ID Update - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

ID Update

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby JTWood » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:51 pm

curious_george_43545 wrote:
knapplc wrote:1) The Religious Zealots who hate science and what it stands for, thinking it goes against their belief.
2) The Scientific Zealots who hate anything supernatural and what it stands for, thinking it goes against their belief.
3) Those in the middle who think that both theories have a possibility of being correct, that neither has been proven or disproven, and who are eagerly awaiting that sign from God or Science that proves either argument.


4)Think That God created the World and animals evolve in the sense that they change over time due to changes in earth's climate and to better adapt to their enviorment. I don't believe we all came from one common ancestor though, like Darwin.

Bingo! Put me down for #4. It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who sees Creationism and evolution working together. I don't know why people always pit them against each other. They can co-exist.

By the way, I want to comment on dannyolb's post. He is very right in pointing out this opposite extreme. These extremists who think that Christianity must be shoved into the schools laws-be-damned are just as bad in my book as the governments are for thinking that ID is only a religious tool without merit. Boo to both sides.
Image
JTWood
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 11508
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Unincorporated Heaven

Postby Coppermine » Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:09 pm

Amazinz wrote:Coppermine, we can play the semantics game and refer to it as a "mechanism" but the fact that the "mechanism" has not been proven is a pretty big deal. The "mechanism" is at the heart of the ToE, Creationism and Intelligent Design debate.


So you agree that evolution is a real, ongoing process and that common ancestry is a proven fact?

Also, the mechanics are real, it's there, there has to be A mechanism because evolution is clearly happening and has been happening for millions of years. The ONLY question is what is driving that mechanism, biologically, or if you prefer, divinely. If that's what you believe, you have every right as it is a viable explanation. However, to say that ID is an alternative explanation to evolution as a whole is short sighted.
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby knapplc » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:03 pm

Coppermine wrote:
Also, the mechanics are real, it's there, there has to be A mechanism because evolution is clearly happening and has been happening for millions of years. The ONLY question is what is driving that mechanism, biologically, or if you prefer, divinely. If that's what you believe, you have every right as it is a viable explanation. However, to say that ID is an alternative explanation to evolution as a whole is short sighted.


You make a good point, and I think that most people agree with this statement here.

I think the primary difference between IDers and non-IDers is their flavor of evolution - Macro or Micro. I believe in MICRO evolution, that variations on a theme exist because of climate and competition. I don't believe in MACRO evolution, that a dog can and might evolve into a cat. Micro evolution is easily distinguished by the varying breeds of dogs. I have yet to see a dog become anything other than a dog, however.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7870
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Postby Coppermine » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:09 pm

knapplc wrote:
Coppermine wrote:
Also, the mechanics are real, it's there, there has to be A mechanism because evolution is clearly happening and has been happening for millions of years. The ONLY question is what is driving that mechanism, biologically, or if you prefer, divinely. If that's what you believe, you have every right as it is a viable explanation. However, to say that ID is an alternative explanation to evolution as a whole is short sighted.


You make a good point, and I think that most people agree with this statement here.

I think the primary difference between IDers and non-IDers is their flavor of evolution - Macro or Micro. I believe in MICRO evolution, that variations on a theme exist because of climate and competition. I don't believe in MACRO evolution, that a dog can and might evolve into a cat. Micro evolution is easily distinguished by the varying breeds of dogs. I have yet to see a dog become anything other than a dog, however.


That's an excellent point, however most people do not agree with what I said. In fact, the vast majority of people completely denounce evolution as a viable scientific explanation; mechanics, obersvations, proven factual evidence... either people don't listen or they don't care. Most people have been told since they were kids that Darwin and evolution are the biggest threats to Christianity, and that is not on irresponsible and ignorant, but also sets up the next generation for the same ignorance.

Your macro/micro argument is very intelligent and reasonable and I only wish more ID proponents could look at things more objectively. The problem with this though and the entire debate in question is that evolution is being looked as complete nonsense.
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby Amazinz » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:40 pm

Coppermine wrote:
Amazinz wrote:Coppermine, we can play the semantics game and refer to it as a "mechanism" but the fact that the "mechanism" has not been proven is a pretty big deal. The "mechanism" is at the heart of the ToE, Creationism and Intelligent Design debate.


So you agree that evolution is a real, ongoing process and that common ancestry is a proven fact?


Absolutely. Does anyone really disagree with the idea of micro-evolution? But micro-evolution isn't really part of the ID debate and it's what I was referring to earlier about physiological adaptation.

Coppermine wrote:Also, the mechanics are real, it's there, there has to be A mechanism because evolution is clearly happening and has been happening for millions of years. The ONLY question is what is driving that mechanism, biologically, or if you prefer, divinely. If that's what you believe, you have every right as it is a viable explanation.


No. That's not the only question. One of the huge unanswered questions is whether or not evolution (as we know it) is the answer for the graduation of single-celled organisms into more complex organisms. The study of the human genome has provided evidence that both supports and casts doubt on the possibility. The Cambrian period is still a mystery. The human eye (one of ID's favorite examples) is not currently explained well by natural selection. This idea of unnatural complex systems is becoming a pretty hot topic in the field of computer science (AI) as well.

Coppermine wrote:However, to say that ID is an alternative explanation to evolution as a whole is short sighted.


Maybe in the early 1900s but who currently suggests that ID is a replacement for evolution in it's entirety? From one perspective (mine) ID is the marriage between creationism and evolution. To other is an alternative answer to macro-evolution in a different way.
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby Amazinz » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:46 pm

Coppermine wrote:Most people have been told since they were kids that Darwin and evolution are the biggest threats to Christianity, and that is not on irresponsible and ignorant, but also sets up the next generation for the same ignorance.


Most modern Christians (that I know at any rate) do not go around denouncing Darwinism as a threat to Christianity.
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby RugbyD » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:46 pm

knapplc wrote:I don't believe in MACRO evolution, that a dog can and might evolve into a cat. Micro evolution is easily distinguished by the varying breeds of dogs. I have yet to see a dog become anything other than a dog, however.

evolution has nothing to do with dogs becoming cats. evolution is about fish species becoming the first land dwellers and about reptiles taking flight and developing feathers and so on and so forth.

evolution is mapped like a regular family tree, not an Arkansas family tree.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby curious_george_43545 » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:48 pm

RugbyD wrote:
knapplc wrote:I don't believe in MACRO evolution, that a dog can and might evolve into a cat. Micro evolution is easily distinguished by the varying breeds of dogs. I have yet to see a dog become anything other than a dog, however.

evolution has nothing to do with dogs becoming cats. evolution is about fish species becoming the first land dwellers and about reptiles taking flight and developing feathers and so on and so forth.

evolution is mapped like a regular family tree, not an Arkansas family tree.


Lungfish baby
Image
Go Braves!
curious_george_43545
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 5200
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Ohio

Postby RugbyD » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:51 pm

Amazinz wrote:From one perspective (mine) ID is the marriage between creationism and evolution.

not an uncommon viewpiont, i would think. but if so, then all the more reason to not make it part of a science class since it has a distinctly religious component.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby RugbyD » Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:01 am

Amazinz wrote:
Coppermine wrote:Most people have been told since they were kids that Darwin and evolution are the biggest threats to Christianity, and that is not on irresponsible and ignorant, but also sets up the next generation for the same ignorance.


Most modern Christians (that I know at any rate) do not go around denouncing Darwinism as a threat to Christianity.

I'm sure you've heard of the ones who KNOW that god created species just as they were and that the lungfish was its own little species all along and that the appearance of evolution is really a test of our faith in the TRUE creation miracle. i really hate those people. consider your life better for not having met them ....... yet. (cue scary music)

by the way, carbon dating is a big lie too, didntcha know? ;-7
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
(Past Year: 4)
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alesiger, caphskat and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Thursday, Apr. 24
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Kansas City at Cleveland
(12:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Pittsburgh
(12:35 pm)
Chi White Sox at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
St. Louis at NY Mets
(1:10 pm)
Minnesota at Tampa Bay
(1:10 pm)
indoors
Arizona at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
San Diego at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Baltimore at Toronto
(7:07 pm)
NY Yankees at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Oakland at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Philadelphia at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact