re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution

quote:

---

So one "dog" (Canis) turned into another (but differently looking) "dog" (Canis) over 15,000 years? I guess you're right, there that we have observed that (every day). Another millions years and perhaps we'll see bulldogs mixed with dingoes.

---

I'm not sure about the exact timing... but dog's had a lot of help evolutionary wise from man...

quote:

---

Have we observed one kind of animal (let's say a dog) turn into something completely different (a cat)?

---

This is really all I need to hear about your level of understanding of evolution. This is pointless since anything I tell you you clearly won't be able to comprehend.

If there is a creator maybe we are just an experiment to him

Makes sense (sort of) create a super intelligent species and give it free will. Watch the results

quote:

---

I'm not sure about the exact timing... but dog's had a lot of help evolutionary wise from man...

---

All dogs are descendants of wolves. About 18,000 years ago a genetic mutation in some wolves led to a subset population that weren't afraid of human settlements. They ventured close and discovered that humans threw away food from which they could benefit.

This reinforcing behavior caused some of the mutated wolves to remain close to human encampments. They thrived and the mutation caused the subset to ally with their providers, the humans. The rest is history, so to speak.

So, yes, from the moment of the genetic mutation, mankind has been helping the dog along the evolutionary path. Much to our benefit, I must say. I absolutely love dogs.

Okay who is the "Official" writer of the bible? God, Jesus, or just random men?

Random men, do I get a cookie?

quote:

---

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Fundamentalist Christians are claiming they're under attack because they're not allowed in public schools and government.

Yes, I'm extremely supportive of (and active in) the movement to push religion off the scientific playing field. It has no place in science.

Considering the history of the science/religion conflict, I'd say scientists have been remarkably civil and that theists have been barbarians, and would be again if they get the upper hand

---

I'm actually fine with not mixing religion with science. However, I'm not fine with teaching these theories as historical facts. There is a difference between observational science and historical science.

I'm not sure I get your distinction between a theist and a scientist. There are many theists who are also scientists. There are many Christians who are scientists. Not every scientist has to agree with the traditional paradigm set out in the evolutionary tale. Observational science doesn't require it.

Regardless, both sides have been quite barbaric. The difference (over time) has been what has been acceptable under the law.

quote:

---

Best defense is a good offense, again. "Guaranteed its place" is not saying "Limited its influence." That's your statement. Not mine

---

I agree to an extent, but to condemn someone for pushing religion (being offensive rather than defensive) would be to condemn the same sort of tactic you seem to be promoting when it comes to your side.

quote:

---

Yes it was.

---

It was not. The historical context of the founding of this country was pilgrims who left religious persecution and tyranny of a king who was forcing a particular brand of religion on his people. The Constitution was supporting and protecting the freedom of people to believe as their religion dictates without the government forcing them to believe one thing or another. That, however, is different from removing all reference to religion or God or faith. In fact, the founders often referenced God and their faith, even in their official capacity in the government, from the most devout Christian to the convicted Deist. What they didn't do was force their beliefs on the free people of the US.

quote:

---

Evolution is readily observable, and understandable for those who choose to study the biological process. It's rather easy to understand, in my opinion.

---

It is rather easy to understand. I understand what evolution teaches (no, I don't believe the theory says we came from monkeys). What I don't think is observable are the changes from one kind to another. What is observable are the small changes within a kind of organism, but a dog will still be a dog and a monkey will still be a monkey. It's merely assumed that those small changes lead to the big changes.

quote:

---

Decisions on constraints must be made by all parts of a society, not just one religion within it.

---

That's right, but that doesn't mean that people within society should ignore their faith and beliefs when trying to decide which constraints should be placed on science or anything else.

quote:

---

OK, in that case, throw out the Bible if you do some of the following things: Wear multi-fibered clothes, eat shell fish, mow the lawn on Sunday, or wouldn't sell his daughter to her rapist. Even if you think you take the Bible 100% literally, you don't. If you did, it would be pretty horrifying actually

---

No need to throw out the Bible for those things because you clearly don't understand the difference in the types of law in the Old Testament (moral, civil, and ceremonial) and the purposes of each. If you did, you wouldn't use the oft-repeated but rarely understood examples you gave.

quote:

---

Oh please the big bang could very well be started by intelligent design

If God does exist we would never be able to prove it anyway. If he's the creator I doubt he'd be discovered unless he wanted to.

---

Yeah pretty much.

We'll never be able to prove or disprove a deity, but we sure as shite can disprove the validity of the Bible in a variety of ways.

How grown man can completely disregard science in favor of a book written by farmers and put together by a group of men who decided for themselves which books to include/disregard is beyond me.