See this is the thing that bothers me most. It's as if you're choosing what to include in your "science". If it doesn't fit or can't be answered by your theory you simply ignore it. It IS important because SOMETHING had to start the whole evolutionary ball rolling. If I'm to believe there was nothing and then there was SOMETHING...that something just randomly made the entire universe, including planet earth, plopped some single cell "something" into a conveniently located ocean, which divided and eventual hopped out of the ocean started breathing air so that we could all sit here and be lectured and condescended to by people who seem to believe they're more evolved than the rest of us then by God how we got here matters. What begain this process IS important and would seem to be a key to understanding the whole thing be it ID or evolution. Heck, it might even help evolutionists explain HOW one species could become a completely new species.
Well, you would be wrong. Do you require astronomers and physicists to describe the beginnings of the Universe? Do you require chemists to describe the first chemical reaction? You don't get to put an extra onus on TToE because you don't like its conclusions. And speciation is a very simple process. We have observed it. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you get to toss all kinds of baggage on what it must do or not do. TToE stands next to all sciences and is evaluated and extended the same way as all of them.
Not that abiogenesis is not a valid subject of exploration -- it just isn't a requirement for TToE.
But evolution has it's problems, too. The lack of fossil record (and if the whole thing is so random why don't we have humans-to-be with noses on their foreheads or something) is extremely suspect to me.
Over a billion fossils isn't enough for you? How many do you want?
So is the inability of evolutionists to explain the Cambrian Era.
Ah the old "Cambian Explosiion" canard. I'll tell you what -- describe the length of time and why it isn't possible. 10 to 40 million years is more than enough time to see the very, very low-level phyla determined to be from that era.
All the "major" evidence from Piltdown man to those horse embryos (peer reviewed, by the way) have turned out to be fakes.
No they haven't. And it was science itself which ferreted out the fakers (something religion is incapable of doing). There have been a handful of fakes, but most data which support TToE are quite intact. Remember we are talking about billions of artifacts. Does the fact that Cold Fusion was unreproducible invalidate physics?
You are having discussion with people who you otherwise consider intelligent, thoughtful human beings and you're being arrogant and angry, filled with the same kind of stubborn messianic zeal you seem to be accusing ID proponents of having, even toward people who are asking legitimate questions in a quest for greater understanding (maybe you need to evolve a little more, huh?) I don't have your high-minded scientific knowledge, but I DO have common sense which allows me to discern whether something is plausible or not.
So, what are your thoughts on Nash's writings? How about 3VL vs 2VL? How about cDNA publication? Do they properly reflect PCRs and STSs?
My point is that people think because they have an opinion about a subject with absolutely (or nearly) zero knowledge somehow think their opinion has heft. I "messianic" because I fear for the next generation who will think "well, if I have an opinion it has scientific weight."
I have no problem debating with people who have informed opinions. Uninformed opinions are just that. Yet we have people trying to influence public policy armed with nothing more than Bibles and ignorance.
I have posted many links and statements that clearly define what TToE is and how it fits into the hard science milieu. I have also made it clear how ID and religion not only are NOt science but can NEVER be science.
The quest for further understanding beyond what is measurable is all well and good -- in a philosophical context. Not a scientific one.
As I will continue to say -- ignorance (especially willful) is NOT a Conservative Value.
