What is there to "teach" about intelligent design? Pretty much a one-sentence lesson, IMO.

I'm more of a creationist

BoatShoes wrote:

the committed theist, unshaken by any evidence at all (just like the committed atheist)...will always retreat to the inference that some kind of intelligence must have at least cause the big bang which caused the earth to exist and to have the environment it had which allowed for monomers to form and so on until there were humans with conscious experience of the world.

The committed theist will never budge in the face of logical reasoning or evidence but perhaps only emotional persuasion because that belief goes right down to the essence of who we are.

I just really don't even see the point in arguing about it...you want kids to hear about and ask the big questions, have the local school board require a full year long philosophy class when kids are freshmen that would include logic, a brief history of philosophy, morality and ethics, and philosophy of religion/epistemology (which would include the ID and Creationist accounts and irreducible complexity and other things). People who learn philosophy do better on standardized tests, are better at critical thinking and ultimately more reasonable people anyways...and, philosophy majors could have new opportunities teaching at the high school lever rather than hoping to land jobs at universities.

Let scientists remain skeptics and work within the natural observable world and not worry about those big questions or "first philosophy"

Trust me, even as someone who believes in creation AND is a scientist, if you read my original posts, you'll see that I said that ID should not be taught in science class but maybe in philosophy.

I agree with your logic/philosophy class observation though, even as an engineer two of my favorite classes in college were logic and philosophy.

bigmanbt wrote:

Except your statement is retarded and his was backed by genetics.

In response to this and another above post.

1. Yes, DNA can tell if we are direct decendants of someone like parents/grandparents, etc.

2. DNA gets skewed the deeper you go, its near impossible to tell if someone is a direct decendant of say Alexander the Great or something.

3. Genetics has not proven we are direct decendants of other primates, not even close. Anyone who tells you this is lying to push their agenda. Look it up, they might claim it or push it out as opinion, but the DNA tests we have now do not have the capability of proving that.

Its kind of like when they Carbon 14 date something and say its millions of years old. The machines we have today to test the Carbon 14 concentration in organic material can not accurately measure anything over about 50,000 years. It gives bogus numbers...but yet they will still say it was C14 dated to 1.5 million years because the general public is completely ignorant of how the machine/calculations work.

And don't get me started on other radiometric dating techniques like Uranium-Lead.

gut wrote: What is there to "teach" about intelligent design? Pretty much a one-sentence lesson, IMO.

Again I'm not advocating for ID to be taught in science class, but if you truly believe ID is a one sentence lesson, you don't understand.

Topics like "fine tuning", statistics of creating life, micro vs macro evolution, etc are all fine scientific topics that can be covered in "ID".

Also plate tectonics is a good one that can be discussed if its a "young earth" ID topic.

BoatShoes wrote: a natural evolutionist will tell you that any mutation that improves an organisms ability to survive and replicate is a beneficial mutation.

One example of a beneficial mutation in the human population is that a 32 base pair deletion in C-C chemokine receptor 5, a protein encoded by the CCR5 gene....this has a negative impact on the function of T Cells and is widely dispersed throughout people of European descent and is thought to have allowed Europeans to have a better ability to survive things like smallpox and the bubonic plague and now today allows homozygotes to be resistant to HIV infection and heterozygotes to delay the onset of HIV infection.

Also...it seems to me it would be unwise for an itelligent design person to argue that mutations are always detrimental as that doesn't do well for the inductive inference that there must be design as the result of intelligence.

- - -

It's obvious to me that you and others are missing the point I made, maybe you should go back and read it again - I stated that NEVER is there an increase in qualitative sophistication, which 'molecules to man' evolution requires for there to be things evolving from for example, slime to man; from some alleged ancestor of apes and man to modern man, etc.


It is said that chimps and humans have 98% the same DNA. That is a VERY misleading statement. Even if it were that much the same, and it isn't if you include insertions and deletions (more like 95%), the differences are still huge. At allegedly 98% the same, there's still 40-60 MILLION differences.

Some more food for thought: humans have 50% the same DNA as bananas. That doesn't make man half banana or evolved from a banana.

Humans have 96% the same DNA as mice. That doesn't make us mostly mice, does it? NO, It doesn't.

Something else to ponder: The DNA claims made about the similarities only involves some proteins in the DNA - ONLY THREE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL DNA! The rest is called 'junk' DNA because, well, because they don't know what it does. They are slowly finding out that the alleged 'junk' DNA does have functions, and this is ruining their fairy tale.

The mutations cited by evos are horizontal in nature: they might provide a survival benefit, but no increase in order, which Darwinian evolution requires. The survivial benefit from mutations often comes at the cost of LOSING information.

For example, a bacterial resistance to antibiotics. It's been shown that the bacteria REMOVES information that the antibiotic used to recognize the bacteria with, so it saw it as an 'enemy' to destroy.


Want a healthy dog? Get a mutt. They have more genetic information than any purebred. When animals are bred for particular traits, they REMOVE information to get the desired result.

The corn we eat and enjoy today has been bred for particular traits. To make it that way, information was REMOVED.

Are you seeing a pattern yet?

ID says life only comes from life, that programs require a programmer. And everything living has a pretty damn sophisticated code built in to it.



As to the last statement quoted: Everything was very good and perfect until man, by free choice, screwed it up and entropy began. Natural Selection is governed by the law of CONSERVATION, in order to keep systems running while dealing with various environmental stresses. The system is slowly breaking down. Some top geneticists (can provide links if you'd like) - the inventor of the 'gene gun' is one - are recognizing that everything is running downhill, not uphill. That man is not evolving at all.


But if you want to believe otherwise, fine. But ugly facts are against you. And evolution is more religious than ID or Creationism, as evolution goes against basic logic and empirical science. The silly evolutionists want people to believe that man has evolved, but all 'real world' examples show a LOSS of information. That's some funky math by the evos.

Several generations of people have been indoctrinated into evolutionary beliefs due to evolution being embedded into our education systems. They don't want people to know the truth, to discover that science actually points to a creator. They will do whatever they can to discredit anyone contrary to their system, and use the courts to their advantage.

So then, can anyone give me a single example of a mutation that brought about an increase in genetic complexity, not just a selection from a subset of what was already present? "New" information brought from outside a system into the system to make it more complex? (More qualitatively sophisticated)

NO, you can't, because there aren't any.


I'll stop here for now.

EDIT:

Update, Free Huddle likes sources for claims made, here's some


Are humans as close to chickens as they are to chimps? http://www.icr.org/article/5164/

Here's an accurate random mutation generator, check it out. If you believe the random mutation generator is inaccurate, there's comments about it and the author will take on all comers. Just click on the next link at that site for more information and Frequently Asked Questions.

http://www.randommutation.com/index.php


Bacterial studies and the origin of life

http://www.icr.org/article/5137/


SCIENCE OVERTURNS EVOLUTION'S BEST ARGUMENT

http://www.icr.org/article/5136/

Please read and enjoy

I love reading these threads...lets me know who the whackos are.

ManO'War wrote: I love reading these threads...lets me know who the whackos are.

I know, those left wing liberals who jam false science down our throats are WHACKOS!

74Leps wrote:It is said that chimps and humans have 98% the same DNA. That is a VERY misleading statement. Even if it were that much the same, and it isn't if you include insertions and deletions (more like 95%), the differences are still huge. At allegedly 98% the same, there's still 40-60 MILLION differences.

If 2% = 40-60 MILLION, there must be 2000-3000 million in your selection, so there are 1960-2940 MILLION similarities.

74Leps wrote:Some more food for thought: humans have 50% the same DNA as bananas. That doesn't make man half banana or evolved from a banana.

Humans have 96% the same DNA as mice. That doesn't make us mostly mice, does it? NO, It doesn't.

We're not mostly apes either. We share a common ancestor with apes. And mice. And bananas. I don't understand why some people get hung up on man and apes having a common ancestor. Every living thing has a common ancestor...

74Leps wrote:Something else to ponder: The DNA claims made about the similarities only involves some proteins in the DNA - ONLY THREE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL DNA! The rest is called 'junk' DNA because, well, because they don't know what it does. They are slowly finding out that the alleged 'junk' DNA does have functions, and this is ruining their fairy tale.

Part of that is true. We are learning more and more about DNA every day. I'm not sure how that ruins any fairy tale.

74Leps wrote:The mutations cited by evos are horizontal in nature: they might provide a survival benefit, but no increase in order, which Darwinian evolution requires. The survivial benefit from mutations often comes at the cost of LOSING information.

Often? But not always?

74Leps wrote:For example, a bacterial resistance to antibiotics. It's been shown that the bacteria REMOVES information that the antibiotic used to recognize the bacteria with, so it saw it as an 'enemy' to destroy.

Link?

74Leps wrote:Want a healthy dog? Get a mutt. They have more genetic information than any purebred. When animals are bred for particular traits, they REMOVE information to get the desired result.

The corn we eat and enjoy today has been bred for particular traits. To make it that way, information was REMOVED.

Are you seeing a pattern yet?

Animals and Corn that are bred for selective traits have less variance in their DNA. (They don't have less DNA or information. They just don't have the DNA combination that did not meet the standard that the breeder was looking for.) Is that the pattern you're looking for? When is anything bred for selective traits in nature? I'm not sure how that even applies.

74Leps wrote:But if you want to believe otherwise, fine. But ugly facts are against you. And evolution is more religious than ID or Creationism,

Evolution is more religious than creationism? So does that mean that you aren't very religious?

74Leps wrote:So then, can anyone give me a single example of a mutation that brought about an increase in genetic complexity, not just a selection from a subset of what was already present? "New" information brought from outside a system into the system to make it more complex? (More qualitatively sophisticated)

NO, you can't, because there aren't any.

Any mutation will bring about an increase in genetic complexity. Most are not beneficial. Sickle cell is a mutation that increases genetic complexity.

jmog wrote:

bigmanbt wrote:

Except your statement is retarded and his was backed by genetics.

In response to this and another above post.

1. Yes, DNA can tell if we are direct decendants of someone like parents/grandparents, etc.

2. DNA gets skewed the deeper you go, its near impossible to tell if someone is a direct decendant of say Alexander the Great or something.

3. Genetics has not proven we are direct decendants of other primates, not even close. Anyone who tells you this is lying to push their agenda. Look it up, they might claim it or push it out as opinion, but the DNA tests we have now do not have the capability of proving that.

Its kind of like when they Carbon 14 date something and say its millions of years old. The machines we have today to test the Carbon 14 concentration in organic material can not accurately measure anything over about 50,000 years. It gives bogus numbers...but yet they will still say it was C14 dated to 1.5 million years because the general public is completely ignorant of how the machine/calculations work.

And don't get me started on other radiometric dating techniques like Uranium-Lead.

So, DNA and genetics don't tell us anything, evolution is "just a theory", and now radioactive half-lifes tell us nothing.

What other bits of science oh Great jmog should we disregard as well?:rolleyes:

bigmanbt wrote:

So, DNA and genetics don't tell us anything, evolution is "just a theory", and now radioactive half-lifes tell us nothing.

What other bits of science oh Great jmog should we disregard as well?:rolleyes:

You really don't want me to get started on some of the radiometric dating techniques.

Mock if you want, but before you do let me ask how many college chemistry and physics classes have you taken? I have a Bachelor's in Chemical Engineering with a minor in both chemistry and physics, a Bachelor's in Applied Math, and a Master's in Chemical Engineering.
I've probably taken more classes on that subject alone than you have total science classes.

I actually understand how radiometric dating techniques work, what math is used, what instrumentation is used, what ASSUMPTIONS are used, etc.

The problem is you have geologists and biologists doing chemical tests and chemical reaction calculations instead of chemists. They then assume too many off the wall things and get a number and publish it as fact. It would be like if I took an MRI scan of your brain and diagnosing you with some issue while not being a doctor.

About the DNA thing, talk to anyone who does DNA testing. Its so much easier to verify paternity (aka 1 generation) than it is to verify grandparents. They DNA is spread out/diluted so much more that they have to have numerous samples from more related people and the percentage of accuracy goes down fast.

Now, that's just talking about 1 to 2 generations back. We can't verify lineage to anyone really old by DNA like I mentioned above, so please tell me how we are going to verify through DNA lineage to other primates?

Facts are facts, you can mock me if you want, but like I said, I bet I have a firmer grasp on the science than you.

Oh, one more thing, yes, evolution is just a theory, hence why its called the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution.

Science has many laws that are facts, the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Evolution is still a theory, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

jmog wrote:

You really don't want me to get started on some of the radiometric dating techniques.

Mock if you want, but before you do let me ask how many college chemistry and physics classes have you taken? I have a Bachelor's in Chemical Engineering with a minor in both chemistry and physics, a Bachelor's in Applied Math, and a Master's in Chemical Engineering.
I've probably taken more classes on that subject alone than you have total science classes.

I actually understand how radiometric dating techniques work, what math is used, what instrumentation is used, what ASSUMPTIONS are used, etc.

The problem is you have geologists and biologists doing chemical tests and chemical reaction calculations instead of chemists. They then assume too many off the wall things and get a number and publish it as fact. It would be like if I took an MRI scan of your brain and diagnosing you with some issue while not being a doctor.

About the DNA thing, talk to anyone who does DNA testing. Its so much easier to verify paternity (aka 1 generation) than it is to verify grandparents. They DNA is spread out/diluted so much more that they have to have numerous samples from more related people and the percentage of accuracy goes down fast.

Now, that's just talking about 1 to 2 generations back. We can't verify lineage to anyone really old by DNA like I mentioned above, so please tell me how we are going to verify through DNA lineage to other primates?

Facts are facts, you can mock me if you want, but like I said, I bet I have a firmer grasp on the science than you.

Oh, one more thing, yes, evolution is just a theory, hence why its called the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution.

Science has many laws that are facts, the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Evolution is still a theory, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
[/quote]

Well, I'm sure with all the time we all spend on the huddle I imagine you can find the time. I'm personally interested.

How's about Uranium-lead dating which uses two parallel decay chains Uranium238 decaying to Lead206 with a half-life of 4 billion years or so and U235 to Pb207 with a half life of about 700 million years for cross referencing.

So a geoCHEMIST named Clair Cameron Patterson used a mass spectrograph to estimate the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old which is the largely accepted date. I think one key assumption was that he did it on a meteorite that was thought to have hit the Earth formed. But, to me, if the Earth was younger, the date would have to be younger than the meteorite dating. If the Earth is actually older than 4.5 billion years, the date would be higher and the meteorite hit at some later point.

Perhaps you could break down for us where he went wrong and why his hypothesis is mistaken because I have a decent memory from my science classes in undergrad but I'm not a chemist. I'm not being an asshole...everyone puts their pants on one leg at a time. Let's hear about the assumptions.

Tell us why the National Academy of Sciences was silly for awarding this man an award for his supposed discovery.

What's wrong with using mass spectrometers, do the half lifes of uranium to lead actually fluctuate? I don't know.

jmog wrote:

bigmanbt wrote:

So, DNA and genetics don't tell us anything, evolution is "just a theory", and now radioactive half-lifes tell us nothing.

What other bits of science oh Great jmog should we disregard as well?:rolleyes:

You really don't want me to get started on some of the radiometric dating techniques.

Mock if you want, but before you do let me ask how many college chemistry and physics classes have you taken? I have a Bachelor's in Chemical Engineering with a minor in both chemistry and physics, a Bachelor's in Applied Math, and a Master's in Chemical Engineering.
I've probably taken more classes on that subject alone than you have total science classes.

I actually understand how radiometric dating techniques work, what math is used, what instrumentation is used, what ASSUMPTIONS are used, etc.

The problem is you have geologists and biologists doing chemical tests and chemical reaction calculations instead of chemists. They then assume too many off the wall things and get a number and publish it as fact. It would be like if I took an MRI scan of your brain and diagnosing you with some issue while not being a doctor.

About the DNA thing, talk to anyone who does DNA testing. Its so much easier to verify paternity (aka 1 generation) than it is to verify grandparents. They DNA is spread out/diluted so much more that they have to have numerous samples from more related people and the percentage of accuracy goes down fast.

Now, that's just talking about 1 to 2 generations back. We can't verify lineage to anyone really old by DNA like I mentioned above, so please tell me how we are going to verify through DNA lineage to other primates?

Facts are facts, you can mock me if you want, but like I said, I bet I have a firmer grasp on the science than you.

Oh, one more thing, yes, evolution is just a theory, hence why its called the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution.

Science has many laws that are facts, the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Evolution is still a theory, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

The last part of the entire "ode to yourself" is what makes me truly doubt you have any clue as to what you're talking about and only regurgitate what you read on young earth creationist websites!

1. if you were a real scientist you'd know the difference between the layman's definition of theory and the scientific definition of theory. That a theory in the scientific sense is an explanation that can help predict future occurrences or observations of the same type and can be tested through experiment or can be falsified by way of empirical observation. No self-respecting person of science would degrade any scientific theory in the same manner as you just did!!

2. Let me ask you a question about the Law of Gravity! What do we use to explain the hows and whys of this Law? Here's a hint, the second word in what I'm looking for starts with T. Give up? It's called Gravitational Theory! Did you not learn that in all of your science classes? Also, how do you feel about Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity?
How about these, IN YOUR OWN FIELD:
Atomic theory
Kinetic theory of gases

No point in learning about those until they become laws right, because after all they're just theories!

BoatShoes wrote:
You really don't want me to get started on some of the radiometric dating techniques.

Mock if you want, but before you do let me ask how many college chemistry and physics classes have you taken? I have a Bachelor's in Chemical Engineering with a minor in both chemistry and physics, a Bachelor's in Applied Math, and a Master's in Chemical Engineering.
I've probably taken more classes on that subject alone than you have total science classes.

I actually understand how radiometric dating techniques work, what math is used, what instrumentation is used, what ASSUMPTIONS are used, etc.

The problem is you have geologists and biologists doing chemical tests and chemical reaction calculations instead of chemists. They then assume too many off the wall things and get a number and publish it as fact. It would be like if I took an MRI scan of your brain and diagnosing you with some issue while not being a doctor.

About the DNA thing, talk to anyone who does DNA testing. Its so much easier to verify paternity (aka 1 generation) than it is to verify grandparents. They DNA is spread out/diluted so much more that they have to have numerous samples from more related people and the percentage of accuracy goes down fast.

Now, that's just talking about 1 to 2 generations back. We can't verify lineage to anyone really old by DNA like I mentioned above, so please tell me how we are going to verify through DNA lineage to other primates?

Facts are facts, you can mock me if you want, but like I said, I bet I have a firmer grasp on the science than you.

Oh, one more thing, yes, evolution is just a theory, hence why its called the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution.

Science has many laws that are facts, the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Evolution is still a theory, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Well, I'm sure with all the time we all spend on the huddle I imagine you can find the time. I'm personally interested.

How's about Uranium-lead dating which uses two parallel decay chains Uranium238 decaying to Lead206 with a half-life of 4 billion years or so and U235 to Pb207 with a half life of about 700 million years for cross referencing.

So a geoCHEMIST named Clair Cameron Patterson used a mass spectrograph to estimate the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old which is the largely accepted date. I think one key assumption was that he did it on a meteorite that was thought to have hit the Earth formed. But, to me, if the Earth was younger, the date would have to be younger than the meteorite dating. If the Earth is actually older than 4.5 billion years, the date would be higher and the meteorite hit at some later point.

Perhaps you could break down for us where he went wrong and why his hypothesis is mistaken because I have a decent memory from my science classes in undergrad but I'm not a chemist. I'm not being an asshole...everyone puts their pants on one leg at a time. Let's hear about the assumptions.

Tell us why the National Academy of Sciences was silly for awarding this man an award for his supposed discovery.

What's wrong with using mass spectrometers, do the half lifes of uranium to lead actually fluctuate? I don't know.

if you really want to learn how radiometric dating is properly used and how it can be confidently used for dating, look at some of the sources here:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

You will notice that there are a few source there linked to real chemist!

Is there a "theory of religion" ?? Thats where the nuts who don't believe science go and lie and complain about science & its "facts" . "Young earth" kooks, IDers, creationists, or any other tag they want to use. Discard rigorous empirical evidence developed over centuries of study, experiments, calculations and peer reviews being forced to prove the findings. Facts or the "supernatural"?? The so-called lies of science sent man to the moon and the depths of the oceans, wiped out diseases and find miracle cures everyday. But those are all lucky guesses not based on science , right ?? Its no wonder people are steamed about things like Terry Schiavo when science is flushed down the toilet and the supernatural invoked. Changing a school's curriculum from science to ID is about as stupid. Go to church for your weekly "fix" of supernatural and leave the real world to real scientists.

Bigred1995 wrote:


The last part of the entire "ode to yourself" is what makes me truly doubt you have any clue as to what you're talking about and only regurgitate what you read on young earth creationist websites!

1. if you were a real scientist you'd know the difference between the layman's definition of theory and the scientific definition of theory. That a theory in the scientific sense is an explanation that can help predict future occurrences or observations of the same type and can be tested through experiment or can be falsified by way of empirical observation. No self-respecting person of science would degrade any scientific theory in the same manner as you just did!!

2. Let me ask you a question about the Law of Gravity! What do we use to explain the hows and whys of this Law? Here's a hint, the second word in what I'm looking for starts with T. Give up? It's called Gravitational Theory! Did you not learn that in all of your science classes? Also, how do you feel about Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity?
How about these, IN YOUR OWN FIELD:
Atomic theory
Kinetic theory of gases

No point in learning about those until they become laws right, because after all they're just theories!

Learn to read what I actually have said.

I have never said that evolution should not be taught, not one time.

I understand the difference between layman's theory and scientific theory.

A scientific theory is not proven fact, none of them are.

I have extensively studied Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but just because the wonderful math/physical explanation of things is well thought out and has yet to be disproven, that doesn't make it PROVEN.

Some people really have no idea how little we still know about an atom. So yes, atomic theory is just that, a best explanation possible for what we have observed. Its not fact.

I have yet to say that the theory of evolution is not the best scientific fit RIGHT NOW for species origination, you won't find that anywhere.

I've just given credence to other theory's like ID.

My biggest problem with the theory of evolution is the fact that the believers in it are so adamate that it is FACT and completely ridicule anyone that offers alternative ideas. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what the scientific method is all about.

I'm sorry, but even the theories you listed, yes, they are still NOT fact.

Einstein was brilliant, but until we can really travel close to the speed of light, relativity will probably remain a theory and not a law.

You should also know, that even to this day there are alternative theories to relativity, or additions to it like string theory and superstring theory to try to adapt relativity to gravitational theory/laws. So even modern scientists are trying to come up with theories that adapt relativity, so no, its not "fact" like you are trying to portray.

Back to the atomic theory, you know how many times atomic theory has changed over even the last 50 years as we learn more about the atom? So no, atomic theory is not fact either, it will probably change another couple dozen times in the next 50 years.

BoatShoes wrote:

Well, I'm sure with all the time we all spend on the huddle I imagine you can find the time. I'm personally interested.

How's about Uranium-lead dating which uses two parallel decay chains Uranium238 decaying to Lead206 with a half-life of 4 billion years or so and U235 to Pb207 with a half life of about 700 million years for cross referencing.

So a geoCHEMIST named Clair Cameron Patterson used a mass spectrograph to estimate the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old which is the largely accepted date. I think one key assumption was that he did it on a meteorite that was thought to have hit the Earth formed. But, to me, if the Earth was younger, the date would have to be younger than the meteorite dating. If the Earth is actually older than 4.5 billion years, the date would be higher and the meteorite hit at some later point.

Perhaps you could break down for us where he went wrong and why his hypothesis is mistaken because I have a decent memory from my science classes in undergrad but I'm not a chemist. I'm not being an asshole...everyone puts their pants on one leg at a time. Let's hear about the assumptions.

Tell us why the National Academy of Sciences was silly for awarding this man an award for his supposed discovery.

What's wrong with using mass spectrometers, do the half lifes of uranium to lead actually fluctuate? I don't know.

There are 2 issues with uranium-lead that I will state quickly.

1. The big assumption-they assume that 100% of the lead in a rock came from uranium. They assume that 100% of the Pb came from U. Both Pb206 and Pb207 (the final decay isotopes of U238 and U235) are naturally occuring isotopes of Pb. So there is no reason to believe that some of the Pb was already in the rock and it didn't all come of U. There is also about 8 other radioactive elements that decay to the same isotopes of lead, they don't even consider that the lead could be from these elements.

2. "Halos"-During the decay chain from U238 to Pb206 there are 14 decay steps that all take different amounts of time. In 8 of these steps an alpha particle is released (basically a helium nucleus) as this is the mass loss during the decay. The energy released when an alpha particle shoots out radioactively actually burns what they call a "halo" into the crystal latice structure around the atom. If the Pb206 they find came from U238, it would have 8 of these such "halos" as it released 8 alpha particles. Now that the electron microscopes can look closer and closer, they are finding out that the average number of "halos" is only 2 or 3, meaning the lead came from polonium, not uranium.

FYI, polonium has a MUCH shorter half life, if these findings are proven be across the board (not all samples have been scanned under the new technology to find the "halos) then the age of the Earth, by this dating method, gets DRASTICALLY reduced. We are talking from 4.5 billion years to 10s of thousands. Polonium has that short of a half life.

Am I saying they are 100% wrong? Nope.
Am I saying there are major questions in their methodology/testing that needs to be examined before 4.5 billion years is accepted as fact? Absolutely.

Quite honestly, I'd just as soon leave any sort of "origins" teaching out of the science classroom altogether. Maybe teach it in a Humanities class or something.

As for the topic at hand, I don't think ID is religious rewording, because ID, in and of itself, comes with no logical implications.

If one was to subscribe to it, that would further no religious agenda, in and of itself.

Hell, one might theoretically still be a Nietzsche-like atheist, believing that a supreme being once existed, at which time he/it created the world, and has since died or ceased existing. Thus, one could subscribe to the notion that no authoritative being of the universe currently exists, but might still be convinced that there was one at one time, and said being was the originating force behind the forming of the universe ... the "uncreated creator" to use Aquinas' term.

Now, I will say that the desire for ID to be taught in CLASSROOMS is indeed being driven by (often misguided at best) religiocrats, but the fact that a fool may subscribe to a postulate does not take away from the validity of the postulate itself.

O-Trap wrote: Quite honestly, I'd just as soon leave any sort of "origins" teaching out of the science classroom altogether. Maybe teach it in a Humanities class or something.

As for the topic at hand, I don't think ID is religious rewording, because ID, in and of itself, comes with no logical implications.

If one was to subscribe to it, that would further no religious agenda, in and of itself.

Hell, one might theoretically still be a Nietzsche-like atheist, believing that a supreme being once existed, at which time he/it created the world, and has since died or ceased existing. Thus, one could subscribe to the notion that no authoritative being of the universe currently exists, but might still be convinced that there was one at one time, and said being was the originating force behind the forming of the universe ... the "uncreated creator" to use Aquinas' term.

Now, I will say that the desire for ID to be taught in CLASSROOMS is indeed being driven by (often misguided at best) religiocrats, but the fact that a fool may subscribe to a postulate does not take away from the validity of the postulate itself.

Exactly.

I've said over and over again that even though I believe in a creator/God I don't believe any form of ID should be taught in a science class.

Bigred1995 wrote:

jmog wrote:

bigmanbt wrote:

So, DNA and genetics don't tell us anything, evolution is "just a theory", and now radioactive half-lifes tell us nothing.

What other bits of science oh Great jmog should we disregard as well?:rolleyes:

You really don't want me to get started on some of the radiometric dating techniques.

Mock if you want, but before you do let me ask how many college chemistry and physics classes have you taken? I have a Bachelor's in Chemical Engineering with a minor in both chemistry and physics, a Bachelor's in Applied Math, and a Master's in Chemical Engineering.
I've probably taken more classes on that subject alone than you have total science classes.

I actually understand how radiometric dating techniques work, what math is used, what instrumentation is used, what ASSUMPTIONS are used, etc.

The problem is you have geologists and biologists doing chemical tests and chemical reaction calculations instead of chemists. They then assume too many off the wall things and get a number and publish it as fact. It would be like if I took an MRI scan of your brain and diagnosing you with some issue while not being a doctor.

About the DNA thing, talk to anyone who does DNA testing. Its so much easier to verify paternity (aka 1 generation) than it is to verify grandparents. They DNA is spread out/diluted so much more that they have to have numerous samples from more related people and the percentage of accuracy goes down fast.

Now, that's just talking about 1 to 2 generations back. We can't verify lineage to anyone really old by DNA like I mentioned above, so please tell me how we are going to verify through DNA lineage to other primates?

Facts are facts, you can mock me if you want, but like I said, I bet I have a firmer grasp on the science than you.

Oh, one more thing, yes, evolution is just a theory, hence why its called the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution.

Science has many laws that are facts, the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Evolution is still a theory, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

The last part of the entire "ode to yourself" is what makes me truly doubt you have any clue as to what you're talking about and only regurgitate what you read on young earth creationist websites!

1. if you were a real scientist you'd know the difference between the layman's definition of theory and the scientific definition of theory. That a theory in the scientific sense is an explanation that can help predict future occurrences or observations of the same type and can be tested through experiment or can be falsified by way of empirical observation. No self-respecting person of science would degrade any scientific theory in the same manner as you just did!!

2. Let me ask you a question about the Law of Gravity! What do we use to explain the hows and whys of this Law? Here's a hint, the second word in what I'm looking for starts with T. Give up? It's called Gravitational Theory! Did you not learn that in all of your science classes? Also, how do you feel about Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity?
How about these, IN YOUR OWN FIELD:
Atomic theory
Kinetic theory of gases

No point in learning about those until they become laws right, because after all they're just theories!

This is the definition of owned. Seriously, how did you not know gravity was a theory? I have only taken 3 chem and 2 physics classes in college and I knew that, and I'm not even a science major.

bigmanbt wrote:

This is the definition of owned. Seriously, how did you not know gravity was a theory? I have only taken 3 chem and 2 physics classes in college and I knew that, and I'm not even a science major.

Um...check again, Sir Isaac Newton's Law of Gravity or Law of Gravitation.

There is a difference between Newton's Law of Gravity and overall gravitational theory. Gravitational theory combines Newton's Law for macrophysics with Einstein's theory of relativity for microscale gravity.

So no, not "owned", you just showed you don't understand the difference between Newton's gravity and Einstein's gravity. The combination of the two create the modern gravitational theory.

Newton's law for large scale (things we can see) gravity is fact.

Einstein's relativistic gravity is still theory because we have no way to prove it quite yet, but the theory is very sound and appears to answer a lot of questions.

Don't worry about bigmanbt, It is obvious from his responses that unless he can copy/paste from Richard Dawkins Website/book, he really can't form an argument on his own.

There are posters(Boatshoes, BigRed , and some others) who may/may not be atheist/agnositc but at least make some valid points that don't come out of the Cliff notes version of The God Delusion.

There are smart people on both sides of the argument. There are crazies on both sides of the argument also.

I think if you are going to play the "probability of all this happening by chance is too small" card, then you must play the "chances of man and chimps sharing such similar DNA and not having common heritage, so evolution must be the case" card.....

pmoney25 wrote: Don't worry about bigmanbt, It is obvious from his responses that unless he can copy/paste from Richard Dawkins Website/book, he really can't form an argument on his own.

There are posters(Boatshoes, BigRed , and some others) who may/may not be atheist/agnositc but at least make some valid points that don't come out of the Cliff notes version of The God Delusion.

There are smart people on both sides of the argument. There are crazies on both sides of the argument also.

I can make an argument on my own easily. I reference who I got the information from because that is what you are suppose to do. Not doing so is plagarism, whether spoken or written. I've read other athiest books as well (Godless by Barker is very good, his To The Theologian chapter is great) but I reference Dawkins in this thread because he is a biologist at Oxford, far greater than anything anyone here is in the biology field.

I've all along said that ID could be possible, and recognize nothing in science is 100% (even laws, cause you never know how things change). But just because thing's aren't 100% does not make them less likely.

Oh an jmog, I get what you are saying, but way to reference it in your first post. You stated gravity is a law, when part of gravity is a law, but the whole piece of gravity is a theory. That's a fact.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: I think if you are going to play the "probability of all this happening by chance is too small" card, then you must play the "chances of man and chimps sharing such similar DNA and not having common heritage, so evolution must be the case" card.....

If there were a designer/creator it would make sense to me that he would use the same material to create everything. It definitely points to a common origin/ancestor but I don't think it proves anything IMHO.