[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

What’s the proof new nylon eating genes actually evolved after 1940, or is it just speculation? Slam dunk proof would entail having strains of pre-1935 bacteria and then comparing it with the strains after 1935 that supposedly evolved new genes. Is that the case? No. Just speculation which began in 1977 but got less defensible over the next 40 years as more bacteria and non-sequence-homologous genes were discovered to have nylon eating capability.

Even if they had older bacteria, there would likely be a pointing out that that wasn't proof either. That's the problem with missing links. Whenever a new fossil is discovered that apparently fills a gap the reaction is the question of the missing link between that one and the previous and later ones.

The sad fact is that there is no "slam dunk" proof of anything, anywhere. Nothing is ever final in any science and every answer just raises more questions. Even something as simple as electricity. We use it, we know how it works, but there is no real understanding of why. There is even speculation that the basic particles aren't particles at all, and that we really are made up of nothing. You're never going to get a definitive final answer, and neither am I.

Yep and like I said very seldom if ever does evolutionary theory ever play a role in those discoveries.

But evolutionary fact is the basis for everything they do.

I thought you were talking about Neanderthal and homo sapiens bumping uglies

That, I've just found out, is a topic of much discussion. Some believe Neanderthalis and Sapiens couldn't interbreed. Now some are saying they did exactly that, and rather than kill them off we actually absorbed their population into our own, and we have a certain amount of Neanderthal DNA. Me, I don't pretend to know anything for certain.

And so far as noted above no evidence for nylon eating bacteria either

I think there's plenty of evidence that they exist. Did they evolve or were they there all along? Good question.

Believe it or not its true. I am aware of the website but tend to stay away from religious sources when it comes to scientific opinion. I have my own theological opinions

Fair enough.

I dont think I.D. scientists assume rights to the discovery.

Perhaps not, but a lot of people make hay out of pointing out that the hoaxes are "proof" that Evolution is false.

Darwinists however got wrong when they said the majority of DNA was non-functional. A paper by geneticists comes out saying it is mostly all functional. Evolutionists still wont accept it and say throw it out and write their own paper.

And yet Ewan Birney, the leader of those 400 geneticists, is himself what you derisively call an "Evolutionist". There are scientists on both sides of the ENCODE debate, and because some of them disagree doesn't mean they have an agenda.

BEHES TESIMONY

Talk about cherry picking. You left out all the good parts. It's far too long to quote here, but I'll link it. I especially like the part where Behe admits that by his standards Astrology is a scientific theory.
Anyway, if anyone here has the stomach to read it, this is just the beginning of the cross-examination. If you really like to torture yourself, read the entire trial.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
Or watch the abridged video:


Scott Minnich's testimony isn't really any better.

Above is the testimony of the two witnesses you refer too. It is my opinion that evolutionists and I.D. scientistist can and do have a religious affiliatation. But like Strozyk Im sure personal beliefs never affect their investigation.

I'm not sure if the smiley means to say that you actually think their beliefs do affect their work. If not, I would remind you that Behe was called as a witness because a book he had a hand in writing was part of the conflict at the school, and in that book he talks about ID.

Also Im not Christian, nor is Christianity the only religion which claims divine inspiration and design.

No, it's not, but Christians do claim to be the dominant force in this country, and ID's main support comes from them. Other religions do, as you say, believe in a very specific designer, though not always the same one. That supports, rather than denies, the concept that ID is basically a religious concept.

Thats some crazy stuff there what books are you reading?

Of course people have believed in some God or other creating the universe since ancient times. "Creation" as a term goes back a long way as well. That said, "Creation Science" and the resultant "Young-Earth Creationism" are products of the 1960s. The movement was an attempt by Fundamentalist Christians to use science to "prove" the late date for the Earth's origin and the Biblical Flood.

While "Intelligent Design" was used as a term in religious circles for quite some time, it's introduction into common usage came with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People, which just happened to be the main subject of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. So yes, ID is an offshoot of the earlier "Creation Science" movement, and had its origins in a purely religious context.

Nice thing about my religion you dont have to believe. You are just expected to do i.e. love your neighbor and the stranger, cloth the naked, feed the hungry, etc etc etc, you get the picture be good to one another.

A great many Atheists would agree with that concept.

Oh, and I'm not an Atheist, in case you were wondering. I'm just a poor sod who doesn't believe in anything, including myself. I jumped into this not because I disagree, but because you started off not with an attempt at discussion, but with a tirade so virulent it really did sound just like a Fundamentalist attack. Using derogatory terms like "Evolutionist" and "Darwinist" seem more designed to provoke a fight rather that promote a discussion.

I don't know if there's a God or not, and I don't know if evolution really happens the way its proponents say it does. What I do accept is that their investigations and their arguments seem to have some justification, whereas I see no more evidence for Design than Michael Behe's admission that the best evidence he can give is "It looks designed to me." If the theory of evolution is somehow proved completely wrong tomorrow the vast majority of scientists will likely be shocked for a very short time, and then start working hard to try to be the one who figures out what really happened. And if proof comes out tomorrow that the Universe was not designed in any way, shape or form and there is no God of any kind, I suspect the vast majority of believers in those things will likely say that it's not really proof, and go on as if nothing had happened.

Me, I'm curious, but that's about it.