This is an excerpt from his presentation on "ID", the full version is here:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Biologist-Ken-Miller-on-Intelligent-Design-157

A great view!

Oh come on. god clearly did this just to test people's faith. If you are persuaded by this you obviously aren't a TRUE christian and deserve the fires that await you!





*sarcasm*

Wow did he fail hard at the end.

"I'm Roman Catholic" <-> "I don't believe in a deceptive [God]"

Talk about self-deception!

Also the evolution defending doesn't fit in with the Roman Catholic part...

Actually the Roman Catholic church does not teach creationism or against the theory of evolution. You might want to check your facts there you angry angry person you .

I think it was Pope John Paul 2 who announced that the RC's official position is that evolution is the most likely creation theory.

The Catholic church gets bashed on a lot and I'm never sure why. I guess because I was brought up in a communtiy of many denominations, so it was all pretty intergrated. Notably though, none of the creationists were Catholic. Most were Anglican.

"The Catholic church gets bashed on a lot and I'm never sure why."


The vatican staying silent about the holocaust during WWII,

Still teaching even today that HIV can pass through condoms in AIDS stricken Africa,

Covering up child abuse allegations, for example that of Father John Geoghan, accused of sexually molesting over 100 boys in the Archdiocese of Boston,

The persecution of Galileo, the inventor of the telescope,

The infamous brutal and violating interrogations directed at the suppresion of heresy,

In fact hundreds of years of years of persection, deceit, lies and social control; much of which can be levelled at any religion in the world. Take your pick.

The vatican's position on evolution does not explicity say that evolution is the most likely creation theory, only that "faith and scientific findings regarding the evolution of man's material body are not in conflict, though man is regarded as a 'special creation', and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origins."

This is always worth saying: Science is a METHOD, not a position.

The subject of discussion is important, but he does a horrible job of explaining it.

I have a question. That marker in there is the same as the chimps but is the dna on both sides of that marker consistent with the dna from the two missing chromosomes? If not than this marker may be nothing more than a section that looks like the section that they where looking for but has a different practical use. Dna as a whole section can be easily compared so this should probably be a yes or no.

Just my first thought on it.

Wewt! We're all mutants! WHERE'S MY LAZUR EYES???? PEW!! PEW!!

I don't like how this comment rating thing is set up now. This is the SECOND time I accidently UP-rated someone's comment (ajkido's) when I'd meant to downrate it! GRRRR

The title of this video is deceiving. This in no way "proves" evolution, it proves that two cromosones merged in order to form one.

ID's argument is that the designer designed us like this, for whatever reason.

I do not believe in macro-evolution personally and believe in an Intelligent Designer, but in no way can I determine how Intelligent Design in and of itself claims that cromosones cannot merge.

It's obvious in lots of real life examples that species change, but this (or any other "evidence") does not prove that one species became another.

Here's a more readable and detailed image comparison of the Human and Chimp chromosomes. Comes with a short explanation too.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/translocation.html

I personally liked the professors mentioning of his religion at the end. What's so contradictory about understanding what Empirical Data means, as well as believing in something that goes beyond it?

Art Said:
I have a question. That marker in there is the same as the chimps but is the dna on both sides of that marker consistent with the dna from the two missing chromosomes? If not than this marker may be nothing more than a section that looks like the section that they where looking for but has a different practical use. Dna as a whole section can be easily compared so this should probably be a yes or no.

Just my first thought on it.

Of course they line up.

Only an absolute moron would release such findings and not do a basic check like that. Scientists, especially geneticists, tend to be a little bit on the smart side, and tend to do their best to not present easily disprovable material.

The similarities are also there with Gorillas and orangutans.

This is relatively old information in the world of genetics.

Also, look at google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html (has pictures)
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm (more pictures)
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Human_Ape_chromosomes.htm (from 2003)

What's so contradictory about understanding what Empirical Data means, as well as believing in something that goes beyond it?

If we assume that the theory of evolution is true, which it is, a "designer", ie ANY kind of designer is just about out of the question, its just too damn unlikely to be true. The fact that this man is also in a particular christian sect, is a remarkable example of the doublethink that goes into preserving religion.

The human species, depending a little bit on how you define homo sapiens (there is no clear "moment" when we went from "ape" to "human", because evolution is a gradual process) Has been on this planet for roughly 200 thousand years. So, for 194 thousand years, we humans stumped around in the dirt, most infants dead at birth, life expectency for the surviving minority probably less than 25 years, tribal wars, misery, starvation, sickness and natural disasters killing of people by the thousands, and then, only then, does his roman catholic God decide its time to intervene.. Obviously, this fairy-tale cooked up by people in complete ignorance, is not anywhere near true.

When it comes to deism, the view that "Something is up there", this is also laughable in light of evolution, the whole point of natural selection is that it is NATURAL, its automatic, its a self-guided process, if someone ever intervened it simply would not work the way it works, it works precisely BECAUSE there is NO "guide" to it, thats the whole beauty of it, its wasteful, mean, unsympathetic and ruthless because its tautological, Whatever happens, happens, and if some god poked his finger in there to "help it along", those fingers would either 1. Work as sticks in wheels, or 2.leave a trace, none of which is true

creation is not evolution.
god can create evolution if he/she/it wants.
carry on.

design ≠ creation

design implies a level of complexity above and beyond that which is designed.

A recent sifttalk post asked for good books to read. I recommend everyone read Waiting For The Galactic Bus. It rips the two concepts of design and creation apart in a most elegant way. [edit] It's also just funny as hell.

"design ≠ creation"

However it does require a designer who wuld have to be capable of manipulation on the same level as a "creator" making them one and the same.

"but this (or any other "evidence") does not prove that one species became another."

Obviously one species can become another. Cows have not been here forever. They have been bred by humans. Same with dogs. Think there were wild chihuahuas in the woods ? Nope they are here only becuase they have been bred like that.

Your just brain washed. Here is a url to the many zillion types of cattle http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/. When your flipping through that remember that they only exist becuase of breeding. And no not all of them can successfully breed with each other, meaning at least some are separate species.

@DrPawn; human-selection for plants and animals is not the best example because chihuahuas and wolves/coyotes/jackals are still exceedingly genetically similar. In current classification domestic dogs are a subspecies of the 'Canis'-family, 'lupis'-species, called 'familiaris'... similarly, the variety of cows we see, though they bear less and less resemblance to wild ancestors, are sub-species. Cows are also a weird example, one that blows-to-hell the 'successfully breed together' species definition... ah, the wikipedia site is nice... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cows

In contrast, chimps and humans now sit in the same family-'Hominidae'... this video shows that we can see how the genetics of a family ancestor changed and did NOT change as we speciated in our direction and chimps speciated in theirs.

creation is not evolution.
god can create evolution if he/she/it wants.
carry on.


Yes, well, as he says in the video he/she/it COULD have merged the chromosomes too, but it just gets to a point where postulating a designer/creator/manipulator really becomes pointless, redundant and outright counter-productive. The beginning of evolution COULD have been farted out the ass of an invisible green magic donkey, but as with Yaweh, the evidence is just not there.

carry on.

@BicycleRepair; faces may be red in the future when it is shown more conclusively that humans are genetically predisposed to belief in social mythologies. Its conceivable that strengthening of social grouping through shared belief has deep roots in our development as the intensely social organisms we are.

A bit of meta-evolution there... sharing your group's beliefs and customs may have been evolutionarily advantageous, where-as now that same adaptation limits the ability to rationally analyze the mysterious in the face of cultural norms. In other words, don't hate the player (anti-evolutionists), hate the game (evolutionary predisposition).

hmm... well, I guess I'll upvote now, just to offset the downvote

It's obvious in lots of real life examples that species change, but this (or any other "evidence") does not prove that one species became another.

Typical ID "argument" that misunderstands the concept of evolution, try this for size: There are no species. just wipe words lik human, ape, monkey, fish, tree,horse,dog, cat and fox out of your mental image of the world for a moment.

All of the above are just "Life", pure and simple, a "species" is just another "variation of life" it is simply how we humans, for simplicity, classify animal variety. The rule is that if two animals cant produce an offspring, or if the offspring itself is unable to reproduce (such as mules) the animals are a different "species", for example, you could probably not mate with your ancestor 3 million years ago (even if you had a time machine) because the difference would be to great, yet, there is an unbroken line of relatives from this ancestor to you, but the whole thing about evolution is that it flows gradually shaping a different species, at no particular point is the mother a different species than her offspring, no more than you are a different species from your mother, but in a sense, that small change (from parent to child) is the largest kind of change that happens in one step on the road from "one species to another"

A good example of this is a so-called ring-species(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) This is a known phenomena, where animals are separated not by time, but geography to from a complete transition from one species to another, one good example is the Ensatina Salamander, that migrated up a valley and around a mountain, and when they finally closed the ring, they could no longer interbreed, thus defined as "different species", yet, if you went back down the valley, there was an unbroken line of relatives.

There really is no such thing as "macro" and "micro" evolution, its all the same thing, its just that one takes longer than the other.

@BicycleRepair; faces may be red in the future when it is shown more conclusively that humans are genetically predisposed to belief in social mythologies

My face or the faces of the religious? , my guess is neither, my face would certainly not change any colour, since I suspect that you may be right anyway, and that if you are, it tells us nothing about the truth-value of the myths themselves, secondly, the religious getting red-faced? Haha, in your dreams, they'll probably see it as a sign from God, and be reassured in their faith.

"My face or the faces of the religious?"

All faces shall be reddened!

I meant that it should be humbling for both sides if the drive to believe is shown to be ingrained by evolution and that nurture just decides which belief.

You can extrapolate the idea out in many ways to think about irrational societal situations (war, homophobia, womens equality, etc.) in the context of the evolution of human society...

The title of this video is deceiving. This in no way "proves" evolution, it proves that two cromosones merged in order to form one.

ID's argument is that the designer designed us like this, for whatever reason.

I do not believe in macro-evolution personally and believe in an Intelligent Designer, but in no way can I determine how Intelligent Design in and of itself claims that cromosones cannot merge.

It's obvious in lots of real life examples that species change, but this (or any other "evidence") does not prove that one species became another.

1. Complexity such as we find in living things cannot form through natural process.
2. A superior being or intelligence must have designed or created this complexity.
3. This superior being or intelligence was not created, but has always been there.

bicyclerepairman, you might have a very rational argument, but creation might be very irrational.

just take your level of reasoning one step back from the wall and take a good look... there's god! you found him!

Sigma/Everything/God.

Of course this explanation isn't finite enough for science, hence the phrase "god is infinite" and the counterargument "that's just faith" etc etc blah blah blah. "why would he make chromosomes like that" lol why the fuck would you bother asking in such an impertinent manner? you're only human, you can't expect to understand everything, that would be boring. Ask in an honest manner, like a proper scientist, and realise the answer is "we don't know yet but we're working on it"

an infinite god has neither beginning nor end, an infinite universe does not need to be created, life might have an extra component that is not biological, you have no idea. so you rationalise, to comfort yourself, in exactly the same way that other people use prayer... repeat the nice words "empirical" and "evidence" until you feel all righteous and comfortable... cling to the theory of evolution even though it explains nothing about creation itself...

one thing's for certain, our current theories will look stupid in 1000 years' time, so i wouldn't defend them too vigorously.

carry on.

Science is a METHOD, not a position.

Art is a CRASH, not a bang.

p.s. I'm drunk.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^ Don't do it man, You'll wind up posting sloppy Sift Talk posts and regretting in the morning. This mesage brought to you by SADS*

Sifters Against Drunk Sifting

I still like the 'banana fits the hand' and 'no life from peanut butter' argument to prove that 'God' exists. LOL.

Fairies = Angels = One big freaking imagination.

... @ MINK, evolution doesn't attempt to explain creation, except in extrapolation of the process down through ancient bacteria. Formation and self replication of RNA-like structures and all of that is theory because nobody has done it from what is 'agreed' by consensus to be similar conditions to the origin of life on Earth yet. So what I'm saying is the space for God to exist in creation is still there, but its getting to be pretty tenuous.

... you ain't the boss of me, dag! (belch)

i'll post when i feels like it! ... p.s. I'm posting from my BlackBerry while piloting a nuclear submarine, so that just goes to show that... oh shit!... (crashes into school for kittens and puppies)

evidence not proof. You can draw conjectures but scientific method works by disproving all other variables. Saying this is proof is an incorrect statement. It only goes too support a theory, it cannot be a basis for evolution only a supporting point. Else it ignores the very process by which it claims to have been supported on.

Another way to approach this discussion is to look at the predictive properties of the intelligent design "theory". It really doesn't have any. What predictions, specifically, can be made about the world using ID as one's model? There's some really complex stuff that we won't be able to understand? Not very specific or useful or true for that matter as time (and research) goes by.

In this video we have a finding that was predicted by theory and found to conform to the expectations. That's a powerful theory!

intelligent design "my grandpa wasn't a monkey" people are wrong.

evolution "seee!! god is ridiculous!! and tenouous!!" people are also wrong. it doesn't matter how crazy it sounds, the concept of god is by definition crazy sounding.

Irishman said: science is a method, not a position, EXACTLY TRUE! if only more Dawkins fanboys would think about that a little more.

What started evolution? errr, well, you know, a thunderbolt. kinda. maybe. but not god, oh no, that would be ridiculous.

Viva La Evolución!
http://www.bustedtees.com/bt/images/BT-vivalaevolucion-gallery-2756.jpg

My goodness. Can't believe we actually have to DEFEND evolution...

By now (now as in modern living with heat-proof spatulas, extra absorbent paper towels, pools with chlorine, electric powered lawn-mowers etc etc) I would've thought scientific teachings would be a common knowledge.

But apparently we still live in 19th century and appalled by the idea that we're somehow related to apes. In fact, why don't we revert everything back to the 19th century?

Forget the sports bras, make women dress up in corsets and layers upon layers of clothing to hide all their skin except the hands and face! (European hijab!), throw away the modern medicine and surgical technology and go back to the good ol' leeches and skull-crackin' iron tools with questionable sanitation.

Ehbolooshun? Bahumbug! That Darwin boy sure is a tardy old fool!

Man related to Monkeys? The nerve! *scoffs*

Science thrives by being proven wrong. Man has been wrong about things that used to be scientific fact for the last several thousand years. It's far to arrogant to presume that now we have reached a level where we know how everything went down.

I don't subscribe to Evolution, and I don't agree with Intelligent Design. Because we just don't know enough. And really it doesn't matter. Oh I'll have people disagree with that I'm sure, but honestly it's a bit to ridiculous to say: "This is how it all happened!" Because if history is ANY guide at all it will prove to us that we need to go back to the drawing board.

To dismiss God from the equation is to ignore scientific theory. It's a factor that no one can disprove. And if you can't disprove it it's still a possibility. To say there is none just goes to prove the ignorant and errant mistakes previous generations are still being followed.

How, with finite limitations as humans can we even begin to comprehend the infinite?

That's all fine and dandy, to an extent. But that has not the slightest bearing on where the evidence is pointing at the moment; should we not work with what we know rather than discard that all and work with what we don't know simply on the basis that scientific theories have often been disproven in the past? Once again, to invoke god where there is no necessity or reason to (filling the gaps for the sake of it) is just plain counter-productive. Saying god is still a valid possibility would carry no more scientific merit than me saying that the "giant omnipotent goldfish of wisdom" is a possibility because the initial assertion is not based on true conjecture but the fact that it can't ever be completely disproven or is simply taken out of ignorance or the utter desire for it to be true. What notion could possibly lead me to think so? We can only extrapolate so far within reason before we start to tread into the realm of fantasy/non-science. Saying "we ultimately don't know" would be better. Saying "we don't know" BUT "I also believe in god as preference" at the same time seems slightly disingenuous and a bit of self-deception. It's having your proverbial cake and eating it too and who doesn't love cake? But beware, the cake is a lie! /superfluous nod to Portal

Our understanding may be finite and very well may always be finite, but it's getting less and less so all the time as time & our own understanding progresses. You can't prove that something does exist because it has NOT been proven to exist and conversely you can't prove something does NOT exist because there is no proof it does exist. We may eventually discover evolution is part of an even larger & more complex system or that it was wrong in some places but once again it's not an "Either it's evolution as we know it OR it's god." multiple choice question. Whatever it is will be based on the tangible when/if it is solved. The possibilities may seem infinite from our own lonely perspective but does that mean every possibility within that infinite spectrum of our imagination is as valid as the next? Are the possibilities that are shown to have zero supporting evidence as important as those that actually do? Are all points of view (regardless of what reality/evidence may contradict) equally valid? Relativism with the facts or lack thereof is not science.

> most infants dead at birth

who knows might have been safer than todays obstetrical environment...

LOL someone actually downvoted my comment above. Grow up, will ya? (as I downvote the other guy's comment for REVENGE). D'oh! I guess I'm just as immature when it comes to child-like bickering Sorry 'bout that.

Let's just say I'll let you believe in whatever you want, as long as you let me believe whatever I want to believe. You can argue against my opinion, but you really shouldn't try to penalize me for my opinions or in severe cases, STOP me from stating my views.

I mean, we don't go around to churches and force you to teach evolution. It'll be rude, Get what I'm saying?

I'll raze you one more for childish behavior. Need to keep the close minded thinking going. Have at you!

The fundamental precept of evolution is that complex things come about as a result of slow, gradual steps.

A "designer" would necessitate a high level of complexity at the start, which is anathema to the philosophy behind evolution.

I said: design ≠ creation

cobalt said: However it does require a designer who wuld have to be capable of manipulation on the same level as a "creator" making them one and the same.

A designer would certainly not need to have the same capabilities as a creator. Unless you are proposing that human geneticists who have designed, for example, mice with very specific phenotypes are also able to will them into existence.

The point I was making and several others have is that the theory of evolution says nothing about creation, and as such does not rule out a creator. I'd consider myself agnostic on the issue, but I get aggravated when the debates about evolution vs. ID get completely off track by bringing in arguments that have nothing to do with the debate. It's the same thing when debates about religion confuse faith and social hierarchies/power structures.

I don't subscribe to Evolution, and I don't agree with Intelligent Design. Because we just don't know enough. And really it doesn't matter. Oh I'll have people disagree with that I'm sure, but honestly it's a bit to ridiculous to say: "This is how it all happened!" Because if history is ANY guide at all it will prove to us that we need to go back to the drawing board.

Science is a cumulative method, not a dogma, I know its been said over and over, but read it again because its important, yes, historically we have been lots of wrong, and indeed, there is much we do not, and cannot know, but there is actually something to the word cumulative, it means that as we build on what we have, we get better. Please try to understand the word "Theory" as what it means in the scientific sense and not the common language sense. Secondly, Yes we have been wrong before, no question, but this has its limits, there are some things that just are not going to fundamentally change, because the predictions and observations are just too many, for too long to make any kind of sense without a given theory.

Evolution is a fact. this is not going to change, not in a million years, not ever, how can I be so cock-sure? because of evidence, overwhelming amounts of it, every skeleton, fossil ever dug up, every dna test ever taken , daily use of the theory in the areas of medicine,biology and even geology, things that wouldnt make sense without evolution, science that can point to DIRECT benefits from using evolution actively, The applications are seemingly endless.

Scientific theory is not guesswork, nothing demonstrates this louder than Oppenheimers application of Einsteins gues... uh, I mean, theories

You cant make bigger bombs from an understanding of evolution(to my knowledge) so we dont have the same kind of explosive application to show to in biology, but as I said, its still in daily use in medicine, for instance.

Please read an entire book on evolution, I can guarantee its gonna be worth it, Dawkins is an obvious starting point, I recommend "The selfish Gene, Blind watchmaker or Climbing mount improbable, but "The Ancestor's Tale" is even better, but it ticks in at 650 pages, so you'd might want to start with a smaller warm-up After reading TSG (and again after Ancestor's Tale!), it was like I had seen the world anew, every ant on the floor, every nature show, and hell, just looking at PEOPLE, it all shines in a different light..

for the seriously interested, here's the reference:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/20/9051

actually much of scientific research is available for free!...e.g try out this:

http://biology.plosjournals.org

it has lots of pictures and its quite easy to understand for any interested amateur (still it does have a decent impact factor of 14.1)

If you're interested in an particular topic go for:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed

the free articles are marked with green and orange. for easy understanding it is useful to check out an editorial or minireview if avaible.

nuff said, cheers!

P.S just try to search for "evidence for creation/design" or alike and see for yourself how much you can find.

I maintain the theory of Revolution: the theory that human history did not begin until the American Revolution and anything that occurred before it was a result of Benjamin Franklin's influence on the thought processes.

the theory of evolution says nothing about creation, and as such does not rule out a creator

Nothing can, even in principle, rule out a creator, it is simply impossible to do. Thats what we are trying to show by postulating celestial teapots and invisible unicorns, you cant rule anything out.

To say evolution "says nothing about creation" is a bit like saying "the football coach hasnt scored a single goal this season" it is correct in one sense, but a pretty pointless argument against the coach. The answer in both cases is "well, not exactly". You still need a coach, thats my point.

Evolution explains how all life went from really simple to really complex with no need for, and perhaps not even room for, a divine intervener. In other words, God is shown quite certainly to be ruled out of the entire circle of life as we know it, and he/she/it is reduced to a previous gap, this time not to explain the wonderful diversity and beauty of the life of this planet (Which is the reason we invented him in the first place), but to explain how he twisted the cosmological constant knobs into place and made lifeless, barren rocks unevenly distributed in galaxy clusters so far apart it shouldnt even count..

BRM, you're missing my point (I think). As you say, evolution explains the diversity of life, not how matter came into existence. I'm not arguing in favor of theism, just that bringing it up in the context of evolution doesn't make any sense. Evolution is a theory of biological processes, an exceptionally good one at that. But it's not a theory of physical matter, so I don't see the point of engaging any argument about a creator, or worse claiming that evolution is a theory of creation (as has been done in this thread).

There is no such thing as true proof, in a mathematical sense, in science. Most science is done with inductive rather than deductive reasoning, which automatically creates a chance of error.

Theories like gravity, relativity, all those can't really be proved. But the amount of evidence amassed for them is so great that the chance they could be the wrong explanations is minuscule. Currently, the same goes for evolution.

I don't think that this constitutes "proof" at all. But it is immensely powerful evidence. That's what matters in real life.

Look, You are putting the cart in front of the horse, the issue is not "God/something created the universe and everything in it, now explain how evolution contradicts this"

If I pose to a theist the question, "Why do you think there is a God?" his answer, overwhelmingly, turns out to be "All this.", something in the lines of "I dont think we humans are here by pure chance, I dont think all of this life and stuff could just pop out of nowhere!"

A perfectly reasonable statement, after all, we are NOT the result of pure chance, and there is nothing that suggests it from merely looking around. What Darwinism shows, however, is that we are not summoned from above by some divine entity either. Its the 3rd option, its not chance, its not creation, but a third factor that is the basis for our existence.

Now, as I said this does not mean we have explained the universal constants, the origin of matter, energy, or time, the answer to all those questions are still somewhat of a mystery. We dont know, but the thing that gives us the idea of God in the first place; Life, the order of things, intelligence, consciousness etc are all subjects to a completely different explanation from "God", and so you could say "ok, the whole "life"-thing wasnt god, but I still think he created the rocks we live on.", but I guess I just dont see the point. There is no evidence that suggests he did, and until that evidence comes in, there really is no need to even mention things like "God" or "Creation" Its much better to admit that whatever it was, we have no freakin clue. (except from the clues supported by hard, stone-cold evidence.)

DNA is a lie. Watson and Crick were high when they came up with the double helix.

I've got an answer from the ID side of things...VQ35DE. That's the engine code that Nissan used for an engine that has been put in pretty much half or more of all of their cars (Altima, Maxima, Quest, 350Z, Murano, etc). God is like Nissan. Why create something from scratch when you've got a lot of the most important parts right there? Tweak this, tweak that, fuse these two do-hickies together, and ShaZAM!! There are strong sides to both, but I ask, what do I lose from believing in ID? It's retarded to say that believing in ID means that we wouldn't have all the medical break-throughs. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I don't think that willing cadavers (when they weren't dead yet) should be cut up and examined. We are told to be fruitful...that includes learning. You believe in your theory, I'll believe in mine.

Yeah, I was not being serious.

The truth is most people believe whatever is convenient for them to believe. No amount of science, logic, or experimental evidence can make believe otherwise. The sad thing is when people equate a scientific fact with a philosophical belief. In my opinion, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they should be treated separately.

And Just An FYI:

'To Beg The Question' means using what you are trying to prove. Not making you want to ask the question.

"'To Beg The Question' means using what you are trying to prove. Not making you want to ask the question."

noted...fixed my comment. Guess I need more sleep...and to think I was just chastising a 12-year-old on Youtube for bad spelling and grammar.

Scientific Fact...don't get me started. You can find clues, you can find evidence, you can't find fact. If you weren't there to witness something happening, it cannot be claimed as fact. Before you argue "with such reasoning, one wouldn't be able to prove anything that happened before, say 1900, since no one (very few) are alive that were alive before then.", let me counter with this. People were there, and they wrote it down. Many people witnessed many things. The important things were written down, painted, photographed, etc., and correlated by others.

Yes, it's a fact that scientists have found this connection. And it supports the THEORY. But it also supports theory that God is like Nissan.

There is evidence to support a young universe as well as an old one. Halos in granite come to mind: http://www.halos.com/. As well as moon dust. Scientists calculated that the moon was so covered with dust, that the astronauts should have sank when they landed...but they didn't. The perceived amount of collected dust supports a MUCH younger moon. I doubt solar wind and even most meteor impacts could create enough force to "blow it away."

I'm not saying that evolution and the related theories (big bang, 10 billion year old universe, etc.) are philosophical beliefs...I hold the position that, though often people are both, supporting intelligent design doesn't make you Christian. /////edit, just realized I didn't finish my thought...Intelligent Design is just another theory.

but I ask, what do I lose from believing in ID? It's retarded

Quoting out of context is a favorite tactic among ID advocates, so I guess its ok with you.. right?

Ok, more seriously, ID is not "just another theory" ID is a guess, a mere statement, a claim, if you will WITH NO BASIS IN REALITY. A theory is more than that, it is a framework for a body of knowledge, backed up by evidence and vulnerable to disproof, but able to withstand scientific scrutiny. ID is none of those things, and thats important. We are not on equal footing here, not by a long shot, you are of course free to believe whatever you want, dont get me wrong, but there is no way to justify comparing theological nonsense like creationism with scientifically established facts like evolution. There is no evidence in favour of ID or creationism, period. None. All of the so-called "Evidence" or "Arguments" supposedly in favour of them, are long-since discredited attacks against evolution. And even if, in the future, creationists were to cook up some mystery in biology that Darwinism couldnt explain, (This would be an international sensation) it STILL could not be counted as evidence in favour of ID/Creationists arguments, unless it had some SPECIFIC qualities that showed clear signs of this mysterious creator-entity.

So a bunch of monkeys in labcoats fused their chromosomes to turn into humans? Suhweeeet

His disbelief in a "deceptive god" is homage to Descartes.

I will admit, evidence FOR creationism is hard to find. However, evidence AGAINST evolution and a 10 billion year old universe is easy to find (see my last post). I'm done with this conversation, you can reply if you want. For me and my own, there's no way that all of this could have happened by chance. Think of the distance to the sun...a little closer or a little farther, and the environment would be a hell of a lot more hostile. Life is a miracle, and that makes me happy. To think there's a reason for me other than petty human affairs. Call me naive, call me stupid, I really don't care. Until you build a time machine or the Second Coming happens, neither of us will be right. Except I have something to look forward to aside from being right.

Think of the spitting fish...if this talent for catching food evolved...man, that must have been a rough several million years of...not eating...huh.

However, evidence AGAINST evolution and a 10 billion year old universe is easy to find (see my last post).

The arguments are all rehashes of creationists propaganda, long since discredited by actual science, here is the "Halos" thing debunked: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/, the other one about moon dust is a good example of how creationists have no problem repeating a known fabrication and myth to support their claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html

http://www.talkorigins.org is a great site for quick debunking of all the popular creationist myths going around in the ID world, dont take their word for it, go check it up if you want, they usually state their sources too.

"For me and my own, there's no way that all of this could have happened by chance."

You know, there's one thing I'll never understand about believers:
As soon as they find a phenomenon they can't explain they automatically take it as a rock-hard proof for the existence of their own god or whatever. That strange way of thinking differs so fundamentally from mine that I sometimes feel their ancestors where indeed drawn from a different species than my ones.

Think of the spitting fish...if this talent for catching food evolved...man, that must have been a rough several million years of...not eating...huh.

Oh, the wonders of scientific information that awaits you in books!! please, for the love of goodness and God, please, pretty please with sugar on top, read a book about evolution! You will understand so much more about the natural world!

The spitting fish, precicely BECAUSE it evolved, did not always catch prey that way, because it wasnt always a spitting fish. it evolved its abilities along with the rest of itself. I guess you dont mean "not eating" literally, but the point is, the technique, along with the fish itself, took hundreds, thousands of little steps, here is a beautiful video of its deadly accuracy, btw: http://media.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/dn10268V1.mov

I'm not an expert in biology, but its easy to imagine this habit started with targets that were much closer, and the spits less accurate, and the better you were, the more favored by natural selection. the result of millions of years of favoring the best spitters, is what you see in the video

*nature

Adding video to channels (Nature) - requested by arvana.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, October 20th, 2007 5:28am PDT - promote requested by jwray.

Earth at the centre of the universe = Intelligent Design


It's all the same thing, the church trying to use science for persuasion in modern times now that fear doesn't work as it did a thousand years ago.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, October 19th, 2007 9:23pm PDT - promote requested by kulpims.

Talk about resurrection from the dead.

*length=4:22

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 4:22 - length declared by BoneRemake.

Ok then all we have to do to test this theory is take a chimp and fuse chromosome #13 together and we will create a human. I'm sure if it took millions of years to do by chance we would still see it occurring in nature with apes. Science is more than capable to do this now with the mapping of the human genome so lets see if they can make a human out of a monkey or will creation make a monkey out of the evolutionist?