and these are best guesses and that that is the way science works. Hypothesis, test and tweak according to the results. But to INSIST that darwinian evolution is the absolute correct theory is short sighted and poor science. Would you believe there are a lot more grants to be had trying to prove evolution than disproving it?

How is it different for paleontologists, who are notoriously bad guessers when it comes to bones, to postulate that short limbs on a whale meant they were walking versus someone who says, we look created, because we are - too many similarities. Both are looking at what they can physically see and making a best guess.

National Geographic is horrid in the way they sensationalize and distort. Remember Ida, the missing link? She wasn't what NG said she was and that isn't the first time they have pulled that crap. They got busted over whale evolution as well.

I'm no biologist....but I read a book once

Anyway, I'll take a swing at it.
First of all, from what I've read 98% of our DNA is comparable to other primates and the 2% is what makes us different.

As for the theory, I think it should be understood that it is classified as a theory in the same sense that the sun being at the center of the solar system is a theory. The evidence is falsifiable, as in every theory, but there is really none to falsify it (and if there was, well someone would get a Nobel Prize), so it's pretty much assumed as fact. Additionally, the application of evolution has been proven in its ability on the microscopic scale to fight viruses as well as through other means of artificial selection on the macro-scale like dog breeding.

The evidence for evolution is a lot like the evidence for a murder crime scene. The fossils aren't really necessary to prove it, but it makes it all the more easier to prove. It's like having overwhelmingly sufficient evidence to prove the Butler did it with a gun in the dining room (murder weapon at the scene, fingerprints, gunshot residue, etc), and then finding camera footage of the butler, with gun in hand, walking towards the dining room.

Again, I'm no scientist nor a professional, but in terms of evolution vs ID/creationism there is no debate, simply because there is no scientific evidence supporting ID/creationism whereas there is mounting evidence for Evolution and natural selection. Not to mention there is almost universal consensus for evolution among biologists and scientists alike. I'm currently reading The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, and I recommend it for any of you doubters or those who have questions. It's not an anti-God book. It's just a book about the evidence for evolution. It's quite massive.

Dawkins is the one who heavily used the term "junk DNA" and now is looking as if he jumped the gun on that one. I would be willing to bet a lot of his belief was driven by his atheism. Stated there is no God, for they would have done a crappy job with all the junk DNA.

By the way, he on more than one occasion has been beaten in debates when having to defend evolution. He is not very good at defending evolution in open dialogue.

Good article by the way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shm ... 45637.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a scientist. But beginning in about 1990 I started organizing an annual debate at Oxford University on science versus religion where the focus was almost always on evolution and which featured some of the world's greatest evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, who appeared several times, and the late John Maynard-Smith of the University of Sussex, who, at the time, was regarded by many as the greatest living evolutionary theorist. While I moderated the first few debates, I later participated in a debate against Richard Dawkins at Oxford which he later denied ever took place, forcing us to post the full video of the debate online where Dawkins is not only the principal proponent of the science side but actually loses the debate in a student vote at the end. I later debated Dawkins again at the Idea City Convention at the University of Toronto, the video of which is likewise available online.

What I learned from these debates, as well as reading extensively on evolution, is that evolutionists have a tough time defending the theory when challenged in open dialogue. Indeed, David Berlinski, the author of The Devil's Delusion, was, although an agnostic, on the religion side of one of the debates against Dawkins and tore large holes in evolution that Dawkins and Maynard-Smith struggled to address.

My point in posting this? If Dawkins is one of the greatest evolutionists, he shouldn't have the troubles he does in defending evolution in open dialogue. I would bet the guy is pretty close to a genius, so that leaves the theory to be the problem. Not as ironclad as most on here imply.

[Vidav]

I'm no biologist....but I read a book once

Anyway, I'll take a swing at it.
First of all, from what I've read 98% of our DNA is comparable to other primates and the 2% is what makes us different.

As for the theory, I think it should be understood that it is classified as a theory in the same sense that the sun being at the center of the solar system is a theory. The evidence is falsifiable, as in every theory, but there is really none to falsify it (and if there was, well someone would get a Nobel Prize), so it's pretty much assumed as fact. Additionally, the application of evolution has been proven in its ability on the microscopic scale to fight viruses as well as through other means of artificial selection on the macro-scale like dog breeding.

The evidence for evolution is a lot like the evidence for a murder crime scene. The fossils aren't really necessary to prove it, but it makes it all the more easier to prove. It's like having overwhelmingly sufficient evidence to prove the Butler did it with a gun in the dining room (murder weapon at the scene, fingerprints, gunshot residue, etc), and then finding camera footage of the butler, with gun in hand, walking towards the dining room.

Again, I'm no scientist nor a professional, but in terms of evolution vs ID/creationism there is no debate, simply because there is no scientific evidence supporting ID/creationism whereas there is mounting evidence for Evolution and natural selection. Not to mention there is almost universal consensus for evolution among biologists and scientists alike. I'm currently reading The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, and I recommend it for any of you doubters or those who have questions. It's not an anti-God book. It's just a book about the evidence for evolution. It's quite massive.

Dawkins is the one who heavily used the term "junk DNA" and now is looking as if he jumped the gun on that one. I would be willing to bet a lot of his belief was driven by his atheism. Stated there is no God, for they would have done a crappy job with all the junk DNA.

By the way, he on more than one occasion has been beaten in debates when having to defend evolution. He is not very good at defending evolution in open dialogue.

Good article by the way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shm ... 45637.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a scientist. But beginning in about 1990 I started organizing an annual debate at Oxford University on science versus religion where the focus was almost always on evolution and which featured some of the world's greatest evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, who appeared several times, and the late John Maynard-Smith of the University of Sussex, who, at the time, was regarded by many as the greatest living evolutionary theorist. While I moderated the first few debates, I later participated in a debate against Richard Dawkins at Oxford which he later denied ever took place, forcing us to post the full video of the debate online where Dawkins is not only the principal proponent of the science side but actually loses the debate in a student vote at the end. I later debated Dawkins again at the Idea City Convention at the University of Toronto, the video of which is likewise available online.

What I learned from these debates, as well as reading extensively on evolution, is that evolutionists have a tough time defending the theory when challenged in open dialogue. Indeed, David Berlinski, the author of The Devil's Delusion, was, although an agnostic, on the religion side of one of the debates against Dawkins and tore large holes in evolution that Dawkins and Maynard-Smith struggled to address.

My point in posting this? If Dawkins is one of the greatest evolutionists, he shouldn't have the troubles he does in defending evolution in open dialogue. I would be the guy is pretty close to a genius, so that leaves the theory to be the problem. Not as ironclad as most on here imply.

Lies and deceit!

[SeattleGriz]

Dawkins is the one who heavily used the term "junk DNA" and now is looking as if he jumped the gun on that one. I would be willing to bet a lot of his belief was driven by his atheism. Stated there is no God, for they would have done a crappy job with all the junk DNA.

By the way, he on more than one occasion has been beaten in debates when having to defend evolution. He is not very good at defending evolution in open dialogue.

Good article by the way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shm ... 45637.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



My point in posting this? If Dawkins is one of the greatest evolutionists, he shouldn't have the troubles he does in defending evolution in open dialogue. I would be the guy is pretty close to a genius, so that leaves the theory to be the problem. Not as ironclad as most on here imply.

Lies and deceit!

Yeah, we can go round and round, but until I watch a real debate where the PhD's are talking, I really can't say one way or the other. Tried watching one online and the audio was horrid.

[youngterrier]

Lies and deceit!

Yeah, we can go round and round, but until I watch a real debate where the PhD's are talking, I really can't say one way or the other. Tried watching one online and the audio was horrid.

The problem is that there aren't many, if any PhDs who believe in intelligent design

and I'd have to see the debate before making any assumption. Considering this article was not written by a scientist, I'm automatically skeptical.

upon reading the video descriptions, they aren't debating on the subject of evolution alone, if at all as they are debating

"The panelists tackle the issue of whether or not God, and by extension, religion, is needed for there to be goodness in the world."

Apples and oranges. null point. Doesn't say a thing about evolution.

[SeattleGriz]

Yeah, we can go round and round, but until I watch a real debate where the PhD's are talking, I really can't say one way or the other. Tried watching one online and the audio was horrid.

The problem is that there aren't many, if any PhDs who believe in intelligent design

You guys keep focusing on the misplaced belief that one must be a fundamental Christian creationist if you don't believe darwinian evolution is adequate enough. Far from the truth. Plenty of evolutionists who admit to the flaws of darwinian evolution.

I am simply saying, get two PhD's together. One who believes it is adequate and one who doesn't and let them duke it out.

[Vidav]

The problem is that there aren't many, if any PhDs who believe in intelligent design

You guys keep focusing on the misplaced belief that one must be a fundamental Christian creationist if you don't believe darwinian evolution is adequate enough. Far from the truth. Plenty of evolutionists who admit to the flaws of darwinian evolution.

I am simply saying, get two PhD's together. One who believes it is adequate and one who doesn't and let them duke it out.

You can believe Darwinian Evolution is inadequate without believing in ID.

[youngterrier]

I'm no biologist....but I read a book once

Anyway, I'll take a swing at it.
First of all, from what I've read 98% of our DNA is comparable to other primates and the 2% is what makes us different.

As for the theory, I think it should be understood that it is classified as a theory in the same sense that the sun being at the center of the solar system is a theory. The evidence is falsifiable, as in every theory, but there is really none to falsify it (and if there was, well someone would get a Nobel Prize), so it's pretty much assumed as fact. Additionally, the application of evolution has been proven in its ability on the microscopic scale to fight viruses as well as through other means of artificial selection on the macro-scale like dog breeding.

The evidence for evolution is a lot like the evidence for a murder crime scene. The fossils aren't really necessary to prove it, but it makes it all the more easier to prove. It's like having overwhelmingly sufficient evidence to prove the Butler did it with a gun in the dining room (murder weapon at the scene, fingerprints, gunshot residue, etc), and then finding camera footage of the butler, with gun in hand, walking towards the dining room.

Again, I'm no scientist nor a professional, but in terms of evolution vs ID/creationism there is no debate, simply because there is no scientific evidence supporting ID/creationism whereas there is mounting evidence for Evolution and natural selection. Not to mention there is almost universal consensus for evolution among biologists and scientists alike. I'm currently reading The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, and I recommend it for any of you doubters or those who have questions. It's not an anti-God book. It's just a book about the evidence for evolution. It's quite massive.

Dawkins is the one who heavily used the term "junk DNA" and now is looking as if he jumped the gun on that one. I would be willing to bet a lot of his belief was driven by his atheism. Stated there is no God, for they would have done a crappy job with all the junk DNA.

By the way, he on more than one occasion has been beaten in debates when having to defend evolution. He is not very good at defending evolution in open dialogue.

Good article by the way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shm ... 45637.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a scientist. But beginning in about 1990 I started organizing an annual debate at Oxford University on science versus religion where the focus was almost always on evolution and which featured some of the world's greatest evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, who appeared several times, and the late John Maynard-Smith of the University of Sussex, who, at the time, was regarded by many as the greatest living evolutionary theorist. While I moderated the first few debates, I later participated in a debate against Richard Dawkins at Oxford which he later denied ever took place, forcing us to post the full video of the debate online where Dawkins is not only the principal proponent of the science side but actually loses the debate in a student vote at the end. I later debated Dawkins again at the Idea City Convention at the University of Toronto, the video of which is likewise available online.

What I learned from these debates, as well as reading extensively on evolution, is that evolutionists have a tough time defending the theory when challenged in open dialogue. Indeed, David Berlinski, the author of The Devil's Delusion, was, although an agnostic, on the religion side of one of the debates against Dawkins and tore large holes in evolution that Dawkins and Maynard-Smith struggled to address.

My point in posting this? If Dawkins is one of the greatest evolutionists, he shouldn't have the troubles he does in defending evolution in open dialogue. I would bet the guy is pretty close to a genius, so that leaves the theory to be the problem. Not as ironclad as most on here imply.

No seriously, this is a very misleading article. The debate in question, though I'm not questioning it, is not on evolution at all. Here's the link the article gives:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's a biblical scholar against an evolutionary biologist, that's the only time that evolution is mentioned in the description. It's clearly not as it appears.

[youngterrier]

The problem is that there aren't many, if any PhDs who believe in intelligent design

You guys keep focusing on the misplaced belief that one must be a fundamental Christian creationist if you don't believe darwinian evolution is adequate enough. Far from the truth. Plenty of evolutionists who admit to the flaws of darwinian evolution.

I am simply saying, get two PhD's together. One who believes it is adequate and one who doesn't and let them duke it out.

And I'm saying you won't find that.