OK, I guess I got your attention-and if i have, I guess you all know that this is the battle cry of all those "creationist" troglodytes, who don't seem to grasp the difference between a scientific "theorem" and the sort of hare-brained "theories" that people trash-talk with every day. But I digress.....

Since the most famous equation of Pythagorus is only a theory (the infamous Pythagorean theorem concerning right triangles-A^2 + B^2 = C^2), I propose that we should all start challenging the validity of this theory at school board meetings, and should demand an alternate "faith based" choice for those who wish to not believe. I'm proposing that instead of using trigonometry, which is corrupt because it assumes this theory to be fact, that instead we start teaching our kids that the only "correct" way to measure angles and lengths is by direct measurement. Perhaps we can also protest at meetings of mathematicians, surveyors, or anybody else who uses this unholy science of trigonometry. We must fight the influence of this unfounded Greek ideas that has been forced on us by "activist math teachers"! Unite!!!!

Well it's really worse than that - weren't the Greeks actually (gulp!) idol-worshipping pagans? Clearly their ideas were all inspired by...Satan!

isn't there a proof out there for the Pythagorus theorem?
it was a long time ago that i learned it and don't remember...
if it hasn't been proved how can it be used at all?

Don't forget that they also believed that the only true love could be between two men. Because this is in direct contravention of the interpretations of the bible this automatically throws out anything they may have believed. :rolleyes:

I think the creationists sometimes bring up some good counter points for evolution, but they tend to recycle the arguments long after they have been refuted. The worst part is when they try to cast their agenda in the light of presenting an alternate theory. I suppose we could find some lingering questions about gravity, but that doesn't mean we don't teach it.

Both are theory. Both must be accepted by faith. Neither is demonstrable in a lab.
IMO, both are religion.

I think the creationists sometimes bring up some good counter points for evolution...

Really? I can't say that I've ever seen one that actually gave me pause to think. They typically are downright silly or often contain deliberate misrepresentations or at least misinformed statements of the "evolution" position which the creationists then "refute", followed by the non sequitor that therefore "evolution" is wrong. As if one little fact (which typically is not even true) could counter the gigantic mound of facts supporting evolution by natural selection. As far as I can tell the ID or creationist arguement ALWAYS comes down to "it's so complicated, how could evolution account for it, therefore it must be God (or whatever)".

Both are theory. Both must be accepted by faith. Neither is demonstrable in a lab.
IMO, both are religion.

You don't understand how science works, nor does something have to be demonstrable in a lab to be considered science (which is besides the point, as many predictions from evolutionary theory can readily be demonstrated in a lab, I believe even speciation has been observed in the lab). Evolution by natural selection (like plate tectonics in geology) is a continuous phenomenon that if true should leave both historical evidence and current evidence in living species, and it has and does. Currently there is not even a viable alternative to evolution by natural selection because it does such a good job of explaining the facts as we know them. Seeing as the basic tenets of the theory were laid out before the modern sciences of genetics and molecular biology were even known, and it has stood the test of these new fields, plus all the new fossil and geological data, it is exceedingly unlikely that Darwin didn't get it right.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS

There are several meanings to the word,and I don't think everyone is using the same meaning.

Both are theory. Both must be accepted by faith. Neither is demonstrable in a lab.
IMO, both are religion.
I agree, both are religion. I, of course, do not accept either, as I have no faith.

I do find evolution to be a very provocative theory. In addressing modern social problems, I am often struck by how quickly evolution and natural selection are thrown out the window in favor of what I call the "equal potential" model. This model is often applied to job training, elementary education and often higher education. It suggests that all people have the equal potential to acheive in society, if given the proper resources, by family or by government.

I often find more satisfying solutions is natural selection. For example, Indian children in the northeast often do well in school. Are all Indians very smart? Do all Indian parents "take and interest in education". Nobody ever asks, "was there a significant selection that occured to skew the inate potential of the popultaion in question?" I ask this all the time. In the case of Indians, I have found that that from a vast pool of Indians (what, about a Billion?) only a small set emmigrate to the US. A cursary examination of that set reveals that they are largely drawn from the highest socio-economic division in India.

Some observers argue that these well-off parents provide the proper resources for education to their children, hence high performance. I argue that the high acheivment of the parents was due to higher intrinsic potential of the parents, who passed this trait on to their children. While this occurs largely unnoticed in many populations, emigration in the Indian case is a very selective filter that magnifies the natural selection process and allows us to study the effects. A large international laboratory, if you will.

The American experience is full of such case studies. Look back at who came here and why, and see if you can spot the genetic effect on the corresponding american sub-population. The Irish came here looking for work and potential for leadership, both things that they were denied in Ireland in 1850-1950. Do Irish-Americans show a propensity for work and holding elected office in American cities? Irish immigration in the 21st century is driven by other factors. Do the recent immigrants and their offspring show different aptitudes? Africans came here in the 16th and 17th centuries with no motivation at all, as they were forced to come as captured slaves. Did African-Americans show a propensity for separation in the 19th and 20th centuries?

Imigration from certain countries has been driven by the differential in social handouts (welfare) between the county of origin and the US. Do the offspring of these groups show a propensity for reliance on welfare programs?

Long Island has long been identified as a cancer hot-spot. Someobservers continue to search for an environmental reason. Nobody seems to be looking at the genetics. The popultaion growth on Long Island occurred in a short time period in the mid-20th century, and drew from a largely homogeneous population of white New-Yorkers. Has anyone compared the coresponding cancer rates between today's Long Islander's and the off-island decendants of the Islander's ancestors?

In my town there are four elementary schools. They all score well on state-wide tests, but two score higher than the other two, even controlled for race. The two lowest scoring schools have apartment complexes in thier districts. Do the aprtment renters provide less resources to their children? Or have they passed on the gene-set that predisposes a person to lower socio-economic performance, and it has manifested itself in lower test scores?

In summary, evolution is a great theory. I wish it were applied more often in solving some of our pressing social problems.

If you think that evolution is bunk and God created man, keep this in mind:

FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS

End of debate.

I agree, both are religion. I, of course, do not accept either, as I have no faith.

[Snip]

In my town there are four elementary schools. They all score well on state-wide tests, but two score higher than the other two, even controlled for race. The two lowest scoring schools have apartment complexes in thier districts. Do the aprtment renters provide less resources to their children? Or have they passed on the gene-set that predisposes a person to lower socio-economic performance, and it has manifested itself in lower test scores?

In summary, evolution is a great theory. I wish it were applied more often in solving some of our pressing social problems.


I think you are attempting to assign a genetic cause to issues which have little if any genetic component. There is no "good in school gene", but there a number of non-genetic factors which affect scholastic performance, especially standardized testing.

Main Entry: the?o?ry



There are several meanings to the word,and I don't think everyone is using the same meaning.

Unfortunately you are correct. Despite the fact that the scientific method and the scientific meaning of the word theory are addressed in chapter one of every middle to high school science textbook, creationists use the colloquial meaning as a cornerstone of their arguement.

A valid scientific theory must make predictions which when tested prove true, otherwise the theory must be modified or discarded. Evolution predicts that we should find fossils of extinct species, and we do. It predicts that we should see changes in allelic frequencies in response to outside pressures and we do. Darwin's original theory has been modified as the mechanics of inheritance were discovered (rediscovered). Biblical literalism makes predictions which do not hold true, while intellegent design does not make testable predictions (at least in any enumeration I have seen) and as such does not meet the prima faca demands of a scientific theory. (I thought I should throw in a little legal-esque language for you Doug)

I think you are attempting to assign a genetic cause to issues which have little if any genetic component. There is no "good in school gene", but there a number of non-genetic factors which affect scholastic performance, especially standardized testing.

This was the classic fallacy of "social Darwinism", ascribing all differences between people or groups to genetics. Surely genetics matter, but trying to tease that out from "nuture" components is problematic and largely pointless.

If you think that evolution is bunk and God created man, keep this in mind:

FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS

End of debate.

Arguendo, what if God created the fossils?

No argument can end a debate when discussing theology.

Arguendo, what if God created the fossils?

No argument can end a debate when discussing theology.
Hence the reason that you can't argue science vs religion. Deists can always give their god some supernatural power to explain why something is the way it is.

Both are theory. Both must be accepted by faith. Neither is demonstrable in a lab.
IMO, both are religion.

By that logic, we should also teach wicca, bhudism and any other belief in school. There are many versions of creation out there. No, that is not the way to do things.

Rather than call evolution a matter of faith, we should test the scientific validity of creationist arguments. If there is scientific evidence for creation, we should teach it. Note that scientific evidence goes beyond just raising questions about evolution, which is much of what I've seen among young earthers. It means that creationists have identified a model of the universe that not only explains phenomena, but also predicts it.

As for evolution being a matter of faith, I think that is stretching things a bit. There are all sorts of issues in physics that we can observe but not reproduce at will. Take quantum particles, which can appear in two places at one time. We can't predict the precise nature of this, but it is observed enough that the phenomenon isn't disputed. Evolution is rather like this, because from the simple observations of Darwin to fascinating affirmation in the genetic record, the signs of evolution abound. Sure, it can't be reproduced in a lab, but neither can plate tectonics or a good number of other solid theories.

I've seen pictures of the classic rock layers of sediment, formed over millions of years, with a fossilized tree standing perpendicular to the layers. That one has stumped me for a while. I can't give the next argument justice, but there are several claims about the abundance of certain radioactive elements that should have dissipated millions of years ago, but are in relative abundance. Also, the distance between the earth and moon, given present rates of attraction, would imply that the two bodies have been around for less than 10,000 years.

These arguments all focus on the key ingredient of evolution: time. While there are many indicators of an old earth, there are a few oddities that give me pause. Some young earth arguments are entirely bunk though.

Actually, I find the fossil record to be the least validating argument for the following reason:

Fossilization is extremely rare, and not all life forms are prone to wondering into a tar pit. To a critic of evolution, the fossil record is a timeline with many large gaps. They demand to see the missing link.

However, when you do have a good set of data with continuous changes, the creationist doesn't see different species. Therefore, you are damned either way with the fossil record.

I tend to use genetics as an argument for evolution.

Just not provocative enough for you to pursue the most basic understanding of where it is applicable, and where its application is just plain idiotic.

Czar, Tri-Rich and Dwayne have all demonstrated the left running full speed away from evolution whenever it hints at genetic differences between sub-groups that may contribute to the survival of the bloodline. And, yes, I do understand evolution. Perhaps you all should reexamine your commitment to the theory.

Social Darwinism is a pejoritive term that was applied to "theories" that attempted to apply the mutation/pressure/survival/extinction model to humans that lived in the period from about 50,000 years ago to the present.

I have news from you, evolution has not stopped, just because we have liberal thinkers around. We as a species are constantly faced with environmental pressures that draw out the genetic differences between us. Some individuals will thrive, and their progeny will be more numerous. Remember, it was a series of of mutations concerning intelligence and social behavior that caused the rise of the humans over the other mammals. It was not just our downward pointing nostrils, or well-developed big toes.

As Dwayne says,
"This was the classic fallacy of "social Darwinism", ascribing all differences between people or groups to genetics. Surely genetics matter, but trying to tease that out from "nuture" components is problematic and largely pointless."

If one were to ascribe all social differences to genetics, it would be a fallacy. But to use that as the basis for discounting all genetic factors, is arguing against a straw man. As you say, genetics matter to some degree, but why do you say it is pointless to separate the genetics from the environment? Because it is difficult? Because it is embarassing? Because it is not politically correct? Certainly a more thorough understanding of the root causes of poverty could help us solve the problem.

Tri_Rich says,
"I think you are attempting to assign a genetic cause to issues which have little if any genetic component. There is no "good in school gene", but there a number of non-genetic factors which affect scholastic performance, especially standardized testing."

I find the idea that there is absolutly no genetic component to school performance and test perfromance to be absurd on its face. Of course there are non-genetic factors, and very important ones, but you have no basis to rule out a genetic component to "good in school".

Czar chimes in with,
"Just not provocative enough for you to pursue the most basic understanding of where it is applicable, and where its application is just plain idiotic."

Where it is applicable is exactly my point. I dare say, that where genetics is applicable may be one of the root differences between the left and the right in this country. I am in fact persuing an understanding of the application of genetics, right here. You see, I do not get to interact with many liberals in my day-to-day routine (I work for a living) and I find this board to be full of very intelligent, left leaning (to the point of falling over) commentators.

[QUOTE=53T]Czar, Tri-Rich and Dwayne have all demonstrated the left running full speed away from evolution whenever it hints at genetic differences between sub-groups that may contribute to the survival of the bloodline. And, yes, I do understand evolution. Perhaps you all should reexamine your commitment to the theory.

Tri-Rich and Dwayne are CONS (not the left), just not in the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" type

Social Darwinism is a functional theory when applied to society in the same method as the Final Solution. When people of advantage (read: Wealth, Power) stack odds (Read: Health, Education) use it to explain they are somehow more evolved or better suited for survival is the same as killing off non-pures to further your race. Sure it creates 'natural selection' in favor of your bloodline' in the samer manner as an Alpha Male Primate killing the New females, spawned by previous clan leader, offspring. So yes the theory can be applied, but see we're human and from either a secular or sacred POV we're supposed to elevate ourselves above our fellow animalia. That is the function of society, and if you want to put it down to strict animal terms than you should also then have no trouble with somebody coming to your house, shooting you and your kids, taking your wealth and raping (impregnating) your wife. After all that would be "preserving his bloodline'. So let's get to the looting and killing.

Social Darwinism was never more than a specious attempt to rationalize class and racial inequalities that have always been the product of conciously adopted greed and injustice.

I think you hit the nail on the head with "embarassing".

is as lame an ad hom as can be imagined. Or do you believe all "lefties" are unemployed agitators, welfare bums, ivory tower intellectual etc....
statistically (Red vs Blue) there are more working Libs supporting more Cons than vice versa

...You see, I do not get to interact with many liberals in my day-to-day routine (I work for a living) and I find this board to be full of very intelligent, left leaning (to the point of falling over) commentators.

I've been following this thread because it's been interesting to read the various arguments that have been raised. However, it is quite revealing that we can't seem to have a reasoned debate around here without someone resorting to some back-handed insult to their fellow debaters, which in turn provokes justifiably angry responses from others.

try to gain some footing with a good slag.

For the above reason, though you haven't been on my ignore list as of yet 53T - congratulations! - you just graduated.

try to gain some footing with a good slag.

Well, it's the Neo-Con way. They're too simple-minded to know any better.

yes, tis.

If you think that evolution is bunk and God created man, keep this in mind:

FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS
FOSSILS

End of debate.

Well, Fossils and DNA tags...

FWIW, with our evolving understanding of DNA, we are just about at the point where we can tell definatively which animal evolved from what common ancestor, and approximately how long ago it did. We've also found a few unexpected things, such as certain species which where though to evolve from a single species that, in fact, evolved parallel, from different species into species which look similar and inhabit similar niches.

As of right now, DNA has proved that there is an African tribe that descended from the Jewish tribes, that Europeans and Mongolians share a common ancestry, and that all humans are descended from people of the Xhosa tribe ("bushmen") in southern Africa.

You guys can dish it out, but you can't take it?

Really? I can't say that I've ever seen one that actually gave me pause to think. They typically are downright silly or often contain deliberate misrepresentations or at least misinformed statements of the "evolution" position which the creationists then "refute", followed by the non sequitor that therefore "evolution" is wrong. As if one little fact (which typically is not even true) could counter the gigantic mound of facts supporting evolution by natural selection. As far as I can tell the ID or creationist arguement ALWAYS comes down to "it's so complicated, how could evolution account for it, therefore it must be God (or whatever)".

I was sitting in my car one day in a parking lot waiting for my family to return. Listening to Car Talk, and a man approached me, a Jehova's Witness, and asked me about if I'd heard the Good News. I had, I told him, and then instead of just saying, "Right on, Brother, I'm with you!" I decided to have a conversation. I told him that I did not believe in creationism, rather, evolution. As a counterpoint, he gestured toward my car and asked me if I like it. I said I did. He asked me where it was from. I told him Japan. He then asked me if it was fabricated by someone, or did it just suddenly appear in a field one day and show up later in my driveway. I was so stunned I just looked at him like he had three heads. He just grinned, having gained one up on a non-believer, handed me a leaflet and walked away. He must have been a Campy fan.

I was sitting in my car one day in a parking lot waiting for my family to return. Listening to Car Talk, and a man approached me, a Jehova's Witness, and asked me about if I'd heard the Good News. I had, I told him, and then instead of just saying, "Right on, Brother, I'm with you!" I decided to have a conversation. I told him that I did not believe in creationism, rather, evolution. As a counterpoint, he gestured toward my car and asked me if I like it. I said I did. He asked me where it was from. I told him Japan. He then asked me if it was fabricated by someone, or did it just suddenly appear in a field one day and show up later in my driveway. I was so stunned I just looked at him like he had three heads. He just grinned, having gained one up on a non-believer, handed me a leaflet and walked away. He must have been a Campy fan.

Well that's a great analogy!

:confused: :rolleyes:

Arguendo, what if God created the fossils?

No argument can end a debate when discussing theology.

That's because, just like you did, theologians will always attempt to provide an answer based on faith not fact.

Sorry, but the bible is a fictional story book. It has no basis in fact. It's a story that is fed/taught to children at a very young age in order brain wash them into believing in something that has no fact. If it's one of the first things learned, the human mind will try to override anything that conflicts with it learned afterward.

Religion in itself was/is a form of government. It imposes morality over groups of people in an attempt retain power over the masses.

It's quite interesting that, with the advent of electricity, the number of reported "miracles" has declined dramatically. I wonder why?

Sorry, but the bible is a fictional story book. It has no basis in fact. I disagree. The New Testament is a historical document containing a wealth of real information about the social and political make up of Hebrew society during that time period. When the language of the time, the metaphors and parables are placed in context and understood, the NT documents a fascinating failed grab for political power in Judea and the beginnings of a pardigm shift in 'social science' so to speak.

The key is understanding the language and metaphors in the NT -- something the Christian Church has understandably spent 2000 years trying to prevent.

He just grinned, having gained one up on a non-believer, handed me a leaflet and walked away.

Like I said the ID/creationist arguement ALWAYS comes down to "it's so complicated...it must be God". It's the height of ignorance. It's as if they know absolutely nothing about evolutionary theory.

The reason why evolution by natural selection is universally excepted in the scientific fields that matter is because it DOES explain how exceedingly complex "designs" could come about without a conscious "designer".

I disagree. The New Testament is a historical document containing a wealth of real information about the social and political make up of Hebrew society during that time period.
Lots of things are based in real history, but through the countless translations the Bible has been through, can you really say that it is that accurate?

Lots of things are based in real history, but through the countless translations the Bible has been through, can you really say that it is that accurate?

We can't even agree upon what happened yesterday, last month, etc. So, no, I don't think anyone claims it is completely accurate, but it's the best we have.

We can't even agree upon what happened yesterday, last month, etc. So, no, I don't think anyone claims it is completely accurate, but it's the best we have.
Undoubtedly, many of the events that the Bible speaks of happened. I guess my point was that to call the Bible's history incontrovertible would be wrong. There are many proven inconsistencies when compared with other texts of the same age or older and that's not even including the problems of translation or cultural bias.

Hey Dave,

Did you catch 60 Minutes on Sunday? There was a story about a 12-year-old who is writing complete symphonies -- without any editing or training, and he's been doing it since he was 2-years-old. The lad says essentially that the music and the notes simply pour into his head and he is essentially just translating the information...to the point where he can't stop it. He picked up a cello at the age of two or three and just started playing it. He adds that he is not "creating" the music, but rather, it just comes as a complete score. The music professor that is working with him says that the ability to have the knowledge to write that many musical parts, in such a complete way, with no editing, essentially defies any possible explanation.

Now my question for you...which part of our evolutionary theory accounts for this ability? Which apes were playing the cello several million years ago? How is it that a child with ZERO training, education or other input could do this if he is simply a biological mass? Give me the FACTS here...as to how this happens in the natural world.

Hey Dave,

Did you catch 60 Minutes on Sunday? There was a story about a 12-year-old who is writing complete symphonies -- without any editing or training, and he's been doing it since he was 2-years-old. The lad says essentially that the music and the notes simply pour into his head and he is essentially just translating the information...to the point where he can't stop it. He picked up a cello at the age of two or three and just started playing it. He adds that he is not "creating" the music, but rather, it just comes as a complete score. The music professor that is working with him says that the ability to have the knowledge to write that many musical parts, in such a complete way, with no editing, essentially defies any possible explanation.

Now my question for you...which part of our evolutionary theory accounts for this ability? Which apes were playing the cello several million years ago? How is it that a child with ZERO training, education or other input could do this if he is simply a biological mass? Give me the FACTS here...as to how this happens in the natural world.
God? Dunno...Carl Jung called it the Collective Unconscious. Maybe he's tapping into that? There are lots of things that science can't explain. I don't, however, think that this is proof of God--more likely proof that science hasn't caught up with the mechanism that gives a child such a gift/curse.

P.S. When I took acid I could compose symphonies in my head as well. Wasn't nearly in the state to write them down, but they were real and I can still remember them to this day. My best guess is that this boy is wired such that he can tap into that part of the brain that allows things like this to happen.

Now my question for you...which part of our evolutionary theory accounts for this ability? Which apes were playing the cello several million years ago? How is it that a child with ZERO training, education or other input could do this if he is simply a biological mass? Give me the FACTS here...as to how this happens in the natural world.

You must be born again, eh?

One ape says to the other "Did you see that kid, Oug?" "He picked up a rock, hit it on another rock and made it real sharp." "Where did he get that?" The other ape says "Wow must have come from God!"

I want a response here from the folks who have been passionately contending how perfectly the theory of evolution explains everything from how we got here to how to fix a truck. Bring it on guys....how do you explain this??

Then the rest of the apes threw him out of the community for being an uppity forward-thinker with all these new ideas to change the world.

In other words, you got nothin' here.

In other words, you got nothin' here.

support 'scientific' creationism? Hell, it more likely supports Buddhism. You're kickin a straw dog.

Lots of things are based in real history, but through the countless translations the Bible has been through, can you really say that it is that accurate?
I didn't say it was completely accurate. I said it was a historical document. The New Testament, when correlated against other period texts (Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic texts, etc.), and in addition to understanding the language of the day, how it was used and the underlying meanings of certain metaphors, much comes to light about the socio-political makeup of the Hebrew society in Judea at that time. Those other texts are what bring the true story of NT into view and provide something other than the Roman Empire's view of the Jews.

To disregard the NT as a "fictional story book" is, and I say this as an atheist, silly ignorance especially considering how that very document impacts thelives of every American every single day.

Another doughnutburger.

To disregard the NT as a "fictional story book" is, and I say this as an atheist, silly ignorance especially considering how that very document impacts thelives of every American every single day.
So given that criteria would James Clavell's Shogun be a historical document as well? I agree that there are elements of history in the NT, but to me that isn't a reason to say it is a historical document. I would agree that it is a great piece of literature though.

Tri_Rich says,
"I think you are attempting to assign a genetic cause to issues which have little if any genetic component. There is no "good in school gene", but there a number of non-genetic factors which affect scholastic performance, especially standardized testing."

I find the idea that there is absolutly no genetic component to school performance and test perfromance to be absurd on its face. Of course there are non-genetic factors, and very important ones, but you have no basis to rule out a genetic component to "good in school".





Actually I think you can make the arguement, based on twin studies among others, that any genetic difference is swamped out by the contribution of environmental factors, rendering it insignificant. Additionally scholastic performance is far too complicated to be in any way affected by a single gene. Given the random nature of inheritance from a parent to any one offspring, it becomes impossible to make the arguement you are trying to make.

I want a response here from the folks who have been passionately contending how perfectly the theory of evolution explains everything from how we got here to how to fix a truck. Bring it on guys....how do you explain this??
Who cares? Really. Knowing whether or not someone created the universe or whether or not it just happened -- is it really that important?

I guess it is if you feel the need to prove the unprovable. What a waste of brain cells, IMO.

That's not the discussion here. There is a strong contention in this thread that evolution is not mearly theory, that it does ... or will eventually.. explain everything. So I say, "fine." Start explaining this kid.

That's not the discussion here. There is a strong contention in this thread that evolution is not mearly theory, that it does ... or will eventually.. explain everything. So I say, "fine." Start explaining this kid.

Who says/where said in this thread that evolution does or will eventually explain everything? I believe you're putting words in folks' mouths. Evolution deals with the origin of species, not the origin of prodigies.

Start explaining this kid.
I thought that's what I did. He's tapping into something we all have the ability to tap into but few know how to do so--at least without the aid of mind-altering drugs. If anything this is more proof to me that evolution is happening.

I'm not attempting to support "scientific creationism." I'm asking a valid and logical question of those who are attempting to use evolution in absolute terms, while dismissing any other notion of origins and intellegent design as utterly unscientific and therefore irrelevant in schools. This kid is not a theory, an idea, a figment of a creationsists imagination...he is a walking, talking, music writing miracle. There is no natrural explaination for him, hence everyone trying to spin this around and change the subject.

I'm not attempting to support "scientific creationism." I'm asking a valid and logical question of those who are attempting to use evolution in absolute terms, while dismissing any other notion of origins and intellegent design as utterly unscientific and therefore irrelevant in schools. This kid is not a theory, an idea, a figment of a creationsists imagination...he is a walking, talking, music writing miracle. There is no natrural explaination for him, hence everyone trying to spin this around and change the subject.
His ability to think as he does makes him either more or less adapted to procreate and spread the genes to his progeny. History will prove whether his traits are passed on or lost in evolutionary time.

So given that criteria would James Clavell's Shogun be a historical document as well? I agree that there are elements of history in the NT, but to me that isn't a reason to say it is a historical document. I would agree that it is a great piece of literature though.
If you classify an a book written in 1976 about events that occurred in the 1600s and, more importantly, released by the author as fiction, then you're starting to sound much like the creationists arguing against evolution. If you want to compare, then be honest and compare it to the writtings of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, etc. That would be a valid, poignant comparison.

And you *believe* 60 Minutes?

I thought "credibility, like virginity, could only be lost once"?

;-)

Hey Dave,

Did you catch 60 Minutes on Sunday? There was a story about a 12-year-old who is writing complete symphonies -- without any editing or training, and he's been doing it since he was 2-years-old. The lad says essentially that the music and the notes simply pour into his head and he is essentially just translating the information...to the point where he can't stop it. He picked up a cello at the age of two or three and just started playing it. He adds that he is not "creating" the music, but rather, it just comes as a complete score. The music professor that is working with him says that the ability to have the knowledge to write that many musical parts, in such a complete way, with no editing, essentially defies any possible explanation.

Now my question for you...which part of our evolutionary theory accounts for this ability? Which apes were playing the cello several million years ago? How is it that a child with ZERO training, education or other input could do this if he is simply a biological mass? Give me the FACTS here...as to how this happens in the natural world.

I want a response here from the folks who have been passionately contending how perfectly the theory of evolution explains everything from how we got here to how to fix a truck. Bring it on guys....how do you explain this??

You're creating a strawman, no one said evolution explains everything, evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the history of and current state of life on this planet. Futhermore, it's a mistake to think every trait is being micro-managed via natural selection.

Taking a child prodigy (he was really fascinating, wasn't he?), and saying explain this via evolutionary theory seems like an exceedingly odd way to test such a theory? I doubt there has ever been selection for particularly muscically gifted persons (but who knows?) but there has certainly been selection for highly developed sense of hearing speech-like sounds to facilitate language comprehension and that probably somehow relates to our musical abilities as a species. It's not like that kid is the only muscical prodigy to ever exist, it's a fairly "common" uncommon occurrence. Now if a human kid was born tomorrow with wings and the ability to fly, that would really throw a spanner in the works, you think that is going to happen?

Your assertion that this somehow "defies" evolution is typical ID/creationist red herring BS.

The prodigy is, by this discussions terms, a product of the theory. Yet, he is gifted in unique ways that defy all natural attributes and explainations. I am thus simply asking you and anyone else how evolution could produce this unique outcome? A simple question. The only thing being kicked around here is the theory that doesn't hold water.

In other words, only test the theory in a way that supports your expected outcome? Evolution cannot account for this kid, but intellegent design can. Thus, intellegent design is a logical theory that should not be dismissed out of hand in the way you assert.

Come on, man--your whole diatribe falls apart when you say, "I work for a living." The ignorant bias just shines right through: Everybody to the left of you is a lazy, welfare-sucking unwed mother, drives a small car just to piss you off and more than likely dodged the draft, too? Speaking just as one gonna-be-60-next-month liberal who's held a job every day since 1960, did a tour in Vietnam, paid my own way through college, raised two productive kids, paid my taxes, contribute to my community and voted for John Kerry, may I politely say that's pure BS?

I want a response here from the folks who have been passionately contending how perfectly the theory of evolution explains everything from how we got here to how to fix a truck. Bring it on guys....how do you explain this??

Straw man to straw otter...

At some point some Otter got tired of nashing their teach to open up the yummy goodness of the sea critters and picked up a rock put it on their bellies and started smacking the outside to get to the creamy center.

Curiosity, instinct and invention are not the sole property of homosapiens, we are by and by the species that has made best use of our large cranial capacity however.

The prodigy is, by this discussions terms, a product of the theory. Yet, he is gifted in unique ways that defy all natural attributes and explainations. I am thus simply asking you and anyone else how evolution could produce this unique outcome? A simple question. The only thing being kicked around here is the theory that doesn't hold water.

Genetic Mutation. Because musical skills have been valued in the past, his family carries a latent ability. If we valued musical skills in our society to the level that he will win many females and breed alot of offspring, the resultant community (in a few thousand years) will have enhanced musical abilities.

Same with that smart guy with the sharpened rock. Before that, the otter with the stone.

I guess my argument ends up saying that as a species, humanity has stopped evolving and we are generally on the long slide downward. But, something new will mutate from this experience. Would be sorta cool to watch it happen.

In other words, only test the theory in a way that supports your expected outcome? Evolution cannot account for this kid, but intellegent design can. Thus, intellegent design is a logical theory that should not be dismissed out of hand in the way you assert.

No, you're not getting it. This kid's ability was not created out of thin air, he merely lies at the extreme of a typical human ability (music creation). Does an 8 foot tall human or a dwarf call into question evolution by natural selection? Just because we typically know the physiological mechanisms underlying extremes in height, but not musical ability doesn't mean evolution by natural selection didn't occur. The brain is exceedingly complex and I think it's study (or the study of the human mind in general) is in it's infancy, almost nothing is known about it.

I agree ID is a logical theory in a sense, but it's one that lacks evidence, therefore it is not a valid scientific theory. We could come up with all kinds of logical statements that aren't true.

I thought that's what I did. He's tapping into something we all have the ability to tap into but few know how to do so--at least without the aid of mind-altering drugs. If anything this is more proof to me that evolution is happening.

Exactly, musical ability is not unkown in humans, in fact, it's a universal trait. What's illogical about somebody being born who is particularly good at it, or particularly good at running, or performing mathmatical calculations? These are things we know all humans can do.
I would guess that musical ability probably was never a trait that natural selection was favoring, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that language ability was, just look out how infants and toddlers acquire language naturally. I would guess that music just happened given the neurological changes that had to occur to be a competent language user. I've been to a few lectures on language type stuff, and the amount and speed of processing that your brain does to comprehend language is mind-blowing.

Genetic Mutation. Because musical skills have been valued in the past, his family carries a latent ability. If we valued musical skills in our society to the level that he will win many females and breed alot of offspring, the resultant community (in a few thousand years) will have enhanced musical abilities.

Same with that smart guy with the sharpened rock. Before that, the otter with the stone.

I guess my argument ends up saying that as a species, humanity has stopped evolving and we are generally on the long slide downward. But, something new will mutate from this experience. Would be sorta cool to watch it happen.

Genetic mutations are highly over-rated :) Most changes are merely do to a differnet mix of genes or when genes are turned on and off, particularly developmental genes. In an individual (as is the case here) who can say what happened for him to be so good at this one specific aspect of human behavior, who knows if it is genetic at all. Could be some crazy mix of enviromental factors that ended up with his brain "wired" to do what he does. If no genetic component it wouldn't even be an "evolution" thing, as there would be no "musical genius" genes to pass on.

Evolution never stops, but the selective pressures can always change. For instance, our immune system has probably been under intense selective pressures like never before for the last few thousands of years since we started living in dense, often filthy, environs where diseases can prosper. Look at the decimation that occured to native American populations, who weren't resistant to the European diseases when the first settlers came over. There are estimates that a large percentage of the native American population was dead within the first hundred years following Columbus' voyage due to disease, long before most ever even encountered Europeans directly. Look at what HIV is doing in Africa.

And evolution doesn't have a direction, there is no "downward" or "upward", populations merely adapt to whatever the selective pressures of the day are. You may consider being smarter "upward" but if we have a nuclear war tomorrow that would be a direct consequence of a species that was smart enough to split an atom and build missles and it made us go extinct, looking back on it, maybe that wasn't such an "upward" direction afterall :)

the kids existence is more an argument in favor of Buddhist reincarnation theory than Christian Creationism. Mozart wrote twinkle twinkle at 4 or so, maybe this kid is the second coming. So musical 'genius' is therfefore more likely to be 'rebirthed' than a "gift fron God" or are you stating that God 'chooses' random humans for bestowing exceptional gifts (and therefore in contrast exceptional evils, Omnipotent God and all). The Dalai Lama's are always able to identify people they 'knew' in their previous existence as well as material objects that belonged to them in their former incarnate.
so if we were to analyze both theologies as theories
this issue leans more to Buddhism than Christianity.
as someone with a 'Muse' I am familiar w/ songs 'appearing' in my head. My father and I had this discussion during the broadcast that many of the songs I wrote (I'm a former professional musician' came to me 'complete' where I was able to give each musician their part. Maybe these muses are demons? angels? the Divine? Collective Unconscious? who knows, sure is a cool gift though.
anyhow, many theologies have no problem with evolutionary theory. Mostly just the Judeo-Christian-Islam Dogmas.
RE: the JW in the lot, had a similar experience.
I knew he kept fish, I asked him, "you own a fishtank, is it the same as it was when you first brought it home?" "have you changed it?" my point being his tank was 'the world' and did he keep it static as a creationsist believes God keeps the world.
He said "No", I asked "Why?" he said "I got bored and wanted to add/ change stuff"
I said "Apply that over infinity, how boring would forever be with a static universe?"

may I politely say that's pure BS?
Yes, you may. Thank you for your civility. I wonder how I undermine myself? Just because I am biased, does that make my argument less valid?

Just because I am biased, does that make my argument less valid?No, but the inability to distinguish between bias and fallacy doesn't help.

Actually I think you can make the arguement, based on twin studies among others, that any genetic difference is swamped out by the contribution of environmental factors, rendering it insignificant. Additionally scholastic performance is far too complicated to be in any way affected by a single gene. Given the random nature of inheritance from a parent to any one offspring, it becomes impossible to make the arguement you are trying to make.
Far to complicated to be affected by one gene? How can you offer that as a rebut to my assertion that there is a genetic component? Random nature of inheritance? Inheritance is far from random. Many traits are passed down close to 100%, others near 50% of the time. The effects on any one offspring have nothing to do with a group's performance. The probabilty of passing on a trait is important.

BTW, twin studies are very interesting in this aspect. I agree that environmental factors have a very great impact, but I cannot accept the "insignificance" of genetics. I do not believe the data supports this argument, and certainly my experienece in education, government, and my own family would indicate otherwise.

The issue is whether the genes that determine "race" have any bearing on social traits.

Far to complicated to be affected by one gene? How can you offer that as a rebut to my assertion that there is a genetic component? Random nature of inheritance? Inheritance is far from random. Many traits are passed down close to 100%, others near 50% of the time. The effects on any one offspring have nothing to do with a group's performance. The probabilty of passing on a trait is important.

BTW, twin studies are very interesting in this aspect. I agree that environmental factors have a very great impact, but I cannot accept the "insignificance" of genetics. I do not believe the data supports this argument, and certainly my experienece in education, government, and my own family would indicate otherwise.

Several things to address.

If there is a single "scholastic gene" or intelligence gene I would be shocked, so for the sake of this discussion we will assume that it is a quality related to multiple genes. Furthermore lets assume that genetics do play a role which is not rendered moot by environmental factors. You are therefore left with the conclusion that a suite of genes would be involved. Unless these are linked traits unaffected by crossing over they will not be inherited "en suite" by any offspring. Therefore even if genetics do play a large role, it is hard to say that intelligence would be an inheritable trait.

Additionally there is the issue of whether passing along learned knowledge is a form of inheritance, i.e. parents with good study habits pass those on to their offspring. Since this is not the classic form of inheritance, I don't know that the normal "rules" of evolution could be applied. Plus the 'evolutionary' definition of success (viable offspring) may be different than the one you are trying to apply. This point maybe the biggest problem with the position you are presenting as "social success" does not always equal reproductive success and as such does not apply selective pressure.

As far as genetics being rendered insignificant by environmental factors , think of the correlation between height (a genetically complex trait) and nutrition. Populations with endemic undernurishment tend to have reduced average height which improves as the nurishment of the group improves. I.e. if you have the genes to be 8ft tall but don't get enough to eat you will be short.

That's not the discussion here. There is a strong contention in this thread that evolution is not mearly theory, that it does ... or will eventually.. explain everything. So I say, "fine." Start explaining this kid.

First prove that God exists, without invoking the word faith. Then prove he rested on the seventh day...etc. Then maybe you'll have your answer about the kid.

BTW, how did this kid become a "miracle?" Did the virgin Mary appear and tell him to write music?

Provide us with his corpse and we'll do an autopsy.

As stupid as some of these statements sound, It's not nearly as stupid as your argument.

Sorry for the flame, but your argument does come off quite ignorant. Sounds like you're fighting with the first story you learned as a child. Reinforced with a yearly sugar high fueled by candies on Easter, and a child's greed with toys on Christmas. Think about it.

BTW, what kind of "Dr." are you?

But neither parent had any type of exceptional skill or talent for music...there was not evolutionary chain that you could connect here that would explain the exceptional ability. Further, if I accept an evolutionary construct of how intellect is passed down, it would almost mandate that our biology gives us an ability to learn....but we have to input the information to get the output of what our intellect produces. This is not the case here...there was no download of information to the child to explain the output musically that he has. In other words, procreation seems to have had nothing to do with the exceptional ability.

So you are saying this child's ability to write dozens of highly complex music parts in just hours (parts that would take a "normal" composer years to write) is the result of genetic mutation? You feel that is a more reasonable explaination than an intellegent designer having had a role in creating him?

How can you say that ID lacks evidence in the context of what we are discussing? To say this child is at the extreme end of a genetic musical ability handed down by evolution seems mighty hard to justify, given what we know of the human brain and how we learn. If evolution has resulted in highly cojmplex brains that can reason, it still stands that we need to learn or get information for the brain to process. Evolution would say that our ability to take in more and exceedingly complex information over time is a product of multiple generations of people getting smarter (I would question if that's happening given our world today :) ). Having said this, we are not born speaking three or four languages. Some people have an extreme ability to LEARN multiple languages quickly and thus would be exceptional if they could speak these languages fluently by age two or three. But this kid didn't learn anything....he just started doing it. He didn't have anyone show him how to write a quarter note, or understand scales, or how music is timed and reasoned. I think this child is a very compelling evidence for ID. If that is the case, and you seem to give some possibility that ID could make sense, why should ID be taken out of the public education system? I agree that we should not attempt to explain ID in the context of a theological construct, given the box of worms that opens up. But to at least state that there is a reasonable line of thinking that says man is the product of divine intellegent designer seems at least as reasonable and compelling as evolution.

Bo,

Go do a little reading on the Dead Sea scrolls and the integrity of the parchments that were found when compared with more modern manuscripts. The variance between texts that spread more than 1000 years were minimal....mostly changes in language and punctuation that had transpired....this despite thousands of hand written reporductions over time. Very high integrity. The same can be said for NT manuscripts, which out number any other like literary works from the time by thousands. If we are to dismiss the NT as being without historic fact or context...you pretty much need to throw out all the Greek texts and history from the time as well. I don't see anyone questioning whether Aristotle lived or not. It's worth an objective look.

So it should be reasonable to expect that people are born speaking multiple languages fluently, to use an analogy? We have a deep seeded language gene coded with all the info, we just need to find it? Genetics produce the ability to learn, they do not hold specific creative knowledge UNLESS someone programed the genes....like a creator, perhaps?

How can you say that ID lacks evidence in the context of what we are discussing? To say this child is at the extreme end of a genetic musical ability handed down by evolution seems mighty hard to justify, given what we know of the human brain and how we learn. If evolution has resulted in highly cojmplex brains that can reason, it still stands that we need to learn or get information for the brain to process. Evolution would say that our ability to take in more and exceedingly complex information over time is a product of multiple generations of people getting smarter (I would question if that's happening given our world today :) ). Having said this, we are not born speaking three or four languages. Some people have an extreme ability to LEARN multiple languages quickly and thus would be exceptional if they could speak these languages fluently by age two or three. But this kid didn't learn anything....he just started doing it. He didn't have anyone show him how to write a quarter note, or understand scales, or how music is timed and reasoned. I think this child is a very compelling evidence for ID. If that is the case, and you seem to give some possibility that ID could make sense, why should ID be taken out of the public education system? I agree that we should not attempt to explain ID in the context of a theological construct, given the box of worms that opens up. But to at least state that there is a reasonable line of thinking that says man is the product of divine intellegent designer seems at least as reasonable and compelling as evolution.

Just because you don't believe that evolution explains this kid (which it does) does not mean that you can then boot strap your theory into credibility. Your whole point seems to be "I can't explain this kid therefore it must be God." That's not theory that is faith.

This has got to be one of the most incoherant posts I've read in a long time. You explain the kid in the context of evolution...that was the discussion. To your other point, you prove to me there is no God...understand to do this, you essentially need to claim you have all knowledge of everything (and given your clear and well stated post, that is clearly evident). And I love easter candy, especially the chocolate bunnies, makes me ride faster.

How ...how does it explain this kid. There has not been one statement to show how it does. As for my explaination of the kid, I'm saying that ID is a reasonable THEORY of how he knows it, given that evolution can't explain him. Again, does evolution say people are born with complete knowledge of a subject without the act of learning? Is that what you are saying?

So it should be reasonable to expect that people are born speaking multiple languages fluently, to use an analogy? We have a deep seeded language gene coded with all the info, we just need to find it? Genetics produce the ability to learn, they do not hold specific creative knowledge UNLESS someone programed the genes....like a creator, perhaps?

Exceedingly unlikely there is a "language gene". There are probabaly a whole host of genes that result in physical and physiological capabilities in humans that make our brains primed for language acquisition and use. We aren't born with the ability to speak languages, we are born with the capability to learn languages. It takes infants years and years to become competent at it, and what language is learned is totally dependent on what language one is exposed to. And remember any language is just an arbitrary set of sounds that the users associate symbolic meanings with (that's why there is English, French, Swahili, Navaho, etc.), and then grammar to give it structure.

This kid started showing exceptional interest in music at age 2 (if I remember correctly), it's not like his musical ability hasn't been culitvated since then.

but we have to input the information to get the output of what our intellect produces. This is not the case here...there was no download of information to the child to explain the output musically that he has. In other words, procreation seems to have had nothing to do with the exceptional ability.

That is not accurate. Of course there was input, he's been listening to music (almost undoubtably) all his life, his interest was recognized at 2 and almost certainly heavily cultivated since. It's not like he was some ferrel child locked away in a room.

How ...how does it explain this kid. There has not been one statement to show how it does. As for my explaination of the kid, I'm saying that ID is a reasonable THEORY of how he knows it, given that evolution can't explain him. Again, does evolution say people are born with complete knowledge of a subject without the act of learning? Is that what you are saying?

Nonsense, no where, no how was this kid born with "complete knowledge of a subject". How do you get that from the story? Even if no one ever sat down with him and cultivated his talent, which surely happened, just hearing music is learning about it. No one has to sit down and teach children a language yet they all learn it more or less competently just being exposed to it, unless there is some kind of underlying disorder.

And really evolution is a population/species phenomenon anyway, it's not an individual occurence (a person doesn't evolve). You're really questioning genetics, not evolution by natural selection. You're saying his genetics could not account for his behavior, and that God/ID could, right?

I assume even most ID people still think the creator works with genes, or is that all bunk too? How else would you explain all members of a species being genetically similar relative to other species, or members of the same family being more genetically similar than non-family members?

Way too much over-analyzing here. Some people are taller, faster, stronger, or more intelligent, and in different ways. Just happens, a result of unique genetic combinations and enviromental factors. No big deal.

You could be thankful for it as if it were a gift from God, but still there's a mechanical cause for the result. Whether God influenced the mechanical cause, that's open to debate based upon your faith or lack of it.

Doug

the kids existence is more an argument in favor of Buddhist reincarnation theory than Christian Creationism. Mozart wrote twinkle twinkle at 4 or so, maybe this kid is the second coming. So musical 'genius' is therfefore more likely to be 'rebirthed' than a "gift fron God" or are you stating that God 'chooses' random humans for bestowing exceptional gifts (and therefore in contrast exceptional evils, Omnipotent God and all). The Dalai Lama's are always able to identify people they 'knew' in their previous existence as well as material objects that belonged to them in their former incarnate.
so if we were to analyze both theologies as theories
this issue leans more to Buddhism than Christianity.
as someone with a 'Muse' I am familiar w/ songs 'appearing' in my head. My father and I had this discussion during the broadcast that many of the songs I wrote (I'm a former professional musician' came to me 'complete' where I was able to give each musician their part. Maybe these muses are demons? angels? the Divine? Collective Unconscious? who knows, sure is a cool gift though.
anyhow, many theologies have no problem with evolutionary theory. Mostly just the Judeo-Christian-Islam Dogmas.
RE: the JW in the lot, had a similar experience.
I knew he kept fish, I asked him, "you own a fishtank, is it the same as it was when you first brought it home?" "have you changed it?" my point being his tank was 'the world' and did he keep it static as a creationsist believes God keeps the world.
He said "No", I asked "Why?" he said "I got bored and wanted to add/ change stuff"
I said "Apply that over infinity, how boring would forever be with a static universe?"

The first chimpanzee that picked up a twig, inserted it into a termite mound hole, and extracted lunch - where did it get the heretofore "unknown" knowledge to do that, Drofspin?

The first chimpanzee that picked up a twig, inserted it into a termite mound hole, and extracted lunch - where did it get the heretofore "unknown" knowledge to do that, Drofspin?
Everyone knows animals have no souls and that Adam got to name then all! Who cares about some creature that man has dominion over!

The kid was writing complete symphonies....with all the appropriate musical notations and parts. What you are saying is that this would be like a two year old writing a text book on physics simply because he can move.

Barely cultivated, according to the story. He had to get motor skills to write, but he stated the music has always been there. Your use of the language analogy seems to indicate he would need to hear all of those languages to speak them,...he did not have knowledge of all the musical instruments and parts before he began writing.

Barely cultivated, according to the story. He had to get motor skills to write, but he stated the music has always been there. Your use of the language analogy seems to indicate he would need to hear all of those languages to speak them,...he did not have knowledge of all the musical instruments and parts before he began writing.

We must have watched different shows! Wasn't this kid currently enrolled at that elite arts school in New York, didn't they show him being tutored by some world class pianist? You really think his parents just started with this last week? Wasn't he 12 years old? That's a decade of refining what was undoubtably a superior innate ability to compose music. And my language analogy obviously isn't perfect. Afterall, if you understand music, you understand it on whatever instrument it is being played, even if you lack the ability to play on each of them, right? I mean the note E is the same note whatever the instrument, it's a physics thing.

Language is different in that any word is just a certain pattern of sounds that the speakers of the language have agreed upon to mean a certain thing.

I disagree about whether he was born with complete knowledge...his ability to manifest the talent/gift was not possible until other basic motor skills developed around the age of two to produce the music. He stated that the music is there, has always been there and that he is only transfering the information to paper....to the point where he just "has to do it." On the point of genetics, I think I'm okay with what you are saying here, but I would add that my point is that evlolution could not explain this type of a genetic code. My reasoning beyond this point would go much further into the case for ID. Two points I should make to clarify where I stand on the macro issues here: 1) I believe that micro evolution...or adaptation within species...is a very valid and robust science that should be taught. 2) I do not see ID clashing in anyway with modern science....I think the science is essential in understanding the "how" of creation and that the more we know, the more complex and marvelous it all is. My main issue/complaint is that the same reason and logic used to support the fuzzier side of macro evolutionary theory for explaining origins is no more or less creadible or rational than looking to intellegent design to explain origins. Certainly ID requires a certain measure of faith....but I would submit so does believing what evolution has not yet proven. The overwhellming venom and religious bigotries hurled at people who hold to a creationist view (read the very first post as one of many such attacks) on this board is laughable against mounting theory within physics and genetics that is pointing more and more to ID. Speaking purely from a religious point of view, (I know I just lost 99 percent of the room here) this bias against God/ID is understandable. To wit, even if God revealed himself to those holding the bias, I still doubt any would believe.

Again, his piano teacher was getting his physical/motor capability to catch up with the music...it's a different issue. Remember, they said in the story that he could not physically play fast enough to play the notes in his head. Secondly, the music professor from Juliard stated that the fact the lad didn't edit or in anyway change his work, could be a limiting factor in how far he goes...merely an opinion (and remember they showed a Beethoven work showing how much more effort he had to put into his work).

I disagree about whether he was born with complete knowledge...his ability to manifest the talent/gift was not possible until other basic motor skills developed around the age of two to produce the music. He stated that the music is there, has always been there and that he is only transfering the information to paper....to the point where he just "has to do it." On the point of genetics, I think I'm okay with what you are saying here, but I would add that my point is that evlolution could not explain this type of a genetic code. My reasoning beyond this point would go much further into the case for ID. Two points I should make to clarify where I stand on the macro issues here: 1) I believe that micro evolution...or adaptation within species...is a very valid and robust science that should be taught. 2) I do not see ID clashing in anyway with modern science....I think the science is essential in understanding the "how" of creation and that the more we know, the more complex and marvelous it all is. My main issue/complaint is that the same reason and logic used to support the fuzzier side of macro evolutionary theory for explaining origins is no more or less creadible or rational than looking to intellegent design to explain origins. Certainly ID requires a certain measure of faith....but I would submit so does believing what evolution has not yet proven. The overwhellming venom and religious bigotries hurled at people who hold to a creationist view (read the very first post as one of many such attacks) on this board is laughable against mounting theory within physics and genetics that is pointing more and more to ID. Speaking purely from a religious point of view, (I know I just lost 99 percent of the room here) this bias against God/ID is understandable. To wit, even if God revealed himself to those holding the bias, I still doubt any would believe.

Question for you...other than "faith" how do you know your religion is the right one when there are so many others that think they have found the answer as well?

The kid was writing complete symphonies....with all the appropriate musical notations and parts. What you are saying is that this would be like a two year old writing a text book on physics simply because he can move.

They never said he did that at 2! They showed some scribblings of notes on something that looked like a musical chart attributed to him at a very young age, it wasn't a symphony. I agree it would be pretty darn remarkable if indeed he somehow knew symbolic things without EVER being shown them. I don't know how you or I could possibly know that for sure from that show.

That's a very valid question. I would gladly take you through my personal journey, how I came to believe and why. I don't think this board is the right forum to do that...I don't want to sit defending ad hom attacks from others while trying to answer your questions. If you want to do it through email, just send me a private message (and anyone else who would like to discuss) and I'll do it by email. In the meantime, a great book is by a former atheist who was a writer for the Chicago Tribune named Lee Strobel...it's called the case for Christ and is a really good/easy read that approaches the faith from a atheistic point of view (objections and answers). There is another like book by Strobel called the Case for Faith...another good read that deals more with the issue of is there a God.

Again, email me if you wish...

The issue is whether the genes that determine "race" have any bearing on social traits.
Who said anything about race? Did I post to the wrong forum?

Again, his piano teacher was getting his physical/motor capability to catch up with the music...it's a different issue. Remember, they said in the story that he could not physically play fast enough to play the notes in his head. Secondly, the music professor from Juliard stated that the fact the lad didn't edit or in anyway change his work, could be a limiting factor in how far he goes...merely an opinion (and remember they showed a Beethoven work showing how much more effort he had to put into his work).


The kid had an idea or emotion or what ever in his head. When he became old enough to know that these ideas are what other referred to as music he could put a name to the idea. Latter he was taught how to write music or how to put the idea onto paper in a way that others around him would understand. Isn't that the same as language? The child has an idea or emotion, he wants to convey it to others, he is taught that certain sounds represent those ideas and emotions. Eventually his language skills catch up to the ideas in his head and he can fully express himself. Have you ever seen an excited kid sutter in trying to get the words out faster? I just don't see how it proves ID because the kid had a very advanced case of musical ideas from a young age. Of course the kid may just be crazy, instead of hearing voices he hears music. :p

Therefore even if genetics do play a large role, it is hard to say that intelligence would be an inheritable trait.

I think we have found the root of our disagreement. I choose a wife with high test scores to match mine. Our kids are surpassing us. Her brother married a dumn-ass, their kids are below normal. All three of them. You will not convince me that intelligence (the kind measured by IQ tests) is not inherited. Furthermore, environmental factors other than extreme poverty and neglect/abuse are having a hard time overriding genetics.

I find your position to be very extreem. Here we will have to agree to disagree.

"I disagree about whether he was born with complete knowledge...his ability to manifest the talent/gift was not possible until other basic motor skills developed around the age of two to produce the music. He stated that the music is there, has always been there and that he is only transfering the information to paper....to the point where he just "has to do it."

OK we'll have to disagree but I think you're taking a huge leap to believe that the "complete knowledge" was always there whatever the boy says.



"I do not see ID clashing in anyway with modern science"

It clashes because it doesn't make predictions, etc. and test them. It's proponents typically try to pick holes in evolutionary theory and follow it up with the non-sequitor of "therefore it must be ID". That's not how the game gets played.

"against mounting theory within physics and genetics that is pointing more and more to ID."

Come on, mounting where? On Amazon.com? The rules of science are clear and easy to follow, if you know them, it's obvious when someone is playing straight up. If ID wants to be taken seriously it has to step up and play by the rules. Otherwise it will remain PURELY faith based and non-scientific.

I think the whole thing is very interesting...this has been, for once, a good discussion. I appreciate the input so far...

Let me be clear again, I don't think he necessarily "proves" ID....but it is a very interesting case. Personally, I think it lends a lot to the theory of ID.....

"I disagree about whether he was born with complete knowledge...his ability to manifest the talent/gift was not possible until other basic motor skills developed around the age of two to produce the music. He stated that the music is there, has always been there and that he is only transfering the information to paper....to the point where he just "has to do it."

OK we'll have to disagree but I think you're taking a huge leap to believe that the "complete knowledge" was always there whatever the boy says.



"I do not see ID clashing in anyway with modern science"

It clashes because it doesn't make predictions, etc. and test them. It's proponents typically try to pick holes in evolutionary theory and follow it up with the non-sequitor of "therefore it must be ID". That's not how the game gets played.

"against mounting theory within physics and genetics that is pointing more and more to ID."

Come on, mounting where? On Amazon.com? The rules of science are clear and easy to follow, if you know them, it's obvious when someone is playing straight up. If ID wants to be taken seriously it has to step up and play by the rules. Otherwise it will remain PURELY faith based and non-scientific.

Playing straight up? Would that be using "truths" such as Piltdown Man?? There have been more flat out lies, hoaxes and half truths to support evolution than any self-respecting evolutionist should stand for. How about the fossil record? Out of the millions of fossils in the basements of universities and museums...how many true transitional forms do they have? How many of those lizards with half wings or fish with half feet do they have to observe their theory?

And what about being able to make predictions as you say? Help me out here. Using science to observe and make predictions militates against evolution. Where do you observe matter in nature moving from disorder to order? How does that measure up to the laws of thermodynamics? Where does something come from nothing? Where does matter spontaneously act upon itself to become more complex matter? Let's play straight up here....we agree!

Faith, BTW is a wonderful thing...so much so that I think many "scientists" are relying on it more than they want to admit :eek:

and the Scientific method exposed it. There have been equally as many theological 'hoaxes' or are you a believer in the Mary in the Grilled Cheese or the number of reports in the Star about Jesus' return? See science has methods to uncover their 'lies' whilst religion just 'accepts', it's this, the lack of skepticism that religion lacks.
Transitional Creatures.. archaeopterix, bird but with many reptilion qualities still left. Pterodactyl...hmmmm flying Lizard. Ramapithicus, A. Boisei, A. Robustus, A. Afarensus, **** erectus, and these are just off the top[ of my head.. oh yeah these were just sent by Satan to mislead us. I'm so glad I'm on your ignore list.

may I ask again for your irrefutable proof of the Book. Shouldn't we all be retarded as heck since we all descended from a single ancestor? and speaking of, where did Cain's wife come from? Any archaelogical findings of the destroyed cities of Sodom and Gommor,? the Ark?

"Playing straight up? Would that be using "truths" such as Piltdown Man?? There have been more flat out lies, hoaxes and half truths to support evolution than any self-respecting evolutionist should stand for."

Great example, doesn't Piltdown prove that science works? It may have fooled scientiests for a time, but at some point it became so incongruous with the other evidence (i.e. actual fossil finds), that it was dismissed and later conclusively proven to be a fake. There are whole books written on this fraud. It's not like a scientist did it to prove evolution, most likely it was a English churchman who created it. That's the beauty of science, it's self-correcting.

"How about the fossil record? Out of the millions of fossils in the basements of universities and museums...how many true transitional forms do they have?"

Educate yourself, there are many books on human evolution that clearly illustrate transitional forms. Whale evolution is also pretty well documented and illustrative.

"And what about being able to make predictions as you say? Help me out here."

OK, we know the first mammals were terrestrial animals, we know several times mammals have returned to the oceans (whales/dolphins, seals/walruses), we should expect to find transitional forms over time with land mammals evolving to adpat to aquatic life. Big surprise! We do, particularly well documented for whales. Look it up.

"Where do you observe matter in nature moving from disorder to order? How does that measure up to the laws of thermodynamics? Where does something come from nothing? Where does matter spontaneously act upon itself to become more complex matter? Let's play straight up here....we agree!"

This is a particularly odd ID/creationist "refutation" of evolution that I must admit makes no sense to me. What are you talking about? All living organism consume energy to support their metabolism, create offspring, etc.

may I ask again for your irrefutable proof of the Book. Shouldn't we all be retarded as heck since we all descended from a single ancestor? and speaking of, where did Cain's wife come from? Any archaelogical findings of the destroyed cities of Sodom and Gommor,? the Ark?

That's OK junkie. Some people use the ignore list so they don't have to see anything that remotely resembles the facts. You know, don't upset that righteous apple cart they're pushing - it might cause small minds to explode.

The more 'spin talks, the more he fits a direct descendant of the 'single ancestors'.

I think the whole thing is very interesting...this has been, for once, a good discussion. I appreciate the input so far...

Let me be clear again, I don't think he necessarily "proves" ID....but it is a very interesting case. Personally, I think it lends a lot to the theory of ID.....

If ID is an alternative to evolution by natural selection, how could the apparence of a single extraordinary individual lend credance to the theory? ID must make predictions about the appearance of new, & changes within species of organisms over time.

I think more accurately you're saying that this kid is a case for the "miraculous" in that you think he was born with an ability that he didn't learn, in the largest sense of the word. I thought you even said in one of your previous posts you believed in "micro" but not "macro" evolution? This kid isn't a "macro" evolutionary phenomenon in any way, he's not a new species of human.

I think we have found the root of our disagreement. I choose a wife with high test scores to match mine. Our kids are surpassing us. Her brother married a dumn-ass, their kids are below normal. All three of them. You will not convince me that intelligence (the kind measured by IQ tests) is not inherited. Furthermore, environmental factors other than extreme poverty and neglect/abuse are having a hard time overriding genetics.

I find your position to be very extreem. Here we will have to agree to disagree.

"IQ" tests have a whole set of issues outside of those we have been discussing, and should not be taken for more than they are worth. Again non-intrinsic factors have a huge effect on test scores and I assume that your kids and your in-law's kids have not had identical upbringings.

By your logic accent must be an inherited characteristic as well, as my southern accent is stronger than my mother's while my cousins (her brother's children) have much weaker ones.

Hey Dave,

Did you catch 60 Minutes on Sunday? There was a story about a 12-year-old who is writing complete symphonies -- without any editing or training, and he's been doing it since he was 2-years-old. The lad says essentially that the music and the notes simply pour into his head and he is essentially just translating the information...to the point where he can't stop it. He picked up a cello at the age of two or three and just started playing it. He adds that he is not "creating" the music, but rather, it just comes as a complete score. The music professor that is working with him says that the ability to have the knowledge to write that many musical parts, in such a complete way, with no editing, essentially defies any possible explanation.

Now my question for you...which part of our evolutionary theory accounts for this ability? Which apes were playing the cello several million years ago? How is it that a child with ZERO training, education or other input could do this if he is simply a biological mass? Give me the FACTS here...as to how this happens in the natural world.


That's completely ludicrous. The kid has recieved training his whole life and he's going to Juliard for chrissakes. They showed him sitting down with his PIANO TEACHER! "Translating", please. Just because you can't explain it you think God is beaming melodies into his head? Maybe it just "seems" like that to his 12 year old mind. OR maybe it's happening unconsciously. So what? I get stuck on the crossword all the time. Put it down walk away do something else, pick it up later and BINGO! I suddenly know the answer. You think God is helping me with the crossword? Thanks God! Glad you had the time.

The boy just happens to be a genius prodigy and his abilities to absorb, create and produce are wonderfully adept. It doesn't mean that he will be a great composer or world famous or anything. He just has this amazing talent that is so incredible people like you start quivering with excitement and call it supernatural. Will he write songs that will change history like Beethoven or Mozart?? Doubtful. What if his music winds up being complex but emotionally dry? Or simply dirivitive and boring? Is that God's fault? Are you going to start calling God mediocre? Because it seems like you're trying to say GOD is writing this music, not the little boy.

Out of a population of millions and millions over decades and decades a true genius is born. Why can't it be an happy accident? A mutation?

with transitional gill/lungs. DWB it's not too late, you can still join the side where folks still think. Your Party has abandoned thee.

with transitional gill/lungs. DWB it's not too late, you can still join the side where folks still think. Your Party has abandoned thee.

I don't have much faith in either side thinking much more than the other. The fundamental problem is that there are only two sides, neither of which is much interested in any kind of true analysis of the problems facing this country or the world and how to fix them. They both have ideologies that they more or less adhere to depending on the polls of the day, and then they try ram the facts and fixes into the box of their ideology. In a lot of ways political parties resemble the ID folks, they know how the world should work without regard to how it actually works. I think I'll just remain independent and try to look at each issue unfettered by political party lines telling me how things should be.

but there are plenty of free thinking, sensibly-economic minded, people to the left of the center. I know you have a big streak of economic conservatism mixed w/ liberal social thoughts but then again so do we. maybe we need a centrist party. Personally I'd rather have my money thrown at American social ills than Corporate welfare.

The thermodynamic principal of order to disorder is a simplification and misleading and misunderstood. What is ment & a better "short" phrase is a (closed)system will tend to go from simple to complex. The ordered state used is simple. The "final" state is complex not disoredred. A living organism is quite complex, not disordered.

Live with it.



--Door Nail--

Question:
What is a simple defintion of the laws of thermodynamics?

Answer:
Thermodynamics is the study of the inter-relation between heat, work and internal energy of a system. British scientist & author C.P. Snow had an excellent way of remembering the three laws:

1. You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).

2. You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).

3. You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).


--Door Nail--[/QUOTE]

"IQ" tests have a whole set of issues outside of those we have been discussing, and should not be taken for more than they are worth. Again non-intrinsic factors have a huge effect on test scores and I assume that your kids and your in-law's kids have not had identical upbringings.

By your logic accent must be an inherited characteristic as well, as my southern accent is stronger than my mother's while my cousins (her brother's children) have much weaker ones.
Yes, IQ tests do not accuratly predict ______(fill in the blank), but what does that have to do with the abilit to inherit IQ test skills? Nothing, of course.

Non-intrinsic factors have a huge impact on test scores. This fact does nothing to refute my argument. To wit, genetics play an important role. You point out that my kids and my inlaws do not have an identical upbringing, which by necessity is true, but where is the argumant that genetics plays no role? Will you resort to "nobody can prove a negative"?

As far as suggesting that my logic supports accent being inhereted, I find your comments insulting.

http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L4-1IntelligenceNatureVsNurture.html

Here is a summary of reserach on the question, including a summary of the famous twins research, which suggests that intellignece has a genetic component, contrary to what was posted earlier.

twin studies (where twins are seperated via adoption at early age) that in spite of 'nurture/environment' if one twin is homosexual the percentage the other is plus 90%.
Coincidence? Choice? Genetics? but wait, that would mean God 'makes' gay people.

Actually that site does seem to have a relatively balanced look at the question including a list of 21 things which affect IQ, we seem to be coming down on opposite sides of the unresolved question of which is the more important factor. Ther are studies to site for either side including adoption studies and twin studies.

As to your being insulted by my application of your logic to the question of accent, I fail to see how you could find that insulting. I was showing that by the logic you presented to argue that your family was evidence for the inheritablity of intelligence, my family was evidence for the inheritability of accent in particular a southern one..

is true samples of twins raised in drastically differing environments. what do you think would be the difference in twins where one was raised below poverty level and one raised in affluence?

"Intelligent Design" = repackaged phrase for creationism. It's as simple as that.

But it's more palatable a phrase and since it's "new" it doesn't carry the stigma that "creationism" does, just like the "Clear Skies-" and "Heathy Forests-" Initiatives. The same applies to when they changed the name of the Estate Tax to "Death Tax". All of a sudden, twice as many people were in favor of abolishing it.

With the Bush Admin., no matter what they name something we should know by now that we need to 'look under the hood' to see what's really going on. And once you look, 99% of the time what you find is rotten.

Who do you 'Sheep think you're fooling, other than the other 'Sheep?? (Or should I say those that want to keep their heads in the sand?)

Actually that site does seem to have a relatively balanced look at the question including a list of 21 things which affect IQ, we seem to be coming down on opposite sides of the unresolved question of which is the more important factor. Ther are studies to site for either side including adoption studies and twin studies.

As to your being insulted by my application of your logic to the question of accent, I fail to see how you could find that insulting. I was showing that by the logic you presented to argue that your family was evidence for the inheritablity of intelligence, my family was evidence for the inheritability of accent in particular a southern one..
Arguing about which factors are more important is just an unending battle. My argument all along is that genetics play a role. Nothing more than that. I was astouded to find people arguing that genetics play no role.

In my sub-urban paradise, nurture, or living conditions from a phisiological/psychological standpoint, are very consistant from the most affluent 10% to the least affluent 10%. The richest public school kids have good food, a dry bed, time to study, a parent (almost always two) to look after them and money in the bank. The bottom 10% have all the same things, except the money in the bank. We just don't have the disparity of living conditions you see in NYC, or Detroit, or LA. I think this enhances the ability to observe the genetic component of acedemic performance. Keep in mind the test score differences I observe are less than 7% different from school to school. Also keep in mid that we have consitant racial distibutions among teh various economic groups. We have poor african-Americans and well off ones. Poor asians and two-doctor asian families. 90% of our poor are white, just like 90% of our wealthy.

As far as insulting me with a reference to accent, I would never put forth my own personal or anectdototal references as a logical argument. The sample size is too small, the conditions ar not controlled, etc., etc. I was simply explaining the source of my bias, and bias is not evidence.

is true samples of twins raised in drastically differing environments. what do you think would be the difference in twins where one was raised below poverty level and one raised in affluence?
Well, I think the twin raised poor would have lower test scores. What does that prove? Answer: That living conditions (nurture) play an important role. I have not heard anyone dispute that point. Do you think it tells us anything about the role of genetics? The experiment is controlled to eliminate the impact of genetics by using genetically identical subjects.

Let's set up another experiment and get two kids both adopted as infants to a set of parents who are at the median income. The bio parents of one child are a medical doctor and a prime minister, the other kid's parents are a stripper and a professional baseball player. How do you think the kids will do relative to each other?

Question:
What is a simple defintion of the laws of thermodynamics?

Answer:
Thermodynamics is the study of the inter-relation between heat, work and internal energy of a system. British scientist & author C.P. Snow had an excellent way of remembering the three laws:

1. You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).

2. You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).

3. You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).


--Door Nail--[/QUOTE]

First off, take the arrogant tone and stick it in your ear, oh mighty one of all knowledge. Second, tell me this since you fancey yourself an academic...if science is ruled by the laws of cause and effect, explain the cause behind evolution from the first activities that started life? And since you have it all figured out, don't start with "who knows?" which is where this discussion always ends up with you and your friends. And don't reference experiments where scientists align amino acids just so in a laboratory and then hit them with radiation and get a result...it proves without question that someone needs to set everything just so to get a reaction.

To break this down the most simple of analogies, if life were making a cake, the flour, sugar, butter, salt, eggs ....and all the billions of complexities that each ingredient is made up of -- simply existed. It then spontaneously mixed itself in a pre-existent bowl in just the right amounts, and cooked itself...and that was just the first step to getting trillions of variations of baked goods over the next billion years.

Great theory.

Let's set up another experiment and get two kids both adopted as infants to a set of parents who are at the median income. The bio parents of one child are a medical doctor and a prime minister, the other kid's parents are a stripper and a professional baseball player. How do you think the kids will do relative to each other?
One would probably be a well-rounded asshat and the other would probably be a completely opposite, but equally well-rounded asshat. ;)

Evolution by natural selection says nothing about how the first organism appeared, it explains high and why species evolve over time, often into new species. Not being able to explain the first organism appearance doesn't count against evolution. I mean most skeptical people assume the beginning of life has some kind of materialistic basis because....thats how we see the universe working but IF God or aliens, or the ID came down and magically plopped the first organism on earth, it wouldn't change the fact that all the evidence points to the fact that since then all of life on earth has evolved from that common ancestor.

The prodigy is, by this discussions terms, a product of the theory. Yet, he is gifted in unique ways that defy all natural attributes and explainations. I am thus simply asking you and anyone else how evolution could produce this unique outcome? A simple question. The only thing being kicked around here is the theory that doesn't hold water.

The prodigy may or may not be successful in evolutionary terms. If the result of human genetic diversity led to his phenotype, then it only shows that genes are preserved in populations often in the absence of selective pressure. This happens for a number of ways. The genes may have been selected for previously, and the preserved in a population over time by periods of reselection. The genes may be on the chromosome in proximity to genes that are still selected for. Selection can be neutral for some alleles. One gene form amy be as good as another at that time.

I think confusion stems from the idae that Evolution is about IMPROVEMENT or advancment. (To answer your car mechanic anaolgy) .

Fruit flies are as evolutionatrily advanced as we are. Evolution is about reproductive success of individuals in a population and their success exploiting a niche. Drosophila larvae share ancestry with other insects with larval forms that have legs and segments. Drosophila larvae have evolved to do away with such things that would come at a cost when exploiting the niche they are - rotten fruit. While segmented larave with legs may look more "advanced" than fruit fly larvae, it's actually the fruit flies that have "advanced", jettisoning appndages until the final molt.

Phenotypic changes for limbs, beaks, and a number of morphological traits can change rapidly in a population due to expression changes in a few key developmental genes. Mutations in these genes allow for populations to contain individuals with phenotypic variations. If these individuals are more successful then guess what? This occurs on all gene expression levels, from receptors that control moods to muscle fiber type composition.

People over simplify evolution, and it leads to all kinds of misunderstanding. If you want to believe that this is all part of a creators plan thane go ahead, but there is a large body of evidence that explains the observed changes in species and specialtion over time through evolution, There is no evidence whatsoever for a creator or intelligent design.

Evolution by natural selection says nothing about how the first organism appeared, it explains high and why species evolve over time, often into new species. Not being able to explain the first organism appearance doesn't count against evolution. I mean most skeptical people assume the beginning of life has some kind of materialistic basis because....thats how we see the universe working but IF God or aliens, or the ID came down and magically plopped the first organism on earth, it wouldn't change the fact that all the evidence points to the fact that since then all of life on earth has evolved from that common ancestor.
So ID could be a viable theory?

So ID could be a viable theory?

For the origin of life on earth? Yes, of course it COULD be, what is the evidence that it is?

For the origin of life on earth? Yes, of course it COULD be, what is the evidence that it is?

Without any evidence of Gods lightning bolt or aliens it's just conjecture not a viable theory. Find the aliens construction shack and left over blue prints and then we can talk. By the way if you really believe in ID then you would have to teach how they totally fcuked it up. If there is a race or force or whatever powerful enough to create life on earth in this many forms then why did they screw up so many of them? Why do we have mosquitos? What about the rest of the solar system? Mercury, too hot; Venus, too cloudy; Mars, to small to hold an atmosphere; Jupitor, too gassy and so on for the rest. If you look at the big picture, they did not do such a good job with the project.

Without any evidence of Gods lightning bolt or aliens it's just conjecture not a viable theory. Find the aliens construction shack and left over blue prints and then we can talk. By the way if you really believe in ID then you would have to teach how they totally fcuked it up. If there is a race or force or whatever powerful enough to create lif