Judge Clears School Officials of Criminal Charges in Prayer Case

GalapagosPete »

Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:40 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 6

"These school officials should sue the ACLU and their clients for slander and defamation of character."

For what? You can't sue someone for suing you unless you can show the original suit was frivolous, and once this went to trial any claim of frivolousness pretty much went away because the judge was agreeing that there was an issue to be decided.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

GMG, You have supported my point. As the definition says, "Today the term is primarily used to refer to the chemical origin of life," not the idea of spontaneous generation, which was the belief that "held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain." Only creationists try to connect the two.

And abiogenesis can be supported by evidence, as when early steps in the hypothetical process can be replicated in the lab, but it likely will never be proved or disproved. Nothing in science is ever "proved", because science is always open to new discoveries that could completely overturn current theories. Of course, these ideas have to be in line with scientific principles, and they must better explain the phenomenon being studied using only natural explanations.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

On the other hand, if I did say that somewhere, please tell me when so I can go see for myself, because I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

GMG, No, looking at my suggested reference, abiogenesis used to mean the same thing, but doesn't any more. Words evolve, as anyone who has a teenage child can tell you.

While an ocean is an ocean, regardless of the composition, I probably should have said something like, "Earth's early oceans." When I read "primordial soup," I always think chicken noodle.

We absolutely can explain how life formed from non-living matter. We have a perfectly reasonable, completely natural explanation that fits all the facts. In fact, if you read the part of my post that you quoted (always a good idea before you comment on what it says, I think you'll agree), you'll see that the explanation is actually there.

What I said was that we have no explanation for where the material that makes up the current universe came from, but that "we don't know" does not equal "goddidit."

"We don't know" is a perfectly valid answer in science, because it is always followed by "yet."

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

rubinlueski, I agree, but of course the evolutionists and creationists aren't really talking to each other here.

My remarks are aimed at others who may visit this site, and are intended to counter the misinformation that is being spread by the creationists. It doesn't matter whether they believe what they say, most of it is factually wrong, such as the false calculation of the probability of abiogenesis, or claiming that radiometric dating is unreliable (using long-refuted examples), or that there is some objective measure by which Earth is "perfect", or taking the position that if something is not known to science then that is evidence for ID. And so on.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Ingoditrust posted, "Token-The world, the universe, is all too perfect for it just to have been chance. And as I said before, no material can come from nothing so how did the Big Bang occurr in the first place?"

In what respect is the Earth perfect? We cannot live everywhere on its surface, the weather is frequently dangerous, many of the species of animals and plants can and do kill us, there are geologic events that take life - so how is Earth "perfect"? I would say it's good, but not perfect.

As for the Big Bang, there is no known scientific principle that forbids matter and energy from having existed prior to it. It is true we don't know where everything "came from", but only primitive cultures attribute that which they do not understand to gods. Since our experience has repeatedly been that we find natural, non-god-necessary explanations for phenomena, it makes far more sense for our default assumption to be that there will always be a natural explanation, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

My point was not that TokenSP believes in classic spontaneous generation, but rather that the term is being misused here. Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation, but people are using the terms interchangeably They describe different things, and spontaneous generation has been disproved. Abiogenesis is a current scientific theory, as I described in my earlier post.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

TokenSP, I wanted to point out that spontaneous generation was the belief that complex, living organism are created by decaying organic material. Examples can be found by searching for it on Wikipedia. Spontaneous generation was falsified long ago.

Abiogenesis is the modern scientific theory that life started as a result of chemical processes in Earth's oceans billions of years ago. In this case, life means chemicals forming amino acids which go on to combine to become simple organic molecules, and on to today's diverse biosphere. Criticisms of abiogenesis are usually based on confusing the modern scientific theory with the old, discredited, classical version.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chris333 posted, "When I say, "life coming together by itself" I mean that a bunch of nonliving matter over a billion years or so randomly forms into some simple cell, which has just the property to survive and reproduce somehow (because it has the desire or because random effects on it force it to?) and then the supposed reproduced cells are able to withstand the environment and what not and continue to reproduce. Randomly."

Not understanding a mechanism is not the same as saying that there must be a guiding intelligence behind it, especially when even the likelihood of such an intelligence existing has never been established.

As we learn more, we understand that apparently random effects, which is another way of saying we don't yet know, really follow natural laws. Based on experience, it is far more likely that it will turn out to be some natural law that caused the non-living chemicals to combine in particular ways, ultimately leading to living cells.

Once, there were many things people attributed to mystical causes, phenomena that ultimately turned out to be perfectly natural. There is no scientific reason to believe otherwise in this case.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

maranatha7593, The story at angelfire is a creative retelling of the truth. Before performing the test, the lab informed the group that submitted the dinosaur bone that the results would not be valid, but they insisted on having a carbon test performed anyway. So they got a perfectly useless carbon test.

Here's the story: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may97.html

His other "examples" are equally unconvincing, including his assertion, which has no foundation is reality, that radioactive decay rates were different in the past. Anyway, a web site where the owner's idea of "citation" is a speech by Kent Hovind is not one to be taken seriously.

Similarly, the story about Mount St Helens is also not what creationists would like us to believe. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

ingoditrust posted, "Galapagos Pete - If a creator is all powerful, certainly he could zap a few amino acids together?"

Makes no difference, there's no need for one to account for phenomena in the physical world, and no evidence for one in any case.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

maranatha7593 posted "Evolutionism is science falsely so-called. There are gaps and errors in evolutionism which negate any objective truth. I know there are many scientists who are fully degreed who see its errors and gaps and know it's not without fault. And, as Chris333 said, "The chance of life randomly coming together all by its lonesome, is essentially zero." The design which is observable in creation shows there had to be a designer."

There are no known scientific errors in the theory of evolution. Imaginary, wished-for errors and religious objections do not count.

There are only a very few scientists who have a problem with evolutionary theory, and most of them work in other fields and have no qualification to speak in the field of evolutionary biology. The rest, who are qualified, mostly have issue with the specific mechanisms of how evolution works, not whether it works.

When scientists talk about the origin of life, they are referring to biological molecules assembling in the oceans of Earth billions of years ago. The odds of a simple protein coming together, of the amino acids being in the right order, are about 1 in 3.2 million. (You need 5 amino acids in the right order, there are 20 amino acids from which proteins are built, so the odds are 20^5, or 20x20x20x20x20, or 3,200,000.) That is nowhere near essentially zero.

Amino acids themselves have been shown to occur in conditions believed to have existed on the early Earth.

When you consider that there is a planet full of oceans doing these "experiments", it isn't going to take long for a simple enzyme to assemble, and from there, more complex enzymes. It's not a case of the first time having to be the most complex biological molecules.

A designer, therefore, is not even necessary, much less proven.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Slacker posted, "I hope you don't call yourself a scientist because that statement alone is a bold face lie, but I realise you are angry with God, but don't confuse the fact that you don't know him for him not being there, if you bothered to seek a relationship you would see that God does exist and is there and does love you."


If it's a lie, you should be able to find some authority to refute it. Someone somewhere must be able to find some contradictory scientific evidence that disproves evolution, or even casts it into doubt.

Now, that could happen, but if it does, it will be because science discovers a better explanation to replace evolution. Religious beliefs are simply not useful for science.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:40 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

The Watch posted, "That [evolution is supported in other scientific fields] is a very broad sweeping statement, when there are contradictory ideas in all those proclaimed fields."

I don't know what contradictory ideas you believe there are in those fields, but the fact remains that all of them contribute only support to the theory of evolution.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:01 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Slacker posted, "Maybe that is why Evolution is still just a THEORY and not fact, incorporate the two and see what you get, look to God for the Answers and he will show you the truth that you seek."

Yes, evolution is only a theory, only a well-researched, well-documented explanation based on massive evidence in such diverse fields as paleontology, biology, genetics, radiometric dating and geology, and for which no slightest piece of contradictory evidence exists. That's all it is.

Actually, looking to gods for answers to natural phenomena was the process people used for thousands of years.

It didn't work.

It was only when some people stopped depending on non-responsive "gods" and started thinking for themselves that understanding the world in which we live on a regular, demonstrable, evidentiary and useful basis actually began. These people understood that while religion may have some use as a social construct, it was useless as a means of understanding the physical world.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Ingoditrust says, "That is the side of science I love. The side that I do not love is the side where they attempt to completely trample religion into the dust until it is no more."

You misunderstand. Science does not attempt to do anything with religion. Science simply does not acknowledge religion at all as a factor in scientific endeavor. The only time it addresses religion is when it studies religion as a social phenomenon. But religion has no place in science as an explanation for physical phenomena.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

seedplanter is worried that, "Neither can science explain the purpose behind our existence."

Fortunately, intelligent beings can make their own purpose.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Slacker posted, "[show] me all the data, not just what supports your side."

From that statement, I draw two inferences: 1) Nothing posted here has impressed you as being evidence against evolution; 2) you have some reason to believe that there is some evidence that will undermine evolution, although you have no idea what it might be.

What makes you think there is such evidence? Do you have similar concerns about other scientific theories? And if there was convincing evidence against evolution, don't you think that creationists would have trotted it out by now, with much arm-waving and smiling, in the mistaken belief that undermining evolution is the same thing as evidence for creationism?

Nor, as Shrdlu42 has pointed, is lack of knowledge the same thing as evidence against. Just because we don't know something - yet - doesn't invalidate the theory. No theory explains everything about a phenomena, it is simply the best, most complete explanation we can come up with at the present time. All scientific explanations are incomplete, and are subject to change as we learn more. And that means all theories, not just evolution.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

bcoontz posted, "Without the presupposition of evolution, you could certainly not derive common ancestory (sic) from the fossil record."

You could certainly infer the possibility. In any case, the theory of evolution does not rest solely on fossils, which is only one piece of evidence supporting it. Evolution is supported by multiple other disciplines of science, such as genetics and geology.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

GalapagosPete »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

bcoontz posted, "davidmc, rather than just calling people liars, might I suggest that you give specific examples of what you mean when you post. Nothing that was stated was refuted by evidence, but assertion only."

In fact, he recommended two books in his post, "Evolution through Genetic Exchange" by Michael L. Arnold, and "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" by Donald Prothero.