Penn and Teller on Creationism

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I agree. I don't want creationism taught in schools and I believe in it. I also don't want evolution taught in schools. Origin theory has nothing to do with a student's grasp of real science its a way for the liberal agenda to force our kids to NOT believe in God as much as creationism is forcing them TO believe in God. I guess you hypocrites can't see that though, huh?

Wow. what flavor is it this week?

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Fossil evidence is observable. So are the physical features of birds that prove that they are descended from dinosaurs.

To me, this kind of evidence implies a single creator, not a single ancestor. My $.02.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
"I'm betting there won't be stickers saying: intelligent design isn't validated by any science or anything. We just made it up!"

they also have a good quote on the back of Richard Dawkins book, The GOD Delusion.
"The God Delusion is smart, compassionate, and true like ice, like fire. If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
- Penn and Teller

Awesome, adding a P&T quote to Dawkins' book does wonders for his credibility (of which he was on a thin thread anyway). Not to knock Penn & Teller (as I do like some of their stuff), it jsut doesn't seem like the apropriate resource from which you hope to gain acknowledgement....

BINGO, agree totally. Dawkins is as much of a quack as the fundies are. He has an agenda, which is not real science. Darwin would not like that guy (Darwin took decades to compile evidence for evolution based on observation, Dawkins makes statements that show an agenda and cannot be proven either way). "The burden of evidence..." :roll: Give me a break. The burden of evidence goes both ways no matter what the guy says. Of course his books bring up valid points, but P&T should use solid sources rather than this glory hound.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: crt1530
What do you think "genetic drift" and "natural selection" add up to over millions of years?

I could only wager a guess as could you as since have no scientific evidence of what it really amounts to. I wouldn't have the astounding audacity to proclaim that I know definitively and then proceed to teach it to others as if it were fact.

But my guess is that it doesn't lead to us sprouting gills some day. It's more like water colors get all smeared together and then cleaned off again....mostly cosmetic certainly nothing changing one species into another.

interesting point...perhaps, however, it explains whey the human fetus does indeed "sprout" gills early in it's embryonic development. This is a fact that you're more than welcome to deny, but it will only make you look dumber than you already are.

care to explain how a fetus is supposed to breath in an aqeuous environment before its lungs are developed?

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: crt1530
What do you think "genetic drift" and "natural selection" add up to over millions of years?

I could only wager a guess as could you as since have no scientific evidence of what it really amounts to. I wouldn't have the astounding audacity to proclaim that I know definitively and then proceed to teach it to others as if it were fact.

But my guess is that it doesn't lead to us sprouting gills some day. It's more like water colors get all smeared together and then cleaned off again....mostly cosmetic certainly nothing changing one species into another.

interesting point...perhaps, however, it explains whey the human fetus does indeed "sprout" gills early in it's embryonic development. This is a fact that you're more than welcome to deny, but it will only make you look dumber than you already are.

care to explain how a fetus is supposed to breath in an aqeuous environment before its lungs are developed?

From what I gathered from EMT class, babies don't breath until they're born. They receive oxygenated blood from the mother throuth the umbilical cord. No need to breath.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DefDC
Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

Wrong... wrong... and wrong

And I actually believe evolution is valid.

Sure, fossil record is a good start, but do you know what observable means? You need to look into this more. If by observable, you mean there is someone or something that has recorded the actual change from a lizard to a bird, or a fish to a mudskipper, then please show me, otherwise, that is a foolish statement.

archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
"I'm betting there won't be stickers saying: intelligent design isn't validated by any science or anything. We just made it up!"

they also have a good quote on the back of Richard Dawkins book, The GOD Delusion.
"The God Delusion is smart, compassionate, and true like ice, like fire. If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
- Penn and Teller

Awesome, adding a P&T quote to Dawkins' book does wonders for his credibility (of which he was on a thin thread anyway). Not to knock Penn & Teller (as I do like some of their stuff), it jsut doesn't seem like the apropriate resource from which you hope to gain acknowledgement....

BINGO, agree totally. Dawkins is as much of a quack as the fundies are. He has an agenda, which is not real science. Darwin would not like that guy (Darwin took decades to compile evidence for evolution based on observation, Dawkins makes statements that show an agenda and cannot be proven either way). "The burden of evidence..." :roll: Give me a break. The burden of evidence goes both ways no matter what the guy says. Of course his books bring up valid points, but P&T should use solid sources rather than this glory hound.

ya, and actually...I'm anti-Dawkin's not so much for his agenda-driven approach, but for what I consider to be his piss-poor understanding of genetics (not that I'm a resident genius or anything, but some of his theories are just silly...)

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: crt1530
What do you think "genetic drift" and "natural selection" add up to over millions of years?

I could only wager a guess as could you as since have no scientific evidence of what it really amounts to. I wouldn't have the astounding audacity to proclaim that I know definitively and then proceed to teach it to others as if it were fact.

But my guess is that it doesn't lead to us sprouting gills some day. It's more like water colors get all smeared together and then cleaned off again....mostly cosmetic certainly nothing changing one species into another.

If you think this is fun, get them started on the origins of the universe. It always amazes me to see what people will come up with to deny the existence of God.

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away .... there was nothing except for this thing that was infinitely small and infinitely dense and it was just there hanging out, maybe watching some TV. The all of a sudden, it blew up and formed the entire universe.

I'd rather just say that God can do some pretty cool things that science will never explain because science is limited to human understanding and the physical world. That works for me.

:roll:
LOL
There is nothing wrong with trying to find how things were created and search for truth.

By the way, did you know that scientists first believed in the idea that matter seemed to fill in space like raisin pudding and that the first person to theorize on Big Bang theory was a priest?

Look it up. You need to enlighten yourself on this stuff. Nothing about the Big Bang points to there not being a Creator. Sure atheists and physicist keep trying to point out string theory ideas where universes can be created and destroyed, but nothing in that even points to there not being a Creator. It is a matter of faith.

Again G-d can do whatever he wants to do, but it is not wrong to try to figure out how he did stuff. It is the nature of how we were created to observe the world in all its splendor.

I remember reading this, a fly on a Master painter's work cannot observe the grand picture unless he steps away from teh picture and actually observes the beauty of the picture in its entirety. But I would add that the fly can see the individual brush strokes of the master painter and marvel at the perfection and detail of each stroke if he holds on to the overall picture. My point is, you can't just observe one without observing the other if you truly want to understand the painting as well as the painter. (Maybe that was a little too figurative, but I think you get the picture) *you may not realize this, but the way I write and how I think on these things is greatly influenced by the philosophers that I have read, so if at all this is verbose, forgiveness please*

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: crt1530
What do you think "genetic drift" and "natural selection" add up to over millions of years?

I could only wager a guess as could you as since have no scientific evidence of what it really amounts to. I wouldn't have the astounding audacity to proclaim that I know definitively and then proceed to teach it to others as if it were fact.

But my guess is that it doesn't lead to us sprouting gills some day. It's more like water colors get all smeared together and then cleaned off again....mostly cosmetic certainly nothing changing one species into another.

interesting point...perhaps, however, it explains whey the human fetus does indeed "sprout" gills early in it's embryonic development. This is a fact that you're more than welcome to deny, but it will only make you look dumber than you already are.

care to explain how a fetus is supposed to breath in an aqeuous environment before its lungs are developed?

From what I gathered from EMT class, babies don't breath until they're born. They receive oxygenated blood from the mother throuth the umbilical cord. No need to breath.

Well, if breathing is defined as using lungs, then sure. Are the fetal gills considered vestigial, then? Been a while since I went over this stuff.

Besides, as we all know (according to Water World and Kevin Costner), humans will indeed evolve gills, at some point....

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DefDC
Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

Wrong... wrong... and wrong

And I actually believe evolution is valid.

Sure, fossil record is a good start, but do you know what observable means? You need to look into this more. If by observable, you mean there is someone or something that has recorded the actual change from a lizard to a bird, or a fish to a mudskipper, then please show me, otherwise, that is a foolish statement.

archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

Not observable in the context of science, but definite fossil evidence. For something to be observable, you would have to clone the archaeopteryx and observe it through hundreds of generations in very controlled environments which lend it to flight and birdlike behavior and actually see it go from dinosaur to bird.

Please read my post and then post a rebuttal because fossil evidence is not "observable" in the scientific sense. It is still evidence, but not observable evidence.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Not observable in the context of science, but definite fossil evidence. For something to be observable, you would have to clone the archaeopteryx and observe it through hundreds of generations in very controlled environments which lend it to flight and birdlike behavior and actually see it go from dinosaur to bird.

This isn't exactly correct. One does not need to record every discrete interval along the way from dino to bird (or more generally, from ancestor to present species) in order to observe that evolutionary change. We can look at the genetic similarities between chimpanzees and humans, for example, and properly claim to have observed their common ancestry, despite that nobody was there when the populations diverged.

Please read my post and then post a rebuttal because fossil evidence is not "observable" in the scientific sense. It is still evidence, but not observable evidence.

I don't think you're being sufficiently generous with what could be considered properly observed.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
"I'm betting there won't be stickers saying: intelligent design isn't validated by any science or anything. We just made it up!"

they also have a good quote on the back of Richard Dawkins book, The GOD Delusion.
"The God Delusion is smart, compassionate, and true like ice, like fire. If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
- Penn and Teller

Awesome, adding a P&T quote to Dawkins' book does wonders for his credibility (of which he was on a thin thread anyway). Not to knock Penn & Teller (as I do like some of their stuff), it jsut doesn't seem like the apropriate resource from which you hope to gain acknowledgement....

BINGO, agree totally. Dawkins is as much of a quack as the fundies are. He has an agenda, which is not real science. Darwin would not like that guy (Darwin took decades to compile evidence for evolution based on observation, Dawkins makes statements that show an agenda and cannot be proven either way). "The burden of evidence..." :roll: Give me a break. The burden of evidence goes both ways no matter what the guy says. Of course his books bring up valid points, but P&T should use solid sources rather than this glory hound.

ya, and actually...I'm anti-Dawkin's not so much for his agenda-driven approach, but for what I consider to be his piss-poor understanding of genetics (not that I'm a resident genius or anything, but some of his theories are just silly...)

Yeah, what is funny is that Dawkins had a "debate" with (I believe) the Director of the Human Genome project (who is a Christian BTW), and Dawkins ended up sounding like a petulant ass, which he is in my opinion. He doesn't have a true understanding of the information, but makes broad-caustic statements, just like the fundies. The director on the other hand was cogent and calm throughout and addressed every point in a well understood way. The director also supports evolution as a well established scientific theory, but he is a believer.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: DaShen

Not observable in the context of science, but definite fossil evidence. For something to be observable, you would have to clone the archaeopteryx and observe it through hundreds of generations in very controlled environments which lend it to flight and birdlike behavior and actually see it go from dinosaur to bird.

This isn't exactly correct. One does not need to record every discrete interval along the way from dino to bird (or more generally, from ancestor to present species) in order to observe that evolutionary change. We can look at the genetic similarities between chimpanzees and humans, for example, and properly claim to have observed their common ancestry, despite that nobody was there when the populations diverged.

Please read my post and then post a rebuttal because fossil evidence is not "observable" in the scientific sense. It is still evidence, but not observable evidence.

I don't think you're being sufficiently generous with what could be considered properly observed.

Yes, genetic observation is the new method to figure out clades and ancestry for scientists who already believe in evolution. This has been established. Genetics is the new way to go to figure out missing links and common ancestors. But, again, "observable" proof it is not. My point is that it is not "observable" in the sense that these fossils can be observed through experiment to be able to create a new species.

Look, my point is a semantical one. I agree that all of these things are evidence, but they are not experimentally observable from one species to the other. I have already pointed out plants (mustard seed - species variations that we actually eat) where it has been observed, but to use fossils as "observable" science is not true and will only lead to someone with less of a caliber to jump on that mistake and invalidate all other evidence.

Granted, maybe my interpretaion of observable is strict, but science is strict in the way it is conducted. It follows certain order and rules to be established. Evolution has done that and is scientifically valid, but your points are not the points that are observable.

 

[Red Dawn]

I was raised by a Fundie Mother who still believes in that nonsense. The older I got the more ludicrous Creationism (and religion in general) seemed to me.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

We're talking about macro evolution when we talk about origin theory. I didn't think I had to spell it out but I guess I should have, Mr Wizard.

there may not even be such a thing, mr. hero

Sure there is... its an arbitrary label placed on evolution past the species level to make doublethink easier for the modern believer and to make their idiotic beliefs seem less so.

But ask them what the difference in the mechanism behind each is, and their little façade quickly falls apart.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Yes, genetic observation is the new method to figure out clades and ancestry for scientists who already believe in evolution. This has been established.

Not at all. Anyone that merely accepts the validity of a paternity test must also accept what I've stipulated as an observable.

Genetics is the new way to go to figure out missing links and common ancestors. But, again, "observable" proof it is not. My point is that it is not "observable" in the sense that these fossils can be observed through experiment to be able to create a new species.

Again, one does not have to be present at the time and place of an event in order to observe it.

And please, desist your use of the word "proof." Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. We're talking about science.

Look, my point is a semantical one. I agree that all of these things are evidence, but they are not experimentally observable from one species to the other. I have already pointed out plants (mustard seed - species variations that we actually eat) where it has been observed, but to use fossils as "observable" science is not true and will only lead to someone with less of a caliber to jump on that mistake and invalidate all other evidence.

But you are wrong. Fossils are a means to observe many things, most readily the morphological similarities to other species and their relative position in the strata of the geological column. Fossils ARE "observable science." Certainly it is conceivable that the discovery of a certain fossil could falsify a significant amount of current theory. That would awfully difficult if they weren't observable.

Granted, maybe my interpretaion of observable is strict, but science is strict in the way it is conducted.

I would agree that science is rigorous with it's definitions, but your "strictness" is unreasonable and indicative of a shortcoming in understanding.

 

[DefDC]

2 choices:

"I don't know... Let's find out!"

or

"It was magic!"

I know where I fall....

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DefDC
Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

Wrong... wrong... and wrong

And I actually believe evolution is valid.

Sure, fossil record is a good start, but do you know what observable means? You need to look into this more. If by observable, you mean there is someone or something that has recorded the actual change from a lizard to a bird, or a fish to a mudskipper, then please show me, otherwise, that is a foolish statement.

archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

Not observable in the context of science, but definite fossil evidence. For something to be observable, you would have to clone the archaeopteryx and observe it through hundreds of generations in very controlled environments which lend it to flight and birdlike behavior and actually see it go from dinosaur to bird.

Please read my post and then post a rebuttal because fossil evidence is not "observable" in the scientific sense. It is still evidence, but not observable evidence.

I see your point, and read your post after I had posted this response. However, I agree with the other poster that fossil evidence can be considered observable evidence...in the sense that, we may hazard a theory as to why or how something occurs, and if we discover evidence (whether by performing a controlled experiment in lab, or aquiring such evidence through geologically historical means), it counts as observable evidence to support or deny a theory.

Now, I am more familliar with lab-controlled immediately observable evidence, as I assume you are as well. In archaeology and climatology, the majority (if not all) of the evidence used in support of this science predates written, and indeed known human history. However, this doesn't mean that lab-controlled experiments can not be performed on this evidence (carbon dating, CO2/O2 measurements, geological strata, soil analysis) whatever...

In many ways, while we can't watch such creatures evolve before our eyes, we can by means of scientific investigation, record valuable observable evidence from these sources, and therefore create an observable, historical timeline of changes in evolution or climate, etc...

It seems we are both pretty rigid in how we practice science (whether by thought or by investigation), but in my experience, observable evidence takes a wide definition. In the end, what really matters is what passes peer review

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
"I'm betting there won't be stickers saying: intelligent design isn't validated by any science or anything. We just made it up!"

they also have a good quote on the back of Richard Dawkins book, The GOD Delusion.
"The God Delusion is smart, compassionate, and true like ice, like fire. If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
- Penn and Teller

Awesome, adding a P&T quote to Dawkins' book does wonders for his credibility (of which he was on a thin thread anyway). Not to knock Penn & Teller (as I do like some of their stuff), it jsut doesn't seem like the apropriate resource from which you hope to gain acknowledgement....

BINGO, agree totally. Dawkins is as much of a quack as the fundies are. He has an agenda, which is not real science. Darwin would not like that guy (Darwin took decades to compile evidence for evolution based on observation, Dawkins makes statements that show an agenda and cannot be proven either way). "The burden of evidence..." :roll: Give me a break. The burden of evidence goes both ways no matter what the guy says. Of course his books bring up valid points, but P&T should use solid sources rather than this glory hound.

ya, and actually...I'm anti-Dawkin's not so much for his agenda-driven approach, but for what I consider to be his piss-poor understanding of genetics (not that I'm a resident genius or anything, but some of his theories are just silly...)

Yeah, what is funny is that Dawkins had a "debate" with (I believe) the Director of the Human Genome project (who is a Christian BTW), and Dawkins ended up sounding like a petulant ass, which he is in my opinion. He doesn't have a true understanding of the information, but makes broad-caustic statements, just like the fundies. The director on the other hand was cogent and calm throughout and addressed every point in a well understood way. The director also supports evolution as a well established scientific theory, but he is a believer.

Francis Collins is a strange bird. I'm not quite sure how to take him, actually. I have his book, "The Language of God," but have yet to read it. After seeing him on the Colbert Report, I want to place him under the category of "extremely well-informed loon." However, I give him far more credit that Dawkins, who has shut himself off from reason.

I'm a Gould guy anyway, so Dawkins will always sound like a crackpot to me (Funny that Gould is (still) considered the pre-eminent mind in Evolutionary theory, yet he had no problem with God)

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: DaShen

Yes, genetic observation is the new method to figure out clades and ancestry for scientists who already believe in evolution. This has been established.

Not at all. Anyone that merely accepts the validity of a paternity test must also accept what I've stipulated as an observable.

Genetics is the new way to go to figure out missing links and common ancestors. But, again, "observable" proof it is not. My point is that it is not "observable" in the sense that these fossils can be observed through experiment to be able to create a new species.

Again, one does not have to be present at the time and place of an event in order to observe it.

And please, desist your use of the word "proof." Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. We're talking about science.

Look, my point is a semantical one. I agree that all of these things are evidence, but they are not experimentally observable from one species to the other. I have already pointed out plants (mustard seed - species variations that we actually eat) where it has been observed, but to use fossils as "observable" science is not true and will only lead to someone with less of a caliber to jump on that mistake and invalidate all other evidence.

But you are wrong. Fossils are a means to observe many things, most readily the morphological similarities to other species and their relative position in the strata of the geological column. Fossils ARE "observable science." Certainly it is conceivable that the discovery of a certain fossil could falsify a significant amount of current theory. That would awfully difficult if they weren't observable.

Granted, maybe my interpretaion of observable is strict, but science is strict in the way it is conducted.

I would agree that science is rigorous with it's definitions, but your "strictness" is unreasonable and indicative of a shortcoming in understanding.

If you are going to state whether genetic tests like Southern blot is used and is observable, then you must show that. It is observable and a good use of science, but it is only observable becuase of actual experiments that show speciation and the close tie between it and genetics (i.e. - mustard seed - other types of vegetation). You skipped this and went straight to saying that it is observable just because. That leaves a hole in your argument which any fundie will jump on to.

As for fossil evidence, it is not observable in the sense of experimentation. That is my point. Strata and the relative age of different strata is directly observable because it can be experimented by using half-lives of radiological elements. Fossils and their close ties cannot be directly experimentally to be tied. If I was to use phenotypic relations as a means to show evolution, I could point out the duck and platypus as being directly related (reptilian/avian vs. mammalian). Granted, this is what was used to figure out clades before genetics, but again it could not be directly observed through experiment. That is why "missing link" arguments were so prevalent before genetic testing came into the picture. That is my point. It is not "observable" in the sense of science, but it can be used as evidence when an experiment is done that proves it is directly linked to the experiment. Now it is widely accepted that fossils show a progression because evolution is a scientific theory that is widely accepted. You can use fossils as evidence of evolution, but again "observable" in the sense of scientific experimentation it is not.

Also, Geo minor here, so yes I love fossils and sed rocks. And yes, Geology is a science. Again a semantics thing. You can observe the progression of fossils by strata and come to the conclusion that there is a progression (evolution), but is this "observable" through experimentation by fossils? No. Is the same thing "observable" through life currently right now through experimentation? Yes, yes it is. That is why no real dispute between fossil evidence and linking is made, because observable experiments of actual organisms have been shown.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: DaShen

Yes, genetic observation is the new method to figure out clades and ancestry for scientists who already believe in evolution. This has been established.

Not at all. Anyone that merely accepts the validity of a paternity test must also accept what I've stipulated as an observable.

Genetics is the new way to go to figure out missing links and common ancestors. But, again, "observable" proof it is not. My point is that it is not "observable" in the sense that these fossils can be observed through experiment to be able to create a new species.

Again, one does not have to be present at the time and place of an event in order to observe it.

And please, desist your use of the word "proof." Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. We're talking about science.

Look, my point is a semantical one. I agree that all of these things are evidence, but they are not experimentally observable from one species to the other. I have already pointed out plants (mustard seed - species variations that we actually eat) where it has been observed, but to use fossils as "observable" science is not true and will only lead to someone with less of a caliber to jump on that mistake and invalidate all other evidence.

But you are wrong. Fossils are a means to observe many things, most readily the morphological similarities to other species and their relative position in the strata of the geological column. Fossils ARE "observable science." Certainly it is conceivable that the discovery of a certain fossil could falsify a significant amount of current theory. That would awfully difficult if they weren't observable.

Granted, maybe my interpretaion of observable is strict, but science is strict in the way it is conducted.

I would agree that science is rigorous with it's definitions, but your "strictness" is unreasonable and indicative of a shortcoming in understanding.

If you are going to state whether genetic tests like Southern blot is used and is observable, then you must show that. It is observable and a good use of science, but it is only observable becuase of actual experiments that show speciation and the close tie between it and genetics (i.e. - mustard seed - other types of vegetation). You skipped this and went straight to saying that it is observable just because. That leaves a hole in your argument which any fundie will jump on to.

As for fossil evidence, it is not observable in the sense of experimentation. That is my point. Strata and the relative age of different strata is directly observable because it can be experimented by using half-lives of radiological elements. Fossils and their close ties cannot be directly experimentally to be tied. If I was to use phenotypic relations as a means to show evolution, I could point out the duck and platypus as being directly related (reptilian/avian vs. mammalian). Granted, this is what was used to figure out clades before genetics, but again it could not be directly observed through experiment. That is why "missing link" arguments were so prevalent before genetic testing came into the picture. That is my point. It is not "observable" in the sense of science, but it can be used as evidence when an experiment is done that proves it is directly linked to the experiment. Now it is widely accepted that fossils show a progression because evolution is a scientific theory that is widely accepted. You can use fossils as evidence of evolution, but again "observable" in the sense of scientific experimentation it is not.

Also, Geo minor here, so yes I love fossils and sed rocks. And yes, Geology is a science. Again a semantics thing. You can observe the progression of fossils by strata and come to the conclusion that there is a progression (evolution), but is this "observable" through experimentation by fossils? No. Is the same thing "observable" through life currently right now through experimentation? Yes, yes it is. That is why no real dispute between fossil evidence and linking is made, because observable experiments of actual organisms have been shown.

I suppose that is where we disagree, as according to my last post, I used the same examples to show how this is scientifically obervable evidence. Now, using your descriptions of scientifically acceptable observable evidence, if we were to extract DNA from each of a progressive series of fossils, run a few sequences and compare, then it would make the fossils observable evidence, no?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
"I'm betting there won't be stickers saying: intelligent design isn't validated by any science or anything. We just made it up!"

they also have a good quote on the back of Richard Dawkins book, The GOD Delusion.
"The God Delusion is smart, compassionate, and true like ice, like fire. If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
- Penn and Teller

Awesome, adding a P&T quote to Dawkins' book does wonders for his credibility (of which he was on a thin thread anyway). Not to knock Penn & Teller (as I do like some of their stuff), it jsut doesn't seem like the apropriate resource from which you hope to gain acknowledgement....

BINGO, agree totally. Dawkins is as much of a quack as the fundies are. He has an agenda, which is not real science. Darwin would not like that guy (Darwin took decades to compile evidence for evolution based on observation, Dawkins makes statements that show an agenda and cannot be proven either way). "The burden of evidence..." :roll: Give me a break. The burden of evidence goes both ways no matter what the guy says. Of course his books bring up valid points, but P&T should use solid sources rather than this glory hound.

ya, and actually...I'm anti-Dawkin's not so much for his agenda-driven approach, but for what I consider to be his piss-poor understanding of genetics (not that I'm a resident genius or anything, but some of his theories are just silly...)

Yeah, what is funny is that Dawkins had a "debate" with (I believe) the Director of the Human Genome project (who is a Christian BTW), and Dawkins ended up sounding like a petulant ass, which he is in my opinion. He doesn't have a true understanding of the information, but makes broad-caustic statements, just like the fundies. The director on the other hand was cogent and calm throughout and addressed every point in a well understood way. The director also supports evolution as a well established scientific theory, but he is a believer.

Francis Collins is a strange bird. I'm not quite sure how to take him, actually. I have his book, "The Language of God," but have yet to read it. After seeing him on the Colbert Report, I want to place him under the category of "extremely well-informed loon." However, I give him far more credit that Dawkins, who has shut himself off from reason.

I'm a Gould guy anyway, so Dawkins will always sound like a crackpot to me (Funny that Gould is (still) considered the pre-eminent mind in Evolutionary theory, yet he had no problem with God)

Have you ever actually read any Gould or Dawkins? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Gould did a lot of unintentional harm to evolution with his passivity, and that's precisely why Dawkins is taking the offensive. Gould's philisophical meanderings were what gave the creationists ammo to continue their spinning of evolutionary ideas.

He had no problem with God? I guess it depends on what you mean by "problem." He stated several times that he was an agnostic.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
"I'm betting there won't be stickers saying: intelligent design isn't validated by any science or anything. We just made it up!"

they also have a good quote on the back of Richard Dawkins book, The GOD Delusion.
"The God Delusion is smart, compassionate, and true like ice, like fire. If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
- Penn and Teller

Awesome, adding a P&T quote to Dawkins' book does wonders for his credibility (of which he was on a thin thread anyway). Not to knock Penn & Teller (as I do like some of their stuff), it jsut doesn't seem like the apropriate resource from which you hope to gain acknowledgement....

BINGO, agree totally. Dawkins is as much of a quack as the fundies are. He has an agenda, which is not real science. Darwin would not like that guy (Darwin took decades to compile evidence for evolution based on observation, Dawkins makes statements that show an agenda and cannot be proven either way). "The burden of evidence..." :roll: Give me a break. The burden of evidence goes both ways no matter what the guy says. Of course his books bring up valid points, but P&T should use solid sources rather than this glory hound.

ya, and actually...I'm anti-Dawkin's not so much for his agenda-driven approach, but for what I consider to be his piss-poor understanding of genetics (not that I'm a resident genius or anything, but some of his theories are just silly...)

Yeah, what is funny is that Dawkins had a "debate" with (I believe) the Director of the Human Genome project (who is a Christian BTW), and Dawkins ended up sounding like a petulant ass, which he is in my opinion. He doesn't have a true understanding of the information, but makes broad-caustic statements, just like the fundies. The director on the other hand was cogent and calm throughout and addressed every point in a well understood way. The director also supports evolution as a well established scientific theory, but he is a believer.

Francis Collins is a strange bird. I'm not quite sure how to take him, actually. I have his book, "The Language of God," but have yet to read it. After seeing him on the Colbert Report, I want to place him under the category of "extremely well-informed loon." However, I give him far more credit that Dawkins, who has shut himself off from reason.

I'm a Gould guy anyway, so Dawkins will always sound like a crackpot to me (Funny that Gould is (still) considered the pre-eminent mind in Evolutionary theory, yet he had no problem with God)

I read The Language of God and I wasn't too impressed with it. First of all, I felt as though the book was aimed at people with religious backgrounds looking to understand how Darwinian evolution and God can co-exist. I have no religious background. There were also a few arguments (excuse my poor memory here) that I found unconvincing at best. It was still a worthwhile read though.

Outside of Dawkins I don't think many people have a problem with religion. The only reason this stupid evolution vs creationism debate has occupied such a prominent role in our society is because of the educational implications, with both sides screaming 'indoctrination' at one another. Personally, I happen to be of the belief that there is a place for creationism, which is in a religion class next to the Bible, Korean, Torah, etc.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
"I'm betting there won't be stickers saying: intelligent design isn't validated by any science or anything. We just made it up!"

they also have a good quote on the back of Richard Dawkins book, The GOD Delusion.
"The God Delusion is smart, compassionate, and true like ice, like fire. If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
- Penn and Teller

Awesome, adding a P&T quote to Dawkins' book does wonders for his credibility (of which he was on a thin thread anyway). Not to knock Penn & Teller (as I do like some of their stuff), it just doesn't seem like the appropriate resource from which you hope to gain acknowledgment....

Seriously. They're Comedians. I couldn't care less whether they give their stamp of approval to Dawkins' books. Why should anyone appeal to them to give a fair assessment of Creationism, or the subject of God in general.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I suppose that is where we disagree, as according to my last post, I used the same examples to show how this is scientifically obervable evidence. Now, using your descriptions of scientifically acceptable observable evidence, if we were to extract DNA from each of a progressive series of fossils, run a few sequences and compare, then it would make the fossils observable evidence, no?

Actually, yes it would. Because genetic evidence has been shown to be directly correlated to ancestry through experiments. That step in the person's argument was left out. That was the issue I was having with that. You can't just state something as being "observable" without having an experiment to back up that claim.

I can claim that certain animals lived in certain periods of time through fossil evidence, strata, and radiological dating. I can do experiments to show this. I could not before genetic testing, point out common ancestry without the "missing link" argument being pointed out and that you could not do an experiment to proof that they were closely linked. After showing through experiment that ancestry and genetics are closely tied, fossil evidence with DNA can show linkage experimentally (if you accept that the experiments that similarities in DNA show common ancestry). The problem with the argument before was that the people were claiming that the actual fossil itself was "observable" evidence that the fossils had a common ancestor. It is not because it could not be shown experimentally that there was a link. Now that it is shown through DNA, you find that there are less people actaully using "missing link" ideas to disprove evolution.