Abe
What's left to say? Most people, even kids, understand that there are gaps in our knowledge.
things that makes life wonderful: there will always be something new to discover
somethings may never be discovered throughout humankind.
Life's a mystery; then we die. There were certain deaths I couldn't accept until I understood that most things aren't certainties; and the world goes on anyway. Then I began to be able to accept my own mortality.
I say this all for a reason but I'll leave you to figure that out
80 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Stephen Stills: 'I thought it was liberals who hate blacklisting and censorship."
Stills -- you also said, "If ya cain't be with the one you love, love the one yer with."
So EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS SUSPECT.
81 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Pia:
“What's left to say?”
Let’s spend more time ensuring that kids understand the gaps in our knowledge.
I believe many kids believe erroneously that the “theory of evolution” is the final word on the matter.
“Some things may never be discovered throughout humankind.”
But let’s be sure that we don’t confuse what we have discovered with what we haven’t discovered.
Shark that was the first thing that made me laugh in this whole thread, including me. I just couldn't write the comments funny. Thanks
Abe, you want to discuss the Scopes trial? That's in my realm and I can but won't comment on it.
Your last comments have been beautifully written but totally out of the realm of my post, and my many comments citing today's Times article, which I presented a link too, and is aptly called "Show me the science."
83 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Pia, I can be funny, but you gots to get your mind right.
BTW: I admire your stamina on this dance floor, but question your choice of tune, steps, and partners.
PS: The NY Times article sorta said it all -- and if you were paying attention, SO DID I in comment #59.
There's nothing left to say after that. Seriously.
I misused a "too," which means that I'm tired. My post is on how ID and The First Amendment don't mix. Everything I added, except for the overly poetic comment on how somethings might never be discovered, just backs my post up.
Abe what have you said that's meaningful to adding or taking from my argument? Don't see anything; just many clever comments.
Snake you're too clever for me. That's not a compliment; it's from a kids book.
You're right the Times article did say it all. There's nothing,absolutely nothing that can be taught about ID.
So where's the evidence?
86 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 10:27 pm
“Contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt: that natural selection - the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge - has the POWER to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs.”
New York Times -- 08/28/05
___
Interesting statement.
Where did the POWER come from?
The “law of the conservation of energy “ precludes POWER coming out of nowhere.
Snake you know I read comment 58 rather than 50 which I had read before, and have been saying for about the past I don't know how many comments that this is an exercise in nothingness.
Really don't know,Abe, and really don't care right now.
Not going to get into energy flow or the laws of physics so why don't we leave it as one of the sweet mysteries of life that might or might not be fully explained one day
89 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 10:44 pm
“First, imagine how easy it would be for a determined band of naysayers to shake the world's confidence in quantum physics - how weird it is! - or Einsteinian relativity.
New York Times -- 08/28/05
___
Comparing quantum physics - or Einsteinian relativity with the true solution to answering how any species came about is like comparing a mouse trap to a rocket ship.
90 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 11:19 pm
Evolution of the eye:
Once upon a time… the eye developed in a miraculous way…
As reported by the New York Times -- 08/28/05
“As we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work - all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multi-celled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago - WE CAN BEGIN TO TELL THE STORY [BELIEVE IT OR NOT] of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while.
BEGIN TO TELL THE STORY? YES, AND IT IS QUITE A TALE.
“We can't yet say what all the details of this process were, but real eyes representative of all the intermediate stages can be found, dotted around the animal kingdom, and we have DETAILED COMPUTER MODELS to demonstrate that the creative process works just as the theory says.”
DETAILED COMPUTER MODELS? GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.
“All it takes is a RARE ACCIDENT [read MIRACLE] that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity [ANOTHER MIRACLE] to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate [MORE MIRACLES] - this was Darwin's insight - eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.”
I purposely didn't quote that part because I linked to the article, and wanted people who cared to read that for themselves. Don't appreciate your editorializing in the quote--parantheses and all caps don't cut it.
Don't understand where you're going. Never once said I don't believe in faith. I said or maybe more precisely implied that it can't be quantified at this time therefore can't be studied at this time and shouldn't be taught in a science class. You said "theology" I agreed.
I said that we might not never formulate an answer for certain things during or after our lifetimes--that's taking things on faith to me.
Are you not satisfied until I say "miracles happen and should be taught along with the theory of Evolution," because that's bogus, and you yourself said belong in theology.
Good night
92 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 12:04 am
The "theory of evolution" is replete with "miracles".
Miracles are based on Faith.
When we teach the "theory of evolution" we are teaching a Faith.
Yet, few are willing to admit this truth.
That is what I find amazing!
93 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 12:23 am
“Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists:”
New York Times -- 08/28/05
___
Their “missing links” are right under their noses.
Each “evolutionary change” has “intelligence” in it.
Purely random changes would not have produced the ordered universe as we know it.
Nothing like wading into an argument that's already over, but I'll put in my 2 cents worth since I've taken the time to read all the comments here.
Abe says:
"Intelligent Design pervades the entire universe.
I rest my case"
How can you rest your case when you haven't even given your opening arguments? Pia has asked you - several times - to tell us what new facts "Intelligent Design" has provided. And you haven't given us one single example, not one.
Sure, there are some gaps in the fossil record. But rather than imploring us to work harder to close those gaps, "Intelligent Design"-ers would have us give up and accept that it was obviously all taken care of by a "higher power".
Gaps or not, the concept of evolution is so incredibly well supported by the evidence we do have, that it is accepted as fact by almost every person (scientist or not) who has bothered to look at that evidence.
Likewise, there is not a single shred of evidence that disproves evolution. [This is your cue, Abe - come on, let us have it!]
"Intelligent Design", on the other hand, lacks evidential support. And, one might argue, there is ample evidence to refute "Intelligent Design". Let's look close to home for one example: the human genome.
Abe - have you ever looked at the sequence of the human genome? No, I didn't think so. No-one who has ever studied the human genome (or the genome of any species, for that matter) in any detail has ever used the words "intelligent" or "design" to describe it. It's a bloody mess, I tell ya.
So, as Pia has eloquently pointed out, "Intelligent Design" has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of life, the universe, or anything. As soon as "Intelligent Design"-ers come up with some evidence for their theory, then - and only then - they can stake a claim to have it taught in schools.
Finally, Abe, I'm glad you quoted T. H. Huxley above (although I'm still perplexed as to why you chose the quote you did, because it supports our cause more than it does yours), because it was he who proclaimed, on finishing Darwin's "Origin of Species":
Thanks Greg
Don't know you but love you. Thanks for the eloquent remark. If nothing else I can say nothing at least 200 eloquent ways.
This was the single longest argument I had over nothing; actually it might have been the only one.
Kept on coming back to it, because I was perplexed and fascinated by somebody who raised no salient points, as I overly pointed out, that supported his arguments but bolstered mine.
Abe quoted the Times article to change the points raised to make it fit his opinion
Trouble was it didn't. And I had stated (ad nusueum) that there's a lot about life we don't know and might never know--but take on blind faith which is in its own way a miracle.
But since I never used the word "miracle" itself--I think--am not going to reread the comments now--he wouldn't agree.
The Huxley remark would have left me perplexed but I couldn't have cared less by then.
Intelligent Design doesn't pervade the universe; there are only things that we're not capable of understanding, yet, and might never be capable of understanding
When you bring faith and miracles into an argument, you bring The First Amendment into it. and we have way better uses for our tax dollars--like teaching kids to think critically and question everything
Then they might be able to afford to move to the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where I live and, argue about nothing, when the weather is horrible.
But we seem to want to raise a nation of sheep--no offense meant to Dolly.
I really can be a sarcastic bully--ask any one of a number of people who have come to my Bring it on! team political blog, but I prefer to play it nice when first on a site for various reasons best left unstated.
96 -
Shark
Aug 29, 2005 at 10:50 am
Abe's next question: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
That was recently quantified by the Discovery Institute.
It will be their grand follow-up, but not appear in peer reviewed lit because only liberals can have their scientific discoveries peer reviewed
98 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 11:57 am
Greg:
“Nothing like wading into an argument that's already over…
Mistake #1. It’s not over.
“How can you rest your case when you haven't even given your opening arguments? Pia has asked you - several times - to tell us what new facts "Intelligent Design" has provided.”
There are no NEW facts, the facts have always been there.
“Sure, there are some gaps in the fossil record.”
The gaps are filled with “intelligent design”.
“But rather than imploring us to work harder to close those gaps, "Intelligent Design"-ers would have us give up and accept that it was obviously all taken care of by a "higher power".
Don’t give up, just don’t say you have the answer until you come up with a better “theory”.
“Gaps or not, the concept of evolution is so incredibly well supported by the evidence we do have, that it is accepted as fact by almost every person (scientist or not) who has bothered to look at that evidence. “
"When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong."
-- Bernard Baruch
It’s called “the herd mentality”.
“Likewise, there is not a single shred of evidence that disproves evolution.”
There is not a shred of evidence that the gaps and holes in the “theory” of evolution can be filled by “evolutionists”.
"Intelligent Design", on the other hand, lacks evidential support.”
The evidence is that there is more missing in the “evolution theory” than there is substance. A list of fossils do not a theory make. The fossil story does not hang together.
“Intelligent Design” is as valid a “theory” as “gaps and holes evolution theory”. Evolution is not disputed as long as it is describing changes within a species.
Explaining away the “missing links” with glib excuses defies reason and logic.
“No-one who has ever studied the human genome (or the genome of any species, for that matter) in any detail has ever used the words "intelligent" or "design" to describe it. It's a bloody mess, I tell ya.”
On the contrary, the human genome (or any other genome) illustrates both complexity and order, which are unlikely to have come about without “intelligence”.
“So, as Pia has eloquently pointed out, "Intelligent Design" has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of life, the universe, or anything.’
Actually, “Intelligent Design” provides an answer to the holes and gaps in “evolution theory”.
“As soon as "Intelligent Design"-ers come up with some evidence for their theory, then - and only then - they can stake a claim to have it taught in schools.”
What is presently taught in schools is misleading kids into believing that “evolution theory” is more than it is. Introducing “Intelligent Design” into schools will help them consider each “theory” and enable them to draw their conclusions. Of course, this is what scares the hell out of “evolutionists”.
“Finally, Abe, I'm glad you quoted T. H. Huxley above (although I'm still perplexed as to why you chose the quote you did, because it supports our cause more than it does yours), because it was he who proclaimed, on finishing Darwin's "Origin of Species": "How stupid of me not to have thought of that."
The Huxley quote was appropriate -- read it again . Like many quotes, it can be taken more than one way. But it would have been “stupid” for Huxley to have thought it.
99 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Pia:
“Abe quoted the Times article to change the points raised to make it fit his opinion.”
No, I introduced objections to the writer’s opinions.
“…there's a lot about life we don't know and might never know--but take on blind faith which is in its own way a miracle.”
Good point. “Evolutionists” take on “blind faith” that the holes and gaps in their comprehensive theory will be filled with what satisfies them.
That is really blind faith.
“But since I never used the word "miracle" itself--I think--am not going to reread the comments now--he wouldn't agree.”
I would agree that re-reading the comments is worthwhile.
‘Intelligent Design doesn't pervade the universe; there are only things that we're not capable of understanding, yet, and might never be capable of understanding.’
We are capable of understanding the universe better if we look past fossils and other decayed matter and use reason and logic. We will never find enough fossils and decayed matter to replace our ability to rationally conclude that the gaps and holes in “evolution theory” must lead to a conclusion other than the current simple-minded “theory of evolution”.
“When you bring faith and miracles into an argument, you bring The First Amendment into it. and we have way better uses for our tax dollars--like teaching kids to think critically and question everything.”
The faith and miracles being brought into the argument are what “evolutionists” are proposing. Since their gaps and holes have no real proof, their “theory” relies on “miracles”.
“Then they might be able to afford to move to the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where I live and, argue about nothing, when the weather is horrible.”
What leads Pia to think that some of us do not already live there?
“But we seem to want to raise a nation of sheep--no offense meant to Dolly.”
The sheep belong to the “evolutionists”. They are the ones who accept a “theory” full of gaps and holes.
Abe: for the last time
ID says what? Nothing. Quantify nothing all you want and you come up with nothing. I asked you many times for specifics on ID--all you have said is that it fills the gaps.
Evolution is testable, stood the test of time and has been expanded on; when I mentioned Dolly, the sheep; how was she made?
Yes there are gaps that will be filled or not.
Almost everything in life can be taken more than one way.
I'm giving you the Seinfeld Award. Enjoy it; it's rarely given and very secret.
Sort of like ID--the people who say they understand how it works and how it adds to our knowledge of the universe refuse to share that info.
Again thanks Greg. Shark feel free to say anything!
101 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Pia:
You are right.
You have your fossils and decayed matter.
What I have is reason and logic.
You hang on to your bones and fossils.
I will hang onto reason and logic as well as your fossils and decayed matter.
Just realize that “miracles” fill the gaps and holes in the dreams of "evolutionists."
And realize that the same “miracles” fit both the “evolutionist theory” and “Intelligent Design.”
There really is no difference except that “evolutionists” have an agenda and do not want to admit that the holes and gaps are “miracles” -- i.e. have imbedded “intelligence”.
Abe really for the last time
Did I say you didn't live in the UWS? No I said "kids" as in school kids and that was clear
Hint: if you're questioning something in an article, let the people who are reading what you're writing in on it.It read as if you were inserting your own points. Editor's questions would be in bold with a frigging question mark.
I happened to love that article perhaps more because of your holding it up to ridicule or question, take your pick.
You're intent on being mysterious, wise and oh so much more intellectual than the rest of us.
You're not. Your so called reason and logic hasn't helped fill the gaps and holes
Don't like evolution. That's your right
Want ID to be taken seriously? You would have to come up with specifics, not the sound of one hand clapping.
Somebady asked me if you were a man or a woman. Good question as most men would have dropped this 40 or so comments ago
Usually only women, and yes I am, would have given you a forum where you were intent on not giving specifics.
this isn't a Talmudic study group, nor a theology class in any religion, nor a sociolgy or philosphy class
Abstractions don't belong in this argument
103 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 1:49 pm
Pia:
I agree.
"Abstractions don't belong in this argument".
And "evolution theory" is an abstraction.
It is an abstraction because of the gaps and holes.
It takes “evolutionist imagination” to fill the gaps and holes.
“Intelligence” fills the gaps and holes.
Do you prefer to fill the holes with “imagination” or “intelligence”?
Based on everything else we know about the universe, reason and logic point to “intelligence”.
Without the gaps and holes, “evolution” would be worthy of being called a “theory“.
But it isn’t even a “theory”.
With its gaps and holes, it is an abstraction.
104 -
RedTard
Aug 29, 2005 at 2:46 pm
I think that ABE's comments on this post have done a great service in showing the shallowness and failure of ID to explain anything.
Intelligent Design is not a new issue it was the de facto theory before science even reared it's head. From the beginning of recorded history brilliant men of logic such as ABE have used ID to cover gaps in knowledge that was beyond their current level of understanding. At one time it was an intelligent "God" that rode the sun across the sky every day, then we discovered gravity. Time and time again what was once though of as an Intelligent creators display of power have been found to be nothing but the basic innerworkings of physics manifesting themselves in nature.
You have to admire their dogged determination (clearly displayed in this thread). Despite the fact that their "theory" has been batted around by great minds for thousands of years they have yet to come up with one single fact, proof, or shred of evidence to support their claim.
As time progresses we have an easier and easier time defending science as it fills in most of the large, obvious voids in our knowledge. Yesterday the question was "Why doesn't the sun fall to the earth by gravity?". Today it is "How exactly did the eye evolve?". Tomorrow it will be "How do you explain the quantum fluctuations in the middle of a seven dimensional Einsteinian vacuum?". Despite the controversy science will prosper and more gaps will be filled. The ABE's of the world will be relegated to the dustbin of history with only a small footnote marking their resistance to progress.
Thanks. I appreciate it, and that was the real reason I let it go on so long. At Bring it on! (my team political blog) I, uh, have conducted experiments sometimes without letting anybody on the team know until I have proven my point.
This point was simple: ID is not a science and therefore shouldn't be studied as one. I don't know how many times I stated that in comments.
People who believe in Evolution have nothing to prove as our knowledge will continue to grow--thanks for stating that so beautifully.
Abe can go on forever because ID isn't a science, has never been able to be tested etc etc etc.
This did become tiresome some time ago, and I very much appreciate your summary
106 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 3:28 pm
RedTard:
“I think that ABE's comments on this post have done a great service in showing the shallowness and failure of ID to explain anything. “
That explains it all. Thanks,
“At one time it was an intelligent "God" that rode the sun across the sky every day…”
Actually, it was “imagination” that brought people to believe it.
“then we discovered gravity.”
Now that fully explains how the gaps and holes in the “evolution abstraction” will be discovered, doesn’t it?
“Time and time again what was once though of as an Intelligent creators display of power have been found to be nothing but the basic innerworkings of physics manifesting themselves in nature.”
Does a passing comment on “the basic innerworkings of physics” shed any light on the “evolutionist abstraction”.?
“You have to admire their dogged determination (clearly displayed in this thread).
Thank you. I take that as a compliment.
It took Thomas Edison 10,000 tries to find the right mixture of materials to develop the incandescent light bulb.
But I would like to believe that if Edison had used only his “imagination” and did not use his intelligence he would not have succeeded.
“Despite the fact that their "theory" has been batted around by great minds for thousands of years they have yet to come up with one single fact, proof, or shred of evidence to support their claim. “
The proof is there -- you can’t see it. Gravity can’t be seen. It takes reason and logic to perceive it. We don’t just “imagine” gravity -- as “evolutionists” imagine their “abstraction“.
“As time progresses we have an easier and easier time defending science as it fills in most of the large, obvious voids in our knowledge.”
Relying on “as time progresses”, to support the “evolutionist abstraction” is like relying on developing a crystal ball to locate the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
“Yesterday the question was "Why doesn't the sun fall to the earth by gravity?".
That was your question yesterday.
It wasn’t relevant then, and it isn’t now.
“Today it is "How exactly did the eye evolve?".
Yes.
“Tomorrow it will be "How do you explain the quantum fluctuations in the middle of a seven dimensional Einsteinian vacuum?".
Some are good at telling what will happen tomorrow. Do you have any insight into the stock market or lottery numbers?
“Despite the controversy science will prosper and more gaps will be filled.”
That is a pithy conclusion.
“The ABE's of the world will be relegated to the dustbin of history with only a small footnote marking their resistance to progress.”
Some are very, very good at telling the rest of us what will happen in the future.
Confucius say “man who use crystal ball -- end up eating broken glass”.
107 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Pia:
“ID is not a science and therefore shouldn't be studied as one.”
Neither is “evolutionist theory” a science.
If you can’t reproduce it and it has gaps and holes, it isn’t science.
“Evolutionist beliefs” simply glue fragments of fossils and decayed matter with their imagination.
And what wonderful pictures they paint!
ID falls into the category of “theory” -- “evolutionist beliefs” fall into the category of “abstractions”.
“People who believe in Evolution have nothing to prove as our knowledge will continue to grow…”
It is obvious that there has to be an answer to the GAPS AND HOLES in “evolutionist’s’ beliefs before it can be said that “people who believe in Evolution have nothing to prove”.
“Abe can go on forever because ID isn't a science, has never been able to be tested etc etc etc.”
If we are going to present facts to kids -- let’s not hide the facts that “evolutionists” don’t like to face.
108 -
billy
Aug 29, 2005 at 4:07 pm
ID falls into the category of “theory” -- “evolutionist beliefs” fall into the category of “abstractions”.
what planet are you living on?
evolution has been science and tested and proved for the last 100 years. that is why it is taught in school.
id is mere fantasy, not provable, never provable, and has nothing ot do with evolution.
109 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 4:13 pm
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BILLY
“ID falls into the category of “theory” -- “evolutionist beliefs” fall into the category of “abstractions”. what planet are you living on? evolution has been science and tested and proved for the last 100 years. that is why it is taught in school. id is mere fantasy, not provable, never provable, and has nothing ot do with evolution.”
That covers the issue.
Don’t you wish.
110 -
RedTard
Aug 29, 2005 at 4:38 pm
"Some are very, very good at telling the rest of us what will happen in the future."
Yes, they're called scientists. They discover patterns like the seasons and forecast the weather. They discover the causes and practical solutions to things like disease. Thanks to scientists we have time to evacuate before a hurricane, we can immunize against disease, and purify our drinking water. If it were up to ID proponents we would still be crossing our fingers and sacrificing goats.
Abe I do have to thank you--have never had so many comments
However I agree with Billy that Evolution is not an abstraction, and would like to ask you exactly what you are trying to say
I can quote from Chinese fortune cookies also; I can quote and paraphrase Einstein. I can also tell you about bloggers who believe that Einstein was "subpar" because he couldn't learn to tie his shoelaces properly or something.
The point is that you and I have very different takes on this. While I might personally believe that all of life is a miracle, I don't want kids believing in Santa Clause because Pat Robertson thinks that they won't be able to tell right from wrong if they don't have him to believe in.
The radical Christian Right funds the Discovery Institute; I don't want them becoming mainstream and our tax dollars going to fund them
I don't want kids I know who attend public school to learn radical Christian right dogma, and letting ID in the door is a first step whether or not you see it as a religious issue.
Separation of Church and State is a fundamental right, and The First Amendment is first for a reason.
I wrote this post in part because I had taken the summer off from Bring it on! and wanted to remind myself about the very real threats to our Constitution.
Very selfishly I don't want the USA going from a country where most people are Christian to becoming a legally Christian country
So argue in the abstract all you want about ID, but how do you feel about having The First Amendment watered down?
112 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 5:47 pm
RedTard:
"Some are very, very good at telling the rest of us what will happen in the future." Yes, they're called scientists."
But scientists -- who put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us -- cannot predict that some random event like a lottery number will occur.
And they cannot predict what the stock market will do tomorrow -- although it is almost certain that it will either go up or down.
Most scientific breakthroughs are obtained by trial and error.
How do you propose using trial and error to prove your “evolutionist abstraction”.
Please let the world know.
Don't confuse predicting such things as the weather, which relies on simple day-to-day historical data -- with predicting an event such as finding the "missing links" to prove your “evolutionist theory”.
113 -
billy
Aug 29, 2005 at 5:51 pm
“evolutionist abstraction”.
try digging up bones for hundreds of years and never finding a skeleton that refuted evolution.
try watching a virus evolve in a petri dish in minutes right before your eyes.
try actually reading a book that isnt the bible.
or are those science books just "evolutionist abstractions"
ABE, we already have very good explanations for gaps in the fossil record: (1) fossilisation is an extremely chancy process - almost every animal that has ever lived and died has not been fossilised; (2) many of those fossils that did form have been erased by well-established geological processes (of course, our knowledge of these processes is based on good science, so you probably won't believe it).
See, no faith. That's why we can teach it in schools.
To explain the gaps with "God did it" is facile, an extreme perversion of logic, and 100% faith-based. That's shy it should be kept out of schools.
"When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong."
Once again, you said it, not me.
115 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 6:18 pm
Pia:
“I don't want kids believing in Santa Clause because Pat Robertson thinks that they won't be able to tell right from wrong if they don't have him to believe in.”
Pat Robertson is not the issue. And don’t hang him on me.
I don’t rely on him to tell me that “evolutionary theory” is a fiction.
“The radical Christian Right funds the Discovery Institute“
I don’t have any animosity toward the Christian Right or the Discovery Institute.
Do you?
“I don't want kids I know who attend public school to learn radical Christian right dogma, and letting ID in the door is a first step whether or not you see it as a religious issue.”
What is it in this dogma relating to “evolutionary theory” that you object to?
“Separation of Church and State is a fundamental right, and The First Amendment is first for a reason.”
I didn’t know that presenting the “holes and gaps” in “evolutionary theory” -- violates the First Amendment.
“I wrote this post in part because I had taken the summer off from Bring it on! and wanted to remind myself about the very real threats to our Constitution.”
The real threat to our Constitution consists of groups grabbing the microphone and telling others they have no right to be heard.
The real threat to our Constitution consists of groups saying they have truth on their side, and that is the end of discussion.
“Very selfishly I don't want the USA going from a country where most people are Christian to becoming a legally Christian country.”
You have nothing to fear but fear itself.
“So argue in the abstract all you want about ID, but how do you feel about having The
First Amendment watered down?”
The First Amendment will be watered down when people are denied the right to present their argument.
Especially when the opposing argument is full of holes,
116 -
billy
Aug 29, 2005 at 6:33 pm
"The First Amendment will be watered down when people are denied the right to present their argument. "
you keep rambling about this but you have never presented any argument whatsoever that could ever be tested.
saying evolution has a "hole" in it is pointless unless you have a theory to fill it. you dont.
Abe are you for real? You find something wrong with every frigging word that I write but you haven't presented one piece of evidence to make your case
Yes I fear the radical Christian right. You like to comment on blogs? I can give you a list of radical Christian right blogs that will keep you occupied. I can give you the names of many other publications at my team blog, Bring it on!
"When people are denied the right to make their argument." Are you aware of the growing anti-ACLU movement?
Or is the ACLU, a commie org to you, and the people they represent don't deserve to be heard. Too many people believe this.
118 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Billy:
"The First Amendment will be watered down when people are denied the right to present their argument. you keep rambling about this but you have never presented any argument whatsoever that could ever be tested.”
So, what argument has been tested by “evolution theorists”.
There are none.
I’m not talking about “evolution within species”.
Show me proof of “evolution between species” without holes and gaps.
Until you show me that, how can you be taken seriously?
How do you get First Amendment rights to present what is unproven and which consists of an incredibly large number of holes and gaps.
And then deny the theory, based on reason and logic that where intelligence is obvious, intelligence is the best answer.
119 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Pia:
“Abe are you for real? You find something wrong with every frigging word that I write but you haven't presented one piece of evidence to make your case.”
Sorry about finding something wrong with every frigging word you write.
I have presented an argument that states -- “reason and logic” trump an abstraction based on the gaps and holes in “evolutionist theory.”
Is that so hard to understand?
“Yes I fear the radical Christian right.”
But you haven’t said why.
Fear without reason is hearing footsteps in the dark when no one is there.
“You like to comment on blogs? I can give you a list of radical Christian right blogs that will keep you occupied. I can give you the names of many other publications at my team blog, Bring it on!”
Thanks for the offer, but I find my own diversions..
"When people are denied the right to make their argument." Are you aware of the growing anti-ACLU movement?”
What is the position of the ACLU on “intelligent design”?
“Or is the ACLU, a commie org to you, and the people they represent don't deserve to be heard. Too many people believe this.”
The ACLU does some good, but they are not always right. (not a pun).
120 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 9:05 pm
Billy:
“try digging up bones for hundreds of years and never finding a skeleton that refuted evolution.”
How does a skeleton tell you that the “gaps and holes” in “evolutionist theory” are filled by something other than by “intelligent design“.
“try watching a virus evolve in a petri dish in minutes right before your eyes.”
How does watching a virus evolve in a petri dish in minutes right before your eyes. tell you that the “gaps and holes” in “evolutionist theory” are filled by something other than by “intelligent design“.
Do you want me to use my imagination?
Or do you want me to use reason and logic?
“try actually reading a book that isnt the bible.”
I have.
“or are those science books just "evolutionist abstractions"
The science books I read are based on fact, not imagination.
121 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Greg:
“ABE, we already have very good explanations for gaps in the fossil record: (1) fossilisation is an extremely chancy process - almost every animal that has ever lived and died has not been fossilised; (2) many of those fossils that did form have been erased by well-established geological processes (of course, our knowledge of these processes is based on good science, so you probably won't believe it).”
Explanations (excuses) for lack of records and evidence is no reason to come up with a defective and premature conclusion.
PROSECUTOR: Sorry judge, the evidence was erased or we just couldn’t find it -- but we know what happened. So just take our word -- that if we could have found the evidence, we know what the evidence would tell us. Our knowledge is based on good police work, but you probably won’t believe it.
JUDGE: You’re right. I don’t believe it.
JUDGE: Case dismissed.
“See, no faith. That's why we can teach it [what is it?] in schools.”
I would expect that what is being taught is limited to “evolution within species” -- where it is evident, and not teaching what is unproven. That is where the controversy resides.
“To explain the gaps with "God did it" is facile, an extreme perversion of logic, and 100% faith-based. That's shy it should be kept out of schools.
Not once have I presented what you said here. Why do you inject spurious comment?
"When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong." Once again, you said it, not me.”
I was just commenting on what you said in #94.
___
Comment 94 posted by Greg
“Gaps or not, the concept of evolution is so incredibly well supported by the evidence we do have, that it is accepted as fact by almost every person (scientist or not) who has bothered to look at that evidence.”
I'm still confused. What are these "gaps and holes" in "evolutionist theory" you speak of, ABE?
Evolution is a slow process - it has occurred over a timescale of thousands, millions, billions of years. We have evidence of evolution occurring on a small scale right before our eyes; we have fossil evidence of evolution having occurred at a much larger scale over much longer times.
All of the evidence we have points to evolution as the correct explanation for how life as we know it arose. Much of this evidence has been accrued during my lifetime.
There is no evidential support for any other explanation of how life arose.
That you and your fundamentalist cronies can't incorporate solid scientific evidence into your world view, and instead rely on writings which predate practically all of our knowledge about the world/universe around us, speaks volumes about the power of religious indoctrination and the influence it has on young (and even old) minds. THAT is why we oppose your nonsense being taught in schools.
Abe
Did you actually read my post? You know the thing that preceded this thread of absurd comments,
I have written many posts at my team political blog Bring it on! about the radical right; so has the rest of the team. Don't want to go there? Go to my personal blog,Courting Destiny; go to the rest of the teams personal blogs
You can dissect every word we have written.
But you still have not given one reason why government money should be spent on ID
I was just about to give reasons why I dislike the radical right and their influence in this country but that's really not the point
The point--and I did write the post--is that ID isn't a science or anything--and spending government money on it is a clear violation of separation of church and state
Your arguments have only furthered my belief in my stance
Your self-grandizing superiority has turned more than a few people off--and they went to my blog, and liked it. So thanks for getting me new readers
Oh yeah I will say that the radical Christian right has influenced our government greatly.
Terri? Stem cell research?
Minor things to you I'm sure Abe. Sure nobody in your family has Parkinsons, Alzheimers, macula degeneration or a host of other conditions that could be or could have had its progression slowed or have been cured. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm saying; I could whip out the degrees, licenses and certifications quicker than you could say the word "holes."
Really was going to better than this, but you seem to have a fondness for taking each word I say and mocking it.
Don't take that well. I would really call it a night. Many people will tell you that I play nicely at first.
You think you're so wise and wonderful yet what have you said?
What reason and logic have you been using? ID must be true to explain you
124 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 10:38 pm
Greg:
“I'm still confused. What are these "gaps and holes" in "evolutionist theory" you speak of, ABE?”
The gaps and holes involve several fundamental questions which “evolutionist theory” cannot prove.
1.How did life on earth come about?
2. Where are the fossils of in-between forms?
3. How did complex body parts came into existence?
Without answers to these questions, “evolutionist theory” fails.
Evolutionists claim that the formation of life and complex body parts happened by chance, but there is no proof or precedent for making this claim. These claims are not supported by any science.
BTW -- these issues were not addressed by Darwin. The assumption that life was spontaneously created by chance was added by his followers.
“Evolution is a slow process - it has occurred over a timescale of thousands, millions, billions of years. We have evidence of evolution occurring on a small scale right before our eyes; we have fossil evidence of evolution having occurred at a much larger scale over much longer times.”
You may have evidence of evolution occurring on a small scale right before our eyes, but
that does not address and answer the gaps and holes which are the issue.
“All of the evidence we have points to evolution as the correct explanation for how life as we know it arose.”
No it doesn’t -- you have been hoodwinked into that belief. You have not been told about the gaps and holes.
“There is no evidential support for any other explanation of how life arose.”
Because you have not been exposed to any other explanation, is no reason to accept a “theory” laden with gap and holes.
“That you and your fundamentalist cronies can't incorporate solid scientific evidence into your world view, and instead rely on writings which predate practically all of our knowledge about the world/universe around us, speaks volumes about the power of religious indoctrination and the influence it has on young (and even old) minds. THAT is why we oppose your nonsense being taught in schools.”
It is your philosophy that is attempting to indoctrinate and influence the young (and old) to believe a “theory” which has not been proven.
If intelligent Design is “nonsense” why do you fear it?
Nonsense will be the source of its own demise.
125 -
ABE
Aug 29, 2005 at 11:04 pm
Pia:
“Did you actually read my post? You know the thing that preceded this thread of absurd comments,”
Yes, I read it.
“You can dissect every word we have written. But you still have not given one reason why government money should be spent on ID.”
I have seen no reason why the “gaps and holes” in “evolutionary theory” should be censored.
And I sense that your disagreement with the radical right is what is spurring you on with such vehemence.
Is it possible that no matter what the radical right says, you would oppose it?
“The point--and I did write the post--is that ID isn't a science or anything--and spending government money on it is a clear violation of separation of church and state”
Are you saying that the radical right owns the issue of whether “evolutionary theory” has been proven.
I think not.
And your battle with the radical right on other issues is not justification for overlooking the deficiencies in “evolutionary theory”.
“I could whip out the degrees, licenses and certifications quicker than you could say the word "holes."
What is the purpose of this boast?
Are we playing kid’s games?
My father is bigger than your father?
I don't play kid's games but that is a battle you might lose.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - pia savage
Yes all scientist are Liberal Evolutionists with total control over the journals.
If ID was testable, for the last time, it would be a watershed event and written about everywhere.
Even Liberal Evolutionists might like the idea of a divine touch being proven
77 - WTF
Sharks have stopped evolving... they're not perfect.
This is documented and video exists.
Orca's will shred a shark (a Great White, off the Catalina Islands), bust them in half, snatch the liver out, eat it without breaking stride.
It takes about 1 second.
78 - ABE
Biology should teach what is “known“ -- not what is "theory".
And what is not known about the sources and progression of life -- far surpasses what is known.
We should teach what is known -- as well as what is not known, and not a "theory" that enables overlooking what is not known.
If “evolution theory” is to be taught -- let it be in a course on “Evolution theory and its Unknowns”.
79 - pia savage
Abe
What's left to say? Most people, even kids, understand that there are gaps in our knowledge.
things that makes life wonderful: there will always be something new to discover
somethings may never be discovered throughout humankind.
Life's a mystery; then we die. There were certain deaths I couldn't accept until I understood that most things aren't certainties; and the world goes on anyway. Then I began to be able to accept my own mortality.
I say this all for a reason but I'll leave you to figure that out
80 - Shark
Stephen Stills: 'I thought it was liberals who hate blacklisting and censorship."
Stills -- you also said, "If ya cain't be with the one you love, love the one yer with."
So EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS SUSPECT.
81 - ABE
Pia:
“What's left to say?”
Let’s spend more time ensuring that kids understand the gaps in our knowledge.
I believe many kids believe erroneously that the “theory of evolution” is the final word on the matter.
“Some things may never be discovered throughout humankind.”
But let’s be sure that we don’t confuse what we have discovered with what we haven’t discovered.
82 - pia savage
Shark that was the first thing that made me laugh in this whole thread, including me. I just couldn't write the comments funny. Thanks
Abe, you want to discuss the Scopes trial? That's in my realm and I can but won't comment on it.
Your last comments have been beautifully written but totally out of the realm of my post, and my many comments citing today's Times article, which I presented a link too, and is aptly called "Show me the science."
83 - Shark
Pia, I can be funny, but you gots to get your mind right.
BTW: I admire your stamina on this dance floor, but question your choice of tune, steps, and partners.
PS: The NY Times article sorta said it all -- and if you were paying attention, SO DID I in comment #59.
There's nothing left to say after that. Seriously.
xxoo
S
84 - pia savage
I misused a "too," which means that I'm tired. My post is on how ID and The First Amendment don't mix. Everything I added, except for the overly poetic comment on how somethings might never be discovered, just backs my post up.
Abe what have you said that's meaningful to adding or taking from my argument? Don't see anything; just many clever comments.
85 - pia savage
Snake you're too clever for me. That's not a compliment; it's from a kids book.
You're right the Times article did say it all. There's nothing,absolutely nothing that can be taught about ID.
So where's the evidence?
86 - ABE
“Contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt: that natural selection - the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge - has the POWER to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs.”
New York Times -- 08/28/05
___
Interesting statement.
Where did the POWER come from?
The “law of the conservation of energy “ precludes POWER coming out of nowhere.
87 - pia savage
Snake you know I read comment 58 rather than 50 which I had read before, and have been saying for about the past I don't know how many comments that this is an exercise in nothingness.
88 - pia savage
Really don't know,Abe, and really don't care right now.
Not going to get into energy flow or the laws of physics so why don't we leave it as one of the sweet mysteries of life that might or might not be fully explained one day
89 - ABE
“First, imagine how easy it would be for a determined band of naysayers to shake the world's confidence in quantum physics - how weird it is! - or Einsteinian relativity.
New York Times -- 08/28/05
___
Comparing quantum physics - or Einsteinian relativity with the true solution to answering how any species came about is like comparing a mouse trap to a rocket ship.
90 - ABE
Evolution of the eye:
Once upon a time… the eye developed in a miraculous way…
As reported by the New York Times -- 08/28/05
“As we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work - all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multi-celled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago - WE CAN BEGIN TO TELL THE STORY [BELIEVE IT OR NOT] of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while.
BEGIN TO TELL THE STORY? YES, AND IT IS QUITE A TALE.
“We can't yet say what all the details of this process were, but real eyes representative of all the intermediate stages can be found, dotted around the animal kingdom, and we have DETAILED COMPUTER MODELS to demonstrate that the creative process works just as the theory says.”
DETAILED COMPUTER MODELS? GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.
“All it takes is a RARE ACCIDENT [read MIRACLE] that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity [ANOTHER MIRACLE] to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate [MORE MIRACLES] - this was Darwin's insight - eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.”
All it takes is MANY MIRACLES…
Now that is TRUE FAITH!
91 - pia savage
Abe
How many times did I quote from that article?
I purposely didn't quote that part because I linked to the article, and wanted people who cared to read that for themselves. Don't appreciate your editorializing in the quote--parantheses and all caps don't cut it.
Don't understand where you're going. Never once said I don't believe in faith. I said or maybe more precisely implied that it can't be quantified at this time therefore can't be studied at this time and shouldn't be taught in a science class. You said "theology" I agreed.
I said that we might not never formulate an answer for certain things during or after our lifetimes--that's taking things on faith to me.
Are you not satisfied until I say "miracles happen and should be taught along with the theory of Evolution," because that's bogus, and you yourself said belong in theology.
Good night
92 - ABE
The "theory of evolution" is replete with "miracles".
Miracles are based on Faith.
When we teach the "theory of evolution" we are teaching a Faith.
Yet, few are willing to admit this truth.
That is what I find amazing!
93 - ABE
“Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists:”
New York Times -- 08/28/05
___
Their “missing links” are right under their noses.
Each “evolutionary change” has “intelligence” in it.
Purely random changes would not have produced the ordered universe as we know it.
Intelligent Design pervades the entire universe.
I rest my case.
94 - Greg
Nothing like wading into an argument that's already over, but I'll put in my 2 cents worth since I've taken the time to read all the comments here.
Abe says:
"Intelligent Design pervades the entire universe.
I rest my case"
How can you rest your case when you haven't even given your opening arguments? Pia has asked you - several times - to tell us what new facts "Intelligent Design" has provided. And you haven't given us one single example, not one.
Sure, there are some gaps in the fossil record. But rather than imploring us to work harder to close those gaps, "Intelligent Design"-ers would have us give up and accept that it was obviously all taken care of by a "higher power".
Gaps or not, the concept of evolution is so incredibly well supported by the evidence we do have, that it is accepted as fact by almost every person (scientist or not) who has bothered to look at that evidence.
Likewise, there is not a single shred of evidence that disproves evolution. [This is your cue, Abe - come on, let us have it!]
"Intelligent Design", on the other hand, lacks evidential support. And, one might argue, there is ample evidence to refute "Intelligent Design". Let's look close to home for one example: the human genome.
Abe - have you ever looked at the sequence of the human genome? No, I didn't think so. No-one who has ever studied the human genome (or the genome of any species, for that matter) in any detail has ever used the words "intelligent" or "design" to describe it. It's a bloody mess, I tell ya.
So, as Pia has eloquently pointed out, "Intelligent Design" has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of life, the universe, or anything. As soon as "Intelligent Design"-ers come up with some evidence for their theory, then - and only then - they can stake a claim to have it taught in schools.
Finally, Abe, I'm glad you quoted T. H. Huxley above (although I'm still perplexed as to why you chose the quote you did, because it supports our cause more than it does yours), because it was he who proclaimed, on finishing Darwin's "Origin of Species":
"How stupid of me not to have thought of that."
95 - pia savage
Thanks Greg
Don't know you but love you. Thanks for the eloquent remark. If nothing else I can say nothing at least 200 eloquent ways.
This was the single longest argument I had over nothing; actually it might have been the only one.
Kept on coming back to it, because I was perplexed and fascinated by somebody who raised no salient points, as I overly pointed out, that supported his arguments but bolstered mine.
Abe quoted the Times article to change the points raised to make it fit his opinion
Trouble was it didn't. And I had stated (ad nusueum) that there's a lot about life we don't know and might never know--but take on blind faith which is in its own way a miracle.
But since I never used the word "miracle" itself--I think--am not going to reread the comments now--he wouldn't agree.
The Huxley remark would have left me perplexed but I couldn't have cared less by then.
Intelligent Design doesn't pervade the universe; there are only things that we're not capable of understanding, yet, and might never be capable of understanding
When you bring faith and miracles into an argument, you bring The First Amendment into it. and we have way better uses for our tax dollars--like teaching kids to think critically and question everything
Then they might be able to afford to move to the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where I live and, argue about nothing, when the weather is horrible.
But we seem to want to raise a nation of sheep--no offense meant to Dolly.
I really can be a sarcastic bully--ask any one of a number of people who have come to my Bring it on! team political blog, but I prefer to play it nice when first on a site for various reasons best left unstated.
96 - Shark
Abe's next question: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
~ stay tuned
97 - pia savage
That was recently quantified by the Discovery Institute.
It will be their grand follow-up, but not appear in peer reviewed lit because only liberals can have their scientific discoveries peer reviewed
98 - ABE
Greg:
“Nothing like wading into an argument that's already over…
Mistake #1. It’s not over.
“How can you rest your case when you haven't even given your opening arguments? Pia has asked you - several times - to tell us what new facts "Intelligent Design" has provided.”
There are no NEW facts, the facts have always been there.
“Sure, there are some gaps in the fossil record.”
The gaps are filled with “intelligent design”.
“But rather than imploring us to work harder to close those gaps, "Intelligent Design"-ers would have us give up and accept that it was obviously all taken care of by a "higher power".
Don’t give up, just don’t say you have the answer until you come up with a better “theory”.
“Gaps or not, the concept of evolution is so incredibly well supported by the evidence we do have, that it is accepted as fact by almost every person (scientist or not) who has bothered to look at that evidence. “
"When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong."
-- Bernard Baruch
It’s called “the herd mentality”.
“Likewise, there is not a single shred of evidence that disproves evolution.”
There is not a shred of evidence that the gaps and holes in the “theory” of evolution can be filled by “evolutionists”.
"Intelligent Design", on the other hand, lacks evidential support.”
The evidence is that there is more missing in the “evolution theory” than there is substance. A list of fossils do not a theory make. The fossil story does not hang together.
“Intelligent Design” is as valid a “theory” as “gaps and holes evolution theory”. Evolution is not disputed as long as it is describing changes within a species.
Explaining away the “missing links” with glib excuses defies reason and logic.
“No-one who has ever studied the human genome (or the genome of any species, for that matter) in any detail has ever used the words "intelligent" or "design" to describe it. It's a bloody mess, I tell ya.”
On the contrary, the human genome (or any other genome) illustrates both complexity and order, which are unlikely to have come about without “intelligence”.
“So, as Pia has eloquently pointed out, "Intelligent Design" has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of life, the universe, or anything.’
Actually, “Intelligent Design” provides an answer to the holes and gaps in “evolution theory”.
“As soon as "Intelligent Design"-ers come up with some evidence for their theory, then - and only then - they can stake a claim to have it taught in schools.”
What is presently taught in schools is misleading kids into believing that “evolution theory” is more than it is. Introducing “Intelligent Design” into schools will help them consider each “theory” and enable them to draw their conclusions. Of course, this is what scares the hell out of “evolutionists”.
“Finally, Abe, I'm glad you quoted T. H. Huxley above (although I'm still perplexed as to why you chose the quote you did, because it supports our cause more than it does yours), because it was he who proclaimed, on finishing Darwin's "Origin of Species": "How stupid of me not to have thought of that."
The Huxley quote was appropriate -- read it again . Like many quotes, it can be taken more than one way. But it would have been “stupid” for Huxley to have thought it.
99 - ABE
Pia:
“Abe quoted the Times article to change the points raised to make it fit his opinion.”
No, I introduced objections to the writer’s opinions.
“…there's a lot about life we don't know and might never know--but take on blind faith which is in its own way a miracle.”
Good point. “Evolutionists” take on “blind faith” that the holes and gaps in their comprehensive theory will be filled with what satisfies them.
That is really blind faith.
“But since I never used the word "miracle" itself--I think--am not going to reread the comments now--he wouldn't agree.”
I would agree that re-reading the comments is worthwhile.
‘Intelligent Design doesn't pervade the universe; there are only things that we're not capable of understanding, yet, and might never be capable of understanding.’
We are capable of understanding the universe better if we look past fossils and other decayed matter and use reason and logic. We will never find enough fossils and decayed matter to replace our ability to rationally conclude that the gaps and holes in “evolution theory” must lead to a conclusion other than the current simple-minded “theory of evolution”.
“When you bring faith and miracles into an argument, you bring The First Amendment into it. and we have way better uses for our tax dollars--like teaching kids to think critically and question everything.”
The faith and miracles being brought into the argument are what “evolutionists” are proposing. Since their gaps and holes have no real proof, their “theory” relies on “miracles”.
“Then they might be able to afford to move to the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where I live and, argue about nothing, when the weather is horrible.”
What leads Pia to think that some of us do not already live there?
“But we seem to want to raise a nation of sheep--no offense meant to Dolly.”
The sheep belong to the “evolutionists”. They are the ones who accept a “theory” full of gaps and holes.
100 - pia savage
Abe: for the last time
ID says what? Nothing. Quantify nothing all you want and you come up with nothing. I asked you many times for specifics on ID--all you have said is that it fills the gaps.
Evolution is testable, stood the test of time and has been expanded on; when I mentioned Dolly, the sheep; how was she made?
Yes there are gaps that will be filled or not.
Almost everything in life can be taken more than one way.
I'm giving you the Seinfeld Award. Enjoy it; it's rarely given and very secret.
Sort of like ID--the people who say they understand how it works and how it adds to our knowledge of the universe refuse to share that info.
Again thanks Greg. Shark feel free to say anything!
101 - ABE
Pia:
You are right.
You have your fossils and decayed matter.
What I have is reason and logic.
You hang on to your bones and fossils.
I will hang onto reason and logic as well as your fossils and decayed matter.
Just realize that “miracles” fill the gaps and holes in the dreams of "evolutionists."
And realize that the same “miracles” fit both the “evolutionist theory” and “Intelligent Design.”
There really is no difference except that “evolutionists” have an agenda and do not want to admit that the holes and gaps are “miracles” -- i.e. have imbedded “intelligence”.
102 - pia savage
Abe really for the last time
Did I say you didn't live in the UWS? No I said "kids" as in school kids and that was clear
Hint: if you're questioning something in an article, let the people who are reading what you're writing in on it.It read as if you were inserting your own points. Editor's questions would be in bold with a frigging question mark.
I happened to love that article perhaps more because of your holding it up to ridicule or question, take your pick.
You're intent on being mysterious, wise and oh so much more intellectual than the rest of us.
You're not. Your so called reason and logic hasn't helped fill the gaps and holes
Don't like evolution. That's your right
Want ID to be taken seriously? You would have to come up with specifics, not the sound of one hand clapping.
Somebady asked me if you were a man or a woman. Good question as most men would have dropped this 40 or so comments ago
Usually only women, and yes I am, would have given you a forum where you were intent on not giving specifics.
this isn't a Talmudic study group, nor a theology class in any religion, nor a sociolgy or philosphy class
Abstractions don't belong in this argument
103 - ABE
Pia:
I agree.
"Abstractions don't belong in this argument".
And "evolution theory" is an abstraction.
It is an abstraction because of the gaps and holes.
It takes “evolutionist imagination” to fill the gaps and holes.
“Intelligence” fills the gaps and holes.
Do you prefer to fill the holes with “imagination” or “intelligence”?
Based on everything else we know about the universe, reason and logic point to “intelligence”.
Without the gaps and holes, “evolution” would be worthy of being called a “theory“.
But it isn’t even a “theory”.
With its gaps and holes, it is an abstraction.
104 - RedTard
I think that ABE's comments on this post have done a great service in showing the shallowness and failure of ID to explain anything.
Intelligent Design is not a new issue it was the de facto theory before science even reared it's head. From the beginning of recorded history brilliant men of logic such as ABE have used ID to cover gaps in knowledge that was beyond their current level of understanding. At one time it was an intelligent "God" that rode the sun across the sky every day, then we discovered gravity. Time and time again what was once though of as an Intelligent creators display of power have been found to be nothing but the basic innerworkings of physics manifesting themselves in nature.
You have to admire their dogged determination (clearly displayed in this thread). Despite the fact that their "theory" has been batted around by great minds for thousands of years they have yet to come up with one single fact, proof, or shred of evidence to support their claim.
As time progresses we have an easier and easier time defending science as it fills in most of the large, obvious voids in our knowledge. Yesterday the question was "Why doesn't the sun fall to the earth by gravity?". Today it is "How exactly did the eye evolve?". Tomorrow it will be "How do you explain the quantum fluctuations in the middle of a seven dimensional Einsteinian vacuum?". Despite the controversy science will prosper and more gaps will be filled. The ABE's of the world will be relegated to the dustbin of history with only a small footnote marking their resistance to progress.
105 - pia savage
Thanks. I appreciate it, and that was the real reason I let it go on so long. At Bring it on! (my team political blog) I, uh, have conducted experiments sometimes without letting anybody on the team know until I have proven my point.
This point was simple: ID is not a science and therefore shouldn't be studied as one. I don't know how many times I stated that in comments.
People who believe in Evolution have nothing to prove as our knowledge will continue to grow--thanks for stating that so beautifully.
Abe can go on forever because ID isn't a science, has never been able to be tested etc etc etc.
This did become tiresome some time ago, and I very much appreciate your summary
106 - ABE
RedTard:
“I think that ABE's comments on this post have done a great service in showing the shallowness and failure of ID to explain anything. “
That explains it all. Thanks,
“At one time it was an intelligent "God" that rode the sun across the sky every day…”
Actually, it was “imagination” that brought people to believe it.
“then we discovered gravity.”
Now that fully explains how the gaps and holes in the “evolution abstraction” will be discovered, doesn’t it?
“Time and time again what was once though of as an Intelligent creators display of power have been found to be nothing but the basic innerworkings of physics manifesting themselves in nature.”
Does a passing comment on “the basic innerworkings of physics” shed any light on the “evolutionist abstraction”.?
“You have to admire their dogged determination (clearly displayed in this thread).
Thank you. I take that as a compliment.
It took Thomas Edison 10,000 tries to find the right mixture of materials to develop the incandescent light bulb.
But I would like to believe that if Edison had used only his “imagination” and did not use his intelligence he would not have succeeded.
“Despite the fact that their "theory" has been batted around by great minds for thousands of years they have yet to come up with one single fact, proof, or shred of evidence to support their claim. “
The proof is there -- you can’t see it. Gravity can’t be seen. It takes reason and logic to perceive it. We don’t just “imagine” gravity -- as “evolutionists” imagine their “abstraction“.
“As time progresses we have an easier and easier time defending science as it fills in most of the large, obvious voids in our knowledge.”
Relying on “as time progresses”, to support the “evolutionist abstraction” is like relying on developing a crystal ball to locate the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
“Yesterday the question was "Why doesn't the sun fall to the earth by gravity?".
That was your question yesterday.
It wasn’t relevant then, and it isn’t now.
“Today it is "How exactly did the eye evolve?".
Yes.
“Tomorrow it will be "How do you explain the quantum fluctuations in the middle of a seven dimensional Einsteinian vacuum?".
Some are good at telling what will happen tomorrow. Do you have any insight into the stock market or lottery numbers?
“Despite the controversy science will prosper and more gaps will be filled.”
That is a pithy conclusion.
“The ABE's of the world will be relegated to the dustbin of history with only a small footnote marking their resistance to progress.”
Some are very, very good at telling the rest of us what will happen in the future.
Confucius say “man who use crystal ball -- end up eating broken glass”.
107 - ABE
Pia:
“ID is not a science and therefore shouldn't be studied as one.”
Neither is “evolutionist theory” a science.
If you can’t reproduce it and it has gaps and holes, it isn’t science.
“Evolutionist beliefs” simply glue fragments of fossils and decayed matter with their imagination.
And what wonderful pictures they paint!
ID falls into the category of “theory” -- “evolutionist beliefs” fall into the category of “abstractions”.
“People who believe in Evolution have nothing to prove as our knowledge will continue to grow…”
It is obvious that there has to be an answer to the GAPS AND HOLES in “evolutionist’s’ beliefs before it can be said that “people who believe in Evolution have nothing to prove”.
“Abe can go on forever because ID isn't a science, has never been able to be tested etc etc etc.”
If we are going to present facts to kids -- let’s not hide the facts that “evolutionists” don’t like to face.
108 - billy
ID falls into the category of “theory” -- “evolutionist beliefs” fall into the category of “abstractions”.
what planet are you living on?
evolution has been science and tested and proved for the last 100 years. that is why it is taught in school.
id is mere fantasy, not provable, never provable, and has nothing ot do with evolution.
109 - ABE
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BILLY
“ID falls into the category of “theory” -- “evolutionist beliefs” fall into the category of “abstractions”. what planet are you living on? evolution has been science and tested and proved for the last 100 years. that is why it is taught in school. id is mere fantasy, not provable, never provable, and has nothing ot do with evolution.”
That covers the issue.
Don’t you wish.
110 - RedTard
"Some are very, very good at telling the rest of us what will happen in the future."
Yes, they're called scientists. They discover patterns like the seasons and forecast the weather. They discover the causes and practical solutions to things like disease. Thanks to scientists we have time to evacuate before a hurricane, we can immunize against disease, and purify our drinking water. If it were up to ID proponents we would still be crossing our fingers and sacrificing goats.
111 - pia savage
Abe I do have to thank you--have never had so many comments
However I agree with Billy that Evolution is not an abstraction, and would like to ask you exactly what you are trying to say
I can quote from Chinese fortune cookies also; I can quote and paraphrase Einstein. I can also tell you about bloggers who believe that Einstein was "subpar" because he couldn't learn to tie his shoelaces properly or something.
The point is that you and I have very different takes on this. While I might personally believe that all of life is a miracle, I don't want kids believing in Santa Clause because Pat Robertson thinks that they won't be able to tell right from wrong if they don't have him to believe in.
The radical Christian Right funds the Discovery Institute; I don't want them becoming mainstream and our tax dollars going to fund them
I don't want kids I know who attend public school to learn radical Christian right dogma, and letting ID in the door is a first step whether or not you see it as a religious issue.
Separation of Church and State is a fundamental right, and The First Amendment is first for a reason.
I wrote this post in part because I had taken the summer off from Bring it on! and wanted to remind myself about the very real threats to our Constitution.
Very selfishly I don't want the USA going from a country where most people are Christian to becoming a legally Christian country
So argue in the abstract all you want about ID, but how do you feel about having The First Amendment watered down?
112 - ABE
RedTard:
"Some are very, very good at telling the rest of us what will happen in the future." Yes, they're called scientists."
But scientists -- who put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us -- cannot predict that some random event like a lottery number will occur.
And they cannot predict what the stock market will do tomorrow -- although it is almost certain that it will either go up or down.
Most scientific breakthroughs are obtained by trial and error.
How do you propose using trial and error to prove your “evolutionist abstraction”.
Please let the world know.
Don't confuse predicting such things as the weather, which relies on simple day-to-day historical data -- with predicting an event such as finding the "missing links" to prove your “evolutionist theory”.
113 - billy
“evolutionist abstraction”.
try digging up bones for hundreds of years and never finding a skeleton that refuted evolution.
try watching a virus evolve in a petri dish in minutes right before your eyes.
try actually reading a book that isnt the bible.
or are those science books just "evolutionist abstractions"
114 - Greg
ABE, we already have very good explanations for gaps in the fossil record: (1) fossilisation is an extremely chancy process - almost every animal that has ever lived and died has not been fossilised; (2) many of those fossils that did form have been erased by well-established geological processes (of course, our knowledge of these processes is based on good science, so you probably won't believe it).
See, no faith. That's why we can teach it in schools.
To explain the gaps with "God did it" is facile, an extreme perversion of logic, and 100% faith-based. That's shy it should be kept out of schools.
"When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong."
Once again, you said it, not me.
115 - ABE
Pia:
“I don't want kids believing in Santa Clause because Pat Robertson thinks that they won't be able to tell right from wrong if they don't have him to believe in.”
Pat Robertson is not the issue. And don’t hang him on me.
I don’t rely on him to tell me that “evolutionary theory” is a fiction.
“The radical Christian Right funds the Discovery Institute“
I don’t have any animosity toward the Christian Right or the Discovery Institute.
Do you?
“I don't want kids I know who attend public school to learn radical Christian right dogma, and letting ID in the door is a first step whether or not you see it as a religious issue.”
What is it in this dogma relating to “evolutionary theory” that you object to?
“Separation of Church and State is a fundamental right, and The First Amendment is first for a reason.”
I didn’t know that presenting the “holes and gaps” in “evolutionary theory” -- violates the First Amendment.
“I wrote this post in part because I had taken the summer off from Bring it on! and wanted to remind myself about the very real threats to our Constitution.”
The real threat to our Constitution consists of groups grabbing the microphone and telling others they have no right to be heard.
The real threat to our Constitution consists of groups saying they have truth on their side, and that is the end of discussion.
“Very selfishly I don't want the USA going from a country where most people are Christian to becoming a legally Christian country.”
You have nothing to fear but fear itself.
“So argue in the abstract all you want about ID, but how do you feel about having The
First Amendment watered down?”
The First Amendment will be watered down when people are denied the right to present their argument.
Especially when the opposing argument is full of holes,
116 - billy
"The First Amendment will be watered down when people are denied the right to present their argument. "
you keep rambling about this but you have never presented any argument whatsoever that could ever be tested.
saying evolution has a "hole" in it is pointless unless you have a theory to fill it. you dont.
how can we take you seriously?
117 - pia savage
Abe are you for real? You find something wrong with every frigging word that I write but you haven't presented one piece of evidence to make your case
Yes I fear the radical Christian right. You like to comment on blogs? I can give you a list of radical Christian right blogs that will keep you occupied. I can give you the names of many other publications at my team blog, Bring it on!
"When people are denied the right to make their argument." Are you aware of the growing anti-ACLU movement?
Or is the ACLU, a commie org to you, and the people they represent don't deserve to be heard. Too many people believe this.
118 - ABE
Billy:
"The First Amendment will be watered down when people are denied the right to present their argument. you keep rambling about this but you have never presented any argument whatsoever that could ever be tested.”
So, what argument has been tested by “evolution theorists”.
There are none.
I’m not talking about “evolution within species”.
Show me proof of “evolution between species” without holes and gaps.
Until you show me that, how can you be taken seriously?
How do you get First Amendment rights to present what is unproven and which consists of an incredibly large number of holes and gaps.
And then deny the theory, based on reason and logic that where intelligence is obvious, intelligence is the best answer.
119 - ABE
Pia:
“Abe are you for real? You find something wrong with every frigging word that I write but you haven't presented one piece of evidence to make your case.”
Sorry about finding something wrong with every frigging word you write.
I have presented an argument that states -- “reason and logic” trump an abstraction based on the gaps and holes in “evolutionist theory.”
Is that so hard to understand?
“Yes I fear the radical Christian right.”
But you haven’t said why.
Fear without reason is hearing footsteps in the dark when no one is there.
“You like to comment on blogs? I can give you a list of radical Christian right blogs that will keep you occupied. I can give you the names of many other publications at my team blog, Bring it on!”
Thanks for the offer, but I find my own diversions..
"When people are denied the right to make their argument." Are you aware of the growing anti-ACLU movement?”
What is the position of the ACLU on “intelligent design”?
“Or is the ACLU, a commie org to you, and the people they represent don't deserve to be heard. Too many people believe this.”
The ACLU does some good, but they are not always right. (not a pun).
120 - ABE
Billy:
“try digging up bones for hundreds of years and never finding a skeleton that refuted evolution.”
How does a skeleton tell you that the “gaps and holes” in “evolutionist theory” are filled by something other than by “intelligent design“.
“try watching a virus evolve in a petri dish in minutes right before your eyes.”
How does watching a virus evolve in a petri dish in minutes right before your eyes. tell you that the “gaps and holes” in “evolutionist theory” are filled by something other than by “intelligent design“.
Do you want me to use my imagination?
Or do you want me to use reason and logic?
“try actually reading a book that isnt the bible.”
I have.
“or are those science books just "evolutionist abstractions"
The science books I read are based on fact, not imagination.
121 - ABE
Greg:
“ABE, we already have very good explanations for gaps in the fossil record: (1) fossilisation is an extremely chancy process - almost every animal that has ever lived and died has not been fossilised; (2) many of those fossils that did form have been erased by well-established geological processes (of course, our knowledge of these processes is based on good science, so you probably won't believe it).”
Explanations (excuses) for lack of records and evidence is no reason to come up with a defective and premature conclusion.
PROSECUTOR: Sorry judge, the evidence was erased or we just couldn’t find it -- but we know what happened. So just take our word -- that if we could have found the evidence, we know what the evidence would tell us. Our knowledge is based on good police work, but you probably won’t believe it.
JUDGE: You’re right. I don’t believe it.
JUDGE: Case dismissed.
“See, no faith. That's why we can teach it [what is it?] in schools.”
I would expect that what is being taught is limited to “evolution within species” -- where it is evident, and not teaching what is unproven. That is where the controversy resides.
“To explain the gaps with "God did it" is facile, an extreme perversion of logic, and 100% faith-based. That's shy it should be kept out of schools.
Not once have I presented what you said here. Why do you inject spurious comment?
"When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong." Once again, you said it, not me.”
I was just commenting on what you said in #94.
___
Comment 94 posted by Greg
“Gaps or not, the concept of evolution is so incredibly well supported by the evidence we do have, that it is accepted as fact by almost every person (scientist or not) who has bothered to look at that evidence.”
122 - Greg
I'm still confused. What are these "gaps and holes" in "evolutionist theory" you speak of, ABE?
Evolution is a slow process - it has occurred over a timescale of thousands, millions, billions of years. We have evidence of evolution occurring on a small scale right before our eyes; we have fossil evidence of evolution having occurred at a much larger scale over much longer times.
All of the evidence we have points to evolution as the correct explanation for how life as we know it arose. Much of this evidence has been accrued during my lifetime.
There is no evidential support for any other explanation of how life arose.
That you and your fundamentalist cronies can't incorporate solid scientific evidence into your world view, and instead rely on writings which predate practically all of our knowledge about the world/universe around us, speaks volumes about the power of religious indoctrination and the influence it has on young (and even old) minds. THAT is why we oppose your nonsense being taught in schools.
123 - pia savage
Abe
Did you actually read my post? You know the thing that preceded this thread of absurd comments,
I have written many posts at my team political blog Bring it on! about the radical right; so has the rest of the team. Don't want to go there? Go to my personal blog,Courting Destiny; go to the rest of the teams personal blogs
You can dissect every word we have written.
But you still have not given one reason why government money should be spent on ID
I was just about to give reasons why I dislike the radical right and their influence in this country but that's really not the point
The point--and I did write the post--is that ID isn't a science or anything--and spending government money on it is a clear violation of separation of church and state
Your arguments have only furthered my belief in my stance
Your self-grandizing superiority has turned more than a few people off--and they went to my blog, and liked it. So thanks for getting me new readers
Oh yeah I will say that the radical Christian right has influenced our government greatly.
Terri? Stem cell research?
Minor things to you I'm sure Abe. Sure nobody in your family has Parkinsons, Alzheimers, macula degeneration or a host of other conditions that could be or could have had its progression slowed or have been cured. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm saying; I could whip out the degrees, licenses and certifications quicker than you could say the word "holes."
Really was going to better than this, but you seem to have a fondness for taking each word I say and mocking it.
Don't take that well. I would really call it a night. Many people will tell you that I play nicely at first.
You think you're so wise and wonderful yet what have you said?
What reason and logic have you been using? ID must be true to explain you
124 - ABE
Greg:
“I'm still confused. What are these "gaps and holes" in "evolutionist theory" you speak of, ABE?”
The gaps and holes involve several fundamental questions which “evolutionist theory” cannot prove.
1.How did life on earth come about?
2. Where are the fossils of in-between forms?
3. How did complex body parts came into existence?
Without answers to these questions, “evolutionist theory” fails.
Evolutionists claim that the formation of life and complex body parts happened by chance, but there is no proof or precedent for making this claim. These claims are not supported by any science.
BTW -- these issues were not addressed by Darwin. The assumption that life was spontaneously created by chance was added by his followers.
“Evolution is a slow process - it has occurred over a timescale of thousands, millions, billions of years. We have evidence of evolution occurring on a small scale right before our eyes; we have fossil evidence of evolution having occurred at a much larger scale over much longer times.”
You may have evidence of evolution occurring on a small scale right before our eyes, but
that does not address and answer the gaps and holes which are the issue.
“All of the evidence we have points to evolution as the correct explanation for how life as we know it arose.”
No it doesn’t -- you have been hoodwinked into that belief. You have not been told about the gaps and holes.
“There is no evidential support for any other explanation of how life arose.”
Because you have not been exposed to any other explanation, is no reason to accept a “theory” laden with gap and holes.
“That you and your fundamentalist cronies can't incorporate solid scientific evidence into your world view, and instead rely on writings which predate practically all of our knowledge about the world/universe around us, speaks volumes about the power of religious indoctrination and the influence it has on young (and even old) minds. THAT is why we oppose your nonsense being taught in schools.”
It is your philosophy that is attempting to indoctrinate and influence the young (and old) to believe a “theory” which has not been proven.
If intelligent Design is “nonsense” why do you fear it?
Nonsense will be the source of its own demise.
125 - ABE
Pia:
“Did you actually read my post? You know the thing that preceded this thread of absurd comments,”
Yes, I read it.
“You can dissect every word we have written. But you still have not given one reason why government money should be spent on ID.”
I have seen no reason why the “gaps and holes” in “evolutionary theory” should be censored.
And I sense that your disagreement with the radical right is what is spurring you on with such vehemence.
Is it possible that no matter what the radical right says, you would oppose it?
“The point--and I did write the post--is that ID isn't a science or anything--and spending government money on it is a clear violation of separation of church and state”
Are you saying that the radical right owns the issue of whether “evolutionary theory” has been proven.
I think not.
And your battle with the radical right on other issues is not justification for overlooking the deficiencies in “evolutionary theory”.
“I could whip out the degrees, licenses and certifications quicker than you could say the word "holes."
What is the purpose of this boast?
Are we playing kid’s games?
My father is bigger than your father?
I don't play kid's games but that is a battle you might lose.
“What reason and logic have you been using? “
Standard variety.
.