Mean Green 93-98

Interesting point. I am not sure how you make the argument “testable.” To put it simply, the design argument is: Major premise: If the universe shows evidence of purposeful design, there must be a Designer. Minor premise: The universe shows evidence of purposeful design. Conclusion: There must be a Designer. This argument is obviously valid in its form. I assume you agree with the major premise. So to prove the argument true or false, one would need to prove or disprove the minor premise (I know, I know - in research/experimentation you do not prove or disprove – the evidence either supports or does not support the hypothesis. But since we are talking a logical argument here, I will say prove/disprove). The task for a researcher would be to come up with a tool to determine purposeful design. Maybe this has been done, but I honestly do not know. So I might agree with you that the argument is, at best, difficult to “test in a scientific way,” i.e., through experimentation. But I believe just as any right-thinking individual could know that the computer on which I am typing shows evidence of purposeful design, any right-thinking individual could likewise determine that the exponentially more advanced human body shows evidence of purposeful design. And, after all, science just means “knowledge.” I read (okay, I skimmed) the article you linked on the bacterium flagellum. I am going to have to read it closer, and find more than I saw, before I can agree with you; because I have read some fairly convincing material the other way. I cannot agree with you that evolution is neutral on religion. Darwin had a strong anti-religious bias, and atheists’ number one weapon against theism is evolution’s wide acceptance. If it is "neutral," as you say, would you be willing to say that as large a percentage of evolutionary biologists are religious (not counting secular humanism) as in the general population? You may not be familiar with what happens in debates. Although one side might clearly win, this does not mean that all adherents to the opposing view promptly drop it. I would encourage you to watch or read that debate—I think you would find it enlightening, as I did.

Uh, Flyer? If down an entire genealogical line of birds, none ever gave offspring to anything other than birds, would they not all remain birds? If so, where does the evolution under discussion take place? Please explain. And please use small words, as it is clear from your post that I am simply not on an intellectual par with you.

My point was not so necessarily that a bird become a bat (I was just using what you had said as an example), but that a bird lays eggs of something not a bird. This is certainly what evolution demands. As you note below, your theory demands that plants gave birth to animals. I would like those who have tried to straddle the fence of "theistic evolution" to take note of what Dr. Hughes states above. "A central part (i.e., that which the theory revolves around, essential) of the theory of evolution" is that man, worms, trees, and fungi share a common ancestor. There might be a theological system with which this might harmonize, but the Bible clearly presents God as creating plants, animals, and man "after their kind"; and to reproduce "after their kind." This is not an affirmative argument for intelligent design. This is a negative argument against evolution, an argument that has not really been refuted. The "refutations" made still fail to provide an explanation of how one person with an open circulatory system could give birth to someone with a closed circulatory system, etc. The design argument is prima facie. It requires nothing more than common sense. If I find a watch on the ground, I know that it was not produced by an explosion in a gold mine. I know that someone designed it and made it. But how much more intricate is the human body? Great minds have been attempting to design an artificial heart for years; yet we have nothing close to the human heart--yet you are going to say that, ultimately, an explosion or other freak accident of happenstance caused it to happen? In 1975, a debate took place on the UNT (then NTSU) campus. Thomas Warren, a Gospel preacher, debated Anthony Flew, the foremost atheist debator (who before his death acknowledged the unmistakable validity of the design argument). In that debate, Warren displayed a chart picturing a human hand and a prosthetic hand. Warren then asked Flew if one or both of the pictured hands came as a result of intelligent design. Of course, by his atheistic/evolutionistic viewpoint, Flew was forced to conclude that the vastly inferior prosthetic was created by design; while its archetype, the human hand, came by chance. So the hand with less dexterity, limited range of motion, inability to repair itself of cuts and burns, and a frail replica of the original is the only one with skilled design behind it? This was just one of the many arguments that led to a clear defeat for atheism/evolution at that debate.

The very thing I am saying is that man did not evolve from a monkey or anything else. So why call it "ridiculous" and "crazy"?

True--there has been no fossil evidence that links modern human beings to amphibians. Yet evolutionists, including Dr. Hughes I am sure, perhaps universally hold that humanity descends from something well outside anyone's broad definition of man.

I'd love to see him get it! Congratulations to Brian!

I am a little surprised that you are unfamiliar with out-of-sequence strata and misplaced fossils, not to mention polystrate fossils. The Heart Mountain Thrust in Wyoming and Matterhorn Mountain in Switzerland are two examples of the out-of-sequence strata. Human footprints have been found in Carboniferous strata (supposedly 250 million years old) throughout the interior U.S. (Albert G. Ingalls, Scientific American, Vol. 162 #1). William Meister found a fossil of a human footprint with trilobytes in it (Lammerts,Walter, ed. (1976), Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), pp. 185-193. The geological timetable is hardly "rock-solid" reliable. As has been acknowledged, "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning inthe use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hardheaded pragmatism . . . The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales" (O’Rourke, J.E.(1976), “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, 276:51, January). That is not what I am asking, that is what Darwinian evolution demands. The very existence of DNA is a strong argument for a Designer. The very definition of "code" contradicts "random." But your explanation for the similarity of the DNA is not the only explanation, although a possible one. The nematode worm shares 75% DNA similarity. So are we in the same family tree? I don't assume that they always shared the exact same habitat and conditions. But I don't believe that different human beings have always shared the exact same habitat and conditions--yet they are all still human beings. There are so many countless variations in habitat and conditions, that if we evolved from chimpanzees, would there not be innumerable variations of chimpanzee-humans? Why one or the other? Yes sir, now that you mention it, I seem to recall something about that in a Research and Evaluation class I took. To be honest, I never did agree with that point, but I acknowledge your proper use of scientific nomenclature. That said, how has (intelligent) design been disproven? Absolutely right with those first two sentences. But neither am I convinced that any amount of time can cause that to happen, much less for rocks and dirt to turn into a cow. Of course, then you'd still have to explain the existence of rocks and dirt in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics.

To Screaming Eagle-66 Before you refer to my arguments as ridiculous, you might try to answer them. And you might try to come up with less ridiculous arguments yourself. Very clever, the way you try to associate me with someone else, and with the state in which I live, to prejudice the argument. None of the examples you cite has anything to do with Darwinian evolution. I have brought up myself several times that things change, thus you might say things evolve. But how does the fact that already existing species can populate a new environment prove that non-humans can give birth to human beings?

I believe we were recruiting D'Anton Lynn at one point - he has verballed to Penn State. There may be someone else of whom I am not aware.

None of which proves evolution from one species into another. - "The various methods by which geologists can date different strata." Why are the strata different in different locales? How is it possible that an "earlier" stratum can lie atop a "later" stratum? Why are "earlier" fossils found embedded in "later" strata, and vice versa? - "Examples of adaptation of organims to their habitats." You note Darwin's observation of finches on the Galapagos. Well, if Darwinian evolution were true, why did the finches stay finches? Yes, there were changes that occurred, but this hardly justifies the blind leap of faith to evolution between species. - "The DNA sequence data that confirms relationships that had been previously inferred from the fossil record." Many of those data have been revised as the years have gone by. What was originally asserted to be a 98-99% DNA similarity between human beings and chimpanzees is now believed to be 95%, and may prove less. And what does the similarity prove, anyhow? If chimpanzees and human beings began from the same parent, how did they evolve into two completely distinct species? If one evolutionary route were better than the other, would not both groups have to take it? Would they not continue to mate with each other to remain one muddled species? Or how did it happen that the one could no longer mate with the other? Your use of the term "confirm" is somewhat unclear - do you mean "prove"? You can't, because it proves nothing. It merely allows the possibility of what had been previously inferred. Someone else made a post on this thread about examining the evidence while already holding a bias - this seems to apply to your used of "confirmed." - "Modern examples of selection such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria." Yet how many of those bacteria turned into cows? Again, limited change within a kind does not justify the blind leap of faith those of you who profess evolution have taken. I am slightly taller than my father, who was slightly taller than his father. This trend is not limited to my family. While it may be possible that my great-great-grandson will be 8 feet tall, I am not willing to allow the possibility that he might be a giraffe.

Who is grasping at straws? You find fossil evidence, and assume it's "transitional" and "intermediate." Apparently you never consider the possibility that it might be its own species? To say it's transitional, you still need fish to flop out of the water, live, thrive, and ultimately give live birth to something that is in no way, shape, or form a fish. No one has ever observed a fish giving live birth to, or even sowing eggs of, something that is not a fish. I was not clear from your post. Did you say you would be willing to debate your position publicly with a biologist who holds the intelligent design view (somewhat redudant, as design implies intelligence, but nonetheless)?

You seem to think you know a lot about me personally. Actually, when I was 17-18 years old, I had completely abandoned any belief in a Creator. I had come to realize through my 13 years of public school education that such a belief was completely incompatible with what we were taught in science class. However, as time went by, I began to rethink things on my own, without blindly depending on my public school guides. Basic common sense came to tell me that there had to be something behind the human body and other beings and facts of creation. About 6-7 years later, I began to look at the Bible, and was amazed at what it actually had to say. It was 10 years before I became a Christian. My examination did not begin for the purpose of asserting what I already believed--my examination led me to what I now know to be true.

There is a difference between limited change within kinds and macrovolution between species. When someone provides evidence of a non-human being giving birth to a human being, evolution will have a case.

No--as you might be able to guess from my posts, I am a Gospel preacher. I am not sure what you are getting at, but I have examined fairly closely the cases for either side, and have been convinced the evidence favors design.

Removed yesterday.

I am not sure in what way what I said was a statement of my faith--it's a simple statement of fact. As for your second paragraph, I agree whole-heartedly. Let's invite the debate. Let's not just throw out perjorative terms like "preposterous, narrow-minded, backwards, right-wing conspiracy," etc. and consider the discussion closed. That's not science.

Dr. Hughes, it is interesting that you make accusations of "smoke and mirrors." You tell us to examine the evidence without providing one shread of evidence against intelligent design other than appealing to an argumentum ad popularum. Though I must disagree with your statement that the evidence "soundly supports" evolution, you are correct that it is widely supported among the sientific community. As far as "no controversy" among biologists with regard to evolution, that is true among the orthodox establishment. But what would happen to a biologist who rejected your orthodox position? He would be branded a heretic, and excommunicated. It is just as easily arguable that evolution is an effort to introduce a religious concept into the classroom. John Dewey, "the father of the American public school system," strove to further his religious beliefs, defined as secular humanism. Evolution is a wonderful tool of indoctrination to persuade young minds away from coming to a belief in God. I invite you to read this article, Evolution is Religion, Not Science. If evolution is true, how can it be that we have inter-dependent systems within our body? That is, how did we form lungs (upon which we depend for life--can't live long without them) that depend upon a cardiovascular system that depends upon a nervous system? You've heard the saying, "Like a fish out of water." I've never seen a fish survive too long out of the water, have you? Yet evolutionists have concocted a scheme based entirely on various forms of "fish out of water" surviving and thriving. If you are so confident in your position, would you be willing to debate it against a biologist who believes in intelligent design? I don't believe you would, because you are not nearly as confident in it as you try to put on. Lee Moses Honest seeker of Truth

Well, that post looks to be just out of the primordial ooze. Zero logic going on there. Travis hit it on the nose. Yes, those who are in favor of teaching intelligent design in schools are almost universally religiously motivated. But what do you think led to Darwinian evolution's immediate acceptance? Those who were grasping at any straw they could find to explain the universe without God. Obviously, it wasn't because Darwinian evolution was proven true--the true Darwinian model has been thoroughly rejected by the science community. The theory of evolution has continuously evolved itself, because various aspects of it continue to be refuted. While those of us who are people of faith are religiously motivated, hopefully we came to that faith by what you might call "the scientific method." Like Flyer, you scratch your head about the remarkable order that can be found. You wonder why man's technology can only go so far with prosthetics to make a vastly inferior hand to that which "chance and time" produced--not to mention the eye?!? God doesn't want anyone to accept anything by "blind faith"; He tells us to "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good." He basically tells us to test, then reject or accept--that's the scientific method. Since there is scientific law that is far better explained by intelligent design than by any evolutionary model, I do now know why it wouldn't be taught in public schools. That does not mean that you teach Who is the Designer. But why not point out what the evidence obviously indicates?

Fair enough. But why did Vito earlier attribute this decommit to a 2-10 season, "the worst in Mean Green history"?

Ummm, no. Gravity is a law, not a theory. The Darwinian concept of evolution, i.e., one species evolving into another species, has never been observed--thus, more a hypothesis than a theory. Actually, the law of biogenesis (life begets life), demands that the "single living organism" either have some preceding life to beget it, or to be eternal it(Him?)self.

Not good. We've all known we weren't going to keep all our verbals, but I sure thought this was one that would stick. I hope this doesn't make our others waver.

Interesting news--hadn't heard that about Tyler.

Did you watch the clip with DeAngelo Hall? He was not happy with Petrino at all.

Sorry--that thread just didn't have enough shock effect in the title.

Thanks for the insight, and welcome to the board!