The issue here is not just formal education.
History has shown that man keeps discovering new 'facts' to replace his previously held truth.

The more he looks, the more he finds he doesn't know.

Like the 'age of the universe' arguement.
It's based on what man can see. How is that accurate?
Is the position of science currently that there is no more to the universe than can be seen?

That seems, well, odd.


KT

Lord knows I'm gonna lose a parchment war, so I'll bow out gracefully as I see where this is headed:D

My best guess? You wouldn't recognize us.

It sounds like anyone who disagrees with your position doesn't understand basic scientific principles. So you believe in a higher power that is intelligent but had no hand in the design or creation of the universe? For the record I do have a very sound understand of the basic principles of science. If I didn't I would not be debating this topic with you to this extent. Your higher power belief however is not even consistent with your own world view.

Sure...as long as everybody else posts their military training too, and the ones who are gung ho sign up and serve ;)

Actually, I work in the area of training and education and our biggest client is the US Army. So actually I know a little more about the military than most, and have a very different view into things. I would never call myself an expert...but I've drawn a lot of fighters and bombers over the years :p

What is particularly insidious is Stein's linking Darwinian evolution to the Holocaust.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie

It is totally consistent. That is because you don't understand science. And again, you're putting words in my mouth to try and prop up your ridiculous illogic.

You really don't want to post about your scientific training, do you? I guess Len is right...blunt object and all that.

Based on what?

Like we keep saying, that is the very premise of science, it changes as technology changes. What was science fiction 100 years ago is now science fact. Accept it, your bible has no proof of anything. If there was one iota of proof Christians would be rejoicing in the streets, we don't see that do we.

So let me get this straight, I need to understand science to discuss your worldview of I.D. I thought all along that I.D was not a science thats why its not being allowed in the classrooms. You cant have it both ways. As for my level of education and courses of study, its really none of your business.

If there was one iota of proof, the population of the entire planet would be christian.

With all the supposed proof on your side, why do most Americans reject evolution? Let me guess,,,, they dont have advanced science degrees.

I went and saw the movie. Entertaining and thought provoking. Hasn't changed my beliefs one iota. Interesting that evolutionists are so vehement in defending a theory without any consideration. Evolution does explain adaptation and survival, not origin.

That is changing. People are starting to move away from religion in the west. Little wonder given some of the crap that religion offers us.

Of course it isn't my business. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to science. Res ipsa loquitur.

You also seem to be challenged with the English language. I never said any of the things you keep attributing to me.

If you do not have scientific training, I fail to see how you can make cogent, informed arguments on how evolution is "wrong". You are trying to dismiss a couple hundred years of peer-reviewed work that is currently accepted by 99.9+% of the scientists in the world. You better have some serious firepower to back that up.

If you believe in ID, that is fine. I have no problem with that. But at least be intellectually honest and admit that it is based in *belief*, not in science.

There seems to be a cognitive disconnect here. ID has been and still is promoted as a "scientific" alternative to evolution. It is not being promoted as a religious alternative. ID=magic (divine). Why does a religious topic need equal time on the stage of science?
You have made a lot of noise about Dawkin's ET comment but what you failed to understand is that he was talking about the Earth being seeded by anevolved ET species, not a divine/magical entity.

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start examining evolution, and then forcing nature into their straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science--or of any honest intellectual inquiry."
Stephen Jay Gould

I think we'll have gone extinct long before then, as well as most other complex creatures we see today. Something better (meaning more suitable, and thus more successful for that specific period) will come along and take our place. For example, a bird with a people face or a bear with pants. That's how the natural cycle seems to be. Perhaps that new more successful creature could share our genetics, or none at all. It's all just a guessing game!

Evolution explained by The Simpsons
<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=4119112242849909003&hl=en" flashvars=""></embed>

cyborgs, baby!

Ironically, you're picture of Venter, in the context of this thread, was not recognized nor understood by some. Ha! :D

In some ways a modern day Darwin (G.O.S.E.), but taking it a few more steps by blazing a trail in genomics (Celera) and more recently pioneering the design and creation of artificial life (Synthetic Genomics).

Perhaps he is the highly evolved, future intelligent designer "God", as you post may imply! :)

Best,

Kurt

What if I told you that you don't really exist. The world as you know it is nothing more than a Playstation game being controlled by a 14 year old boy in the future. Prove me wrong.