quote:

I was using the Vatican astronomer as a scientist,

Alright. I understood your point to be that even those religious scientists don’t support the idea of Id. Perhaps you can clarify why you were quoting the Vatican astronomer.

And once again I remind you there are many unanswered points about why evolution is not a sound scientific theory. Do you have a response to those points?

quote:

Basically you quote him when it is convenient but would reject him as a biased source if I quoted him to say that there is a creator.

Just as you would if I quoted a physicist who was an atheist. Religion and science are two completely separate things. I was using the Vatican astronomer as a scientist, ergo his opinion on science is valid. I do not have to accept his religious beliefs as part of the package just as you don't need to accept Stephen Hawking's religious beliefs in order to believe what he says regarding science.

quote:

I was merely stating that the Vatican astronomer was indeed a scientist who knew what he was talking about, considering his job involves science. You dragged it off into something else entirely by saying their religious beliefs are intertwined with their science.

If you are going to use the Vatican astronomer as a credible source then you also have to acknowledge that he believes in a creator. Basically you quote him when it is convenient but would reject him as a biased source if I quoted him to say that there is a creator.

quote:

the creation can be rightly understood as the metaphorical declaration of Gods power that it is.

The creation story of the bible is not metaphorical; it does mean that god created the earth although it does not give us too many specifics.

Also I have several unanswered points about why evolution is not a good explanation about life on earth, it a couple down before this catholic thing even got started, do you have responses to those points?

quote:

You dragged it off into something else entirely by saying their religious beliefs are intertwined with their science.

Indeed, and in fact the overriding point that I was trying to make when I used this source was that the scientists employed by the Vatican, i.e. as RC as it is possible to get, do not believe in intelligent design as scientific fact, prefering instead to leave it in a subject where the creation can be rightly understood as the metaphorical declaration of Gods power that it is.

quote:

First you quoted them like they were a definitive source and then you said that their teachings no longer apply to modern science.

I never said they were a definitive source. I was merely stating that the Vatican astronomer was indeed a scientist who knew what he was talking about, considering his job involves science. You dragged it off into something else entirely by saying their religious beliefs are intertwined with their science.

quote:

I didn't say the old Catholic ideas fit in exactly with modern science. They just led up to it. Science went its own way after the 1800s and came up with revised theories which invariably didn't include God or any creator figure.

If this is the case than why are you quoting members of the Catholic Church who don’t like the theory of intelligent design? First you quoted them like they were a definitive source and then you said that their teachings no longer apply to modern science.

quote:

if you follow their teachings you would have to say that there is a god, and that God did create the world, which would be intelligent design.

I didn't say the old Catholic ideas fit in exactly with modern science. They just led up to it. Science went its own way after the 1800s and came up with revised theories which invariably didn't include God or any creator figure.

quote:

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?

The point is that if you follow their teachings you would have to say that there is a god, and that God did create the world, which would be intelligent design. If you look at the theory of intelligent design you will see that it is very similar to the theory of evolution, in many ways. The difference is that intelligent design includes God as an important factor.

quote:

If you still don't believe me, you might be interested to know that a Catholic priest came up with the idea of the Big Bang.

Okay, I believe in the big bang.

I belive onboth concepts come together, like a package from outer space, and the blue print to the understanding of creation and evolution lies on our own human universe (the mind).

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? If you read Genesis, you'll notice that it doesn't actually say how Earth (or the universe) was created. It just says it was. They left it up to scientists to come up with the how, while they focused on the why.

If you still don't believe me, you might be interested to know that a Catholic priest came up with the idea of the Big Bang.

quote:

He’s a Vatican astronomer, not an expert on what science is and what is not.

Well, considering that (like it or not) Catholics practically invented modern science (or at least it's predecessors), I think he knows what he's talking about. That and he's an astronomer.

quote:

Problem with this diagram is that the positives do not appear to proceed. They convert. Which is not in the evolutionary process. So in fact your diagram should look like this by stage three:

The positives would not proceed. You would have to have several positive mutations in the same animal or in the successive generations of the offspring for the mutation to come to completion, unless you are arguing for the other version of the evolutionary theory in which there are large jumps in the animal types, meaning very large mutations, in which case you would be dropping all the arguments for small change over a long period of time.

quote:

You could have a mutation that gave you a protrusion from your rear end. In future generations this might become a tail, if it proved useful.

Again that would be small changes over a long period of time which would contradict your other example of one mutation having huge changes. For clarification, which evolutionary theory do you believe because there are several variants? Specifically do you believe in punctuated equilibrium?

quote:

Why can some volcanic vents at the bottom of the deepest oceans support various different life forms indipendant of the sun?

I think that you misunderstood stood my question. I was asking, why are we so distinct. Why do we have morals, governments, religions, and at times disregard self preservation to save others.

quote:

I did have a really good site with decent actual pictures, but this will have to do. A version can be found here: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
It demonstrates how mousetraps 'evolved' from a basic ancestor through to the modern day.

There are several reasons why this example of an evolving mouse traps does not apply.

First. The original trap could not be the same trap, only modified as the ending trap why? Because the parts are different. The original trap uses one peace of wire for the Hammer, Catch, spring, and holding Bar. To reach the modern trap you would have to completely do away with the old one, and have ties in the process where the trap is not usable.

Secondly the trap is not originally able to work on its own; it has to lean against another structure to work

Lastly the trap would not originally perform its Job. Let’s look at the first trap. You first have to assume that the spring wire will actually hold itself shut, which is highly unlikely, and it would definitely not hold itself shut for any sufficient amount of time. Secondly the trap could only work if it was placed directly in front of a passage that the mouse would travel threw. Also the trap would probably never work, If it was still held together, it would easily be knocked over by the slightest touch, which would leave the mouse to far out of the trap to be caught, and in the rare event of the trap caching the mouse it would probably not be able to keep the mouse caught. So because of this it would not be considered a working mouse trap, and if you put it on sale I would be willing to bet that people would not by it, simply because it would probably never work.

quote:

I also enjoyed this quote, from the Vatican chief astronomer from 1978-2006: 'Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.'

That’s very nice that he said that, but why do I care? He’s a Vatican astronomer, not an expert on what science is and what is not.

quote:

1.) ---++ (all negatives die the positives proceed)
2.) +- ( all negatives die the positive proceed)
3.) – all die

Problem with this diagram is that the positives do not appear to proceed. They convert. Which is not in the evolutionary process. So in fact your diagram should look like this by stage three:

3.)+++-.

I think.

quote:

within those parameters. So for example you could never have a mutation that gives you a tail.

You could have a mutation that gave you a protrusion from your rear end. In future generations this might become a tail, if it proved useful. Look at polydactyl (sp?).

quote:

Why are we so different, if we are only another type of animal?

Why can some volcanic vents at the bottom of the deepest oceans support various different life forms indipendant of the sun? How have they come to be able to survive those crushing pressures? How does thier food chain manage to endure, making a complex and diverse habitat?

quote:

First of all what mouse trap was this. Secondly was it a modified mousetrap, that they simply removed parts, or did they invent a new mouse trap.

I did have a really good site with decent actual pictures, but this will have to do. A version can be found here: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
It demonstrates how mousetraps 'evolved' from a basic ancestor through to the modern day.

Oh, and watch the video EG posted, Nephilim. I found it highly amusing.

I also enjoyed this quote, from the Vatican chief astronomer from 1978-2006: 'Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.'

quote:

Aww, Nephilem, it's been a week where did you go? I want to keep going!

Sorry I have been very busy over the past week, and I was out of town for several days.

quote:

I can't attack each case of irreducible complexity now, but in general they overlook the fact that things don't proceed one after the other, but instead likely adapted over time WITH eachother. This explains the problem of "removing" parts or organs and such.

But in many cases things do change before another part. For instance the eye would have many different parts. Evolution works on random mutations which means that all these parts of the eye would all have to randomly mutate in the same way, and toward the same goal. Also they would all have to reach the same stage at the same time otherwise the system would work. Again evolution is good at explaining the series that the evolution took, but often skips the explanation of how they could survive in between the stages of the evolution.

quote:

You seriously can't see how small changes can explain that diversity?

Small changes could explain diversity providing several things.

First that they have plausible reasons for the diversity
Second that it is within the genetic boundaries
That an increase of diversity is present.

These things are not present in the evolutionary theory. There are many specific organisms that evolution can explain because it would seem that would have had to evolve in a negative way.
Second you can just go around crossing genetic boundaries without genetic modification.
And lastly an increase of diversity does not present. Species are going extinct at a rising rate, and there has not been any witness introduction of new species.

quote:

Both positives survive. Look at what happens over several generations:

The flaw with that is each stage would have more negative then positive so let’s say that there are three negatives and two positives.
Here’s an example

1.) ---++ (all negatives die the positives proceed)
2.) +- ( all negatives die the positive proceed)
3.) – all die

There would be multiple stages and they would have to get multiple successive positive mutations to survive.
Also that can show a build up of positive mutations, but it does not address the amassed amount of failed mutations.

quote:

Evolution is does not "include parts of other species" DNA from one one species to another. Instead, these sources of change are within the normal means of reproduction, or the result of environmental factors.

But it would change to other species. You can have change inside your DNA but only changes and mutation within those parameters. So for example you could never have a mutation that gives you a tail.

quote:

Well that seals it, you must not be able to read. Nowhere in either of those papers did it mention "creation" in the sense that you appear to mean it.

Exactly, they did not say creation, I never said they did. But they are not questioning the Cambrian explosion. They are instead questioning the conclusions people draw from the Cambrian explosion.

quote:

The question of whether or not Archaeopteryx could fly is irrelevent. Surely it was capable of gliding. But what is important is that it is a fossil that shows both avian and reptile traits. Your point was just a strawman.

No it is not. If it was a transition link it would be able to lead into a flying animal, which it does not. So it does not fit into the link that it is supposed to.

quote:

Oh Hugh Ross, the scientist who writeslittle gems like this that make shoddy attempts to show modern science in the Bible? Seriously, this guy is nothing more than an apologist.

He is not just an apologist; he has a very well established science carrier. He simply uses his scientific findings to support his religion. He now spends a large portion of his time working on research for intelligent design.

Why is man so distinctly different then the rest of nature. We are complexly different, can express emotions threw multiple means of communication; we have a moral system, judicial system, government system, religious systems. Why are we so different, if we are only another type of animal?

quote:

Actually this metaphor was disproved when scientists designed a mousetrap that worked with only one part. I.e, by reducing the complexity, the mousetrap still functioned.

First of all what mouse trap was this. Secondly was it a modified mousetrap, that they simply removed parts, or did they invent a new mouse trap.

Aww, Nephilem, it's been a week where did you go? I want to keep going!

I thought this was interesting. Evolution for ID-iots

It's pretty much a visual explaination of what Glove was saying.

quote:

The classic example of this is a very simple devise the mouse trap, remove one of its parts and it won’t work.

Actually this metaphor was disproved when scientists designed a mousetrap that worked with only one part. I.e, by reducing the complexity, the mousetrap still functioned. Clearly they only did this so that it could be brought up to irritate ID people, but whatever.

And on this Hugo Ross person, his artical on the Big Bang, the first (I admit I couldn't be bothered to read the others), seems to be based entirely around grammar. There doesn't appear to be any etymological reasoning there, just plain grammar. To play him at his own game, isn't there a great differnce between streching and expansion? Streching implies being pulled outwards from the edges and expansion suggests the more scientific theory of movement outwards from inwards. So to speak.

quote:

The whole idea behind irreducible complexity is that if you remove one of the parts, the system ceases to work. The classic example of this is a very simple devise the mouse trap, remove one of its parts and it won’t work. The point made by ID is you can’t have a life form that evolves on a large scale because it won’t be able to survive during the transformation.

I understand irreducible complexity. But again, the claims of the ID movement are speculative and narrominded. I can't attack each case of irreducible complexity now, but in general they overlook the fact that things don't proceed one after the other, but instead likely adapted over time WITH eachother. This explains the problem of "removing" parts or organs and such.

quote:

You toss around small changes over a long period of time like it is some magical formula for expanding evolution. I don’t see how small changes over a long period of time can explain the diversity of life that we see in our world today.

Lets say you have a small fleshy plant. A fern, perhaps. This plant does fine and spreads all over the place. In some areas, there are higher winds, and these blow almost all the ferns down. The ones that remain standing do so because they genetically have slightly tougher stems. Over time all the ferns in this area will have tougher and tougher stems, as the plants that survive best have the toughest stems. This happens to also aid in discouraging animals from eating the tougher plants, increasing this factor. This differentiation of genes leads to the ferns in the high-wind area to be signifigantly different than the original area over the generations. In time, similar factors lead to the development of woody stalks, seeds, etc.

Now imagine this over hundreds of millions of species dealing with hundreds of thousands of variables over nearly a billion years. You'll have billions and billions of generations of organisms. Each influencing the other. Climate shifting, mass extinctions, continetns colliding. You seriously can't see how small changes can explain that diversity?

quote:

Mutations are random. The nature of a mutation is not determined by the nature of the mutation before it. There is no evidence of mutations changing to include only good mutation, and instead most mutations are detrimental. So must of the creatures having mutations would be at disadvantage not an advantage.

Mutations are random, you're right. However the tranmission of mutations from generation to generation is NOT random. Creatures with detrimental mutations die out before breeding, and positive mutations are transmitted to the next generation.
Watch this example:

Let say you have a postive mutation (+) and a negative mutation (-). Each generation will have 2-'s and 2 +'s. However, each generation, one of the negatives die before breeding. Both positives survive. Look at what happens over several generations:

1.)--++
2.)---++++
3.)----++++++
4.)-----++++++++
5.)------++++++++++
6.)-------++++++++++++
7.)--------++++++++++++++
8.)---------++++++++++++++++
9.)----------++++++++++++++++++
10.)-----------++++++++++++++++++++
11.)------------++++++++++++++++++++++
12.)-------------++++++++++++++++++++++++
13.)--------------++++++++++++++++++++++++++
14.)---------------++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
15.)----------------++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So in the begining, we have 2-'s and 2+'s, which is a 1:1 ratio. At the end we have 16 -'s and 30+'s. That's an 8:15 ration in favor of the +'s. Obviously this doesn't use real-world rates but you can see how positive mutations can accrue over time.

quote:

We now have the ability to work on Genetic Modification; evolution basically says that genetic modification happen naturally without guidance. DNA can’t changes to include parts of other species unless you implant DNA form one species into another, which is why there is now research into Genetic modification. With Genetic Modification evolution is possible with out it evolution is impossible.

Genes are modified all the time. DNA can't change without genetic modification? Then how do you get cancer?
And then why aren't you exactly identical to one of your parents? Instead, you're a recombination of thier DNA, with new traits, old traits, and some combined traits. You also have damage, be it positive or negative, each time a creature reproduces, and each time a cell divideds. Then you have cosmic radition, chemical influence, any number of different ways to change DNA without human (or intelligent) intervention.

Evolution is does not "include parts of other species" DNA from one one species to another. Instead, these sources of change are within the normal means of reproduction, or the result of environmental factors.

quote:

Did you read your sources? They were questioning the theory that uses the Cambrian
Explosion to support creation, they were not questioning whether or not the Cambrian explosion actually happened. Basically they are explaining another way to look at the Cambrian explosion.

Well that seals it, you must not be able to read. Nowhere in either of those papers did it mention "creation" in the sense that you appear to mean it. Both of those papers were dealing with genetic (and fossil) evidence that animal life was signifigantly diversified well before the "Cambrian Explosion" period.

quote:

One point was that it does not match the theories for the origin of flight, thus contradicting the idea that it was one of the first birds. It could have been bird latter in the evolution of birds, but not the right type of creature to be the transitional creature, leading into flight.

The question of whether or not Archaeopteryx could fly is irrelevent. Surely it was capable of gliding. But what is important is that it is a fossil that shows both avian and reptile traits. Your point was just a strawman.

quote:

That is not representative of the ID movement, besides that is more concerned with cultural impacts, and does not look at the scientific wing of ID such as scientists like Hugh Ross.

Oh Hugh Ross, the scientist who writeslittle gems like this that make shoddy attempts to show modern science in the Bible? Serious