Archaeologica.org

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2006/mar/ ... 30206.html

Since there will never be proof of evolution or Intelligent design. Only evidence.

You're not getting...bitter, by any chance?!

RK Awl-O'gist wrote:You're not getting...bitter, by any chance?!

Not bitter. Just stating what has been painfully obvious since the start of that whole ID/evolution debate. They are both theories and being such means that they haven't been proven. If either had been proven it would be called a law. Neither has and neither is. That ain't gonna change here.

I.D. is even less than a theory.

Guest wrote:

Not bitter. Just stating what has been painfully obvious since the start of that whole ID/evolution debate. They are both theories and being such means that they haven't been proven. If either had been proven it would be called a law. Neither has and neither is. That ain't gonna change here.

This statement indicates a very imperfect understanding of what a "theory" is, or of the scientific method. A theory is not ever "proven." Rather, a theory is a conceptual framework, useful for testing hypotheses. When the accumulated evidence is so overwhelming that the "theory" appears to be a virtual match to observed data, then we can begin to call a "theory" factual. That evolution is so well supported by so many sets of data places it in this category.

ID has no such support. At best, it is an hypothesis that has no basis in the best available data. It is not even an organized "theory." It is a leap of faith.

i find that articlae funny as she studies one skeleton and creates a theory. i think her source material was a little limited.

the following i also find to be funny

That evolution is so well supported by so many sets of data places it in this category.

one of the things that qualifies intelligent design as fact is that we can see it in action right now contrary to evolution which insists upon millions of years with no eyewitnesses. so if anything is doubtful, it is evolution for it violates the scientific principles as laid out by scientists.

there can be no observation made of any of the earliest transformations thus there can be no conclusive proof it ever happened thus it remains unfactual.

ID is nothing but bible thumping horseshit.

Guest wrote:

one of the things that qualifies intelligent design as fact is that we can see it in action right now contrary to evolution which insists upon millions of years with no eyewitnesses. so if anything is doubtful, it is evolution for it violates the scientific principles as laid out by scientists.

What "fact" is that? Where is your evidence that ID "in action right now?" I would be interested in seeing you back that up.

I would be interested in seeing you back that up.

i.d. fails in its presentation as it removes God from central role and hints at His involvement. i am more of a genesis creationist and if you want proof, just look around you. men and women have babies according to the genesis account, with pain from God's curse. animals have their own children with no intermedieary offspring changing into another species. the sun rules the day and the moon the night. and so on

all the evidence of creation is right there in front of your face you do not need scientific experiments to test anything because you san observe it in action. even those scientific experiments that try to breed hybrids fail to conjure up any new species and only work within the confines of 'their kind'. as per the Biblical account.

the failure of evolution is that it cannot prove one iota of its claims through observable links to its claims.i do not care about 'micro-evolution' for that does not prove evolution as a whole, if it were true, it could only prove mutation, genetic defect or some other failure that could take place.

humans have mongoloid children, do you place them under the micro-evolution category or the mutation one? are they the next step in evolution or are they jusy variables thrown into the mix to confuse the world? what about autistic children? which stage are they in? obviously if their parents are healthy, they are not the next step and their existence disproves the thesis that evolution is progressing to a better species.

if they were a rarity in society one might be able to concede a point or two but since they are not a rarity but something that is a common possibility i don't think you have a leg to stand on.

evolution depends on gullibility, because there is no definitive proof that evolutionists can point to that proclaims their theory true. it is all lost in'i think this happened' or 'we think this may have taken place' and so on. i can take you to any hospital and show you the genesis account in action but you can never show me the transitory species in action today.

nor can you point to any scientific experiment that re-creates the original beginning of the evolutionary process and then sets it in motion all over again. nor can you point to any historical or archaeological record that records evolution in action. only twisted evidence that takes manipulation to pose it as proof.

the fossil record is one prime example of that taking place. the so-called ice-age is another.

so the reality is there is no eyewitness proof of evolution but there is for the result of creation. all of which can and has been proven scientifically, hospitals and hospital equipment are prime evidence to support thatthinking, along with mid-wives, doctors and each person who hasbeen born to human parents and not animals.

But people may well have come to love religion independently of any benefits it provides them. (I am delighted to learn that red wine in moderation is good for my health, since, whether or not it is good for me, I like it, and I want to go on drinking it. Religion could be like that.)

Red wine is far more useful and enjoyable than religion, Frank.

i have rarely quoted from the Bible in my arguments and have basically limited myself to the evidence at hand and i can continually point out the fallibility of evolution, the impossibilityof the theory and yet you still sit there holding on to it, like it was a life preserver.

why? it makes no sense to believe in a theory you can't prove, observe, describe without filling in the blanks with a lot of conjecture, or re-create by the result of the process.

you grasp at straws ( 'micro-evolution') which cannot even begin to underscore your theory without a stretch of the imagination and no connecting links to back up your thoughts on the topic.

my conclusion is that people who believe in evolution, just do not want to believe in the Bible so no matter how fanciful the tale, they grab on to for dear life, refusing to let go knowing that the have wasted their time.

My belief in evolution has nothing at all to do with the bible or any religious concepts. My belief in evolution comes soley from the abundant geological, genetic, and fossil evidence science has accumulated. Religious articles of faith do not even enter into the question when analyzing physical evidence and the truths it reveals. Had the evidence revealed a story in keeping with any religion's (not really sure why only the bible is discussed and not other religion's holy books like the dhammapada, the tao te ching, or the vedas...seems kinda bible-centric to me) then science would have been compelled to come to the conclusion that that particular religion was indeed right. No such thing happened. Instead the story the physical evidence revealed was very different than any of the stories promoted by any of the religions. The truely ancient age of the earth, the titanic story of life's evolution on earth (no religion ever talked about dinosaurs...seems odd, don't it ), the extremely recent arrival of the human species. These are the things that the physical record reveals. Very interesting stuff.

Anybody really interested in the science/religion debate concerning evolution should visit the Talk Origins website ( http://www.talkorigins.org/ ) where the topic is debated down to the finest details with each issue being examined and represenative ideas from both sides of the debate are fairly examined. Check it out! A great site!

Thanks, FT. Apreciate it.

so no matter how fanciful the tale, they grab on to for dear life, refusing to let go knowing that the have wasted their time.

An adequate description of every bible thumper I have ever met.