If he can do that Stim...with you as my witness, I'll eat every word I've ever said about miracles.

(January 8, 2016 at 3:10 pm)AAA Wrote: There is almost no consensus about anything in science. The theory of evolution is one of the most attacked theories in the history of science.

But not by scientists: the Pew research center pegged acceptance of evolution among the scientific community at 97%, and even as far back as 1987 studies could only find 700 scientists (out of an estimated 480,000) who didn't accept the theory. No, evolution is an attacked theory because of ideologues with no training in relevant fields; those with the expertise don't generally attack evolution, and in fact acceptance of evolution scales with levels of education.

Quote: It isn't solely due to the philosophical implications either. That's part of it, but when they attack it with evidence, the criticisms can't be dismissed. People who attack the theory are labeled as not being real scientists. If the ones who accept the theory are the only people you consider real biologists, then of course all of the biologists agree. Because those that don't agree are not real biologists right?

There's barely any actual biologists who don't accept evolution, which should at least prompt you to ask the questions: why is it that the majority accepts evolution? And why am I following the vanishingly small minority... while still attempting to leverage their credibility as biologists to give their contentions more weight?

Seriously, you don't see a problem with that?

(January 8, 2016 at 3:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If he can do that Stim...with you as my witness, I'll eat every word I've ever said about miracles.

I'd be happy if he even tried.

(January 8, 2016 at 3:32 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 3:25 pm)pool Wrote: We get water if h20 even if we did or did not define what we get from h20 as water. We don't get water because of h20 because we defined what we get from h20 as water..

Let's cut through all the faux verbiage and get to the chase. Atoms have very specific ways they can bond together and the molecules they form by doing so have different properties in aggregate. Ok. Now get from there to "therefore design by an intelligent agency".

What we have to realize is that it is not because of chemistry atoms and molecules undergo reactions and such that is defined in chemistry.
Chemistry is merely a study to understand the process that happens, essentially it tries to understand how or what happens. By definition chemistry cannot answer the why's

The same way even if we didn't discover gravity stones would still come down.
Gravity is like an answer to what happens, i.e, answering the how. It is not the answer of why.
Asking "Why do stones fall down when you throw them up" and answering "Because of gravity" is wrong.
It doesn't fall down because of gravity. Before they discovered gravity shit still fell down.

You don't think that gravity answers the question.

"Why do stones fall down?" 

(January 8, 2016 at 3:30 pm)AAA Wrote: I think you should go back and look at the evidence for evolution.

I think you should go back and look at the definition of evolution.

Quote: There are some evidences presented for things like microevolution.

Because this micro/macro crap? Not present anywhere in that.

Quote: When you think about what the evolutionary theory claims vs. what the direct evidence actually is, you realize that it is mostly them building ideas off their evolutionary presuppositions. They completely project their ideas on the fossil record, which in reality displays more of a stasis rather than change. This fits the creation model better (I wouldn't say I'm a creationist necessarily, but they have a compelling argument worth considering). The complexity in the cell was completely unexpected back last century according to the evolution model. Yet this is what we find.

What do you mean? All you've done here is make the assertion, which is itself completely at odds with the ordered progression of fossils that we actually find within the fossil record.

Quote:Is there evidence being silenced? The intelligent design people seem to be discriminated against when it comes to peer reviewed ideas.

Most of them won't even submit to peer review, so they create their own journals to skip that step and just publish anyway. The problem is with the ID side, not peer review.

Quote:The creationists claim that archeological evidence is being suppressed by the Smithsonian, such as the bones of much larger humans,

Nonexistent.

Quote: burial stones with dinosaur like creatures depicted on them,

You mean the Ica stones, which were commissioned by a huckster and created by people who have already come forward and admitted their fraud? Those same burial stones that had a doctored patina over them to make them seem older than they were, but that proper carbon dating reveals to be exceedingly recent? Are those the fake stones you're talking about?

Quote: destroying fossilized skulls and footprints in places where they shouldn't be.

Do creationists have anything other than claims to support these accusations?

Quote:What does it matter if life was designed? Well the first thing you should do is try to see if we can figure out who the designer/designers is/are. If it actually turns out to be the Biblical God, then it might change how you live your life.

How interesting, you leapt right to your presupposed religious conclusion, and then you wonder why we're not prepared to take intelligent design, with an argument from ignorance at its beating heart, seriously.

"How do stones fall down?"

"Gravity"

"Why do stones fall down?"

"lol idk"

No, the scientific field we call Chemistry is the study of chemical processes. The processes we call chemistry affect the way atoms and molecules behave. You're equivocating again, with a nod to Dolphinetics.

"How do atoms and such reach to form water"

Chemistry can provide answer.

"Why do atoms and such reach to form water"

Chemistry cannot provide answer.

The only vanilla explanation people can give is "It's always been that way"
Well, guess what, it follows the same pattern of 1 + 2 = 3.
ID.

So get from there to design by intelligence. Make the connection.