Intelligent design
- Thread starter natrone23
- Start date
ViRedd
New Member
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
"Evolutionists" don't make any claims about the origin of life. No one is pushing evolution as an origin theory, that's your little straw man
There may be. Ever hear of evolutionary theists?
Only one side is going to get back to real science and that's the scientists who have been doing so all along
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
For any of you ID/special creation types;
Have you ever read anything substantial about evolution that wasn't written by a creationist?
If someone wanted to know if the story of Jesus was true, do you think it would help if they only read things by people who strongly believe it to be false?
BTW,
for anyone interested in abiogenesis, or the origin of life, this is interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=U6QYDdgP9eg
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
That question of course cuts both ways. Have you ever read anything about evolution that was written by an evolutionist?
Or anything about ID that wasn't written by an evolutionist?
As far as your question. Of course, but I also have an open mind on this debate. Which is why I'm able to understand that evolution, if it is not going to be pushed as explaining the origin of life, has gaping holes in it.
Attempting to explain how amoebas evolved into humans over the course of billions of years (~2 Billion) with out accounting for where amoebas came from means that the theory is not contained. It posits that A. happened, but forgets that it must have been the cause of something else.
Intelligent Design of course lacks proof of that something else. But all things being equal both of them are then requiring a leap of faith to be viable theories.
The difference of course is that intelligent design explains the diversity in the world through the fact that everything shares genetic material, whether it be an Amoeba or a Human being due to the fact that they were all created by an intelligent super natural force, or creator.
This is opposed to evolution which takes the opposite view stating that everything shares genetic material due to the fact that some how Amoebas evolved into Humans and all the other creatures. Though, actually the proper terms would be that some how Eukaryotes or Prokaryotes evolved from their original state into all the species of the world.
Both a fairly simple, but the simpler of the two is ID.
Of course, neither has an answer to, "where did life come from?", that has been proven.
And Evolution still has yet to show a case of one species actually evolving into another in modern times with out use of a fossil record that has been used fraudulently and incorrect with chronological order being ignored for the sake of showing the desired age of the fossils instead of the actual age of the fossils.
bunghole
Active Member
The reason this debate exists is because of science. Let me explain...
Science has since its existence helped us to understand the world around us by testing and retesting our ideas about it. Over time, science has helped us understand the origin of the universe, the age of the earth, diseases, etc, etc, etc.
Whenever science develops a valid theory, religion is backed further into a corner as an explanation for anything. If we never developed the scientific method, we would still believe that the earth is a few thousand years old (unfortunately, some people still believe this
). We would still think that the planets and stars revolved around the earth. We would believe that disease (and specifically mental illness) was possession by evil spirits and we would use that as an excuse to murder a person. There are many more examples. I am thankful that we have discovered a method for incrementally making discoveries about our universe (science).
Religion is now left scratching and fighting for what little respectability it has left. It is now and will always be a way to explain what we don't know. The more we know, the less relevant religion will be. There will always be things we don't know, therefore there will always be religion to comfort those of us who can't accept not knowing. I am perfectly comfortable not knowing everything. For instance, I don't understand a whole lot about brain chemistry. Rather than assuming that there is a tiny green leprachaun in my head that rides a unicorn and changes my moods, I will accept that there are intelligent scientists working on figuring it out. I trust their method. What I don't trust is someone that tells me I have to believe that there is a tiny green leprauchaun in my head or I will go to hell...that I just have to believe based on faith.
SCIENCE NEVER RELIES ON FAITH (OR BLIND OBEDIENCE)!! It welcomes doubt. It thrives on doubt. Everything it has ever told us is because of doubt. It strives to disprove what we believe. Only when it can't disprove what we believe does it accept it. And it only accepts it with the implicit agreement that nobody ever disproves it.
Religion is the opposite. It fights to retain the dogma of faith-based belief that originated long before science. It fights doubt. It kills doubters. It tells doubters (or anyone that thinks for him or herself) that they will go to hell for not accepting it. Religious people are sheep that need to be told what to do and what to believe. Scientists and freethinkers figure it out for themselves. I prefer the latter.
Science has since its existence helped us to understand the world around us by testing and retesting our ideas about it. Over time, science has helped us understand the origin of the universe, the age of the earth, diseases, etc, etc, etc.
Whenever science develops a valid theory, religion is backed further into a corner as an explanation for anything. If we never developed the scientific method, we would still believe that the earth is a few thousand years old (unfortunately, some people still believe this
). We would still think that the planets and stars revolved around the earth. We would believe that disease (and specifically mental illness) was possession by evil spirits and we would use that as an excuse to murder a person. There are many more examples. I am thankful that we have discovered a method for incrementally making discoveries about our universe (science).Religion is now left scratching and fighting for what little respectability it has left. It is now and will always be a way to explain what we don't know. The more we know, the less relevant religion will be. There will always be things we don't know, therefore there will always be religion to comfort those of us who can't accept not knowing. I am perfectly comfortable not knowing everything. For instance, I don't understand a whole lot about brain chemistry. Rather than assuming that there is a tiny green leprachaun in my head that rides a unicorn and changes my moods, I will accept that there are intelligent scientists working on figuring it out. I trust their method. What I don't trust is someone that tells me I have to believe that there is a tiny green leprauchaun in my head or I will go to hell...that I just have to believe based on faith.
SCIENCE NEVER RELIES ON FAITH (OR BLIND OBEDIENCE)!! It welcomes doubt. It thrives on doubt. Everything it has ever told us is because of doubt. It strives to disprove what we believe. Only when it can't disprove what we believe does it accept it. And it only accepts it with the implicit agreement that nobody ever disproves it.
Religion is the opposite. It fights to retain the dogma of faith-based belief that originated long before science. It fights doubt. It kills doubters. It tells doubters (or anyone that thinks for him or herself) that they will go to hell for not accepting it. Religious people are sheep that need to be told what to do and what to believe. Scientists and freethinkers figure it out for themselves. I prefer the latter.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
I personally think that no one has the right to teach my child about religion,but me, if I choose.See, I'm not a bigot,I just resent anyone trying to foist their views off on my kids.And that's what creationists are attempting to do.What would a creationist class be like?What would the curriculum be?Would the kids get bad grades if they didn't interpret it "right?"No, what creationists want to do is plant a seed in an impressionable little mind.If you were to say at the end of a science class something like,"Some people believe there was a being that created the universe,and that evolution does not exist," there would certainly be questions from the little ones, and creationists know this.The kids would ask, "Why would a being create all of this?" And the good old creationist would be happy to respond,"Because that being loves us as his children,and wants us to be happy!" What?Why, you're not teaching anymore, you're PREACHING!And that does not belong in a public school,that belongs in a church.
Creationists bitch about it not being balanced...well, what they want to teach certainly isn't balanced.They don't want to talk about ALL of the other ideas equally,like how the Native Americans believed two beings got together and "thought" the universe into existence.They just want to talk about "their" ideas. The church certainly didn't care about a fair and balanced representation of the facts when they were calling people heretics for believing the world was round instead of flat.AND THEY WERE PROVEN WRONG.
We don't know for sure what caused life to come into existence.But we do know that evolution DOES occur.The one constant in the universe is that things within it are ever changing.
You see, when someone questions science, science doesn't say..."well, because that's the way it is!Don't you have any faith?" No, science says, "Good question!Let's try to see if we can figure it out." It doesn't teach blind faith and forced ignorance.It teaches critical thinking and process of elimination.
Since you all are so intent on me explaining where life came from, how about you explain to me where this god came from that supposedly created it all?Did he exist always?How can something have a beginning and no end?Does he exist in a loop?What evidence is there of him?How do you propose to test your theory?Why did he create it?Why don't we see him here, in person, teaching us about this?Where did he go?Did he sign any of his pieces?
So, I'm going to stick with the theories that encourage me to challenge my mind, and not close it.
But if Creationists want creationism taught in schools, they need to start doing the legwork that Evolutionists have.Try to come up with a mathematical formula for a god.Let's see some fossil evidence of the garden of eden.LET'S PRODUCE THE ACTUAL BODY OF JESUS CHRIST, and prove without a doubt it is him.Let's find Moses, Abraham, Methuselah.Hell, let's find the actual evidence that points to a creator.Surely he left behind some fibers from his favorite red sweater?
Evolution isn't taught as irrefutable fact in schools.It's taught as theory, along with the rest of the science curriculum.It's not even all they teach.They teach things in Science that actually ARE irrefutable facts!There are a million of them that science has proved!What has creationism PROVED? And why is it any of your business to teach my children of a god?They are MY children, and I want them to go to school to learn.If I want them to go to church, I'll take them myself.
As for our rights, Vi, freedom of religion also mean freedom FROM religion, if that's the path you choose.Since these are PUBLIC schools we're speaking of,Let's keep dogma out of them.If I wanted my kids to have a creationism class, I'd have sent them to a private Catholic school,where it's to be expected.
Creationists bitch about it not being balanced...well, what they want to teach certainly isn't balanced.They don't want to talk about ALL of the other ideas equally,like how the Native Americans believed two beings got together and "thought" the universe into existence.They just want to talk about "their" ideas. The church certainly didn't care about a fair and balanced representation of the facts when they were calling people heretics for believing the world was round instead of flat.AND THEY WERE PROVEN WRONG.
We don't know for sure what caused life to come into existence.But we do know that evolution DOES occur.The one constant in the universe is that things within it are ever changing.
You see, when someone questions science, science doesn't say..."well, because that's the way it is!Don't you have any faith?" No, science says, "Good question!Let's try to see if we can figure it out." It doesn't teach blind faith and forced ignorance.It teaches critical thinking and process of elimination.
Since you all are so intent on me explaining where life came from, how about you explain to me where this god came from that supposedly created it all?Did he exist always?How can something have a beginning and no end?Does he exist in a loop?What evidence is there of him?How do you propose to test your theory?Why did he create it?Why don't we see him here, in person, teaching us about this?Where did he go?Did he sign any of his pieces?
I'm not pushing evolution.I'm saying that evolution is something that science has tested, and through process of elimination and fossil evidence,has proven to be true.Yes, things evolve.Do we know exactly what the first life form was?Nope, but, we're looking.Science tries to disprove itself,over and over,in order to get to the truth.Religion seeks unquestioning loyalty and blind faith without proving anything.And should you question it,dire threats ensue.
So, I'm going to stick with the theories that encourage me to challenge my mind, and not close it.
But if Creationists want creationism taught in schools, they need to start doing the legwork that Evolutionists have.Try to come up with a mathematical formula for a god.Let's see some fossil evidence of the garden of eden.LET'S PRODUCE THE ACTUAL BODY OF JESUS CHRIST, and prove without a doubt it is him.Let's find Moses, Abraham, Methuselah.Hell, let's find the actual evidence that points to a creator.Surely he left behind some fibers from his favorite red sweater?
How do you know that other animals don't think in the abstract?Dolphins are highly intelligent.
Evolution isn't taught as irrefutable fact in schools.It's taught as theory, along with the rest of the science curriculum.It's not even all they teach.They teach things in Science that actually ARE irrefutable facts!There are a million of them that science has proved!What has creationism PROVED? And why is it any of your business to teach my children of a god?They are MY children, and I want them to go to school to learn.If I want them to go to church, I'll take them myself.
As for our rights, Vi, freedom of religion also mean freedom FROM religion, if that's the path you choose.Since these are PUBLIC schools we're speaking of,Let's keep dogma out of them.If I wanted my kids to have a creationism class, I'd have sent them to a private Catholic school,where it's to be expected.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You really need to get off this kick about the origin of life. Newtonian mechanics describes how objects move in a gravitational field without knowing the origin of those objects or gravity itself. I guess his theory is just incomplete too.
ID is basically saying that since we don't know the origin of life, it must be magic and thus the search for answers stop. This is lazy. This is not science. This should never be taught in schools as a competing 'theory' to anything.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to argue that with you. I agree whole heartedly that Christianity has been built up on a lot of bullshit. Specifically bullshit that it's borrowed from Judaism (God) , Greco-Roman Mythology (Virgin Birth), and other religions and societies.The reason this debate exists is because of science. Let me explain...
Science has since its existence helped us to understand the world around us by testing and retesting our ideas about it. Over time, science has helped us understand the origin of the universe, the age of the earth, diseases, etc, etc, etc.
Whenever science develops a valid theory, religion is backed further into a corner as an explanation for anything. If we never developed the scientific method, we would still believe that the earth is a few thousand years old (unfortunately, some people still believe this
Religion is now left scratching and fighting for what little respectability it has left. It is now and will always be a way to explain what we don't know. The more we know, the less relevant religion will be. There will always be things we don't know, therefore there will always be religion to comfort those of us who can't accept not knowing. I am perfectly comfortable not knowing everything. For instance, I don't understand a whole lot about brain chemistry. Rather than assuming that there is a tiny green leprachaun in my head that rides a unicorn and changes my moods, I will accept that there are intelligent scientists working on figuring it out. I trust their method. What I don't trust is someone that tells me I have to believe that there is a tiny green leprauchaun in my head or I will go to hell...that I just have to believe based on faith.
SCIENCE NEVER RELIES ON FAITH (OR BLIND OBEDIENCE)!! It welcomes doubt. It thrives on doubt. Everything it has ever told us is because of doubt. It strives to disprove what we believe. Only when it can't disprove what we believe does it accept it. And it only accepts it with the implicit agreement that nobody ever disproves it.
Religion is the opposite. It fights to retain the dogma of faith-based belief that originated long before science. It fights doubt. It kills doubters. It tells doubters (or anyone that thinks for him or herself) that they will go to hell for not accepting it. Religious people are sheep that need to be told what to do and what to believe. Scientists and freethinkers figure it out for themselves. I prefer the latter.
As far as the part of Christianity that I agree with. That's easy, the system of moral and ethical values. Of course, there is a far cry from attempting to live up the standards set by Christianity and trying to live down to the expectations set by evolutionists who seem content to equate man with beasts, and set the bar of behavior equally low.
As far as evolution. There are still major problems with it, like the arrangement of fossils with out regard to the actual chronological order in order to create the appearance of evolution that was desired.
Of course, fossils are extremely rare of higher life forms. Which is odd. One would imagine that as higher-life forms contain more skeletal mass that they would more readily fossilize.
Then again there's also the matter that it is possible that there's human graveyards that were kept in prehistoric times that would contain the skeletal evidence needed to prove or disprove evolution.
As I have usually joked with to my best friend, "If there is a Hell, I hope I burn well, I also hope Satan has a light."
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
And I'll post this again
.This is a walking catfish.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_catfish It can breath air and water.Since it lives in stagnant pools, it has evolved the ability to walk short distances in order to get to other locations when food is scarce.It seems to be in the middle of evolving into a land based animal.
.This is a walking catfish.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_catfish It can breath air and water.Since it lives in stagnant pools, it has evolved the ability to walk short distances in order to get to other locations when food is scarce.It seems to be in the middle of evolving into a land based animal.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
So let me get this straight.
It's okay for you and other's that believe what you do to force your beliefs onto others, but it is not okay for those other's to force their beliefs on you?
In that case, wouldn't it make more sense just to not teach Evolution or ID in school?
Clearly the extremes on both sides are diametrically opposed and beyond reaching an intelligent rational compromise.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Really, it developed this ability to walk with in the life span of a human being, and there were people that actually observed these changes?And I'll post this again
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Evolution is not a belief.It is a fact.Fossil records do show transitional animals.It does not explain why life started, it merely explains that life changes.Then it shows examples to back its claims up.Creationism does not do this.It expects blind faith, and should you question it,you are told, "Just because." This has nothing to do with LEARNING.
I see you still haven't answered my questions about creationism, so I'll ask again.What would the curriculum look like?Are students graded on their interpretation?If they don't get it "right" do they fail?How do you propose to prepare the EVIDENCE to back up your theory?Where is the proof?Hell, well is an attempt at proof?Why aren't ALL theories of creation to be represented fairly?Why just the christian creationist theory?Why not the sphagetti monster?Why not how the greeks believe a giant bird laid an egg and got the ball rolling? How do you explain where this creator came from?Where is the origin Of the creator?Oh, I forgot...you're not supposed to ask that, it's blasphemy. Don't question what just IS.
I see you still haven't answered my questions about creationism, so I'll ask again.What would the curriculum look like?Are students graded on their interpretation?If they don't get it "right" do they fail?How do you propose to prepare the EVIDENCE to back up your theory?Where is the proof?Hell, well is an attempt at proof?Why aren't ALL theories of creation to be represented fairly?Why just the christian creationist theory?Why not the sphagetti monster?Why not how the greeks believe a giant bird laid an egg and got the ball rolling? How do you explain where this creator came from?Where is the origin Of the creator?Oh, I forgot...you're not supposed to ask that, it's blasphemy. Don't question what just IS.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Really, god created the universe, and there are people alive today that have spoken to him and can get him to come on down and verify this?
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
What does that have to do with people being able to verify that this fish actually evolved?
Is there any logical conclusive proof about evolution, or is it nothing but a theory that rests on a bunch of other theories, all of which can not be proven due to a lack of hard evidence?
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
I geuss youve never heard of carbon dating.
Science doesnt deal with random speculation, it deals with what is examined. Theres a possibility that aliens removed all the human fossils, but unless we have evidence to back this up, it isnt science.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
That's not conclusive proof. The problem is that the theory of Evolution rests on a bunch of other unprovable theories.
While there has been some demonstrated proof of evolution limited to one species, over a short period of time. There is a lack of proof of evolution resulting in new species over greatly extended periods of time.
The fossil record just proves that there were different species. It does not prove that there was an evolutionary link between those species.
There is nothing showing that those species evolved from one another, because there is no proof that those species existed at the same time (due to a lack of fossils) and there is no proof that those species had inter-species sexual relationships that produced offspring. For all we know all the fossils that we have found could represent unfertile hybrids, and thus unviable genetic lines.
Much like what you get when you try crossing a horse and a donkey.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Maybe it's because you don't understand that one constitutes a real scientific theory and the others are social movements as a way to introduce religion and a deity into school by masquerading as science.
I wouldn't have a problem with ID or Creationism as alternate theories if they were doing it honestly, dealing with physical evidence honestly, learning about what we already know and taking account of it in their own work, and not both lying to the public and slandering people in the field.
Both ID and creationism, however, are unable to do that. They rely utterly on people remaining ignorant of what actually exists in biology in order to support their case; to that end, proponents regularly lie about or ignore physical evidence, and they discourage people from looking at legitimate sources by a campaign of deliberate slander against people who are actually working in the fields of life sciences. Relying on the researchers who are deciphering the mechanisms of cancer to save the lives of people you love, on the one hand, and calling them incompetents, liars, and hacks whenever they talk about the science behind what they do, on the other, gets _really_ annoying.
Oh, yeah, and then there's the zombie problem. I mean, seriously. The first time someone says "there are no beneficial mutations", or the ever popular, "there's no fossils of transitional forms", it's amusing, and you don't mind going and digging up examples to correct that impression. The second time it happens, hey, no problem, you've already got the references. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth times it happens, you can be patient. By about the 491st time you've heard that, by someone who obviously hasn't even cracked a HS textbook, you're ready to snarl "Google it!" and throw things at the idiot to make them go away. But the idea keeps getting revived, because everyone in the world is born not knowing, and most people never correct that. It's a zombie. The problem with killing zombies is, they may be dead, but they keep getting up again, and there always seem to be more behind them.
Oh, yeah, and then there is, really, seriously, the issue of what it takes to learn the subject, and the fact that (in large part because of the campaign of slander mentioned above) it is completely devalued in the public eye. I spent four years of caffeine substituting for sleep and spending every hour available to me reading through complicated material built up by many thousands of man-years of effort, testing it in experiments, and working out the shape of how it all works in such a way that I have a hope of being productive in a technical field, in order to even get an entry level position, and I know how much more there is to learn.
So for people like me that have spent the bulk of their adult lives working to master a technical subject to be approached by people who, maybe, had a semester about it in high school and who don't even know the basic terminology or concepts, much less the details, and to have those people tell the professionals that they are "deluded" and that Joe High School has a better idea about the subject than they do, it is quite annoying. As in, "I busted my butt to get here, and then someone who doesn't even know what an allele is tells me that "there's a problem with the dating of the fossil record....".....yeah.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
The problem with the presentation of the fossil record as portrayed in those high school texts that you mention in your emotional rant can be proven through carbon dating.Maybe it's because you don't understand that one constitutes a real scientific theory and the others are social movements as a way to introduce religion and a deity into school by masquerading as science.
I wouldn't have a problem with ID or Creationism as alternate theories if they were doing it honestly, dealing with physical evidence honestly, learning about what we already know and taking account of it in their own work, and not both lying to the public and slandering people in the field.
Both ID and creationism, however, are unable to do that. They rely utterly on people remaining ignorant of what actually exists in biology in order to support their case; to that end, proponents regularly lie about or ignore physical evidence, and they discourage people from looking at legitimate sources by a campaign of deliberate slander against people who are actually working in the fields of life sciences. Relying on the researchers who are deciphering the mechanisms of cancer to save the lives of people you love, on the one hand, and calling them incompetents, liars, and hacks whenever they talk about the science behind what they do, on the other, gets _really_ annoying.
Oh, yeah, and then there's the zombie problem. I mean, seriously. The first time someone says "there are no beneficial mutations", or the ever popular, "there's no fossils of transitional forms", it's amusing, and you don't mind going and digging up examples to correct that impression. The second time it happens, hey, no problem, you've already got the references. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth times it happens, you can be patient. By about the 491st time you've heard that, by someone who obviously hasn't even cracked a HS textbook, you're ready to snarl "Google it!" and throw things at the idiot to make them go away. But the idea keeps getting revived, because everyone in the world is born not knowing, and most people never correct that. It's a zombie. The problem with killing zombies is, they may be dead, but they keep getting up again, and there always seem to be more behind them.
Oh, yeah, and then there is, really, seriously, the issue of what it takes to learn the subject, and the fact that (in large part because of the campaign of slander mentioned above) it is completely devalued in the public eye. I spent four years of caffeine substituting for sleep and spending every hour available to me reading through complicated material built up by many thousands of man-years of effort, testing it in experiments, and working out the shape of how it all works in such a way that I have a hope of being productive in a technical field, in order to even get an entry level position, and I know how much more there is to learn.
So for people like me that have spent the bulk of their adult lives working to master a technical subject to be approached by people who, maybe, had a semester about it in high school and who don't even know the basic terminology or concepts, much less the details, and to have those people tell the professionals that they are "deluded" and that Joe High School has a better idea about the subject than they do, it is quite annoying. As in, "I busted my butt to get here, and then someone who doesn't even know what an allele is tells me that "there's a problem with the dating of the fossil record....".....yeah.