Without 100% fossil evidence some claim intelligent design?

[Swede]

The development of the eye has missing fossil evidence, there are also other evolutionary missing links. So what? When that evidence is found,the fundies will move the goal posts again.

If you want to teach science call it science,if you want to teach religion,call it religion.

By the way,I am a Christian and have no problem with evolution or any other branch of science.

[politicaholic]

1. As opposed to 0% evidence of creationism?

I'll take the odds on evolution any time.

[H2O Man]

2. I am religious

and think that the only time religion should be mentioned is in a comparative religion course. There is no room for religion in a public school's science classes. (If there were, I think any reasonable person would conclude that several Native American religions are far more scientifically advanced than Christianity. If students were introduced to Vine Deloria, Jr, for example, when he debates some of the cutting edge of scientific theory, it would be fine, because Deloria uses science, not mythology.)

[The Doctor.]

3. Here's the joke;

The philosophy of intelligent design is based on the rules of physics. The same rules that very clearly state that the universe is billions of years old, not six thousand.

That the Earth revolves around the sun.

That dinosaurs walked the earth hundreds of millions of years ago.

That the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

That fossil fuels come from.... uh, fossils.

And that Evolution, not Creationism, is how we came to evolve into the beings we are today.

So these fundies want to teach intelligent design because they think it 'proves' that God exists...

But to learn and understand ID, one must also be acquainted with the physics that ID is based upon... including those principles which dictate the age of the Earth.

Talk about short-sighted.

[Tux]

6. However

God can't be put into a test tube. No one can "prove" God exists with objective evidence. All the evidence for the existence of a Divine Being is subjective. It can be debated forever yet no side will win. That is why religion works on faith, even Atheism which has faith there is no god/dess(es). And Atheists, don't get bend out of shape over a word.

[The Doctor.]

14. Absolutely correct.

The idea of ID is a really neat philosophy. But it cannot be tested and proves nothing.

I am angry that the fundies have hijacked this issue and tainted it with zealotry, making it less palatable an issue to real scientists.

If it were not for these people, the idea of Intelligent Design may well have become a tool for reaching intuitive solutions, or at the very least, a curiousity to be cited upon the discovery of anomalous conclusions... an entertainment, if you will.

My perspective is that it is not that an 'intelligent universe' is required to create sentience, but that any sentient or intelligent entities in a given universe would find cause to consider the machinations of their creation to be intelligent.

Any universe can create sentience - we're just arrogant enough to think we are the only form in which sentience can take place.

[XemaSab]

18. ID seems

to map the course of the creation of humans, and allow for humans to have a special role in God's creation, while evolution does not.

[The Doctor.]

20. Have you read the ID theories?

I don't recall it drawing that conclusion.

From what I gather, it's just the notion that, in the absence of a Grand Unified Theory, the universe just has too many coincidences of some very intricate princples to be an accident.

To me, that doesn't prove anything because those principles are only 'intricate' according to us.

At some level of random chaos, one will always get a perfect square, circle, cone, tesseract... etc.

[XemaSab]

24. I think you can

have a Grand Unified Theory without a creator "tinkering" along the way.

I'm pretty familiar with the ID attacks on evolution, and I'm also aware that particles behave oddly at a subatomic level, but I don't think that either of these things "prove" a creator.

I don't think humans have a special place in creation, and I don't even think vertebrates have a special place in creation. I think it's all a big happy accident.

[The Doctor.]

25. Looks like we're talking past each-other.

My main point was that to apprehend ID one must comprehend physics.

That to comprehend physics is to acknowledge the principles upon which our measurements of time are based.

To understand those measurements is to recognize that the Earth is billions, not thousands, of years old.

Therefore, by syllogism, one must believe in evolution to believe in Intelligent Design.

And I'll debate on that point with any fundie until they have to pull a gun to compensate for their lack of mental acuity...

and I'm most likely a hell of a lot faster.

:evilgrin:

[GOPFighter]

4. Oh, the irony!

They demand absolute proof before they will accept evolution, yet they are willing to accept the existence of god with absolutely no proof at all. Some of those people are seriously screwed up!

[Gato Moteado]

8. they accepted the existence of WMDs without any proof....

....and they accept anything the GOP tells them to accept even when the proof is overwhelmingly to the contrary.

please don't forget: repubs, freepers, and other forms of white trash are nothing more than human garbage.

[leftofthedial]

5. I'd rather believe my mythology based on nothing

than believe your science based on half observable fact and half reason.

[GOPFighter]

11. Say what?

:shrug:

[leftofthedial]

12. ID is a fundy scam

my previous post was :sarcasm:

[BlueJazz]

13. Please tell me that was Satire...

[leftofthedial]

16. how could you tell?

ID is utter bullshit

it exists not to explain anything, not to enlighten.

I exists only to try to undermine evolution in the weak minds of those who prefer their comfortable superstitions.

[soupkitchen]

7. Well, if there was intellignet design, how did they get here?

[xchrom]

9. intelligent design is another backwards

intellectual leap.

devolution.

we are not men.

[Roland99]

10. talkorigins.org has a great compendium of information.

http://www.talkorigins.org

:)

[stepnw1f]

15. Creationism=Weak Faith

The basis for their argument stems from a hatred of science. Science is a threat to their tiny universe. In fact, it's an excuse for ignorance and a cop-out from real communal responsiblities. The idea of evolution is to adapt and change. These folks are too scared to, so they make up fables and chose to ignore their responsibilities as humans. As for spirituality... they don't have any. To have spirituality, you have to be able to embrace facts whether they bug you or not.

[mainer]

17. The eye does not need 'fossil evidence" -- primitive eyes exist

right now in other species, starting with light-sensitive cells in invertebrates. The eye's evolutionary pathway can be deduced from animals now alive.

[XemaSab]

19. Duh, there's no fossil record

because most vertebrate eyes are squishy and don't fossilize well?

"Dude, let's pick soft tissue as an example to refute evolution! That'll flummox 'em!"

[The Doctor.]

21. My favorite rationale to refute the assertion that

"It's not in the fossil record" is to ask just how much of the 'fossil record' we have.

"So... you say that it's not in the fossil record? Let me ask you this; How much of the Earth's surface have we dug up to complete this 'fossil record'?

10%?

5%?

1%?

try .0000000000000057% of the surface.

(Just a ballpark - I'm sure I could drum up a real estimate based on the acreage of investigation vs. the entire planetary surface, but you get the idea... think I'll look that up tonight.)

And from that, we already know there were real dinosaurs, lots of stages of development for thousands of species, and correlations in the structures of ALL vertebrates.

Just wait 'till we find ways to investigate the rest, your grandchildren will think of you the same way you think of those who believe the earth is still flat.

So don't go telling me that."

{something like that}

[pie]

22. I would be interested in your estimate

of the % of the earth's surface that has been investigated.
I was just wondering about that.

[The Doctor.]

23. This is drawn by a few assumptions, and by no means scientific, but...

Earth’s surface @ 197,000,000 sq miles

http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/FACT/sec_H/arch.html

average dig – 60 sq meters x 30,000 sites = 1,800,000 square meters = .7 square miles

divided by 197,000,000 sq miles = .000000000355%

roughly 3 ten-billionths of surface explored.

I took a very liberal estimate of total digs for the last hundred years and allowed the mode of only a few feet of depth (mostly archaeological)

The real number for the fossil record is likely hundreds of times smaller.