Ben Stein to take on Darwinism on April 18

[Renar]

mmnin said:

rocketpig said:

mmnin said:

As far as scientists being apprehensive toward ID, have you ever considered that the tables have turned and people who believe in ID might be the Galileo or Columbus of today?

That is insanity. The entire difference between ID and scientists is the quest for knowledge.

Scientists are constantly testing, checking, and changing their opinions on various matters. Believers in ID still hold fast and true to a book that was written when the scientific community still believed that mice spawned from rotten fruit like maggots.

One has shown a bit of progress over the past 1500 years. The other still holds true to that 1500 year old book.

Comparing a man like Galileo or Columbus (seriously, did he really even do anything?) to ID supporters is not only insulting, but patently false.

As you have seen from Ben Stein's trailor, there are tons of scientists who are on a quest for knowledge who do not completely accept evolution. I seek knowledge every day that I get up in the morning and I believe that evolution makes some reasonable suggestions, but just because you agree with one standpoint of a Presidential candidate, it doesn't mean he should be elected into office.

There are two groups of people who believe in ID: Those that believe in it because it was written in a religious text and those who have searched for an answer with evolution or other ideas and have come to the conclusion that ID is still the best explaination. Yes, ID is very general, it doesn't specify. How can it??? If ID is true, you would have to see who or what race started it all. That is not possible, but that does not mean it isn't right. To discredit or give credit to something that you cannot prove or disprove is true ignorance. If you believe in Evolution for the simple fact that there is more associative evidence, it shows that you are simply a slave to the system. Why do you think Evolution exists? Stop a moment and think outside the box. Darwin made observations and theorized about Evolution. This is an unproven theory based on OBSERVATION and ASSOCIATION. OF COURSE it is going to have some amount of evidence to support it, the observations and associations! You know how everyone gets mad on these boards when someone makes a stupid topic that cherry picks certain bits of information from the chartz or around their local stores and makes extreme claims. Well that is EXACTLY what Evolution is at it's core.

 If someone cherry picked some bits of information, and from that data made extreme claims, which came true, and then cherry picked some more information, and combining with the first bits, made more extreme claims, and those claims came true as well, and so on, then I'd would start to believe the overall theory that the person was claiming.  (Say that there are so many causals that buy games, that they will equal in sales as much as hardcore game sales.)

Evolution is predicted to need a large amount of time to make large amounts of changes.   Is there evidence for large amount of time having occurred?  Yes.  Long term radioactive decay, astronomy (galaxies hundreds of millions of light-years away), measurements of contenental drift.

Evolution has predicted that undisturbed geological strata will have a basic order of fossils in its layers.  Even when that layer has been shown to be folded over itself  (ie like a __  being squashed up into a 'S', but the fossils within the 'S' are from the same period.)

The only prediction that ID can claim is "If I find that I can't explain it myself, I'll believe without any actual evidence for it, that a 'higher power' (one that I can't explain how it came about either) must have done what I can't explain."