Atheist: "Do I take my child to church?"

[Pierson5]

One day I told him that grandpa would not always be here with him and introduced the idea of death by mistake. My answer was I would go to heaven. He told his grandmother who decided this might be a bit heavy for him but he seemed settled with the idea but, wanted to know what heaven was.

I'm an agnostic by behavior,Jewish by choice and scientific minded by practice. Heaven is hard to explain to myself, much less a child. No matter your belief, most people use the heaven option to explain death to kids. It's considered a cold thing to say to a child, "...when you die, there is nothing but blackness....just nothingness." This can cause nightmares in children to say such a thing so even most atheists use the heaven idea.

The problem here is, I wouldn't say there is nothing but blackness when you die. No one can make that claim. We don't know what happens when you die. That is what I would tell my child. We don't know, nobody does. Some people believe X some people believe Y, but we don't have any evidence for it. If my child asked what I personally believe, I would probably compare it to what it was like before I was born, but again, nobody knows.

I don't know about causing nightmares in children. Maybe? But teaching them about Heaven, and following that, Hell, certainly can.

Faith is the power of spirituality to invoke hope in helpless situations. Hope has power in the mind to cause the body to heal itself, and ease the pain of death. Science has reveled material methods to do the same, but both methods are proven to work but not equally so.

True, faith can invoke hope. This faith can come from a number of different religions or spiritual ideas. We could then ask the question: is false hope better than no hope? What happens when the person with false hope discovers it was false? I would hope that most of us would be more interested in the truth above hope.

Neither can boast that it has the corner on the question of from where did we come and to where are we going.

I don't think the scientific community is boasting when it says "We don't know." Compared to the various religions which say they do.

There is room for both, faith and science, to continue to seek answers to our greatest questions.

To seek answers with science without faith is a futile expedition. It is meaningless. Science cannot give us reason to continue in life but faith can.

I disagree, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "faith." Do you mean faith in a higher power? If that's the case, I don't need science to give me a reason to continue in life just as I don't need a higher power for a reason to continue in life.

The rest of your posts I agree with on most parts. The parts I disagree with weren't that big of objections, and were more philosophical in nature.

Any progress on whether hypothetical kids should be taken, or allowed to go, to church?

We're working on it

I proposed the idea (let me talk to the pastors and choose the church) to my girlfriend. She said she wanted to choose, so I didn't really get anywhere.

Like I said, science never claims to know everything with absolute certainty. There are always going to be these assumptions (based upon the evidence).

hmmmm. I was under the impression that u and others saw darwinism as a indisputable fact. My bad. Im good with that.
Btw. Ive seen the fossils, the pictures, the renderings, etc. what I see are fully formed extinct species. The only facts being that they once lived and are now gone.

I don't know why you keep using the word "Darwinism." Geologists don't call themselves "Lyellists." Evolutionary biologists don't call themselves darwinists. Evolution isn't an idealogy. There is no -ism. There is no dogma. I've quoted what is meant by scientists when we refer to "facts" on several occasions. If you aren't going to read any of my responses, why even continue the conversation.

OK, certain stoneflies use their wings to skim across the water. Great. Problem solved. Oh wait. How is that evidence for complex nerves, muscles and wings themselves arising from their absence? It isn't. Is it an explanation? Sure. But is the explanation evidence? No. It has to be taken on faith, and it HAS TO be taken with the presumption (faith) that it did happen. Is that really following the scientific method?

It's called a hypothesis. We can see insects using their wings for many different purposes today which gives us clues to how they may have developed in the past. As far as I can tell the first substantial record of insects was deposited from about 315 to 300 million years ago, by which time insects had evolved wings and a variety of other specialized structures. The evolution of insect wings is still a great question, but we do have some pretty good hypothesis.

The premise of "we can't prove a specific evolutionary path every step of the way, and until we can do that, there are gaps! Therefore we need to hypothesize an intelligent designer to fill those gaps." There is continuous research filling in these gaps. Will the research fill all of them? Probably not, but again, this is no reason to dismiss evolution (or any other scientific theory) altogether. If we take a snapshot of any scientific discipline at any time, there are always going to be gaps in our knowledge. The presence of these gaps is not an indictment of the legitimacy of the discipline. A much more telling picture will not be a snapshot, but a look at the whole picture over time. Are those gaps static and intransigent? No, they are constantly shrinking.

Edit: Sandy hit the nail on the head.

but no leg, fossil or otherwise.

I'm curious, what would you call these vestigial appendages? Flippers? Because it looks like they are a bunch of leg bones packed inside a whale to me. Let's hear your hypothesis. Are you claiming ignorance and saying you don't know (nothing wrong with that) or do you have evidence for a different hypothesis? I'm sure it is backed up with more evidence than what I have shown you.

Now, if someone could explain to me what Intelligent Design has to do with the separation of church and state...

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site."To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions,"

That's not an answer. It's merely another appeal to authority. I want to know why ID is claimed to be religious. Unlike you, I'm satisfied only by arguments, not opinions.
http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option ... &Itemid=31
Check question 5 specifically.

It's not an appeal to authority. I never said he was correct because of who he is. I simply agree with his statement. ID was thrown out of court because it was unscientific and linked back to creationism. You give me a link from a ID website written by a pastor defending ID. You really think there is no agenda behind that?

Jones' decision was based on the evidence presented to him. He concluded that ID has historical connections to creationism. There are very specific examples he cited such as the "Of Pandas and People" book. There were multiple drafts of this book available of which the earlier drafts used the word "creationism" (I think something like 150 times). The final draft was essentially a "search and replace" the word creationism with the word intelligent design. The timing was also very significant. This change occurred right after the legal case ended which stated creationism could not be taught in public schools. These are strategies employed by creationists. It doesn't matter if they morph their strategy from A to B to C, it is still creationism. If you want a more in depth explanation, watch the trial, read the judges conclusion.

Even so, for the sake of argument let's say ID isn't linked back to creationism. It isn't science! (If you disagree, see my closing paragraph) ID violates the ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation. The argument that irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed logical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 80's. And, ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. The judge spent a lot of time writing about these issues. ID proponents are not simply presenting ID as science. They are trying to redefine science to include supernatural explanations. Every single ID defendant in the case admitted that there is no ID without supernaturalism. It does not therefore meet the conditional definition of science. The judge then goes on to explain why supernaturalism = religion and why it is not admissible in the halls of science. The 2 are incompatible. You can't change the rules of science, they are the way they are by necessity.

Jones went through the testimony on both sides and showed on every single point the plaintiff's expert witnesses (the defenders of evolution and science) absolutely crushed the ID proponents. The ID proponents committed logical fallacy after logical fallacy. The fact is, when you're in a court of law, where there are rules of evidence and logic and you are dealing with people who are experts in logic. Lawyers are, if nothing else, experts in logic. You can't get away with anything, and the judge saw through every single one of their misdirections, every single one of their illogical statements. This is what has happened in every creationism case that has gone to the high courts.

Cool. But again, what does that have to do with evolution? We notice that more "advanced" species tend to appear later in the fossil record, but we don't see how those species allegedly turned into each other.

Like you said, we see more "advanced" species later in the fossil record. I never said it explained the mechanism....

4. Sure they can, we can make up any number of fictional beings to account for these. But we have no evidence of them, so they are dismissed.

We likewise have no evidence of anything coming to being from nothing.

What does that have to do with anything? Evolution says nothing about the origin of life.

Evolution also says nothing about the existence of God, you admitted that yourself. So why bring up "fictional beings"?

Because intelligent design DOES.

.... Cars don't reproduce. There is no natural selection going on. This requires no designer.

Natural selection doesn't create anything, so what's the difference?

What? Natural selection produces offspring with modifications...

I know what you mean. A scientist, even if he was renowned, would be bashed if he published an article on, let's say, Intelligent Design, even if he soundly argumented his case. The issue is that a certain interpretation (evolution) is not allowed to be questioned, and anyone who does will be mocked and discredited. The modern day scientific circles aren't really famous for being open-minded, that was my point.

They are open minded if the evidence is there. You can soundly argument a case, but if it's not backed up with any evidence, there is no reason to believe it.

Sounds so idealistic. I wonder if you really believe that.

How is it idealistic? No evidence = no reason to believe it.

How? Well, I don't think it's that complicated, Pierson. Atheism teaches that the brain is material. All the material, physical objects are prone to laws of physics and chemistry. So we can't really talk about free will, if our thoughts are chemical reactions in the brain. That's because chemical reactions, and/or electrical discharges, don't think. They just react according to the physical laws. What would then make our brain any different? Consciousness, reason, free will, it's all an illusion under atheistic materialism, which makes it a self-refuting worldview as it denies you the very instruments that you use to reach your conclusions.
http://www.bethinking.org/science-chris ... ralism.htm

I'll take a look at it and address this next time.

so are you implying that God should throw an updated version of the Bible from the sky whenever dominant languages in the society change? Please.Why don't you look at things from another point of view? God gave the humans mental abilities to build computers and establish the Internet. So we can quickly and efficiently exchange information. Finally, "translation mistake of some guy 900 years ago" isn't a threat because all the translations are done after the original manuscripts, written long before that.

I'll address this with the other one later.

You say to really reach in and study the Bible. Why not study the book of Islam, why not the Upanishads and discover the truths behind those? Is it because we live in the United States? The same interpretation variations and apologetics exist within all these religions.

I don't live in the United States. What made you think that? I put my location on my profile, it's visible on the right side of my every post.

I knew when I was writing it I should have added a tidbit. I was going off of the majority here. Obviously there will be exceptions, but the vast majority of people who are born in a country with a certain religious ideology, adopt that ideology.

By the way, I agree, why not study other religions? Let's examine them thoroughly and see which has the most credibility. If you want to discuss them, post a thread about it.

Good idea.

Woh, I never said anything about intellectual legitimacy. If Sandy brought up a disagreement with something I said, we would engage in conversation. We both trust the scientific community, that's something we have in common. I was expecting this community to have a similar mindset (based off of the title of the site), that's all. It's perfectly fine that you don't (as long as you aren't pushing the "distrust" to be taught to my future children )

Wow, please tell me about how you're concerned about children's minds. I don't know, however, how old they have to be for you to recognize them as humans. Last time I heard, you considered them violators of their mothers' bodily autonomy.

Haha! I love how I get criticized for committing supposed straw man fallacies and then you commit one in the same post you criticized me. This was on the topic of abortion. If a full grown human being was hooked up to you and using your body to live (regardless if you put him in that situation) he would be violating your bodily autonomy. Does this mean I think that all human beings are violators of other human's bodily autonomy? No, that is a straw man.

I don't see why you bring this up, this is also a red herring argument. If you want to continue talking about that, post in the ethics and morals section. I'll get around to it when I have time. Stay on topic.

Fear has nothing to do with it. It has to do with trust. It's not idolization. You are correct. Humans are not infallible, mistakes are made, people are biased. In the scientific community, however, if a scientist is found out to be biased, it ruins their career. If mistakes are made, their paper gets corrected. The scientific community is a self correcting community. This is THE BEST method we currently have for deciphering truth. We do our best to minimize or eliminate these errors and biases. I have not seen anyone propose a better method. I have not seen a scientific answer, however inadequate, for which now a better answer is a religious one.

Nobody mentioned religion in the paragraph. Once again you're attacking straw men. ID is not religion. You failed to prove otherwise, instead you provided me with a quote. Maybe next time?

I've explained why it is linked to creationism.

I have no reason to distrust the scientific consensus. What are yours?

My tendency to see all humans as imperfect and emotional, therefore biased. Again, I don't idolize anyone, and the fact that someone wears a lab coat and has a PhD doesn't mean that I'll accept anything the person says. Even if a community consisted of such persons agree with him/her. I hope I'll earn a PhD one day (and I'm working hard - so far successfully - to progress intellectually) but I have no illusions - I don't hope that a degree will make me more objective or more important than I currently am. And I'm afraid that you haven't realized that yet, unfortunately. When I don't see the evidence, I'll doubt. I'll ask questions and if I don't get adequate answers, I'll look for an alternative explanation. I haven't got adequate answers from the evolutionist camp. When I was 12, I read through my biology textbook and wondered, "Why are there so many maybe-s, might-s, likely-s, probably-s...?" And it's not much different today, I'm afraid.

Experts build a lifetime of knowledge, not in isolation but in concordance with other scientists. As was said before, trusting the opinion of someone who accurately represents the preponderance of evidence is not an appeal to authority, it is using an expert by proxy to state a position on the evidence. Surely not everyone has the time to research all of the topics themselves in science. It would be hard to learn all of the ins and outs of evolution if that was not your field or if you do not have the time, but knowing the basic facts and the weight of evidence behind evolution is enough to state my case. The same can be said about any discipline in science.

Regarding the "maybes, mights, etc..." These are in every discipline in science. Chemistry, Physics (is a big one), etc.. I still don't see why you single out evolution.

Just out of curiosity, which discipline are you hoping to earn your PhD?

However, the scientific community does have very sufficient evidence to show evolution occurred and have classified it as fact. I trust the scientific community's examination of the evidence.

In other words, you've been studying biology for... five years (if I remember it right), and you don't have any conclusive evidence that you can demonstrate to us, which should convince us that evolution is a fact? You trust the examination... so you're not even convinced yourself?? And you wonder why we mistrust??

Oh my, this is worse than I thought... At least thanks for being honest, if nothing else.

5 years? I don't recall saying that. It's only 2 actually. I did mention, however, that my major is not evolutionary biology. It's general biology. I have spent only a few months going over evolution in my biology courses and texts. I trust the examination of evidence in the frontier science in evolution (I'll explain below). The evidence presented to me during the short time during my undergraduate (and from what I've read about in my spare time) led me to conclude the core concept of evolution is fact. I never said I wasn't convinced. I don't know how you came to that conclusion from what I said.


There are CORE ideas in science. They have been very well tested, they are major theories, major explanations. We use these concepts to explain the natural world in many ways. Heliocentrism is here to stay. Astronomers are not debating if the planets really revolve around the sun. This is a well accepted scientific concept. So is cell theory, atomic theory, inflationary theory and evolutionary theory (descent with modification/common ancestry) are all core ideas in science.

Around these core ideas are the FRONTIER ideas of science. This is what's going on in journals that are produced and work that is being done in laboratories and in the field. This is where we are testing new ideas and seeing what ideas fit with the core ideas. Some of these frontier ideas will become core ideas. Many aren't going to work out. A lot of the questions you guys are asking (mechanisms, drift, patterns) fall in this category. Some of these frontier ideas end up out in the FRINGE.

FRINGE ideas are the third concentric section. Scientists aren't really spending a lot of time on fringe ideas. These are ideas that in some way conflict with the core ideas of science. The probability that these ideas are actually going to lead to something useful with regards to our understanding of the natural world is very low. These are things like ESP, telekinesis and yes, intelligent design. Now, it is possible for fringe ideas to become frontier ideas to become core ideas. A classic example from geology is plate tectonics. The idea of continental drift was a fringe idea in science. Then, sea floor spreading was discovered, a mechanism for how the continents could slide around on the shelves was understood pretty well and the idea of continental drift and plate tectonics became a frontier idea of science and ultimately a core idea in science. If the evidence is presented, the scientific consensus will admit they were wrong and accept the new idea.

My point here is, if you think ID has any chance at becoming a core idea in science do the work. If you disagree with my points above and you want ID to become a legitimate science, the burden of proof is on you to show that you have something that helps us understand the natural world. Tell me a way in which ID can be subjected to a scientific test, NOT a test of evolution. A common theme I see here is false dualism (if it's not evolution, then it's ID, which is the false dichotomy logical fallacy.

[1over137]

I proposed the idea (let me talk to the pastors and choose the church) to my girlfriend. She said she wanted to choose, so I didn't really get anywhere.

Hi Pierson5. May I know why she did not let you choose? You seem to be a friendly guy. I think you together should choose the pastor. That's my humble opinion.

[1over137]

To seek answers with science without faith is a futile expedition. It is meaningless. Science cannot give us reason to continue in life but faith can.

Hi moonstroller. I suppose that here by faith you mean faith that God exist. I am not sure if I understand your 3rd sentence, but I think that a real catastrophe for scientists would be when there would be nothing more to explore. Our curiousity can give us one reason to continue in life.

Note: Scientists also have faith and exercise it daily. Faith that there are some ultimite laws behind. Where these laws came from is another question.

[Reactionary]

The premise of "we can't prove a specific evolutionary path every step of the way, and until we can do that, there are gaps! Therefore we need to hypothesize an intelligent designer to fill those gaps." There is continuous research filling in these gaps. Will the research fill all of them? Probably not, but again, this is no reason to dismiss evolution (or any other scientific theory) altogether. If we take a snapshot of any scientific discipline at any time, there are always going to be gaps in our knowledge. The presence of these gaps is not an indictment of the legitimacy of the discipline. A much more telling picture will not be a snapshot, but a look at the whole picture over time. Are those gaps static and intransigent? No, they are constantly shrinking.

Are you sure, Pierson? Think about it. What did the "picture" look like 100-150 years ago?
1. The steady-state universe theory was dominant, and so it was thought that the very first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, made no sense because there was no "beginning".
2. We could hypothesize a lack of transitional forms because there weren't enough fossils found to make us wonder why the transitional ones are lacking.
3. The mechanism of the cell was unknown - it was easy to speculate about abiogenesis when we weren't aware of a single cell's complexity, not to mention advanced organisms.
4. We didn't know much, if anything, about other planets and other "solar" systems - we weren't aware how unique Earth was.
5. We weren't aware of precise cosmological constants that scream "Design!" in the Universe.

50 years ago?
6. People had their tonsils removed because they were thought to be "vestigial" - only later, in 1999, the function of the last "vestigial" human organ was discovered. Another "gap" that came to be.
7. It was thought that the "mystery" of the origin of life was discovered, but it turned out that it wasn't so...
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/go ... _gaps.html

21st century?
8. "Junk" DNA
9. "Pseudogenes"
(...)

My point here is, if you think ID has any chance at becoming a core idea in science do the work. If you disagree with my points above and you want ID to become a legitimate science, the burden of proof is on you to show that you have something that helps us understand the natural world. Tell me a way in which ID can be subjected to a scientific test, NOT a test of evolution. A common theme I see here is false dualism (if it's not evolution, then it's ID, which is the false dichotomy logical fallacy.

I think we'll agree that origins science should seek truth. In that case, it's irrelevant whether a theory is "interesting" from a scientific perspective - the only thing that matters is if it's true. Quite obviously, if we had been created, we'd hardly witness any new creations in the present. On the other hand, if we had evolved, we should witness positive changes in the present. So, we should keep in mind that we'd have problems if we wanted to observe ID at work - but interestingly, evolution, although it should be observable at work, still hasn't been.

Regarding the false dichotomy, I tend to use "evolution" in a Darwinist/materialist/naturalist context. When I'm referring to theistic evolution, I always point it out to prevent any misunderstandings.

So, why do I think ID is legitimate?
1. The mind. I wrote about the evolutionary argument against naturalism, you said that you'd take a look at it and address it - I'll be waiting for your opinion.
2. The First Cause. We know that 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause, 2) The Universe began to exist, so 3) The Universe has a cause. The only way to avoid infinite regress would be to hypothesize an eternal, immaterial and transcedent Cause, which we Christians call God.
3. The appearance of design. We all have a standard of estimating what looks randomly assembled, what appears designed, and what had to be designed.
3.1. Fine-tuning of the Universe. Cosmological constants are immensely precisely calibrated. Can we attribute them to random chance?
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/cosmoconstant.html
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html
3.2. Fine-tuning of our galaxy, the Solar System and the life-sustaining conditions on Earth.
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html
3.3. Uniqueness of life. Life is (so far at least) only found on Earth. Furthermore, we can't create it out of non-living matter although we know how the material aspect of life works.

What would you consider conclusive evidence?
More importantly, why are you surprised that not every incident which has occurred since the beginning of the earth has not been preserved for you to examine?

When we try to establish whether something was created by an intelligent agent or not, I admit that there is a dose of subjectivity - no wonder, if we can't repeat the event. When we find a rock and a plank of wood, no big deal. When we find a rock tied to a plank of wood by fibers, we conclude that it used to serve as a tool to, perhaps, some ancient hominids. We don't know that for certain, but we have reasons to suppose as we know that it's a simplified version of tools we humans have used throughout the history.

This created vs. random dilemma isn't confined only to past events. The search for intelligent life in the outer space also requires us to establish whether some signal that we pick up from somewhere in space was random, or it was sent by an intelligent life form. So, where do we put the border between "random" and "intelligently caused"? We observe the DNA, possibly the most complex set of information in existence, so delicate that one deleterious mutation can destroy an organism. Is it rational to assume that it came to be by a series of random mutations? Can a book be a result of random typing errors?

Personally, I doubt it. It seems too counter-intuitive for me to accept it, since I know that nothing orderly ever comes to being by accident. Of course, that doesn't mean that I'd refuse to accept it - many counter-intuitive things occur, so I look for evidence with slightly more skepticism than usually. And I'm far from satisfied with what I find. Doubting evolution is like a taboo, I find some people literally afraid to talk about their doubts, everyone keeps mentioning the "consensus", making comparisons to other scientific theories... Well, I don't see a viable alternative to the atomic theory, theory of gravity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang model, do you? Even when alternative hypotheses and theories appear, they are looked at with more open mind than the alternatives to naturalistic evolution. Especially if they are atheistic. Look at the "multiverse", for instance. An idea that lacks any empirical testability, a reincarnated successor to oscillating and steady-state theories that failed to survive the scientific scrutiny. Why is it recognized as legitimate? To avoid the First Cause, and the argument from fine-tuning, which have theistic implications.

[sandy_mcd]

Quite obviously, if we had been created, we'd hardly witness any new creations in the present. On the other hand, if we had evolved, we should witness positive changes in the present.

1) Not at all quite obviously. If evolution does not occur, then the fossil record shows myriad special creation events over time. Why should this periodic creation of new species suddenly cease?

2) What sort of positive evolutionary changes would you expect to see at present? I.e., at what rate do you think evolutionary change should occur?

[sandy_mcd]

It seems too counter-intuitive for me to accept it, since I know that nothing orderly ever comes to being by accident.

Intuition works best in science if you have a good science background (e.g. feynman). Otherwise, not so much. From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintuitive

Many scientific ideas that are generally accepted by people today were formerly considered to be contrary to intuition and common sense.
For example, most everyday experience suggests that the Earth is flat; actually, this view turns out to be a remarkably good approximation to the true state of affairs, which is that the Earth is a very big (relative to the day to day scale familiar to humans) Oblate spheroid. Furthermore, prior to the Copernican revolution, heliocentrism, the belief that the Earth goes around the Sun, rather than vice versa, was considered to be contrary to common sense.
Another counterintuitive scientific idea concerns space travel: it was initially believed that highly streamlined shapes would be best for re-entering the earth's atmosphere. In fact, experiments proved that blunt-shaped re-entry bodies make the most efficient heat shields when returning to earth from space. Blunt-shaped re-entry vehicles have been used for all manned-spaceflights, including the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle missions.[3]
The Michelson-Morley experiment sought to measure the velocity of the Earth through the aether as it revolved around the Sun. The result was that it has no aether velocity at all. Relativity theory later explained the results, replacing the conventional notions of aether and separate space, time, mass, and energy with a counterintuitive four-dimensional non-Euclidean universe.[4]
[edit]Examples

Some further counterintuitive examples are:
Wave-particle duality / photoelectric effect - As demonstrated by the double slit experiment light and quantum particles behave as both waves and particles.
Proof that 0.999... equals 1 - Some people find this difficult to accept.
The violation of the monotonicity criterion in voting systems
The Monty Hall problem poses a simple yes-or-no question from probability that even professionals can find difficult to reconcile with their intuition.
Horseshoe orbits in orbital mechanics
That light may pass through two perpendicularly oriented polar filters if a third filter, not oriented perpendicular to either of the other two, is placed between them.
The Mpemba effect, in which, under certain circumstances, a warmer body of water will freeze faster than a cooler body in the same environment.
That water vapor is lighter than air and is the reason clouds float and barometers work.
[edit]

[jlay]

It's called a hypothesis. We can see insects using their wings for many different purposes today which gives us clues to how they may have developed in the past. As far as I can tell the first substantial record of insects was deposited from about 315 to 300 million years ago, by which time insects had evolved wings and a variety of other specialized structures. The evolution of insect wings is still a great question, but we do have some pretty good hypothesis.

I don't mean to sound snarky, but you literally don't seem to be able to make a comment without begging the question.
"By which time insects had EVOLVED wings..." is again begging the question. Evidence? None. How an insect uses its wing TODAY is evidence of how it uses its wing TODAY. Why would you assume how it used its wing TODAY means it would have used it differently in the past? When and where we find insect fossils, do we find any to back up this notion?

I don't know why you keep using the word "Darwinism." Geologists don't call themselves "Lyellists." Evolutionary biologists don't call themselves darwinists. Evolution isn't an idealogy. There is no -ism. There is no dogma. I've quoted what is meant by scientists when we refer to "facts" on several occasions. If you aren't going to read any of my responses, why even continue the conversation.

The reason I use the term is due to exactly how you use the term in the quote above. The word 'evolution' in the basic sense means 'change.' Everyone here agrees that 'change' is happening. We can observe lateral change and even change due to loss or mutation. But when you say, "evolution" is happening, that is not what you mean. You mean, as you've already stated, that those changes + time = everything we need for molecules to man. That is Darwinism, and it is a religious ideology. A worldview that looks beyond the evidence to explain a godless existance. You can cloak it in the term, 'science' all you want. The fact is that the 'fallacy of equivovation' and 'begging the question' literally spill out in abundance.
A geologist can be a Darwinist, or a creationist. A biologist can be a Darwinists or a Creationist. You are the one conflating the terms, not me. At least the term 'Creationist' makes sure that our presuppositions and bias are on the surface. The Darwinist is not being honest about such things.

The premise of "we can't prove a specific evolutionary path every step of the way, and until we can do that, there are gaps! Therefore we need to hypothesize an intelligent designer to fill those gaps." There is continuous research filling in these gaps.

I'm not proposing that, you are. YOu are proposing a science of the gaps. You are saying science will fill in the blanks. I am not. It's funny too me that you would accuse me of the very error you are perpetrating. I am NOT proposing gaps, or that religion will fill them in. The fossil record is a record of death. I am not proposing that it is a record of changes over time leading from molecules to man. You and other Darwinists are. You are in fact creating the gaps that you expect to find from your ideology. And thus a tree is constructed. Species are placed where they are beleived to fit, and thus the gaps are created. Imagination has to fill in the gaps, or in this case branches. So, the branches are DRAWN in, and then Darwinist say, "look evidence!!" This of course isn't evidence, and as evidenced (no pun) by your previous post, you say, "Don't like drawings,..Too bad." I have no problem with science sketching actual evidence, which is what you seem to think. But when things are intentionally doctored, like drawing Archeoptryx with lizard like scales and feathers, or sculpting Lucy with human like hands and feet, then we have a problem. Or, drawing a branch and then counting the branch as evidence, when of course it isn't.
"This old creature had features that allowed it to survive on water and land, therefore........" Which of course is begging the question. "But see, we see evolution (changes) happening every day such as natural selection and gene shift, so Evolution (Darwinism) is happening." This of course is the fallacy of equivovaiton. "So, the branches must be there. We'll find them eventually." That of course is the science of the gaps.

So, saying there will be gaps in our knowledge is NOT the issue. Creating gaps based on a question begging hyposthesis is the problem.

ID was thrown out of court because it was unscientific and linked back to creationism. You give me a link from a ID website written by a pastor defending ID. You really think there is no agenda behind that?

Are you saying that multiple competing hyposthesis is unscientific? Because that is what is used in ID, and is also what Darwin used. I can't believe that someone would actually beleive that a court of law can determine what is scientific. That is some scarey crap right there.

He concluded that ID has historical connections to creationism.

How does that disqualify is from being able to follow the scientific process? Prejudicial and arrogant. All that says is that one must start with a atheistic worldview, which is a religious ideology.

Even so, for the sake of argument let's say ID isn't linked back to creationism. It isn't science! (If you disagree, see my closing paragraph) ID violates the ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation

All this shows is that you know NOTHING about what is being proposed by ID, and that you are merely going off the rhetoric from people who are religiously committed to Darwinism. We can scientifically examine things that are desinged, yes or no? Is it reasonable to infer a designer? Would it be more reasonable to exclude the possiblity of a designer?

Like you said, we see more "advanced" species later in the fossil record. I never said it explained the mechanism....

Absence of evidence. We see less advanced species on the bottom of the oceans. Are we to presume that the ocean floor is older than dry land? No, they are the same age today. We see virtually no life in the poles and in many deserts. Are we to presume that the absense of species makes them older?
Can you not see the problem with this thinking? Why would you intentionally exclude other explanations in the fossil layers, and promote another? I'll tell you why. You are religiously committed to your godless worldview. Darwinism is a religion.

[sandy_mcd]

We can observe lateral change and even change due to loss or mutation.

Any examples of these changes?

[KBCid]

Even so, for the sake of argument let's say ID isn't linked back to creationism. It isn't science! (If you disagree, see my closing paragraph) ID violates the ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation

what exactly is supernatural? intelligence? if so then we are all supernatural right?. If you are infering the manner by which an intelligent agent formed things then as far as I know ID has not posited either identity nor method. This is a fairly easy to identify strawman.

[jlay]

Any examples of these changes?

My daughter is missing her canine teeth. Either the genetic info was lost, or corrupted. Regardless, it constitutes a change, and a change either of loss or error.
She didn't become less human or more something else. Genuine question, or are you just looking to argue semantics?

[Proinsias]

Any progress on whether hypothetical kids should be taken, or allowed to go, to church?

We're working on it

I proposed the idea (let me talk to the pastors and choose the church) to my girlfriend. She said she wanted to choose, so I didn't really get anywhere

Just an idea but why not let her choose and then you talk to pastor of her choice? Letting a committed atheist pick the church seems like a flawed idea to me.

[sandy_mcd]

My daughter is missing her canine teeth. Either the genetic info was lost, or corrupted. Regardless, it constitutes a change, and a change either of loss or error.

Just trying to get a feel for what you think is possible and what it means.
To me that is probably just normal variation. Will her children have missing canines? Will everyone's great-grandchildren have missing canines? Unless there is a change in the general population from one time to another, I do not consider that evolution.
This also occurs on the timescale of one generation. No one thinks evolution acts that quickly.
I was wondering if you considered, for example, intestinal parasitic worms losing much of their characteristics as evolution, but I see that you are dealing with fewer changes over much shorter periods of time.

I can see the difference between losing features (the parasites) versus gaining new features (wings) in terms of seeming possible. The idea of life developing into the complex creatures we see today is indeed mind-boggling and seemingly inconceivable. But I haven't seen any better explanations.

[Byblos]

My daughter is missing her canine teeth. Either the genetic info was lost, or corrupted. Regardless, it constitutes a change, and a change either of loss or error.

Just trying to get a feel for what you think is possible and what it means.
To me that is probably just normal variation. Will her children have missing canines? Will everyone's great-grandchildren have missing canines? Unless there is a change in the general population from one time to another, I do not consider that evolution.
This also occurs on the timescale of one generation. No one thinks evolution acts that quickly.
I was wondering if you considered, for example, intestinal parasitic worms losing much of their characteristics as evolution, but I see that you are dealing with fewer changes over much shorter periods of time.

Another example would the recently discovered bacteria that feeds on arsenic (link). It was heralded at some point as a discovery that will redefine our understanding of what life is. I see nothing but simple adaptation to the environment.

I can see the difference between losing features (the parasites) versus gaining new features (wings) in terms of seeming possible. The idea of life developing into the complex creatures we see today is indeed mind-boggling and seemingly inconceivable. But I haven't seen any better explanations.

And yet you have no issue with textbooks proclaiming it as fact.

[jlay]

Sandy,

Define evolution. Any change can be defined as evolution. The NFL uniform has evolved over the years.

To me that is probably just normal variation. Will her children have missing canines? Will everyone's great-grandchildren have missing canines? Unless there is a change in the general population from one time to another, I do not consider that evolution.

So let me get this straight. Normal variation is not evolution (change)?
I'm certain there are a mountain of examples of variation, gene shift, selection, etc. we'd all agree on as evolution.(change) But as I said to Piers, I doubt that is what you mean by evolution. As I already covered earlier, equivocation, begging the question and.........

But I haven't seen any better explanations.

A blind faith committment to the religious ideology of Darwinism. I can't help but notice that much if not most of my comments have been conveniently ignored.

I was wondering if you considered, for example, intestinal parasitic worms losing much of their characteristics as evolution, but I see that you are dealing with fewer changes over much shorter periods of time.

longer, shorter,.. I am not excluding consideration of examples because of what I mentioned. If you can assume that loss of info makes appearence of info plausible, then perhaps that is why you are applying assumptions to my position.

I can see the difference between losing features (the parasites) versus gaining new features (wings) in terms of seeming possible.

Sure, but it's a faith statement. I'd just like to see you be honest about it.

[sandy_mcd]

Another example would the recently discovered bacteria that feeds on arsenic (link). It was heralded at some point as a discovery that will redefine our understanding of what life is. I see nothing but simple adaptation to the environment.

The arsenic bacteria paper was never taken very seriously by most relevant scientists. It is almost definitely incorrect. http://blog.chembark.com/2010/12/08/alb ... for-lunch/. To change As for P would not be just a simple substitution.
You may see it a as simple adaptation but chemists see it as impossible. So perspective really influences opinion.